A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #11 – reflections from journal entries

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #11 – reflections from journal entries

Now for another set of ten reflections selected/adapted from journal entries written during my Vermont years (1992-95).

21. The ‘non-religious’ hermeneutic I am following has essentially/centrally to do with making sufficient sense of life experiences to conceive of and pursue a well-lived life.
    
    
22. The ‘non-religious’ methodology I am following seeks and is open to ‘truth’ from all sources. Modern/‘from below’ proposals are assessed (1) by the selection/handling of data and (2) by internal consistency. Previously held views (including proposals from antiquity) are (re)considered in light of foundational modern/‘from below’ insights before being accepted/followed as credible. A ‘religious’ methodology does the reverse.
    
    [Note: By ‘from below’, I have in mind the exercise and results of a scientific method for inquiry. The technological means for scientific observation continue to become increasingly sophisticated and penetrating. As examples from Galileo forward reveal, resistance to the resulting new data becomes more intense as one moves from the liberal end to the fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum.]
    
23. The aim of a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of Jesus’ identity centers on his credibility as a resource/guide for defining a well-lived life.
    
    
24. The ‘non-religious’ interpretation of salvation I am following provides support for creating and sustaining hope, especially in different life circumstances or ethically dangerous situations.
    
    
25. The ‘non-religious’ approach to the assembling of communities of faith that I am following is analogous to the huddle behind the line of scrimmage in football.
    
    
26. My experience with ‘religious’ language has moved chronologically through several phases. Prior to 1973 (when my first wife’s multiple sclerosis was diagnosed), the ‘religious’ language of the thought world into with I was born and in which I was raised overlapped my social language and was taken for granted. From 1973 forward, the ‘religious’ language I inherited at birth was expanded through undergraduate and graduate education, along with an introduction to ‘marketplace’ language. During the first decade of my first wife’s illness (1973-84), I was moving away from ‘religious’ language and toward ‘religionless’ language (1) as I learned through experience the language of ‘displacement’ and ‘wilderness’ associated with chronic illness and (2) as the ‘religious’ language I inherited and had taken for granted in my youth began to buckle under both rational and existential pressure. By my first wife’s death (d. 1987), my first language had become ‘wilderness’ (‘displaced’) language; my second language, ‘marketplace’ (esp. medical sphere) language; my third language, ‘religious’ language. It seemed to me that, for most, their first language was either ‘religious’ language or ‘marketplace’ language.
    
    [Note: One’s ‘first language’ is primary, instinctive, the language in which one dreams. I had discovered that ‘religious’ language was of little benefit in interpreting experiences in the ‘wilderness’ or in the ‘marketplace’. My ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics developed out of the experience and language of the ‘wilderness’ and the ‘marketplace’.]
    
    
27. The ‘non-religious’ eschatology I am following is expressed well by the phrase ‘honorable defeat’ (the title of a book by Anton Gill about the German conspirators during the Nazi period).
    
    [Note: A ‘religious’ eschatology can only consider/envision victory at some level – individual, corporate, historical, cosmological. A ‘non-religious’ eschatology can face likely defeat at every level. The Abwehr resistance circle’s efforts (of which Bonhoeffer was central) to persuade the Allies not to insist on the unconditional surrender imposed on the Germans after the 1914-18 war failed. Then their 20 July 1944 attempt the kill Hitler and take control of the government/military failed.]
    
    
28. The ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘community’ I am following is three-tiered. (1) My most radical (i.e., to the root) and first-order experience of ‘community’ comes in/through alignment with the tragic sufferer, the stranger, the economically/socially vulnerable, the enemy, the displaced, the dismembered. (2) My second-order experience of ‘community’ comes in/through alignment with those who, in/during the first-order experience, I discover to share this way of being. (3) My third-order experience of ‘community’ comes with those with whom I discover similar experiences/sources for being this sort of person and for sustaining this way of being.21
    
    [Note: A ‘religious’ approach to ‘community’ concentrates on and, in many cases, is restricted to the ‘religious community’. In the extreme, a ‘religious’ approach to ‘community’ turns inward, with the consequence of dissociating as much as possible from the ‘wilderness’ and the ‘marketplace’. The fellowship/discourse characteristic of the third-order ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’ is revised by, is consistent with, and flows from the fellowship/discourse characteristic of the second-order ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’. The temptation (i.e., the path of least resistance and greatest familiarity) is to lapse into the cliquishness/exclusivity characteristic of societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere). The fellowship/discourse that results from yielding to this temptation will/does not support, center on, or treat as ultimate the first-order ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’. Examples of my ‘non-religious’ experiences of ‘community’ -- (1) the first-order experience of ‘community’ my family and I had with the profoundly abused children removed from their homes and sheltered by the state at the K-Bar-B Ranch (our ‘church’ during the New Orleans years), (2) the second-order experience of ‘community’ I found with the ‘Who Cares?” gathering of faculty members from the LSU Ob/Gyn Department and also with the Miami CARE social workers doing case management with the cocaine abusing mothers enrolled in our intervention project, (3) the third-order experience of ‘community’ I am experiencing with the Dayspring Family Health Center professional staff.]
    
    
29. I am finding that a ‘religionless’ experience of ‘community is indeed ‘arcane’ (as Bonhoeffer anticipated in his prison correspondence).
    
    [Note: I dissociate ‘arcane’ from the antiquated and pre-modern/scientific oddity/strangeness of ‘religious’ language. I associate ‘arcane’ instead with the focus, intensity, anchor, depth, . . . found in the essence of the first-order ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’.
    
    
30. Bonhoeffer’s life (especially the 1939-45 period) and his prison correspondence have been pivotal for me since I first read Letters and Papers in the mid-1970s while traveling in Europe. One reason is the number of associations I have made between his decisions/experiences and mine. The inequalities, with me in the diminished position, are obvious. However, from my first exposure to him -- both his life and thought -- the thirst for a ‘visit’ has been great. Thus, I have not read him passively, but actively and imaginatively. Here are some of the connections with him I have dared to note (for myself):

• a deeply respectful disposition toward culture, with corresponding appreciation and confidence in human beings
  
• a love for ‘the game’, particularly athletics
  
• the joy of rummaging through the art, philosophy, theology, music, and ‘accidents’ of history
  
• a tightly-woven immediate family that, though enriched by variety, rallies without any reservations around any one member
  
• a willingness to think and follow new ideas, sorted out by the determination to stand ‘with the world face to face’ (Paul Gerhardt as referenced in Letters and Papers, p. 143)
  
• a ‘prison’ experience (forced on me by the confinement inseparable from remaining true to my marriage vow as my first wife deteriorated under the assault of multiple sclerosis)
  
• a disposition toward theology faculty positions that makes such a position a means to an end rather than an end in itself (which for me had to do with the vision – completely gone after 1987 -- that a new variation of my denomination of birth could develop a format that would provide a truly free gathering for searchers/believers whose primary place in the world is outside the ‘religious’ sphere)
  
• the failed attempt to find ‘community’, integrity, and courage within institutionalized ‘religion’
  
• the influence of Adolph von Harnack
  
• choosing more immediate responsibilities over expanding experiences (Dietrich’s not fulfilling the desire to travel to India to spend time with Gandhi, mine not entering the doctoral program at Oxford University under Maurice Wiles after finishing my PhD at Southern Seminary)
  
• “writing without hope of publication” (cf., Bethge, Bonhoeffer: An Illustrated Biography, p. 65)
  
• respect for individuals (e.g., Clay Darnell, Jerry Trimble, Shelly Korones, Howard Brody, et al for me) who, as Dr. Rieux-type individuals (cf., Camus’ The Plague), defy the assumptions of traditional Christian theology
  
• the ‘friend in the singular’ theme
  
• being drawn to Merton-type monasticism
  
• a ‘seminary’ approach to training young pastors
  
• the centrality of the Sermon on the Mount
  
• ‘wilderness’ and ‘Who Am I?” experiences
  
• the resolve to remain focused on the concrete, on the ‘outer line’
  
• readiness to act on convictions
  
• the definition of and nuances for ‘religion’
  
• seeing the deficiencies and shortcomings in Barth’s theology
  
• persistent attention to ‘the Jewish Question’
  
• close/defining friendship with Jewish individuals (Hilldebrandt and Leibholz for Dietrich, Dr. Korones and Dr. Brody for me)
  
• wrestling with the story/play Job
  
• the immediate family (rather than ‘church’) as the grounding experience of ‘community’
  
• writing a wedding meditation for close friends (the Bethges for him; from the Korones wedding to our daughter Erin’s wedding)
  
• doctoral training in historical and systematic theology
  
• serious consideration of Schleiermacher’s thought
  
• a study visit to Rome
  
• experiment with ‘community’ (‘House of Brethren’ for Dietrich, ‘Who cares?’ faculty group at LSU for me)
  
• point-counterpoint with Bultmann’s thought
  
• assessing integrity by asking how one treats the person/s least like one’s self
  
• study and influence of the Social Gospel, resulting in a commitment to social justice
  
• influence of ‘Negro Spirituals’
  
• becoming a faculty member at a young age (Bonhoeffer at 25, I at 28), with a circle of dedicated students
  
• a writing style in which “every word has been well-considered and every sentence talks”
  
• being “incomprehensibly in radical opposition to all my friends” (24 October 1933 letter to Barth)
  
• teaching difficult youth (Berlin confirmation classes for Bonhoeffer, K-Bar-B kids for me)
  
• crossing the threshold from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ at age 39
  
• maximizing the use of time
  
• engaging seminal thinkers in their strengths (cf., I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 65)
  
• deeply affected by Schweitzer (cf., Kuhns, In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 40)
  
  
  

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #42

Re ‘Jesus’ -- a method is needed that (1) distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Maccoby’s The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity), (2) delineates the place of ‘religion’ for ‘Jesus’ (e.g., birth place/family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the Temple, familiarity with scripture texts, . . .), (3) delineates ‘non-religious’ dimensions in ‘Jesus’ (e.g., immediacy of the presence of ‘God’, open-air vs. institutional settings in which to meet/teach, the Sermon on the Mount themes, his death, . . .).

There are at least three ways to read Job -- (1) focus on ‘God’, with the Accuser and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (2) focus on the Accuser, with ‘God’ and Job interpreted in light of such emphasis, (3) focus on Job, with ‘God’ and the Accuser interpreted in light of such emphasis.

What influence do/should choices re professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from the harsh realities innocent suffering?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is weighted toward a spirituality based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to one’s weakness/es or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are heard within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual/theological self-destruction.

Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to mystery.

Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story – e.g.,

1. The question “Does Job fear God for nothing?” leads to an interpretation of tragic experiences as a test of integrity (defined as the coherence of one’s actions over a lifetime). Job is not charged with vices. Instead, he is suspected of being double-minded in his virtues. Why does the Accuser think he can win the prologue wager?
   
2. The vow “For better or worse” leads to an attempt to see the story/play from the perspective of Job’s wife. Particular attention – unfortunately absent in the story/play -- should be given to the multiple complications faced daily by the spouses of profound sufferers.
   
3. Realizing that good intentions can fail leads to a description/interpretation of the inability of Job’s spiritual community, including his closest friends, to remain loyal to him.
   
4. The claim “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” leads into an examination of the border that separates pre-scientific and scientific (or modern) understandings of life experiences, with particular attention given to the expanding technological/medicinal ways we now give and take away life.

The only time or place where conversations ever ring unambiguously true to me is a time or place that is separate from the language, the liturgy, and the theology taken for granted by every ‘religious’ community with which I am familiar.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #41

The exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends are in poetic form. The prophetic form and the lament form in antiquity had poetic characteristics. MacLeish’s JB is a script for theatre. Did Israel have theatre? Or was theatre not introduced until the rise of the Greeks?

Parallels may be seen between the stories of Ruth and Job (esp., the endings), with Boaz as something of a model ‘wise man’. Would Boaz add anything new to Job if he were written into the story/play as a fourth close friend? Perhaps he could be presented as doing something for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comfort/recovery the other three close friends do not achieve, highlighting the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s dilemma – i.e., to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job is to fight against ‘God’. Would Boaz, therefore, have difficulty or be awkward with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s theological demands? Is there indication of such awkwardness for Boaz in the story of Ruth? Another option for writing in a fourth close friend would be to add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.

Representations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in American Christianity that move across the theological spectrum from liberal to evangelical/fundamentalist become increasingly individualistic in the interpretation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s promises of providential protection/security. Is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in its Jewish origins and through the life of ‘Jesus’ rooted in a corporate more than an individualistic meaning for providence?

Is there a concept of freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of freedom as autonomy in Job? in Ecclesiastes? in other Jewish or Christian scripture texts? in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? in Christian theology? Autonomy as the essence of freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to theology, spirituality, ethics (e.g., a more adult nuance rather than an infant nuance re being a ‘child of God’, responsibility for one’s self and others, liberty to make choices, . . .). From within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, any suggestion or affirmation of autonomy is considered pride and is condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).

Is there a variation on the ‘religious’ paradigm in which innocent suffering is recognized as in fact (rather than only in appearance) offensive, tragic, grievously wrong? in which innocent suffering is taken seriously? I do not know of such.

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is dependent on and inseparable from using language about ‘God’ in a literally equivalent manner (rather than in an analogical manner that acknowledges the significance of anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic limitations/restrictions). Assigning meaning to the term ‘God’ in this way -- so evident in the literally equivalent rather than analogical use of language about ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- makes the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm vulnerable to spiritual/theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

I see the ‘scrapheap’ Job as troubled (beyond the sheer pain of his condition) because his expectations were so deeply rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm critiqued in the story/play. The ‘scrapheap’ Job cannot say, “I’ve been dealt a bad hand” and refer to the luck, the randomness, the misfortune of a ‘chance factor’ at work in human experience. Instead, he expects to be dealt a good hand and cannot (with integrity) avoid challenging/questioning the dealer (i.e., ‘God’). (Note a limit to the use of the dealer analogy in that there is a personal factor -- the dealer -- and there is a random factor -- the shuffle of the cards -- in the reference.) Corollary observations: (1) Many individuals who experience significant loss or suffering remain safely within and loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. (2) Many others who experience significant loss or suffering do so safely outside of and not invested in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The beginnings of a ‘non-religious spirituality’ can be found among these individuals -- e.g., humility, gratefulness, empathy, true friendship, . . . (3) It is not clear to me that the ‘scrapheap’ Job crosses the threshold beyond which his pain/suffering can/will open his eyes to and become symbolic of the breadth/depth of innocent suffering. (4) The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is based on a ‘proportionality’ expectation.

The Apostle Paul seems deeply ‘religious’ in the T/O paradigm sense in that (1) he builds off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) his methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, he does not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) he does not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in fact reality, (4) he argues for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) he separates wisdom from careful/indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) he expects the end of time to come soon, (7) he juxtaposes faith and doubt, (8) he . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #40

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, the epilogue is understood to say, “I knew God would make everything work out in the end.” Instead, I hear the epilogue to say, “It all works out in the end. It’s like nothing bad ever happened to Job! Yeah, right.” I think a sarcastic interpretation should be carried into the epilogue from the end of the whirlwind encounter.

Peterson (42:2) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I’m convinced” (RSV “I know”). These two options have some obvious common ground. However, the two translations also illustrate two interpretations re whether Job retains or surrenders his ‘scrapheap’ perspective. “I’m convinced” leaves the impression the whirlwind charges by ‘God’ have shaken Job from his ‘scrapheap’ views. “I know” leaves open the double entendre – i.e., saying under duress “OK . . . Uncle . . . You win . . .” -- in order to survive while holding even more firmly to his ‘scrapheap’ views. I opt for the latter interpretation.

I find Peterson’s translation (42:3a) – “You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’” -- much more approachable than the RSV’s translation (i.e., “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”). The RSV is word-for-word, but Peterson catches a very plausible nuance the RSV misses.

Peterson (42:3b) has “babbled” and “made small talk” (RSV “uttered”). His wording accentuates (to the point of comedy and/or sarcasm?) a self-depreciating posture for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. I would direct the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments as double entendre throughout his response.

Peterson (42:5a) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I admit I once lived by rumors of you” (RSV “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”). What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind re his pre-whirlwind method for thinking about ‘God’? Peterson (42:6) returns to this question with -- “I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor”.

Peterson (42:6) seems a bit weak, apparently wanting to reinforce the point mentioned above. His wording corresponds with the RSV only with “I’m sorry -- forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise.” The RSV has “I despise myself”. Peterson then seems to fall away from a sarcastic tone for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. However, the RSV can still be read with a sarcastic tone. ‘Despise’ has been used before in the story/play:

5:17 – “Do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Eliphaz)
7:16 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
8:20 – “God will not reject (despise) a blameless person” (Bildad)
9:21 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
19:18 – “ . . . even young children despise me” (Job)
30:1 – “ . . . whose fathers I would have disdained (despised)” (Job)
31:13 – “If I have rejected (despised) the cause of my male or female slaves” (Job)
34:33 – “Will he then pay back to suit you, because you reject (despise) it?” (Elihu)
36:5 – “Surely God is mighty and does not despise any” (Elihu)

Does the RSV reference to “dust and ashes” mean “in my dust and ashes, I repent” or is the picture one in which the ‘scrapheap’ Job does something new/additional? Unless the sarcastic tone/meaning is maintained, the radical (i.e., to the root of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) position pressed by Job from the ‘scrapheap’ cannot be sustained. To leave the whirlwind situation here (42:6) would lead in one of two unacceptable directions – either ‘God’ throws the ‘scrapheap’ Job out of his presence or the ‘scrapheap’ Job withdraws his case.

I think it is necessary to include 42:7-9 with the sections of the story/play between the prologue and the epilogue. There is no reference in the prologue to the three close friends speaking. Therefore, the reference to ‘God’ in 42:7-9 is still to the whirlwind image of ‘God’.

If the story is to be staged as theater, where are the three close friends during the whirlwind exchanges between ‘God’ and the ‘scrapheap’ Job? They are present as Elihu speaks and there seems to be no dramatic break between the Elihu section and the whirlwind section. Perhaps they are off to the side, oblivious to what is happening. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by the theophany, not understanding or not wanting to understand.

Why is ‘God’ fed up with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends? How does what they have said differ so dramatically from what ‘God’ has just said in the whirlwind? The only point that stands out to me is that the three close friends continued to defend the moral integrity and accountability of ‘God’ whereas ‘God’ as presented in the whirlwind section seems to take offense at the notion of accountability except to someone his equal (i.e., the ‘might makes right’ position). In other words, censoring the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends implies rejection of the (D)euteronomic covenant at the heart of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The RSV has “wrath” (42:7). The word occurs five other times – (19:11) “He has kindled his wrath against me” (Job), (20:23) “God will send his fierce anger upon them” (Zophar), (32:2) “Then Elihu became angry” (narrator), (32:3) “he was angry also at Job’s three friends’ (narrator about Elihu), (32:5) “Elihu became angry” (narrator). How does this wrath compare/contrast with the anger assigned ‘God’ in the prologue?

Peterson has “either with me or about me” where the RSV has “of me” in translating the charge of dishonesty or truthlessness ‘God’ brings against the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. It is as if the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends occur in the presence of ‘God’ who sits as a silent judge throughout the exchanges and now declares the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be the one who has prevailed. One way to cast this scene would be to have ‘God’ suddenly/dramatically illumined in a previously dark space on stage.

Peterson uses ‘friend’ throughout 42:7-8 where the RSV uses ‘friend’ only once (in reference to Eliphaz’s two companions). Is there one word here that can mean ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? How do the Hebrew words compare/contrast with other references in the story/play to ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? The RSV presents the literal Hebrew wording. ‘Friend’ occurs only once in reference to Bildad and Zophar whereas Job is always referred to as ‘servant’ (specifically ‘my servant’). ‘Servant’ might be a higher designation than ‘friend’ in relation to ‘God’. ‘Servant’ can indicate a close relationship.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends are charged with “talking nonsense” (Peterson) (RSV “according to your folly”). The thrust of the whirlwind thundering of ‘God’ seems to be to force the ‘scrapheap’ Job to admit folly or nonsense. Why would ‘God’ see a difference between the three close friends and the ‘scrapheap’ Job here? Is ‘God’ sanctioning the courage to test the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? to face offensive life experiences ‘eye to eye’? Does doing so undermine all wisdom within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stand alone as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:

• The narrator recognizes the simplistic form of the story/play preferred within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is severely damaged/discredited by the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends;
  
• The narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ remains within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (being anchored by appeal to the sheer sovereignty of ‘God’), but now minus the (D)euteronomic reduction of human experience to a ‘righteous are blessed and unrighteous are cursed’ equation;
  
• The narrator’s whirlwind alternative to the simplistic theology common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is somewhat analogous to the shift from the Homeric stories of the gods to Greek philosophy (from Socrates through Zeno);
  
• The narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ undercuts the radical (i.e., to the root) ‘scrapheap’ insights of Job;
  
• If the narrator is responsible for the official text having the last paragraph (either by writing it or allowing it), then the narrator makes room for the retention of the simplistic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/theology as well as for consideration of the radical intention/result of the ‘scrapheap’ perspective on spirituality/ethics/theology (affirmed in 42:7-9) inherent in the extended section with the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #39

Peterson has the whirlwind ‘God’ chide the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Now what do you have to say for yourself? Are you going to haul me, the Mighty One, into court and press charges?” (40:1-2). The RSV seems hard to read here. “A faultfinder” seems vague. “Contend” carries the image of a formal charge in court. The idea is instead more that of a frail beggar daring to challenge the integrity of the senior teacher of wisdom at the city gates. And how should “let him answer it” be heard (40:2)? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up until he can match the whirlwind ‘God’ item for item in a knowledge test? Or is the ‘scrapheap’ Job being forced/embarrassed to shut up by the whirlwind ‘God’ pulling rank on him?

At best, the whirlwind ‘God’ can look over at the epilogue Job (42:10ff) after the crowded city gates have emptied and tosses him some coins. ‘God’ looks like ‘the Godfather’. The logic seems lost. ‘God’ challenges the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credentials. ‘God’ disregards the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s credibility as a survivor.

And then the surprise (42:7-9) -- ‘God’ endorses what Job has said from the ‘scrapheap’! With this unanticipated endorsement, the story/play calls for a verdict from each reader/hearer re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is so thoroughly discredited by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

Peterson has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I should never have opened my mouth” (40:3-5). Here is an echo of the prologue references to Job’s not charging ‘God’ with wrongdoing, to his not blaming ‘God’, to his not sinning “with his lips”. Does Job’s response mean he no longer thinks what he dared to say from the ‘scrapheap’? Or does it mean the ‘scrapheap’ Job realizes the audience with ‘God’ for which he has hoped is useless?

Peterson makes the taunting by the whirlwind ‘God’ clear -- “Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint?” (40:8). The whirlwind ‘God’ disavows any accountability to the likes of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The whirlwind ‘God’ persists in snubbing the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- “Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do” (40:10). The whirlwind ‘God’ shifts to an attack on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s motive. The ‘scrapheap’ Job could easily deflect this challenge back to ‘God’ by countering – “Must I destroy my integrity by admitting guilt so that you can be justified?”

Is there an implicit judgment against the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the reference to “the proud” (40:11-13)? I have read repeatedly the Behemoth and Leviathan sections without experiencing an “Aha, so that’s the point” other than to conclude that the message from the whirlwind ‘God’ is ‘might makes right’. Peterson has ‘God’ contend,

“If you can’t hold your own against his glowering visage, how, then, do you expect to stand up to me? Who could confront me and get by with it? I’m in charge of all this -- I run this universe!”

It seems to me the core premise of the whirlwind section is that the power/transcendence assigned to ‘God’ removes ‘God’ from accountability, leaving as ‘take it or leave it’ the claim there is some comprehensive plan/purpose that encompasses the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. I do not accept this understanding of ‘God’ for at least three reasons. First, in every aspect of my life, I reject a hierarchical, ‘who is the strongest’, rank-pulling approach to relationships. Second, the core premise stands or falls with a pre-scientific cosmology. Third, I do not reduce life circumstances to a single factor -- i.e., divine sovereignty.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #38

Peterson has “And now, finally, God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm” (38:1). The RSV, following the Hebrew text more closely, does not have the word “finally”. “Finally” underscores the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s impatience and frustration. The RSV has “Lord” instead of “God”. The terms “God” and “the Almighty” are more common in Job than is the term “Lord”. Are these terms used differently in the prologue/epilogue than in the extended middle sections of the story/play? The term for “violent storm” (RSV “whirlwind”) is not the term used in the prologue. In light of the destructive wind described in the prologue, the ‘scrapheap’ Job likely associates this violent wind with a view of ‘God’ as being brutally destructive.

Interpreting the story/play in a sarcastic manner continues to be plausible through the whirlwind section. In staging this scene, is only the ‘scrapheap’ Job being addressed? or his three close friends also? and Elihu? Are the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s wife, family, and wider circle of acquaintances near?

Is the absence of specific references to the Accuser in the whirlwind section intentional? significant? By not reintroducing the Accuser, the story/play seems to put the onus squarely on ‘God’ both for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight as well for the collateral killing/destruction that resulted from the prologue tragedies that befell Job. (Note the Accuser is also not mentioned in the epilogue.) Not reintroducing the Accuser accentuates the flawed core premise of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – i.e., that ‘God’ ultimately bears responsibility for all that happens.

Peterson has ‘God’ ask, “Why do you confuse the issue?” (38:2) where the RSV has ‘God’ ask, “Who is this that darkens counsel?” Who is ‘God’ calling confused? For whom does ‘God’ think counsel has been darkened? Is it possible ‘God’ does not recognize the ‘scrapheap’ Job? And what is the issue? The question sounds similar to a judge reacting to an attorney’s attempt to introduce more ideas and/or new information just when a court case is about to be decided.

Re “Pull yourself together, Job! Up on your feet! Stand tall!” (38:3 in Peterson) -- Can the ‘scrapheap’ Job in his deteriorated physical/emotional state do so? The demand and the tone strike me as very insensitive and could be heard to mean ‘God’ does not consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be as bad off as he looks, sounds, thinks.

The comments on the natural order (38:4-11) are very interesting. Peterson brings out the newborn analogy with “the ocean gushed forth like a baby from the womb” (38:8), “I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose” ((38:10), and “Your wild tantrums (RSV, “proud waves”) are confined to this place”. How do these descriptions compare/contrast with the Genesis stories about the natural order? with the observations about the natural order in Ecclesiastes? Is the narrator mixing literal language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “its size”, “the blueprints and measurements”, “foundation”, and “cornerstone”) and metaphorical language (e.g., Peterson’s references to “morning stars sang”, “angels shouted”, “I wrapped the ocean in soft clouds and tucked it in safely at night”) re the natural order? Would the initial readers/hearers have made such a distinction? or taken all these references literally?

This part of the story/play seems to encourage a developmental view of the natural order. Is such a view found in ancient Jewish thought? The newborn analogy is suggestive in at least three additional views -- i.e., (1) the natural order is personified with an independent will, (2) the natural order is to mature past infant/immature behavior, and (3) earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes, et al are interpreted as tantrums.

I have two primary reactions to 38:12-39:30. First, the entire section is thoroughly and essentially pre-scientific in imaging the relation of ‘God’ to the natural order. If Job is recast as a modern/scientific individual, he would be in a position to claim knowledge – even deep knowledge – about many of the questions posed by the whirlwind ‘God’. Though the RSV indicates no parallel for Peterson’s “You don’t for a minute imagine these marvels of weather just happen, do you?” (38:30), Peterson with this question seems to capture the thrust of all the illustrations in 38:12-39:30. Second, as far as I can tell, nothing is said (1) about human beings as a classification of creatures, (2) about the purpose of the natural order, (3) about the baby/adolescent disorder found in the natural order, (4) about mercy, peace, justice, or (5) about the breadth/depth of human suffering. The tone of the whirlwind ‘God’ does not suggest such questions would be entertained if pressed by the ‘scrapheap’ Job. And yet these questions are significant, at least for a ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’ spirituality and ethics.

What do the questions the whirlwind ‘God’ puts to the ‘scrapheap’ Job have to do with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #37

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied from Peterson’s translation of the whirlwind section and the epilogue in the play/story. Postings #38-#42 follow.]

38.1And now, finally, God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm. He said:

2Why do you confuse the issue? Why do you talk without knowing what you’re talking about? 3Pull yourself together, Job! Up on your feet! Stand tall! I have some questions for you, and I want some straight answers. 4Where were you when I created the earth? Tell me, since you know so much! 5Who decided on its size? Certainly you’ll know that! Who came up with the blueprints and measurements? 6How was its foundation poured, and who set the cornerstone, 7while the morning stars sang in chorus and all the angels shouted praise? 8And who took charge of the ocean when it gushed forth like a baby from the womb? That was me! 9I wrapped it in soft clouds, and tucked it in safely at night. 10Then I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose. 11And said, ‘Stay here, this is your place. Your wild tantrums are confined to this place.’

12And have you ever ordered Morning, ‘Get up!’ told Dawn, ‘Get to work!’ 13So you could seize Earth like a blanket and shake out the wicked like cockroaches? 14As the sun brings everything to light, brings out all the colors and shapes, 15the cover of darkness is snatched from the wicked – they’re caught in the very act! 16Have you ever gotten to the true bottom of things, explored the labyrinthine caves of deep ocean? 17Do you know the first thing about death? Do you have one clue regarding death’s dark mysteries? 18And do you have any idea how large this earth is? Speak up if you have even the beginning of an answer.

19Do you know where Light comes from and where Darkness lives 20so you can take them by the hand and lead them home when they get lost? 21Why, of course you know that. You’ve known them all your life, grown up in the same neighborhood with them! 22Have you ever traveled to where snow is made, seen the vault where hail is stockpiled, 23the arsenals of hail and snow that I keep in readiness for times of trouble and battle and war? 24Can you find your way to where lightning is launched, or to the place from which the wind blows? 25Who do you suppose carves canyons for the downpours of rain, and charts the route of thunderstorms 26that bring water to unvisited fields, deserts no one ever lays eyes on, 27drenching the useless wastelands so they’re carpeted with wildflowers and grass? 28And who do you think is the father of rain and dew, 29the mother of ice and frost? [You don’t for a minute imagine these marvels of weather just happen, do you? – No parallel in the RSV and no rendering for v. 30]

31Can you catch the eye of the beautiful Pleiades sisters, or distract Orion from his hunt? 32Can you get Venus to look your way, or get the Great Bear and her cubs to come out and play? 33Do you know the first thing about the sky’s constellations and how they affect things on Earth? 34Can you get the attention of the clouds, and commission a shower of rain? 35Can you take charge of the lightning bolts and have them report to you for orders? 36Who do you think gave weather-wisdom to the ibis, and storm-savvy to the rooster? 37Does anyone know enough to number all the clouds or tip over the rain barrels of heaven 38when the earth is cracked and dry, the ground baked hard as a brick? 39Can you teach the lioness to stalk her prey and satisfy the appetite of her cubs 40as they crouch in their den, waiting hungrily in their cave? 41And who sets out food for the ravens when their young cry to God, fluttering about because they have no food?

39.1Do you know the month when mountain goats give birth? Have you ever watched a doe bear her fawn? 2Do you know how many months she is pregnant? Do you know the season of her delivery, 3when she crouches down and drops her offspring? 4Her young ones flourish and are soon on their own; they leave and don’t come back. 5Who do you think set the wild donkey free, opened the corral gates and let him go? 6I gave him the whole wilderness to roam in, the rolling plains and wide-open places. 7He laughs at his city cousins, who are harnessed and harried. He’s oblivious to the cries of teamsters. 8He grazes freely through the hills, nibbling anything that’s green. 9Will the wild buffalo condescend to serve you, volunteer to spend the night in your barn? 10Can you imagine hitching your plow to a buffalo and getting him to till your fields? 11He’s hugely strong, yes, but could you trust him, would you dare turn the job over to him? 12You wouldn’t for a minute depend on him, would you, to do what you said when you said it?

13The ostrich flaps her wings futilely – all those beautiful feathers, but useless! 14She lays her eggs on the hard ground, leaves them there in the dirt, exposed to the weather, 15not caring that they might get stepped on and cracked or trampled by some wild animal. 16She’s negligent with her young, as if they weren’t even hers. She cares nothing about anything. 17She wasn’t created very smart, that’s for sure, wasn’t given her share of good sense. 18But when she runs, on, how she runs, laughing, leaving horse and rider in the dust. 19Are you the one who gave the horse his prowess and adorned him with a shimmering mane? 20Did you create him to prance proudly and strike terror with his royal snorts? 21He paws the ground fiercely, eager and spirited, then charges into the fray. 22He laughs at danger, fearless, doesn’t shy away from the sword. 23The banging and clanging of quiver and lance don’t faze him. 24He quivers with excitement, and at the trumpet blast races off at a gallop. 25At the sound of the trumpet he neighs mightily, smelling the excitement of battle from a long way off, catching the rolling thunder of the war cries.

26Was it through your know how that the hawk learned to fly, soaring effortlessly on thermal updrafts? 27Did you command the eagle’s flight, and teach her to build he nest in the heights, 28perfectly at home on the high cliff-face, invulnerable on pinnacle and crag? 29From her perch she searches for prey, spies it at a great distance. 30Her young gorge themselves on carrion; wherever there’s a road kill, you’ll see her circling.

40.1God then confronted Job directly:

2Now what do you have to say for yourself? Are you going to haul me, the Mighty One, into court and press charges?

3Job answered:

4I’m speechless, in awe – words fail me. I should never have opened my mouth! 5I’ve talked too much, way too much. I’m ready to shut up and listen.

40.6God addressed Job next from the eye of the storm, and this is what he said:

7I have some more questions for you, and I want straight answers. 8Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint? 9Do you have an arm like my arm? Can you shout in thunder the way I can? 10Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do. 11Unleash your outrage. Target the arrogant and lay them flat. 12Target the arrogant and bring them to their knees. Stop the wicked in their tracks – make mincemeat of them! 13Dig a mass grave and dump them in it – faceless corpses in an unmarked grave. 14I’ll gladly step aside and hand things over to you – you can surely save yourself with no help from me!

15Look at the land beast, Behemoth. I created him as well as you. Grazing on grass, docile as a cow – 16just look at the strength of his back, the powerful muscles of his belly. 17His tail sways like a cedar in the wind; his huge legs are like beech trees. 18His skeleton is made of steel, every bone in his body hard as steel. 19Most magnificent of all my creatures, but I still lead him around like a lamb! 20The grass-covered hills serve him meals, while field mice frolic in his shadow. 21He takes afternoon naps under shade trees, cools himself in the reedy swamps, 22lazily cools in the leafy shadows as the breeze moves through the willows. 23And when the river rages he doesn’t budge, stolid and unperturbed even when the Jordan goes wild. 24But you’d never want him for a pet – you’d never be able to housebreak him!

41.1Or can you pull in the sea beast, Leviathan, with a fly rod and stuff him in your creel? 2Can you lasso him with a rope, or snag him with an anchor? 3Will he beg you over and over for mercy, or flatter you with flowery speech? 4Will he apply for a job with you to run errands and serve you the rest of your life? 5Will you play with him as if he were a pet goldfish? Will you make him the mascot of the neighborhood children? 6Will you put him on display in the market and have shoppers haggle over the price? 7Could you shoot him full of arrows like a pincushion, or drive harpoons into his huge head? 8If you so much as lay a hand on him, you won’t live to tell the story. 9What hope would you have with such a creature? 10Why, one look at him would do you in! If you can’t hold your own against his glowering visage, how, then, do you expect to stand up to me? Who could confront me and get by with it? I’m in charge of all this. I run this universe! [not exactly parallel in the RSV v. 11 (from ‘how, then, . . .’) and no rendering for the reference to ‘the gods’ in v.9]

12But I’ve more to say about Leviathan, the sea beast, his enormous bulk, his beautiful shape. 13Who would even dream of piercing that tough skin or putting those jaws into bit and bridle? 14And who would dare knock at the door of his mouth filled with row upon row of fierce teeth? 15His pride is invincible: nothing can make a dent in that pride. 16Nothing can get through that proud skin – 17impervious to weapons and weather, the thickest and toughest of hides, impenetrable! 18He snorts and the world lights up with fire, he blinks and the dawn breaks. 19Comets pour out of his mouth, fireworks arc and branch. 20Smoke erupts from his nostrils like steam from a boiling pot. 21He blows and fires blaze; flames of fire stream from his mouth. 22All muscle he is – sheer and seamless muscle. To meet him is to dance with death. 23Sinewy and lithe, there’s not a soft spot in his entire body – 24as tough inside as out, rock-hard invulnerable. 25Even angels run for cover when he surfaces, cowering before his tail-thrashing turbulence. 26Javelins bounce harmlessly off his hide, harpoons ricochet wildly. 27Iron bars are so much straw to him, bronze weapons beneath notice. 28Arrows don’t even make him blink; bullets make no more impression than raindrops. 29A battle-axe is nothing but a splinter of kindling; he treats a brandished harpoon as a joke. 30His belly is armor-plated, inexorable – unstoppable as a barge. 31He boils deep ocean the way you’d boil water, he whips the sea like you’d whip an egg into batter. 32With a luminous trail stretching out behind him, you might think Ocean had grown a gray beard! 33There’s nothing on this earth quite like him, not an ounce of fear in that creature! 34He surveys all the high and mighty – king of the ocean, king of the deep!

42.1Job answered God:

2I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything. Nothing and no one can upset your plans. 3You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’ I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me, made small talk about wonders way over my head. 4You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking. Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’ 5I admit I once lived by rumors of you; now I have it all firsthand – from my own eyes and ears! 6I’m sorry – forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise! I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.

7 After God had finished addressing Job, he turned to Eliphaz the Temanite and said, “I’ve had it with you and your two friends. I’m fed up! You haven’t been honest either with me or about me – not the way my friend Job has. . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #10

reflections on his ‘After Ten Years’ December 1942 essay (1)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45)
Biographical Sketch

The Gestapo killed Dietrich Bonhoeffer by hanging 9 April 1945 at Flossenburg concentration camp. The Gestapo had arrested Dietrich and several other high-ranking political and military officials 5 April 1943 on charges of treasonous conspiracy to destroy the Nazi’s Third Reich from within. They responded to interrogation in a way that protected the secrecy of the remaining members of the conspiracy circle who made their attempt 20 July 1944 to assassinate Hitler and end the war. When that attempt failed, the Gestapo tracked down the rest of the conspirators and systematically publicized their trials and subsequent executions.

The Bonhoeffer family was a highly respected family in Germany’s history and culture. The Bonhoeffer family members were among the remnant in the German population who saw as early as Hitler’s rise to political control in January 1933 the tragedies to which he would lead Germany. Several Bonhoeffer family members became participants in efforts to resist Hitler from inside the various social institutions. Dietrich first worked overtly to resist the Nazis through the Protestant churches that chose to resist Nazi takeover of the leadership of the Protestant churches. When Hitler effectively silenced their resistance by 1938, Dietrich first responded by using a travel permit in early 1939 to leave Germany for the United States where he could have remained during the pending war. However, he soon decided he had made a mistake and returned to Germany July 1939, knowing war would soon break out and knowing his efforts to resist Hitler and the Nazis would have to be covert. He agreed to be assigned to the military’s counterintelligence – the Abwehr – in order to join the conspirators (led by has brother-in-law Hans von Donanyi among others) hidden in the Abwehr.

Dietrich continued the family tradition of leadership. His father made his mark in psychiatry; his older brothers, in physics, law, and industry. Such notables as Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, and Adolph Harnack were regular guests in the Bonhoeffer home.

To the surprise but not opposition of his respectfully agnostic or non-institutionally religious family members, Dietrich decided as a teenager to be a theologian/pastor. By 1927 he had earned research and teaching doctorates in theology from the University of Berlin. With dissertations focused on the meaning of being ‘church’, he left clear evidence of his shift from Adolph Harnack’s cultural optimism to Karl Barth’s more recently published cultural pessimism as the key to the human situation against which theology should be worked out. He gained experience pertinent to both career options available to him -- pastoral and academic.

By 1930 the National Socialist Party had rather suddenly emerged as an influential minority party in German politics. When a coalition made Hitler chancellor in January 1933, Dietrich had already aligned himself with the Lutheran/Reformed church leaders who quickly formed the Pastors Emergency League. Most who took this courageous step hoped to stem Hitler’s efforts to gain control of the leadership of the Christian community in Germany. Dietrich -- moved more by ‘the Jewish question’ -- hoped the ‘confessing churches’ would reproduce the effect non-violent resistance was having in India under Gandhi’s leadership.

The ‘confessing churches’ needed leaders trained for spiritual and ethical resiliency as well as theological acumen if the non-violent strategy of resistance was to be effective. The Pastors Emergency League created several training centers, including Finkenwalde Seminary in 1934. Dietrich was asked to lead the Finkenwalde Seminary. Among his efforts to prepare those young men for potentially life-threatening ministries, he confronted them with the Sermon on the Mount. He admonished the students to commit themselves to a radically non-violent confrontation with the concrete evil that had gripped Germany. The now widely read/known Cost of Discipleship is a transcription of notes from these lectures.

Thorough attention to the historical context of this classic in spirituality literature must follow the story of Dietrich and the ‘confessing churches’ into the war years. By 1937 the protesting churches had been outlawed. By 1939 they had been contained, left to turn inward with an agenda reduced to survival. Facing either flight or conscription, Dietrich instead joined a covert effort in a branch of the military’s secret services that was determined to bring Hitler down by coup or assassination. In reflections written before (Ethics) and after his 5 April 1943 arrest (Letters and Papers from Prison), Dietrich felt compelled to account for his participation in the violent plot and in duplicity. His December 1942 essay – Ten Years Later – provides penetrating insight into his self-examination and his interpretation of the shared experience of those who sustained their posture of resistance.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #9

re ‘with the world face to face’

I am from time to time invited to guide discussions about the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’, both with attention to the phrase’s significance for understanding Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life/thought (my source for the phrase) and with suggestions re the phrase’s implications for ethics and spirituality today. In such opportunities, I usually organize the discussions around four emphases.

The first discussion orients the participants to ‘the world’ for Dietrich during the Hitler years (e.g., reasons for Hitler’s rise/success, the Bonhoeffer family’s resistance, the German Pastors’ Emergency League, the 1936 Berlin Olympics, facing the oath of allegiance to Hitler, the Confessing Church failure, Dietrich’s arrest/imprisonment/death). To bring some vividness to the subject, I share with the participants photographs from my three days in 2003 with Renate Bethge in Berlin and other photographs I have been privileged to take of historical resources/artifacts in the Bethge home during annual visits since 1993.

The second discussion probes the participants’ perceptions of ‘culture’ and of being ‘cultured’. I associate their predictable criteria (e.g., well educated, widely traveled, at ease in the arts, well dressed, refined manners, appreciation for fine cuisine, philanthropy, . . .) with Dietrich’s experience (e.g., his family’s prominence, his socio-economic privileges from birth, his thirst for nature’s beauty, his love for music and art, his gift for the piano, his awareness of injustices in India, his experiences in Spain with being a foreigner, his attachment to Harlem while at Union Theological Seminary, his investment in a confirmation class of rough boys in a blue-collar section of Berlin). Then I introduce them to Dietrich’s 23 January 1944 revised view that “ . . . a culture that breaks down in the face of danger is no culture. A ‘culture’ must be able to face danger and death . . . .” I guide them to distinguish postures toward ‘the world’ other than being ‘face to face’ -- e.g., tangentially, selectively, minimally, close-mindedly, suspiciously, . . . postured toward ‘the world’ -- all of which result in some variation on the ‘inner line’ approach to spirituality and ethics against which Dietrich objected/warned.

The third discussion focuses on Dietrich’s July 1939 decision to return to Germany from New York City and his subsequent experience in the Abwehr covert resistance circle. I contrast his involvement in covert resistance with the choices of pastors Martin Niemoller (imprisoned through the war years as a churchman) and Paul Schneider (executed for openly/persistently defying the Nazis). We reflect on the risk of losing sight/awareness of the beautiful and the inspiring when faced with danger and death. I close with Dietrich’s letter to Eberhard Bethge the day after the 20 July 1944 attempt on Hitler’s life failed.

The fourth discussion opens the questions about being gathered in/as ‘community’ that follow from saying “yes” to the stated resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ (e.g., will the community radically rethink its approach to spirituality and ethics? to science? to the use/value of silence? to the art of sharing experiences ‘with the world face to face’? to hymns? to prayer/s? to confirmation? to communion? to the use of Jewish/Christian scripture? to parenting? to . . . ?). I share with them my observation that I have yet to experience/discover a ‘religious’ community that gathers around the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ and that has seriously examined these implications for saying “yes” to this resolve.

A most striking reaction – still vivid to me -- occurred as I led one such discussion group into the questions, “What experiences, events, circumstances count re ‘the world’? On what grounds can I disregard/ignore/avoid any experience, event, circumstance – however disgusting -- and still claim to be ‘with the world face to face’?” I noticed a teenage boy with a horrified expression when, to press the point, I recalled hearing a recent local news report about a little girl who had been taken from her parents by social services when cockroaches were found embedded in both her ears.

Participants always seem very attentive. Many respond thoughtfully during the discussions’ interactive opportunities. Comments after the sessions are often encouraging. The key is whether they will continue into the radical (i.e., down into the root) questions. I end the discussions uncertain/doubtful.

Quoist’s ‘The Subway’ meditation (Prayers, p. 26) serves well as a metaphor for these discussions (which I have adapted into a ‘non-religious’ wording) --

The last ones squeeze in. The door rolls shut. The subway rumbles off. I can’t move. I am no longer an individual but a crowd, a crowd that moves in one piece like jellied soup in its can. A nameless and indifferent crowd. I am one with the crowd, and I see why it is sometimes hard for me to rise higher. This crowd is heavy – laden soles on my feet, my slow feet – a crowd too large for my overburdened skiff. Yet I have no right to overlook these people. . . . I shall head for home “in the subways”.

‘A Non-religious View of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’ -- #8

Reflections from Journal Entries

Now for another set of ten reflections selected/adapted from journal entries written during my Vermont years (1992-95).

11. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be modern and/or post-modern but not pre-modern. To be religious’ is to be pre-modern to an increasing degree across the theological spectrum from ‘liberal’ end to the ‘fundamentalist’ end of the spectrum. Disposition toward thinking scientifically (e.g., cause and effect, critical inquiry, inductive reasoning, careful observation, testing hypotheses, unbiased gathering/handling of data, less than complete certainty, pursuit of objectivity, using statistical analysis, . . . ) is an effective angle for distinguishing ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, and ‘post-modern’.
    
    [Note: analyses such as David Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies had guided me since my graduate studies in the 1970s toward scientific historiography. I had traced as a graduate professor the interplay of science with philosophy, theology, politics, economics that has fueled change in Western culture. My roots by 1992 as ‘a historian first, theologian second’ were already deep. Still I entered the medical education/practice sphere in 1992 not yet adequately familiar with the scientific underpinnings of medicine. As the titles in the list of books I have read since 1992 indicate, I have placed a high priority on deepening my understanding of what it means to think scientifically. Such understanding is necessary for approaching spirituality and ethics ‘with the world face to face’.]
    
12. A ‘non-religious’ view of spirituality and of being human builds on human strengths rather than on human weaknesses.
    
    [Note: I would now change the wording to ‘ . . . builds on human strengths more than on human weaknesses’. On a spectrum with ‘0’ being an equation of humanness with weaknesses and ’10’ being an equation of humanness with strengths, I find myself most often around ‘7’ in my view of myself and others. I have found ‘religious’ language to be nearing ‘0’ on this spectrum as one moves through evangelical to fundamentalist language within Christianity.]
    
13. ‘Non-religious’ spirituality is defined by and experienced as imaged by the ‘wilderness’ metaphor. ‘Non-religious’ spirituality is shaped by and focused on surviving in extremities, in ‘the worst’.
    
    [Note: a few years earlier, I had stated in print my intent to speak as a witness to the spiritual and ethical consequences that follow prolonged exposure to tragic and offensive human suffering. For there is a place where two ten-year-old boys are charged with the brutal murder of a two-year-old child . . . where the memories of sexual abuse seem fresh every morning . . . where an ICU nurse turns and bathes geriatric patients whose skin tears away from their shriveled frames . . . where wounded veterans of war never leave the hospital ward . . . where distraught parents reel from their daughter’s murder by a jilted boyfriend at a youth meeting in the activity room of a church building. There is a place where this does not appear to be “my Father’s world” . . . where few “go for a together” with ‘God’ . . . where no relief comes from trying to “count your many blessings” . . . where it is difficult to “praise ‘God’ from whom all blessings flow”. There is a place where trust is expressed through the language of doubt, lament, fatigue, frustration, self-reliance . . . where the vision of a peaceful time in which to die is shattered . . . where the boldest goal is to “walk and faint not” . . . where being before ‘God’ is experienced as being without ‘God’ . . . where prayer for recovery becomes prayer for the end.]
    
14. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics takes shape around/from a ‘from below’ resolve to be genuinely present with and deeply conscious of innocent sufferers.
    
    [Note: here I had in mind Bonhoeffer’s 1942/3 ‘The view from below’ fragment (my translation) – “It remains an experience of unparalleled (incomparable) value that we have learned to see for once the great events of world history from below – through the perspective of the barred (put out, cut out, blocked), the suspects, the badly treated, the powerless, the oppressed (restrained), the scoffed (derided, mocked), in short the perspective of those who suffer. (It is) only in this time when neither bitterness nor envy (jealousy) has cauterized (corroded, gnawed away) the heart that we see with new eyes great and small, fortunate and unfortunate, strong and weak; that our view of greatness, humaneness, justice, and compassion has become clearer, more free, more incorruptible (not subject to bribes); indeed, (that we see) that personal suffering is a more suitable (qualified) key (code, cipher), a more fruitful principle, than is personal good fortune for exploring the world by observation and action . . . .”]
    
    
15. A ‘non-religious’ theology does not presuppose a ‘scripture’ perspective. Instead, from an alignment with innocent sufferers, a ‘non-religious’ perspective looks for what in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture ‘rings authentic’ when considered through this existential (Bonhoeffer’s ‘outer line’) grid.
    
    
16. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be iconoclastic.
    
    
17. I am convinced a Berdyaev-type critique of the anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic character of ‘God’ language is true. I am convinced all ‘God’ language that is of such character.
    
    
18. Being ‘non-religious’ is, simply put, being without ‘religion’ or a ‘religious’ factor/facet in one’s approach to and experience of ethics and spirituality.
    
    
19. My primary reference point as I form/follow a ‘religionless’ approach to spirituality and ethics has been Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Secondary reference points include Berdyaev, Merton, Teilhard de Chardin, the Quaker tradition, Harnack, Kierkegaard, Eckhart, Pascal, Quoist, Francis, Erasmus, Dostoevsky, . . . . All these reference points are found on the margin of the ‘religious’ sphere in various ways.
    
    [Note: by ‘on the margin’, I meant controversial and often heretical.]
    
    
20. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be an ‘outsider’ or ‘guest’ in relation to the ‘religious’ sphere.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #36

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm builds around a spectrum ranging from enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ to unambiguous experiences of being ‘cursed’. This spectrum has two thresholds – (1) a threshold separating enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ from painful reproving experiences of being ‘blessed’ and (2) a threshold separating these two ways to experience being ‘blessed’ from the experiences of being ‘cursed’. Some individuals loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (strain to) see the intention/assessment of ‘God’ in every experience as an indication of a person’s place on the spectrum. Others withhold such an interpretation until the indications of reproof or curse become a strong cluster of experiences that leads to an undeniable conclusion. The evidence for as well as the meaning of being ‘blessed’ steadily shift as the spectrum is crossed. In other words, there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘blessed’ before the threshold into ‘reproof’ is crossed and there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘reproof’. Being ‘cursed’ is both the last chance for the one cursed (i.e., discipline by shunning) and protection for the community gathered around the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. ‘Repenting’ when being reproved has to do with a course correction or adjustment (e.g., steering a car or navigating a plane when one is overall going in the right direction). ‘Repenting’ when cursed has more to do with a reversal or turn around due to going in the wrong direction.

At some points (e.g., 5:17), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends see him as being reproved and, therefore, still among the blessed. At other points, they see him as being cursed. The ‘scrapheap’ Job clearly sees himself as unjustifiably cursed. The three close friends see him after he has been devastated/humiliated by all the tragedies and they still try to apply the reproof model. What more could happen that would move them to consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job cursed? In spite of the cursed evidence, they seem to be grasping for some way to continue considering him to be among the blessed, hoping to avoid the consequences of considering him instead to be among the cursed. I suspect this line of reasoning frames their conversations re how to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job. What are the signals the three close friends have shifted from seeing him as reproved to seeing him cursed?

Why did the three close friends not advocate for the ‘scrapheap’ Job (e.g., the story of Abraham pleading for Lot), given their long friendship with him? Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job expect such? Is there any indication the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is melting down for his three close friends?

There are two ways within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to assess one’s spiritual status – (1) to reason inductively from observable behavior to conclusions re being among the ‘righteous’ or the ‘unrighteous’ or (2) to reason deductively from life circumstances re being ‘blessed’ or being ‘cursed’ to conclusions re being among the ‘righteous’ or the ‘unrighteous’. Painful experiences may initially be classified as misfortune and set aside as analogous to statistical anomalies that do not melt/hollow/ruin the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the wicked (as determined by observable behavior) are not cursed, at what point does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm begin to break down?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job points to caravan travelers (6:18; see also 6:19, 8:13, 30:12). (Peterson also has “merchants” and “tourists”.) Peterson’s “tourists” is quite a stretch for antiquity. Few people took long vacations in antiquity. ‘Traveling merchants’ would be better wording. I find insight in associating the caravan travelers in antiquity with the modern taxi driver. The caravan travelers in antiquity saw more widely than those who had not traveled. They had time to ponder what they had seen. Here the focus is on the risk that a caravan gets turned around and lost (like wagon trains in the American West). A wrong turn could move a caravan farther away from water or into greater danger as winter approached. Looking at the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends with this metaphor, they are like a caravan that loses its way and is never heard from again. The ‘scrapheap’ Job spots his three close friends. He goes out of his way for a drink from them. He is confident. But he is soon disappointed. His countenance falls.

Do the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends turn out to be no more than ‘so called friends’ (Peterson)? If so, they are parallel to the ‘pretend to be friends’ in Proverbs.

Peterson (6:21b) has “a hard scene” (RSV “calamity”). I think Peterson is too casual with “hard scene”. The Hebrew word is better translated as terror or fear. What makes a condition hard? terrifying? fearful?

Peterson (6:23a) has “Nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me” (RSV “save me from an opponent’s hand”). Peterson does not appear to retain 6:23b in the Hebrew text (RSV “ransom me from the hand of oppressors”). What would “go out on a limb” have entailed, had the ‘scrapheap’ Job so urged his three close friends to do so? Does he expect his three close friends to join him in challenging the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm or in condemning traditional understandings of ‘God’? The ‘scrapheap’ Job may not be begging them to do so. But he does appear to be stating an expectation.

When compared with the RSV, Peterson (6:24-27) seems to be translating rather freely. How well does his translation align with the Hebrew text (especially the underlined phrases)?

[Peterson]
Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up. Show me where I’ve gone off the track. Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit?

[RSV]
Teach me, and I will be silent; make me understand how I have gone wrong. How forceful are honest words. But your reproof, what does it reprove? Do you think that you can reprove words, as if the speech of the desperate were wind? You would even cast lots over the orphan, and bargain over your friend.

“Gone off track” is much more vivid than “gone wrong”. Would there have been a track in antiquity as rigid/fixed as a train track is today? The track analogy suggests both a path and a destination. What is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s expected destination?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #35

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of true friendship (6:14) includes the use of the adjective ‘despair’. A feminine noun meaning ‘despair’ from the same root occurs later in the heated exchanges (9:23). The verb from which these words derive means to dissolve or to melt. What experiences with melting might have been common when the extended middle section to the story/play was composed? Ice and snow were possibilities (e.g., Mt. Hermon). Melting wax and melting metal were also common.

References to ‘despair’, ‘weary’, ‘vexation’, ‘crush’ are very common in Job and Ecclesiastes:

Job 3:17 Job sees Sheol as at least a place where the weary rest.
Job 4:19 (Eliphaz) Humans cannot be righteous. They are crushed like a moth.
Job 5:2 (Eliphaz) Vexation kills the fool.
Job 5:4 (Eliphaz) Fools are crushed in the gate.
Job 5:17 (Eliphaz) A man reproved by ‘God’ is blessed. So Job should not despise the Almighty.
Job 6:2 Job comments on the immensity of his vexation.
Job 6:9 Job wishes ‘God’ would crush him.
Job 6:26 Job speaks of himself as a despairing man.
Job 10:3 Job accuses ‘God’ of despising the work of his hands.
Job 10:17 Job says ‘God’ increases his vexation toward him.
Job 15:24 (Eliphaz) The evil ones are distressed.
Job 19:18 Young children despise Job
Job 20:19 (Zophar) The wicked crush the poor.
Job 22:7 Eliphaz accuses Job of not caring for the weary.
Job 22:9 Eliphaz accuses Job of crushing orphans.
Job 24:22 ‘God’ prolongs the life of the evil – when they despair he lifts them up.
Job 34:25 (Elihu) ‘God’ crushes the mighty.
Job 36:5 (Elihu) ‘God’ does not despise anyone.
Job 36:16 (Elihu) ‘God’ allured Job out of distress.
Job 36:19 Elihu wonders if Job’s cries will keep him from distress.
Job 39:15 ‘God’ says an ostrich egg may be crushed if the ostrich leaves.
Job 42:6 Job despises himself and repents.

Eccl. 1:8 All things are weariness.
Eccl. 1:18 In much wisdom is much vexation.
Eccl. 2:20 Koheleth despairs over his labor
Eccl. 2:23 Human work is full of vexation.
Eccl. 5:17 Parents who lose all are in much vexation.
Eccl. 9:6 Wisdom is better even though the poor man’s advice was despised.
Eccl. 11:10 Remove vexation from your mind.
Eccl. 12:12 Studying is weariness.

With Peterson’s translation, the ‘scrapheap’ Job places himself among the desperate and implies he has given up on ‘God Almighty’. Is ‘forsake’ or ‘give up’ equivalent to ‘curse’? . One nuance for ‘curse’ is to make light of. A tragic sufferer who forsakes ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) has concluded that ‘God’ is trivial, powerless, or even demonic. Cursing the ‘God’ thus forsaken would be the extreme expression of disappointment.

Note that cursing ‘God’ implies there is such a ‘God’ to curse. I eventually came to the conclusion that the concepts of ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and variously represented in the story/play Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language) or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering) credible. In other words, I eventually concluded there is no such ‘God’ to curse (a conclusion that does not close, but instead opens, the possibility of other ways to consider a transcending reality). I do not find in Job indication that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.

I see ‘forsake’ as the endpoint of a spectrum that moves from trivializing or making light of across to calling down destruction (curse). ‘Forsake’ is the fork in the road re either remaining ‘religious’ or withdrawing from the ‘religious’ sphere in search of a ‘non-religious’ experience. To remain ‘religious’ means to return to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either (1) by repenting and stepping back into alignment with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (and, thereby, denying the ‘scrapheap’ perspective) or (2) by moving across the spectrum to(ward) a ‘curse God’ way of being. The latter (i.e., a ‘curse God’ way of being) is where the Accuser expects the ‘scrapheap’ Job to end up. Analogous to the crushing consequences of entering a ‘black hole’, the former (i.e., repenting and stepping back into alignment) crushes Job’s ‘scrapheap’ integrity and the latter (i.e., a ‘cursing God’ way of being) crushes the ‘scrapheap’ Job by trapping him in a ‘religious’ life of bitterness. Both paths for returning to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm leave in place the merging of the word ‘God’ with the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. To take a ‘non-religious’ path at the ‘forsake’ fork in the road means setting aside the link between the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s nuances for ‘God’ and the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm views such departure as faithless, as unrighteous, as choosing darkness over light, as heresy, as apostasy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #34

What attitudes/emotions should be attributed to the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14) re friendship? re his friends? Who does he have in mind – a wider circle of friends with a corresponding shallow expectation or a smaller/inner circle of close friends with a corresponding deep/profound expectation? Is he repeating a familiar proverb? There are three possible parallels in Proverbs for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarkable statement about friendship: (1) “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (17:17), (2) “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24), (3) “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend” (19:4). Note the phrase ‘by his friend’ in the third parallel with Proverbs is identical to the wording used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14).

If the ‘scrapheap’ Job has some such proverb in mind, his being abandoned by the wider circle of friends weakens the proverb’s credibility. As his wider circle of friends disappears, the proverb’s credibility depends on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. The implications of their failure to meet the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s expectation of friendship (6:14) are existentially profound.

How should 6:14 be translated? I am drawn to Peterson’s “When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them” (which follows the NIV). The RSV has “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty”. This translation seems awkward and out of sync with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. Peterson’s linking “give up on God Almighty” with “desperate people” rather than with “friends” makes more sense, has more force. The RSV translation sounds more like a generalizing proverb than a pained statement by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The Hebrew wording is – “For the one who despairs, from his friends, steadfast love; and the fear of Shaddai he forsakes.” The ‘he’ would seem to refer to the one who despairs, with ‘despair’ further defined as forsaking/abandoning ‘God’. The singular ‘he’ would not agree with the plural ‘friends’. 6:14 is the only place where the Hebrew word for ‘steadfast love’ or ‘loving kindness’ occurs in Job. The word does not occur in Ecclesiastes.

What should a true friend’s loyalty imply? Are there any limits? The answers are pivotal. One direction leads the friend safely back to the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The other direction leads the friend to a ‘non-religious’ path separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ language.

My view of Proverbs wisdom is that such wisdom does not know or fully/indiscriminately/deeply consider tragic human suffering. The wisdom in Proverbs does not appear to have been carved out of serious/radical engagement with the harsh realities of human suffering. I can imagine conversations Job and his three close friends had shared in which they had made unconditional promises of loyalty to each other. And I can imagine the public teaching Job and his three close friends had done re ‘friendship’. The first words from the ‘scrapheap’ Job to his three close friends (ch. 3) abruptly begin to test their friendships down into the root. What had the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends inferred from observing him in silence for days? Were they already feeling the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm wobble/buckle underneath them? The three close friends are soon saying, “All bets are off. This is not what we had in mind by ‘adversity’.” Their kindness dissolves. They assume a posture loyal to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) that supersedes, reshapes, and diminishes their loyalty to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. In other words, they could not be loyal to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without being disloyal to ‘God’ (who, they all – including Job -- agree, has withdrawn from Job) and without validating/endorsing the meltdown of ‘God’ language for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. They can no longer consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be wise. What is the counsel in Proverbs re treating ‘fools’? Do the three close friends follow such wisdom in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job should realize/anticipate their confusion and let his three close friends off the hook, freeing them to depart or to commit themselves afresh with their eyes now fully open to the severe and tragic realities of human suffering. Would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be justified in expecting or insisting that his three close friends enter the ‘God’ language meltdown with him?

I have found myself for many years struggling to figure out how to be with others without pulling them into such a meltdown. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being swept into a ‘God’ language meltdown that leaves him hopeless (from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective) whereas his three close friends (consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) are clinging to the more hopeful idea of being refined or having character built by ‘God’. For many years, I have been using ‘meltdown’ as a metaphorical description of the experience that drove the shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #33

The ‘scrapheap’ Job now (6:8-13) seems clearly on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’ language. Interpreting his thoughts as sarcastic, ironic, even cynical would not be premature or inappropriate.

Peterson’s “squash me like a bug” is vivid. But the RSV seems to sustain the bluntness of the prayer better with “crush me”. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s view of what ‘pleases God’ include an appeal to be squashed/crushed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have a place for a death wish? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s appeal serious? Such an appeal challenges the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job is hoping to end it all, he is saying, “Why not let those arrows hit a vital organ and just take me out? Show some mercy in your wrath.” However, it is also possible to read him as not yet serious. He may still want to accuse ‘God’ to his face.

Remember the ‘whose hand is afflicting Job’ bantering between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue? The ‘scrapheap’ Job reveals his conclusion in his wish that ‘God’ would “let loose his hand” (RSV). I wonder how his wife hears this prayer. Perhaps as -- “He’s coming around to my view of this mess?” Does she now empathize with him? Does she hear his prayer as an accusation against ‘God’?

Peterson (6:10c) has “blasphemed” (RSV “denied”) and (6:14) “give up” (RSV “forsake”). Are these terms equivalent to cursing ‘God’? ‘Denied’ can mean to conceal or to cover as well as to rebel. The ‘scrapheap’ Job may think he has not yet cursed ‘God’, but he senses he is very close. Peterson is correct to accent this implication with “before being pressed past the limits” (6:10).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions (6:11-12) sound rhetorical. Is he posing these questions to his three close friends? If so, does he think they hear the questions as rhetorical? No doubt the three close friends see a glorious prize awaiting them if they succeed in getting the ‘scrapheap’ Job to repent.

What is the hope, the end, the future about which the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks in these questions? The immediate context suggests he is longing/searching for the answer to his prayer (6:8-9). However, I see him thinking more broadly. If so, what does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm claim to offer the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps restoration if he repents. Perhaps a deeper spiritual life if he can withstand the educational experience of his suffering. To the contrary, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no prize (including the bounty described in the epilogue) that can be worth this trauma.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is convinced his resources have been all but depleted by ‘God’. Peterson has “Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (6:13). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has no ear for such reassurance as -- “You will not be tested above that which you are able to bear”. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is crumbling around the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The paradigm’s defenders eventually argue that individuals who wither rather than grow under such punishment/discipline turn from ‘God’. They might also argue the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not trying to see the good the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises will come from his tragedy.

Here (6:1-7) is the second reference in the story/play to “God Almighty” (Peterson) or “the Almighty” (RSV). The meaning of Shaddai is debated – e.g., ‘mountain one’, ‘almighty’, ‘powerful one’. Some suggest a possible derivation from a verb that means to deal violently with, to despoil, to devastate, to ruin. If presented as a play, how should the ‘scrapheap’ Job utter “God Almighty” – cynically? fearfully? defiantly? I vote for a defiant tone. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, how does ‘almighty’ relate to ‘sovereign’? to ‘just’/‘righteous’? to ‘mercy’? It seems clear the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not pointing to ‘God Almighty’ for a demonstration of ‘might for right’ (i.e., King Arthur’s radical vision in Camelot). The emphasis is certainly on having power rather than on being just or being righteous or having mercy.

Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect/demand the cowering and the silence implied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:5-7) and demonstrated by the prologue Job as well as the whirlwind section’s ending later in the story/play? Yes. They might respond initially in defiance, but a ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community expects (pressures) the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs eventually (1) to accept the pain/suffering as the intent/will of ‘God’ and, therefore, as just and as beyond question and (2) to repent of the initial defiance.

Peterson has “I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the Holy God, before being pressed past the limits” (6:10). Peterson’s “satisfaction” seems a bit weak when compared with the RSV’s “I would even exult in unrelenting pain”. Peterson’s ‘not yet’ suggestion about cursing ‘God’ seems on target re the direction and pace of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. If the RSV translation is followed, what “words of the Holy One” does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind? What would it mean to deny such words? To deny “words of the Holy One” – as variously understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- would put the ‘scrapheap’ Job outside his ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community. Would any of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends stay with him? Peterson’s translation is very free flowing, but captures the basic meaning. However, the reference to unrelenting pain in the Hebrew wording should be retained. The ‘scrapheap’ Job senses how close he is to crossing the line. Given more time, will he curse ‘God’ as the Accuser predicts?

Peterson (6:11b) has “future” (RSV “end”). What future/end has motivated the ‘scrapheap’ Job to this point? Is he confirming what the Accuser proposes in the prologue – i.e., that Job’s noble behavior prior to his tragedies had been motivated by self-serving ambitions? Yes. Are self-serving ambitions characteristic of ‘religion’ and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. A sustainable ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality builds on an alternative to self-serving ambitions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #32

Does the word for “answered” (6:1) refer specifically to questioning/answering? to dialogue? Or might the word simply suggest the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks, whether to Eliphaz or to himself or . . . ? He has sharp words for Eliphaz (and subsequently for Bildad and Zophar). If the story is being staged as a play, should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be looking at Eliphaz or to the heavens or, perhaps, toward the audience? Everyone has abandoned him, with his three close friends now beginning to place responsibility for his plight squarely on his shoulders. Looking to the audience implies the ‘scrapheap’ Job is searching for someone who can/will truly/clearly/patiently listen. Looking to the audience presses each one in the audience to ask if s/he can/will be the character missing in the story/play – i.e., the character whose presence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job does not harm him further. Or perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job just stares aimlessly, indicating he no longer has any confidence there is such a character.

Peterson’s wording suggests the ‘scrapheap’ Job is aggressive and energetic – e.g., an exclamation point (6:3a) and “Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat?” (6:3b). The RSV suggests a more subdued/fatigued ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Oh” (6:2) and “Therefore my words have been rash” (6:3b). I would stage the ‘scrapheap’ Job more along the RSV’s subdued/fatigued line. Perhaps I think Peterson is a bit off the mark because I do not hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job screaming in his first remarks (or having enough strength to scream at any point, for that matter). The Hebrew word means to talk wildly. The verb occurs only three times (Prov. 20:25 and Obadiah 16 as well as Job 6:3). If the RSV’s “rash” is followed, is the ‘scrapheap’ Job making a confession? or offering an explanation that invites his three close friends to show him some tolerance and that asks them not to take his words too seriously? If so, then he is not yet to the point of having thought fully/radically through the implications of attributing his situation to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm). Another angle is to hear sarcasm when the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks.

A word study for “misery” (Peterson) or “vexation” (RSV) would be useful. The Hebrew word (6:2a) occurs in Job (5:2, 6:2, 10:17, 17:7) in one form and in Ecclesiastes (1:18, 2:23, 7:3, 7:9, 11:10) in another form. The idea is unwarranted pain/suffering. The word for “load” (Peterson) or “calamity” (RSV) (6:2b) -- used only here -- is based on the Hebrew verb ‘to be’, from which the word ‘God’ is derived.

‘Vexation’ makes me think of spiritual/intellectual pain. ‘Misery’ makes room for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical/social suffering. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to claim both forms of agony during his responses. Are both forms of agony present here?

With due regard for the severity of his situation, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is excessive in his assessment of his misery’s weight. His conclusion that his misery outweighs the sand of the sea sounds as if he thinks no other person’s pain/suffering could be (has been) as heavy as is his pain/suffering. At the same time, I shy away from seeking relief in “there’s always someone worse off than I”. There are serious risks when any sufferer thinks s/he is in the worst situation possible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job offers analogies and metaphors (6:1-3) in line with the appeal with which he begins his response to Eliphaz. However, in doing so he seems to be moving quickly (unavoidably?) to/past the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to a theological position the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (represented in the story/play by the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends) find heretical and he finds untenable. What meaning/s does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm sanction for the phrase “the arrows of God”? Surely not the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ shoots poison arrows into innocent persons. The ‘scrapheap’ Job describes his thoughts/words as poisoned and attributes his poisoned condition to ‘God’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job knows he is on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – far removed from the core/center – as/when he attributes his current status to the direct and calculated action of ‘God’.

Peterson (6:4c) has “God has dumped the whole works on me” (RSV “the terrors of God are arrayed against me”). Peterson’s translation seems weak, almost trivializing. The Hebrew wording is as forceful as the RSV translation, if not more so. How the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees the terrors arrayed around him is important. The terrors have been carefully positioned. He is surrounded with strategically selected terrors that are aimed at particularly vulnerable areas. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is not thinking ‘God’ has dumped these terrors on him; he is thinking ‘God’ has organized them into a massive, orderly, and devastating offensive against him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job turns to animal analogies (6:5). How common are such analogies other than in the story/play’s whirlwind section? ‘Wild ass’ appears also in 11:12 and 39:5. ‘Ox’ appears in 24:3. Peterson’s “so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this” makes explicit the implication in these analogies. What makes a wild ass bray or an ox low over its food -- the scarcity? the taste? satisfaction and contentment? If it would be possible to say the following to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him or falling in with his three close friends, I would look for a way to say to him, “Yes, I do expect more from a human being than I expect from a donkey or a cow.”

Re the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s next question – “Do you see what God has dished out for me?” -- a food may not taste good but can still be eaten for nourishment without nausea. However, the ‘scrapheap’ Job adds another forceful analogy – nausea (6:6-7). This analogy is particularly significant in light of the place this metaphor holds in existential thought about the human predicament. The staging/directing needs to make vivid to the audience that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is nauseated by what ‘God’ “has dished out”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #31

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied from Peterson’s translation the “scrap heap’ Job’s response to his close friend Eliphaz (6:1-30). Postings #32-#38 follow.]

6.1Job answered:

2If my misery could be weighed, if you could pile the whole bitter load on the scales, 3it would be heavier than all the sand of the sea! Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat? 4The arrows of God Almighty are in me, poison arrows – and I’m poisoned all through! God has dumped the whole works on me. 5Donkeys bray and cows moo when they run out of pasture. 6So don’t expect me to keep quiet in this. Do you see what God has dished out for me? 7It’s enough to turn anyone’s stomach! Everything in me is repulsed by it – it makes me sick.

8All I want is an answer to one prayer, a last request to be honored. 9Let God step on me – squash me like a bug and be done with me for good. 10I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the holy God, before being pressed past the limits. 11Where’s the strength to keep my hopes up? What future do I have to keep me going? 12Do you think I have nerves of steel? Do you think I’m made of iron? 13Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!

14When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them. 15But my brothers are fickle as a gulch in the desert – 16one day they’re gushing with water from melting ice and snow cascading out of the mountains, 17but by midsummer they’re dry, gullies baked dry in the sun. 18Travelers who spot them and go out of their way for a drink, end up in a waterless gulch and die of thirst. 19Merchant caravans from Tema see them and expect water, tourists from Sheba hope for a cool drink. 20They arrive so confident – but what a disappointment! They get there, and their faces fall! 21And you, my so-called friends, are no better – there’s nothing to you! One look at a hard scene and you shrink in fear. 22It’s not as though I asked you for anything – I didn’t ask you for one red cent – 23nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me. So why all this dodging and shuffling?

24Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up, show me where I’ve gone off the track. 25Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? 26You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. 27Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit and loss?

28Look me in the eye! Do you think I’d lie to your face? 29Think it over – no double-talk! Think carefully – my integrity is on the line! 30Can you detect anything false in what I say? Don’t you trust me to discern good from evil?