Fragment -- #119

[January 2000 journal entry]

What prompts/motivates individuals to move to(ward) fundamentalism? Among possible interpretations, I would propose –

1. a fear of uncertainty,
2. a need to see life as ordered and under control,
3. justification for withdrawing from open/public discourse,
4. demographic factors.

Fragment -- #118

[January 2000 journal entry]

‘Affluence’ (i.e., ‘to flow to/ward’) is evident in having choices re life decisions/experiences, in having the gift of classical/liberal education, and in having the self-confidence that leads to the ability to keep one’s footing in uncertain life circumstances. Such ‘affluence’ does not necessarily correlate with being ‘rich’ in the sense of material possessions.

Fragment -- #117

[January 2000 journal entry]

My central resolve is to focus on and respect ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. From this perspective, I critique and sift through all ideas in terms of (1) whether or not ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims are disregarded/disrespected/diminished and (2) whether or not I am distracted from this resolve.

Fragment -- #116

[December 1999 journal entry]

Astrology and similar superstitions are assumed/affirmed in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. Such superstitions are thus inherent to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #115

[December 1999 journal entry]

Note: 30,000+ died recently in Venezuela due to torrential rains and subsequent mudslides.

Fragment -- #114

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: I must either adopt poverty as a way of life or advocate/push for the socio-economic interests of the impoverished as I would for myself (or for my children). Since the former is, as a choice, inherently affluent in that I would choose such (illustrating that the traits of affluence cannot be completely shed), I have chosen to pursue a thoughtful/sacrificial effort toward the latter option.

Fragment -- #113

[December 1999 journal entry]

Interpretations of life experiences are conditional/relative

1. in that all interpretations embody an individual’s perspective on a subject,
2. in that relevant resources are not completely mastered,
3. in that new resources are being perpetually discovered/generated.

Fragment -- #112

[December 1999 journal entry]

As long as one remains loyal to a particular paradigm, the tendency is

1. to ‘cut the paradigm slack’ re questions that threaten the paradigm’s credibility,
2. to accept minimal data and argument for taking pressure off the paradigm,
3. to devalue thoroughly critical data/argument.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #32

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering builds off of the credibility/integrity of the life of ‘Jesus’ in relation to ‘the least of these’, the vulnerable, the victims. I acknowledge but do not follow his participation in the pre-modern/pre-scientific thought world of his time/setting. Perhaps a kernel/husk analogy helps clarify this differentiation.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #31

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ perspective today reconstructs the life of ‘Jesus’ within and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective. The ‘non-religious’ perspective I am discovering focuses on the life of ‘Jesus’ without appeal or reference to a ‘from above’ paradigm and without being built around a ‘resurrection’ perspective.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #30

[January 2000 journal entry]

A core question for me is how to view/interpret ‘Jesus’ in relation to the Ecclesiastes essay and in relation to the story/play Job (specifically whether ‘Jesus’ could be written into the story as the missing character – i.e., a character who can be truly/unconditionally present with and not harm further or disrespect the ‘scrapheap’ Job). Should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (perhaps as a prophet) of his time? Or should ‘Jesus’ be viewed/interpreted as essentially outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm of his time (implying that the writers of the four Gospels superimposed their variations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm on ‘Jesus’)?

Seeing ‘Jesus’ From Below #29

[December 1999 journal entry]

I am convinced that the most effective way to see ‘Jesus’ comes from a Jewish vantage point rather than from a Christian ‘religious’ vantage point. One distinction of the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering is this search for a view of ‘Jesus’ from an ancient, liberal, prophetic Jewish perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #101

[January 2000 journal entry]

In pressing the ‘Santa Claus’ analogy re the nature/essence of ‘God’ language – note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm assumes there must be a ‘God’ language analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language in order to incorporate children. Therefore, ‘the game’. A ‘non-religious’ approach focuses instead on character formation and spiritual inquiry, with patience and examples for children as they mature. With this approach, adults do not use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do anticipate that children will come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’. With the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm approach, adults do use ‘God’ language among themselves that sounds like ‘Santa Claus’ language and do not anticipate that children will eventually come to a point of no longer literally ‘believing’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #100

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ approach to spirituality/ethics begins and is anchored in/by the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from which values and ethical obligations are deduced. A ‘non-religious’ approach begins with and is anchored in/by the concrete/immediate realities of human experience, centers on value-based life decisions, and reflects on spirituality in light of such decisions/experiences.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #99

[January 2000 journal entry]

I see a spectrum for distinguishing being ‘non-religious’ from being ‘religious’ that moves from a ‘from above’ methodology across to a ‘from below’ methodology. (1) A ‘religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from above’ end of the spectrum. Most variations toward this end of the spectrum do not seek/embrace ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions. Some variations on the ‘religious’ side of the spectrum’s threshold permit guarded/selective accommodation of ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions up to but not beyond the point that retention of a place within the ‘religious’ sphere is threatened and/or to the point that the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is discredited. (2) A ‘non-religious’ perspective/disposition becomes increasingly distinctive as the move is made toward the ‘from below’ end of the spectrum (i.e., for me, both intellectually and existentially ‘from below’) and, therefore, toward seeking/embracing ‘from below’ ideas/perceptions, with a willingness to retain/reinterpret as much as remains open to consideration from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm short of rejecting the ‘from below’ methodology.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #98

[December 1999 journal entry]

The ‘religion’ from which I have removed myself is essentially a business (e.g., the professional career ladder for clergy, the investments, the real estate, the overhead, the marketing, the dependence on customer satisfaction, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #97

[December 1999 journal entry]

A ‘religious’ methodology attempts to look at ‘the world’ through the perspective and theological norms of the ‘religious’ sphere. A ‘non-religious’ methodology begins on the ‘outside’ of the ‘religious’ sphere and looks conditionally/cautiously into the ‘religious’ sphere (for me, in light of the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #96

[December 1999 journal entry]

Preachers, pastors, and professional theologians are surrounded by and most accountable to their ‘religious’ congregations/constituencies. Being so surrounded, they cannot speak directly or authentically to any ‘non-religious’ person/s present.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #95

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: The ‘God’ language I find to be most credible is found when discussing/considering the human geist (German for ‘spirit’, ‘self’, ‘mind’). The point is not that the human geist is equivalent to ‘God’, but that language about the human geist is as near as I come to ‘God’ language that does not veer off into anthropo-, socio-, and/or cosmomorphic language that falls short of ‘God’ and that easily/frequently becomes idolatrous. Is this a way to understand Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence reference to ‘unconscious Christianity’? Can any language about ‘God’ avoid an idolatrous reduction of the word ‘God’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #70

[January 2000 journal entry]

For me, the consequences of focusing radically on the breadth/depth of human suffering ‘from below’ became foundational for a radical (i.e., to the root) tracing of the implications of unrestricted/critical inquiry (also a component of ‘from below’ thinking) and for a radical (i.e., to the root) critique of ‘God’ language.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #69

[January 2000 journal entry]

I am convinced that all the writings in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture – except the Ecclesiastes essay and the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job – reflect variations on the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #68

[December 1999 journal entry]

Yesterday a semi-trailer truck on I-65 southbound changed lanes, nicked a car in the left lane, lost control, crossed the median, grazed two vehicles in the northbound I-65 traffic before crashing head-on into a van. Three children, their parents, and the two children whose parents were driving a trailing van were killed in the crash/fire. A 19-year-old boy heading for his grandparents’ home was driving the car the truck nicked before crossing the median. He was not harmed. By the time a news team arrived on the scene, the boy’s grandparents had been notified and had come to the scene. Within sight of the horrible and deadly crash, the grandmother said on camera over and over – “Praise the Lord, thank the Lord, . . .” in reference to her grandson’s escaping injury. I find such ‘God’ language utterly offensive and abhorrent.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #67

[December 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: That no writing in Christian scripture is comparable to the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay re being oriented by a ‘from below’ concentration on and alignment with harsh human realities. I think the Gospel of Luke comes the closest, though the intent of the Gospel of Luke is different from the story of the ‘scrap heap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes essay.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #66

[December 1999 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm, to say “life is not fair” is to say implicitly “God is not fair”. In the story/play Job, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three closest friends see this link in his statements and attack his integrity. I do not understand how individuals within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm trying to be observant miss, dismiss, or object to this implication of saying “life is not fair”.

Fragment -- #111

[December 1999 journal entry]

Reflections on ‘lying’ after guiding a discussion for a Presbyterian USA adult group (which the senior pastor invited me to do) --

1. It is critical to differentiate ‘categorical’ and ‘prima facie’ approaches to ethics.
   
2. Can a lie be noble? harmless? selfish? redemptive? harmful? loving?
3. Views of ‘truth’ bear on the individual observer’s perspective.
4. Harm can be done by not bearing truthful witness.
5. How close to the deepest relationships can one reach without having confidence in the other?
6. In what way is a lie denial? secretive? manipulative?
7. Can one defend being ‘categorical’ on some matters and ‘prima facie’ on other matters?
   
8. We construct reality by how we handle ‘truth-telling’.
9. What is the relationship between ‘truth telling’ and ‘covenant’?

Fragment -- #110

[December 1999 journal entry]

I eventually came to the conclusion/resolution that I would not remain formally associated with organizations (esp., ‘religious’ organizations) that have reputations for being self-righteous, for being intolerant, for restraining open inquiry, for being intellectually lazy, . . . .

Fragment -- #109

[November 1999 journal entry]

It seems to me that, as those ‘right of center’ gained momentum in the 1970s, those ‘left of center’ became increasingly vulnerable to polemic and stereotypical attacks from those ‘right of center’ for attempting to be more intellectually honest and for attempting to truly engage the world in concrete ways. How many of those ‘left of center’ concluded they had too much at stake to follow through thoroughly? radically (i.e., to the root)?

Fragment -- #108

[November 1999 journal entry]

As a ‘from below’ experience/perspective steadily became rooted/defining for me, my attention to the sine qua non assumptions/expectations of the ‘religious’ sphere evaporated, became peripheral, gave way.

Fragment -- #107

[November 1999 journal entry]

Perhaps a statistical model can be related to lifestyle decisions (i.e., standard deviations from the mean). If the goal is to maximize the range of individuals who feel truly welcome in one’s home, then should someone with lifestyle options attempt to live daily one standard deviation below the mean? Does living two or more standard deviations below the mean necessitate/need the motivation/justification of a special reason for one’s lifestyle to form in the direction of being impoverished? Does living one standard deviation above the mean significantly increase the risk of being damaged by materialism? Note that the mean varies from culture to culture and from time to time within a culture. Should one’s point of reference be local? regional? national? international? Must the mean rise in order to improve the circumstances of the impoverished?

Fragment -- #106

[November 1999 journal entry]

At least two distinctions define/shape what I think and write – i.e., (1) a ‘from below’ perspective, having experienced chronic illness during my 20s as the spouse of a victim when my ideas and life views were being radically revised and (2) doctoral training/expertise in history and theology that led first through conventional ‘religious’ roles as a pastor and a seminary professor, but eventually led beyond such conventional ‘religious’ roles into ‘non-religious’ secular roles.

Fragment -- #105

[November 1999 journal entry]

I have again been reflecting on how defining my first wife’s experience with multiple sclerosis was personally and symbolically for me. This experience was existentially intensified by our being newly married and in our 20s facing a chronic illness during my university and then graduate education. This experience was symbolic for me in that being with her as truly/genuinely as possible opened my eyes to so many other ‘untouchables’ who are dismembered from societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere).

Fragment -- #104

[October 1999 journal entry]

The canon of Jewish scripture and the canon of Christian scripture have remained open and debatable since my first serious introduction to the ‘canon question’ at the beginning of my graduate studies (1974). Since then what I think and what I write re spirituality and ethics have been altered by the implications of the irresolvable status of the ‘canon question’. My angle for considering the collections of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as ‘open’ is a ‘from below’ angle (e.g., the story/play about the ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay as my entering/exiting points). I see several competing theologies in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture.

Fragment -- #103

[October 1999 journal entry]

Something distinctive about the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is revealed when expressions of this paradigm – increasingly so toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum -- treat dissimilar fragments in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as a unified collection of writings. For example, the J/E/P/D nuances for ‘God’ are made to read/function as a single flattened theology in the Torah and throughout the rest of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. The story/play about the ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay are forced into conformity with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Tensions within the first Christian writings are molded into a closed collection and treated as the reflection of a single theology.

Fragment -- #102

[October 1999 journal entry]
A ‘from below’ perspective/method links (1) a scientific approach to interpreting human experience/events and (2) the position/perspective of innocent suffering/ers.

Proposition: The latter leads to or requires the former; the former does not necessarily lead to or require the latter.

What are the implications of the latter leading to or requiring the former and, therefore, of moving away from the scientifically incredible thinking/assumptions found in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture?

Fragment -- #101

[October 1999 journal entry] How is “knowing God” (and related/similar ‘religious’ phrases/claims) an experience? Is not this language anthro-, socio-, and/or cosmomorphic?

Fragment -- #100

[October 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: That ‘community’ is experienced to some degree through a self-understanding (e.g., friendship, neighbor, family, business, . . .) that centers on accountability and on distributive justice concerns. This proposition can be tested in concrete/immediate ‘community’ experiences and in broader networks of ‘community’ experience. Re the latter, the consequences are less evident if one takes from the ‘common good’ without regard either for other individuals or for the ability of the ‘community’ as a whole to recover/survive/thrive. This point should be applied to end-of-life decisions in health care.

Fragment -- #99

[October 1999 journal entry]

If the rejection of a flat, fundamentalist, pre-modern approach to Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is to be consistently followed, then the subject of homosexuality should be considered ‘from below’ for reasons similar to the reconsideration of such subjects/issues as slavery, monarchy, demons, short age and soon end of the world, literal reading of Genesis 1-11, male superiority, . . . .

My present thoughts about homosexuality include –

1. I oppose any simple stereotyping/demonizing.
   
2. I first look for an individual’s integrity in being authentically present with the disadvantaged and vulnerable.
3. I suspect that a homosexual orientation is for some more genetic, for others more environment, for others more choice.
4. The bias, prejudice, abuse, . . . those with a homosexual orientation have experienced and still experience must be taken seriously.

Fragment -- #98

October 1999 journal entry]

Spectrum: from inquiry for inquiry’s sake (in which academic types ask/critique ideas without existential criteria/pressure to make decisions) to cultish retreat from rigorous and indiscriminate thinking/inquiry. I oppose only thinking in terms of where one finds oneself on this spectrum. Instead, I hold to a ‘from below’ existential critique/perspective (off of and separate from the above spectrum) when studying and testing ideas/claims. The core, central, simple question is – “How do I become and remain the sort of person who is genuinely/authentically present with victims of tragic/innocent suffering?” Two observations -- (1) I have seen too much to think I am invulnerable from innocent suffering or from being the victim of discrimination. (2) Affirming the human spirit as the ‘more’ about being human for which empirical analysis alone cannot account at least keeps open serious consideration of a suprahuman ‘more’.

Fragment -- #97

[August 1999 journal entry]

A close friend recently confessed, “Something deep inside me is cracking.” He had in mind the pain associated with being on the fringe of and moving past/beyond the ‘religious’ sphere/thought world. He referenced specifically the implications and consequences from the fact that “scripture is no longer an unquestioned cornerstone to/for my thought”. I encouraged him to examine carefully this ‘cracking’. The roots must be enduring and existentially ultimate. I encouraged him to interpret/clarify why this ‘cracking’ is happening – e.g., what is the source of the pressure? does he want the ‘cracking’ to stop? is it possible at this point to stop the ‘cracking’? what will be the cost if he tries to stop the ‘cracking’? what will be the cost if he does not try to stop the ‘cracking’? As for my experience, I answered these questions and related the ‘cracking’ metaphor to my (1) committing unconditionally to an open, non-discriminating, ongoing inquiry/education and (2) resolving to be aligned with those who are sifted out, discredited, disrespected, marginalized, dismembered, outcast.

Fragment -- #96

[July 1999 journal entry]

Proposition: All ‘God’ language is anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic (a Berdyaev-type analysis). Is there an idea or comment about ‘God’ that is not? that escapes these limits? But would not such an idea or comment then be incomprehensible to a human being? If there is no such idea or comment that is comprehensible, then two conclusions follow. (1) All comments and claimed experience regarding “knowing God” or “having a personal relationship with Jesus” or . . . are anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic statements. Is disregard for this limitation on ‘God’ language another form of ‘religious’ idolatry? (2) An alternative is to be iconoclastic toward all such language, a form of ‘negative’ or ‘negating’ theology. A divine/infinite subject, to be such, must remain beyond comprehension. The result is a ‘before God as if without God’ spirituality/theology.

Fragment -- #95

[June 1999 journal entry]

A physician with whom I work closely asked me a few days ago about being an ‘outlier’ -- what this description means, from what I am an ‘outlier’, what drives this process. I shared with him the following reflections on being considered/called an ‘outlier’ – e.g.,

1. that ‘outlier’ means to lie/be outside some defined boundary,
   
2. that parallels to ‘outlier’ might be ‘stranger’ or ‘loner’ or ‘guest’ or ‘visitor’,
   
3. that statistically the term ‘outlier’ has to do with being an anomaly to a normal distribution of data re standard deviations from the mean,
4. that inherent to being an ‘insider’ is living some variation on the defining/normative theme.

I see myself as an ‘outlier’ in relation to my immediate family, my extended family, the ‘religious’ sphere, medical ethicists, . . . . I do not view myself as an ‘outlier’ in the same way as those who are dismembered for various reasons from societal spheres. I looked back to two points in my first wife’s experience with multiple sclerosis in the 1970s that were thresholds – i.e., (1) her decision in 1977/78 to use a wheelchair (recalling the dilemma of using a wheelchair to continue to have ‘normal’ experiences versus not using a wheelchair because doing would marginalize us in the eyes of the ‘normal’) and (2) the message in 1978 from the neurological clinic in West Germany advising that, due to how far her disease had advanced, we not return (noting that this advice, while delivered respectfully and gently, had a marginalizing impact in that she and I heard that we were seen to be ‘abnormal’ among others with neurological illnesses and, therefore, even more so elsewhere). There were inward and outward dimensions to feeling/being marginalized. Also, there were more and more matters taken for granted by those around us (e.g., walking up stairs) that we could no longer take for granted. And our sensitivities were heightened re how we were strangers or threatening reminders when we were in ‘normal’ spheres (e.g., conversations, plans, activities, prayers, hymns, . . .). Interwoven with all these experiences were my completing graduate education and beginning graduate teaching.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #94

[December 1999 journal entry]

Reflections on the ‘sheep’ and ‘shepherd’ metaphors after a sermon by and subsequent conversation with a senior Presbyterian USA pastor – The pastor accented (1) a shepherd’s gentleness, patience, sensitivity and (2) differences between cattle being driven and sheep being led. He did not attribute the existence of ‘wolves’ to ‘God’. He also avoided suggestions of invulnerability to ‘wolves’ in his comments about the ‘sheep’ and ‘shepherd’ metaphors.

I have reservations about retaining/redeeming these metaphors as insightful for a ‘non-religious’ ethics and spirituality. The ‘sheep’ metaphor tends to sanction/assume (idealize?) weakness, passivity, naiveté, fear, timidity, innocence, ‘easy prey’. A sheep has no chance against a wolf. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, these traits are encouraged and reinforced by the ‘sheep’ metaphor, with the promise of insulation/protection for the adherent if s/he stays safely/deeply within the ‘fold’ that is guarded by the clergy.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #93

[December 1999 journal entry]

Moving from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ is analogous

1. to moving from childhood to adulthood re ‘Santa Claus’ language/ideas,
2. to Toto pulling the curtain back on the truth about the wizard in The Wizard of Oz,
3. to the small child saying what the adults dared not say in The Emperor’s New Clothes story.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #92

[December 1999 journal entry]

If I had concentrated on restructuring my thought re spirituality and ethics before working thoroughly and radically (i.e., to the root) into methodological matters, it is most likely that no more than variations on ‘religious’ T/O paradigm themes would have resulted. Perhaps another way to put this point would be that rethinking must always include methodological matters, with the consequence that – until methodological matters are exhausted (and I now realize that such a time will not come) – revisions in thought will result in new themes as/more often as variations on existing/previous themes. I am reviewing/analyzing my unwavering commitment since the 1970s to the necessity to fully and intentionally incorporate into my views/judgments the results of ongoing attention to methodological issues – e.g., historiography, archaeology, physics, textual criticism, . . . . I do not think I could have done so had maintaining/protecting a place in the ‘religious’ sphere been a higher goal/value. Or at most, inquiry into methodological issues could only have been conducted in a partial/restricted way. Ideas (oral and written) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm revert to(ward) un(der)examined/pre-modern assumptions and language (as evident in sermons, hymns, prayers, . . . ).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #91

[November 1999 journal entry]

During a Monday afternoon discussion with a senior Presbyterian USA pastor, he indicated he stays “in a love-hate association with the institutional church because the church I criticize gave me my way of seeing the world”. I countered that my experience in/with ‘the world’ (i.e., seen ‘face to face’ rather than through the prism/filter of ‘religion’) has reshaped and continues to reshape how I see and determines what filters through to me from ‘religion’. The anchors or roots of my ‘non-religious’ approach to living and thinking are outside the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #90

[October 1999 journal entry]

Re my existential/spiritual association with the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer’s experience and ideas (as I have discussed often with Eberhard and Renate Bethge):

1974-82: During these years, I was catching up with the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer. He clearly stood out among the seminal thinkers in the history of Christian thought I had studied carefully through my graduate work and during my initial years as a graduate professor.

1982-91/92: During these years, I was moving – in thought, decisions, and experience -- in ways analogous to or alongside the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer.

1992-present: During these years, I began (and continue) to move – in thought, decisions, and experience -- beyond the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer (not away from him but further into a ‘non-religious’ experience of ethics and spirituality than he reached due to the abrupt/premature end of his life). 1991-92 was a decisive passage for me in completing the process of stepping out of/away from the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #89

[October 1999 journal entry]

As I have continued the long and tedious move from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’, no one (whether immediate family member or close friend) has been in a position to or could say, “Keep going. You’re not finished. . . .” There has been no ‘path finder’ ahead of me once I passed Bonhoeffer’s experience/insight, the full maturity of which was denied him by his April 1945 execution. No one has been pushing me toward a thorough/radical handling of the situation or the ideas. I could have stopped at any point without criticism.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #88

[October 1999 journal entry]

Note: As did Bonhoeffer, I faced decisions re being ‘with the world face to face’ before and without having worked completely through the radical shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #87

[October 1999 journal entry]

A key trait of a ‘religionless’ approach to ethics and spirituality is thinking/being ‘from below’ in entering/exiting Jewish scripture and Christian scripture via the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay, putting all else at risk (i.e., what/whoever fails to make it through this grid is not credible).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #86

[August 1999 journal entry]

I recently read Chalmers’ What Is This Thing Called Science? He commented at length about how scientists who fall out of (call into question) their received scientific paradigm go to (or create) another paradigm. Re the ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am following – I have come to realize that there will be no fixed (settled) alternative paradigm to ‘religious’ paradigms. ‘Fixed’ is a trait of ‘religion’. Instead, each day I have to configure a context within which to live/act. The configuration may correspond closely with the previous day’s context within which I lived and made decisions. But it is nonetheless in essential ways a fresh configuration.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #85

[August 1999 journal entry]

In place of a ‘religious’ claim that “a miracle occurred”, a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of the same phenomenon sees a statistical anomaly/exception.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #84

[January 2006 journal entry]

To Love Someone More Dearly is one of the very few hymns I can sing and experience consistent with my ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics. The words to the first two verses are –

To love someone more dearly every day, To help a wondering child to find his way, To ponder o’er a noble thought and pray, And smile when evening falls: This is my task.

To follow truth as blind men long for light, To do my best from dawn of day till night, To keep my heart fit for His holy sight, And answer when He calls: This is my task.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #65

[October 1999 journal entry]

The reality of the breadth/depth of human suffering/misery does not have to be explained, but must (for me, at least) be the place/perspective from which to consider or propose ‘truth’ statements. This place/perspective is not (for me, at least) negotiable

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #64

[October 1999 journal entry]

Could the “Curse God and die” admonition from Job’s wife be read as an admonition to die to ‘religion’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #63

[October 1999 journal entry]

Can ‘God’ as conceived in the prologue, epilogue, and whirlwind sections of the story/play Job be found/seen in the concept/s of ‘God’ attributed to ‘Jesus’ in the Synoptic Gospels?

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #28

[November 1999 journal entry]

Reflections during a senior Presbyterian USA pastor’s sermon based on the story about ‘Jesus’ healing ten lepers (thinking of the story as drama) --

1. I began wondering if the Samaritan in the story has a priest to whom to go. In other words, perhaps in the initial reaction, he rushes away with the others and then remembers how he will be received as a Samaritan. Or perhaps the other nine lepers remind the Samaritan of this reality by their reactions to him if not by their words.
2. Had the shared plight of leprosy trumped their ethnic/religious prejudices and divisions when being lepers brought them together, resulting in a ‘community’ experience that had included the Samaritan? How soon after being freed from leprosy do ethnic/religious prejudices and divisions begin to erode their ‘community’ experience?
3. Is it better/preferred for someone previously ‘untouchable’ to return to membership in segregated and discriminating societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere)? In going to a priest, are the lepers in the story moving further and further from the experience of ‘community’ to which the actions/words of ‘Jesus’ point?
4. I found myself wondering if the pastor diminished the force of ‘leprosy’ when he began his sermon with the stated assumption that everyone in his audience could “climb into the story”. Individuals can have needs/wounds and still retain their place in societal spheres (‘religious’ and otherwise). They are not necessarily outcasts or on the margins, having lost their place in societal spheres. They are not necessarily ‘lepers’.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #27

[October 1999 journal entry] Possible ‘from below’ texts in the Synoptic Gospels’ representations of ‘Jesus’:

1. the sheep and goats story (Matthew 25:31-46),
2. indications that ‘religion’ and ‘religious’ leaders were central contributors to the death of ‘Jesus’,
3. the ‘destroy the temple’ comments attributed to him,
4. the teaching attributed to him about the ‘two centering commandments’,
5. his reaction to those considered ‘unclean’,
6. the ‘rich ruler’ story,
7. his touching lepers. Re the latter – What would have been the ‘gospel of Jesus’ if ‘Jesus’ did not touch and in other ways respect lepers? Can the move be made from any one such instance to a judgment re the sort of person ‘Jesus’ should be seen to be?

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #26

[August 1999 journal entry]

I was recently asked whether a person raised separate from and outside the ‘religious’ sphere would have reason/motive/method by which to take ‘Jesus’ seriously and study his life/thought apart from the interpretations sanctioned by the ‘religious’ sphere. I suggested that the ‘religious’ sphere has been and is a barrier to such a search. The legacy, reputation, and manner of the ‘religious’ sphere discredit ‘Jesus’ (as interpreted by the ‘religious’ sphere). It would be possible if the individual my friend has in mind encounters someone who has existential as well as intellectual credibility, who points to ‘Jesus’ without placing ‘Jesus’ inside the ‘religious’ sphere, and who has some sophistication in historical research.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #83

[May 1999 journal entry]

Withdrawing from paradigm-trusting and loyal presence/participation in societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) is necessary/prerequisite

1. to being aligned, associated, and truly present with the vulnerable, powerless, chronically ill, easily forgotten and
   
2. to being an encourager/prompter for those who choose to be independent enough from societal spheres to respect/serve such individuals.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #82

[April 1999 journal entry]

Among the variables that contribute to an accounting for my break/withdrawal from the ‘religious’ sphere/paradigm are:

1. not being deeply (i.e., to the point of being unable to resist or to break free) marked/stamped by my fundamentalist upbringing in the ‘religious’ sphere,
   
   
2. having an early defining life experience with the depth/breadth of human suffering – for me, my first wife’s illness/death – that came before prolonged investment in the ‘religious’ sphere and that did not come after my undergraduate and graduate education,
   
   
3. having doctoral training in historical methodology, philosophy, antiquities, 17th century history, 19th century history, 20th century history,
   
   
4. having graduate teaching experience in spirituality, ethics, history, systematic theology, philosophy of religion.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #81

[April 1999 journal entry]

For me, it is incredible (i.e., not credible) to say “God is in control” (as is commonly/routinely asserted within the ‘religious’ sphere and is fundamental/essential to the T/O paradigm). To say “God is in control” is to imply –

1. that ‘God’ is the ultimate (source of) human suffering, or
   
   
2. that events/experiences of tragic human suffering are not truly (in fact) tragic, or
   
   
3. that the individuals who say “God is in control” have not truly seen (or are kept from truly seeing by T/O paradigm theology) the breadth/depth of human suffering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #80

[April 1999 journal entry]

As I have become increasingly/irreversibly ‘non-religious’, some concepts/vocabulary from my ‘religious’ heritage have been reborn with radically (i.e., to the root) new meaning (e.g., for me – ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘grace’, ‘faith’, ‘prayer’, ‘time’, . . .). But other concepts/vocabulary from my ‘religious’ heritage remain dead (e.g., for me – ‘lord’, ‘kingdom’, ‘heaven’, ‘hell’, ‘sheep’, ‘shepherd’, ‘follower’, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #79

[April 1999 journal entry]

Among my goals for our children re a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality are the following.

1. I am realizing that to sustain one’s self spiritually outside the ‘religious’ sphere necessitates traits, experiences, and skills that our children may (or may not) have -- e.g., spontaneous and intuitive personality; familiarity and facility with history, theology, philosophy; core/radical differences with the assumptions of the ‘religious’ sphere; core/radical identification with the disadvantaged, vulnerable, ‘poor’; . . . .
   
   
2. I am trying to make known to our children that ‘Jesus’ is/must be distinguished from ‘religion’ (and the interpretations of ‘Jesus’ within the ‘religious’ sphere).
   
   
3. I hope to pass on to our children an example of experiencing, from outside the ‘religious’ sphere, congregations that are near enough to the outer edges of the ‘religious’ sphere to be (to a significant degree) ‘with the world face to face’. Criteria include affirmation of women’s place/status as equal with men, a capacity to recognize/encourage the spiritual integrity of non-Christian and ‘non-religious’ individuals, and being centered by a resolve to live day to day for the promotion of justice, peace, mercy (and, therefore, aligned with and attempting to be genuinely present with the disadvantaged/vulnerable).
   
   
4. My primary goal is for our children to approach ‘religion’ cautiously and to participate as ‘guests’ in congregations on the outer edges of the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #78

[April 1999 journal entry]

‘Religion’ does not press or expect the adherent to be radically (i.e., to the root) vulnerable to harsh/tragic human experiences, to be authentically and indiscriminately ‘with the world face to face’. The result is somewhat analogous to what I found when I began working as a project coordinator and evaluator for a University of Miami School of Medicine intervention project for cocaine-abusing women who were delivering cocaine-exposed babies – i.e., the case managers could do a checklist of tasks/assignments without being vulnerable to the women’s plight, without going to the dangerous section of Miami where the women lived in order to be face to face with the realities faced by the women and their children.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #77

[April 1999 journal entry]

Re Bonhoeffer’s 1939 decision to return to Germany, I think the following thoughts were pivotal for him as he made this decision –

1. that to be ‘Christian’ was to be ‘cultured’,
   
2. that to be ‘cultured’ was to stand face to face with one’s concrete situation,
   
3. that to be a ‘cultured Christian’ was for him to be in Germany.

Note that ‘Jesus’ did not escape danger and death by flight to Egypt or Rome.
Note that for Bonhoeffer to have sought safety would have discredited all he had said and would in safety have subsequently said. Question – would/should marriage and/or parenting alter such decisions?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #62

[May 1999 journal entry]

Is there a link between the tragic reality of social injustice (against which the ‘prophets’ in Jewish scripture spoke) and personal/individual suffering (which the author/narrator of the story/play Job interprets to be innocent and not just)? To be consistent, must the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute social injustice (e.g., slavery, economic oppression, discrimination, . . .) to ‘God’ in the same way individual/personal suffering is attributed immediately or indirectly to ‘God’? I think so.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #61

[May 1999 journal entry]

A physician acquaintance has in recent months used increasingly the terms ‘existentialist/ism’ when commenting on the rootlessness he sees in modern western societies. I am trying to explain to him that the central premise of existentialist thought is that there is one empirically demonstrable/indisputable ‘truth’ – i.e., that all human beings die and that, therefore, all decisions about how to live should be rooted in and driven by this ‘truth’. This point is made emphatically in Ecclesiastes. To the existentialist point of view (with which I agree), I would add a second empirically demonstrable ‘truth’ – i.e., that the breadth/depth of human suffering establishes the reality of in fact (not just in appearance) ‘innocent’ suffering. This point is made emphatically by the author/narrator of the story/play Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #60

[May 1999 journal entry]

A close friend recently summarized for me a group discussion at his home during which a sickly older lady said “I am not disappointed with God” in spite of her continued illnesses though all the ‘religious’ alternatives (e.g., prayers for healing, anointing, . . .) as well as medical efforts to relieve her condition have failed. I suggested to my friend that she is an example of how an individual can go through even protracted circumstances safely/fully within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. We went on to discuss (1) that not everyone has a family with which to live as this older lady does and (2) that the impact on her family has been sizeable (but remains unstated in conversations such as the group discussion). I further suggested to my friend that -- for me at least – the critical point/threshold was/is whether one isolates one’s self and diminishes/dismisses the circumstances of others or one becomes painfully/radically aware of the breadth/depth of human suffering and thereby becomes acutely/existentially conscious of human suffering to the point that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm fails.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #59

[April 1999 journal entry]

One conclusion to which a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of the story/play Job leads is that no credible/compelling view of ‘God’ is presented/developed in the story/play.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #58

[April 1999 journal entry]

There are at least three ways to read the story/play Job – i.e.,

1. focus on ‘God’, with the ‘tempter’ perspective and the human perspective as secondary considerations,
   
   
2. focus on the ‘tempter’, with the ‘God’ perspective and the human perspective as secondary considerations,
   
   
3. focus on Job and other human perspectives, with the ‘God’ perspective and the ‘tempter’ perspective as secondary considerations.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #30

[June 1999 journal entry]

In a recent ‘professional formation’ session with a medical student rotating with our Appalachia community health center for a month, I suggested that he think of and define ‘dedication’ in terms of living near/on the edge of cynicism and burnout in that to be dedicated is to fully, intentionally, and authentically invest one’s self to the point of vulnerability. In a subsequent discussion, I introduced the need for an ‘encompassing approach to spirituality’. He mentioned an internal medicine physician friend of his whom he described “deeply Pentecostal”. I asked the student if, within such a fundamentalist and single-factor theological thought world, medical intervention must be viewed as fighting/resisting ‘God’. In response, he referenced guidance he had received from a physician who sponsors a Christian Medical and Dental Society chapter (an organization decidedly toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum in the ‘religious’ sphere) – i.e., “Steer clear of such questions”. I suggested to the student that to do so compartmentalizes life and separates spirituality from professional life. I later asked the student -- after he said he does not think anything happens randomly -- how he integrates that view with the statistical reasoning so foundational for modern medicine. I noted that randomness is at the heart of statistics. He indicated he had not previously thought about this point.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #29

[May 1999 journal entry]

I sometimes feel/sense that the physicians with whom I work closely (who retain the resolve to be humane and to exercise a keen social conscience in the practice of medicine) and whose professional formation I support/promote are analogous to dinosaurs – i.e., creatures that became extinct because they were no longer compatible with the environment.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #25

[April 1999 journal entry]

‘Resurrection’ is not the anchoring cornerstone event around which the integrity of my life is built and stands/falls. ‘Resurrection’ is not the anchoring cornerstone event without which a life well lived is a meaningless goal.

1. This position differs with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm position expressed by the apostle Paul and other writers/ings in Christian scripture.
   
   
2. This position is consistent with the record of faithful lives of integrity lived by Jews (and others) before and concurrent with the development of the Christian teaching/doctrine re ‘resurrection’. (Note ‘resurrection’ is not a teaching in Jewish scripture.)
   
   
3. This position permits ‘resurrection’ to be a gift and an experience to be anticipated for whatever it may be, rather than a doctrine the acceptance or rejection of which divides/separates and rather than an experience that is expected as an ‘entitlement’.
   
   
4. This position proposes that ‘Jesus’ does not teach those around/following him that everything stands/falls on his resurrection. Instead, this position sees ‘Jesus’ as concentrating on the reality and credibility implicit in his willingness/determination to maintain his integrity even if he is rejected, persecuted, and/or killed.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #24

[March 1999 journal entry]

For a ‘non-religious’ image/interpretation of ‘Jesus’ –

1. a method is needed that distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies or Maccoby’s The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity),
   
   
2. the place of ‘religion’ in the time ‘Jesus’ lived must be delineated (e.g., birth place, family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies/habits, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the Temple, familiarity with Jewish scripture, . . .),
   
   
3. the ‘non-religious’ dimensions in the life of ‘Jesus’ must be delineated (e.g., inward presence of ‘God’, open-air settings in which to meet/teach, Sermon on the Mount themes, consideration of nature, confrontation with ‘religious’ leaders/institutions, the link between his values/vision and his /persecution/death, . . .).

Fragment -- #94

[May 1999 journal entry]

Note how pervasive statistical or ‘odds’ interpretation and decision-making are in our society. This trait forces a contradiction upon individuals whose ‘religious’ paradigm permits no consideration of randomness, chance, or luck.

Fragment -- #93

[April 1999 journal entry]
I recently read Terrence des Pres’ 1976 publication -- The Survivor: An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps. des Pres (d. 1987) was an English Literature professor at Colgate University (1973-87). Based on interviews with Holocaust survivors, The Survivor has become a classic interpretation of concentration camp existence. des Pres identified his subject in the first sentence –

“My subject is survival, the capacity of men and women to live beneath the pressure of protracted crisis, to sustain terrible damage in mind and body and yet to be there, sane, alive, still human” (p. v).

He described the Nazi death camps as ‘extremity’ experiences. I have not yet had such experiences fully and firsthand. I have been very near as a spouse, as a friend, as a prompter. I have been and continue to be near enough to have been changed personally/existentially and to serve as an interpreter. I am a volunteer of sorts. I feel a responsibility (1) to tell the victims’/survivors’ stories of maintaining integrity and remaining ‘human’ and (2) to encourage those professionals who choose to be near enough the victims/survivors to respect and to strengthen them. My thoughts while reading The Survivor included:

• The analogy of a soldier in a losing battle
  Possible writing project title – Equal to the Worst
  
  
• A survivor resolves to force those in authority/power to call a trial (a point unfortunately avoided by the author of the story/play Job in the whirlwind section, thus leaving it ambiguous whether or not the ‘scrapheap’ Job should be seen as a ‘survivor’).
  
  
• Note the subtle temptations to yield to those in authority/power and, therefore, to violate one’s integrity.
  
  
• Being with my first wife (d. 1987) as truly/authentically as possible through her battle with multiple sclerosis meant having my ‘conventionalities’/‘civilities’ taken away, resulting in clarification of what was/is ‘the simple truth’ or ‘the integrity’ or ‘the core humanity’ in my life.
  
  
• The question facing the ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Will I be a survivor?”
  
  
• There is considerable personal and social pressure to forget (or not to notice) the breadth/depth of human suffering. What are the implications for ‘memory’ and ‘remembering’?
  
  
• Job’s three close friends are most ‘human’ in their initial response from afar – i.e., feeling and expressing horror at Job’s situation/plight. Their initial response approaches being the friends Job so desperately needs (i.e., the 6:14 type friend). But then they quickly fail.
  
  
• My attempt to be truly/authentically with my first wife in her illness and death (1) eventually had nothing to do with being faithful to ‘God’ or to ‘Jesus’ (as such concepts/constructs died for me in their ‘religious’ meaning) or to a ‘religious’ tradition/denomination, but (2) centrally had to do with being genuinely present with the person to whom I had vowed to be present ‘for better or worse’ whatever the cost. To be genuinely present with her in her ‘extremity’ was unavoidably to be unfaithful to ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere.

Fragment -- #92

[April 1999 journal entry]
Thesis: Spirituality, ethics, and theology within the ‘religious’ T/O sphere – increasingly so toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum -- are anchored in a view of human beings as ‘weak’. Appeals to or consideration of human beings’ ‘strength’ are either accounted for in reference to special gifts or are seen negatively as indications of pride/self-righteousness. It seems to me that when relationships – with others or with ‘God’ – are anchored in ‘weakness’, there is a disincentive to diminish one’s ‘weakness’ because to do so diminishes the ‘religious’ experience. I would propose (1) to build on and aspire for ‘strength’ re spirituality, ethics, theology and (2) to deal with ‘weakness’ in light of and in relation to ‘strength’.

Fragment -- #91

[April 1999 journal entry]

Thesis: ‘Ethics’ should be approached so as to reflect the decision-maker’s being present and interwoven with those involved with/affected by his/her thoughts/actions. Therefore, ‘ethics’ should be approached so as to recognize the need to maximize one’s capacity to tolerate moral ‘dissonance’ in order to be truly present with those involved with and affected by his/her thoughts/actions. ‘Ethics’ toward the evangelical-to-fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum within the ‘religious’ sphere calls for decisions that avoid moral ‘dissonance’. Such an approach to ‘ethics’ minimizes the ability to be truly present with those involved with and affected by one’s thoughts/actions.

Fragment -- #90

[April 1999 journal entry]

What influence do choices about career paths have on experiencing life-changing pressure from face-to-face experience with harsh/tragic human suffering? Are the following career paths likely to result in such pressure?

• A pastor – not common and not essential to the position.
  
• A university faculty member – rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A social worker – more likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• In business – rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A lawyer -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A physician – very possible (depending on the specialty) but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A nurse – very likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A public school teacher – possibly but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• An architect -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A scientist -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• An engineer -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• In law enforcement – likely but with limited resources to process the experience.
  
• A politician -- rarely and not essential to the position.
  
• A . . . .

Fragment -- #89

[April 1999 journal entry]
Two insights I have gained by living in an economically depressed rural East TN/KY Appalachia setting.

1. Professionals who choose to live/work in such settings face a critical and complicated parenting issue re their children’s education. We have felt this concern/problem, even though the public schools available to our kids in our town are noticeably better than options anywhere else in the area. My conclusion is that it is justifiable for professionals to take options that make available to their children the quality of education necessary for them to be able to follow their parent’s professional choices.
   
   
2. The poor can be distinguished into two groups – those whose situation/plight is essentially linked to their being exploited and those for whom poverty has become a ‘culture’. Re the former, they and their situation change if/when exploitation is diminished/eliminated. Re the latter, they do not and their situation does not change if/when exploitation is diminished/removed. Note that, for the latter, the powerful exploiters see/find nothing much now in the area to exploit. They either accept carrying/subsidizing them or look for ways to eliminate responsibility for them. Note that discussion in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture re (in)justice has to do only with the first group.

Fragment -- #88

[March 1999 journal entry]

Re a ‘non-religious’ reading/interpretation of Christian scripture, I see the apostle Paul as ultimately/very ‘religious’ in that

1. he built on his received ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, experience, and history,
   
2. his methodology was not in any way historical or scientific,
   
3. he did not seriously consider ‘innocent’ suffering (other than ‘religious’ persecution),
   
4. he argued for ‘proportionality’ (i.e., things balance out in an after-life if not in this life),
   
5. he separated ‘wisdom’ from indiscriminate ‘face to face’ consideration of human experience,
6. he expected an imminent end of the world,
7. he had no place for doubt,
8. . . . .

Fragment -- #87

[February 1999 journal entry]
While reading again through Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence and after reading Chalmer’s What Is This Thing Called Science? (re the rise and fall of scientific theories and paradigms), I have been thinking about the many events of broad/horrific tragedy (e.g., WWII holocaust, Cambodia, Soviet gulags, African famines, Guatemala-Honduras hurricane in 1998, . . .). I have seen little evidence that such events have caused for very many a Job-like or Bonhoeffer-like shaking and discrediting of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm deep enough for the paradigm itself to collapse. Why not?

Fragment -- #86

[February 1999 journal entry]
Re ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, ‘post-modern’ paradigms -- (1) I am convinced that human beings are naturally/instinctively oriented toward building on observation and on empirical thinking when attempting to interpret life experiences. Therefore, ‘modern’ as a historical phase/period did not introduce for the first time a ‘from below’ method. This period represents an attempt (1a) to shift weight (and responsibility) to this ‘from below’ method, (1b) to be disciplined and rigorous in this ‘from below’ method, (1c) to achieve the intellectual freedom necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1d) to promote the egalitarian disposition necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1e) to make possible the education necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed. (2) To be ‘post-modern’ is necessarily to have been and, in an essential sense, to still be ‘modern’. (3) I am not deterred by the common objection/criticism that ‘modern’ leads to no longer ‘needing God’ when ‘need’ in this objection/criticism reflects a childish self-image rather than an adult self-image. Instead, the ‘non-religious’ approach I am following is radically (i.e., to the root) separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s language and thinking re ‘needing God’ in a childish manner. (4) I do not agree with those theologians who, based on the current ‘post-modern’ enthusiasm, feel free to walk away from and ignore ‘modern’ scholarship/questions/discussions.

Fragment -- #85

[February 1999 journal entry]
Re ‘experience’ as a criterion for concluding an idea is true/trustworthy -- (1) Only via indiscriminate experience can one come to the Job 42:7 approval of the thoughts/views the ‘scrap heap’ Job expressed to his three close friends. (2) If ‘God’ is ambiguous, then the function and importance of indiscriminate experience or judgment ‘from below’ increases. (3) The core hermeneutic task we face is to interpret our experience. (4) The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm reduces human experience to intention and eventually to divine intention (leaving no place for an experiential or statistical ‘from below’ interpretation). (5) ‘God’ is an inference drawn from and understood in light of the interpretation of experience. (6) What is analogous to the ‘null hypothesis’? Perhaps that there is no compelling meaning for the term ‘God’. (7) To disregard or remove from consideration all experiences that challenge the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is analogous in statistics to imposing a bias on the study sample. (8) With little information, many inferences are possible; with increased information, many such inferences are weeded out.

Fragment -- #84

[February 1999 journal entry]
An ‘examined life’ entails (1) indiscriminate and radical (i.e., to the root) self-criticism and (2) the willingness, readiness, and courage to take risks in life.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #57

[March 1999 journal entry]
Note the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience does not appear to have any profound impact on/for those around him other than his wife. Note the explanations of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s sufferings offered by his three close friends illustrate the explanations of human suffering that are generated and permitted by/within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – e.g., ‘proportionality’ (i.e., ‘you prosper or suffer no more than you deserve’) or ‘it will be better in the future’ or ‘you reap what you sow’ or ‘you are not tested beyond what you can bear’ or ‘there must be some undisclosed sinfulness’ or ‘there must be some divine purpose beyond human comprehension’ or . . . . Note the caravan travelers mentioned in the story/play Job are located outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle. Their stories become the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s most significant resource. Their wisdom is more authentic and persuasive than is ‘religious’ wisdom. Note the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm fosters/promotes an ‘entitlement’ spirituality, ethic, and theology. Note that, for those not troubled by tragic human suffering in the theological way the ‘scrapheap’ Job was troubled due to his being within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, a spirituality becomes possible that is characterized by (1) humility, (2) empathy, (3) gratefulness, (4) self-discipline, (5) ability to be truly present with sufferers, (6) . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #56

[March 1999 journal entry]
Draw a circle representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Inside this circle, there can be no radical or enduring compulsion/drive to avoid, fight, correct, or minimize what appears tragic in human experience because to be inside the circle is to think such experiences reflect the intention/will of ‘God’. In/near the center of this circle are those who claim not to be troubled as was the ‘scrapheap’ Job by ‘innocent’ suffering. As the move is made from the center point outward to the perimeter, being troubled is increasingly experienced/expressed by those inside the circle. Now draw an outward winding/opening circle with its center point on the perimeter of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle. This outward winding/opening circle represents deepening regard for ‘innocent’ suffering. Consciousness of ‘innocent’ suffering deepens as exposure to the breadth/depth of ‘innocent’ suffering increases. The ‘scrapheap’ Job, as portrayed in his exchanges with his three close friends, should be located on/near the perimeter of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle and in the midst of the outward winding/opening ‘innocent’ suffering circle. Now, completely separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm circle, draw another broken/fuzzy circle representing those outside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm who are face to face with the harsh realities of human suffering, but who are not troubled in the theological way the ‘scrapheap’ Job was troubled by tragic human suffering because they do not respond to or interpret tragic human experiences as ‘the intention/will of God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #55

[March 1999 journal entry]
Premise: The ‘scrapheap’ Job is ‘troubled’ (beyond the sheer pain of his condition) because his expectations are rooted in the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm. He cannot say, “I’ve been dealt a bad hand”. He cannot refer to luck or misfortune or chance or randomness. Instead, he expects to be dealt a good hand and cannot (with integrity) avoid challenging/questioning the dealer. (Note both a personal factor – i.e., the dealer – and a random factor – i.e., the shuffle – limit this analogy for understanding the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #54

[March 1999 journal entry]

In what way (if at all) is being ‘non-religious’ linked to being ‘modern’? Since the story/play Job, the Ecclesiastes essay, and ‘Jesus’ are subject to ‘non-religious’ interpretations, is the answer ‘not necessarily or essentially’? Perhaps the question should be amended – In what way (if at all) is being ‘non-religious’ today linked to being ‘modern’? For instance, ‘religion’ has taken certain views/forms in reaction to ‘modern’ developments. Also ‘non-religious’ alternatives are likely to be to some degree ‘modern’. Another question – What are common traits re being ‘non-religious’ in the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay on the one hand and today on the other hand?

Seeing 'Jesus' From Below #23

[February 1999 journal entry]

While out on a practice drive with my daughter, we talked about her careful study of Charlotte Bronte’s novels/characters (as well as the character Anne in Anne of Green Gables and the character Jo in Little Women). I asked her if she thinks her sense of self has been and is enhanced by these novels/characters. I also asked if she finds herself trying to be the characters with whom she most identifies. I later related these two questions to what it means to ‘follow Jesus’. I proposed that to ‘follow Jesus’ in the latter sense of trying to ‘be Jesus’ diminishes one’s self, is artificial, and is not redemptive in an experiential sense. Instead, I proposed that to ‘follow Jesus’ in the former sense of having your sense of self enriched by carefully considering Jesus’ way of being is redemptive without diminishing one’s self.

Seeing 'Jesus' From Below #22

[January 1999 journal entry]

A close friend recently introduced me to the music of Rich Mullins. He gave me the last Rich Mullins CD (a two-disc set based on the demos he cut shortly before he died in a travel accident) and explained the nature, course, end of Mullins’ life. On the first of the two discs, Mullins plays/performs alone the demos for what turned out to be his last songs. On the second of the two discs, his band and various celebrated ‘Christian music artists’ (whose commercial interests and affluent lifestyles he did not share) present/interpret the demo songs in a more polished and commercially shaped form. I was drawn to Mullins alone; repelled by the ‘Christian music artists’. An analogy crossed my mind – i.e., that the teaching and life experiences of ‘Jesus’ behind/before Christian scripture are parallel to Mullins alone on disc one and the Christian scripture writers/ings are parallel to celebrated ‘Christian music artists’ on disc two.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #19

– reflections from journal entries

71 [February 1999 journal entry] I recently had a conversation about whether or not Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have remained on the ‘non-religious’ path he had begun to describe/interpret in his prison correspondence. I think there is strength in this speculation. I developed three lines of reflection in the conversation. (1) The post-war draw/inclination was toward rebuilding (as much and as quickly as possible) the familiar or ‘norm’ (analogous to the ending of the story/play Job). Guardians of the ‘religious’ tradition/sphere -- especially the leaders of the ‘Confessing Church’ and those ‘religious’ leaders who took safer positions during the Nazi/Hitler years, but minus the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ – were poised to do this rebuilding in the 'religious' sphere in post-war Germany. Bonhoeffer’s ‘religionless’ ideas were and would for some time after the war remain unknown apart from the Bethges and a few former students. The ‘Confessing Church’ leaders who had known Bonhoeffer before his imprisonment would have expected Bonhoeffer to return to being a pastor/theologian as in his pre-1939 Confessing Church years. (2) The focus/interest within the ‘religious’ sphere re Bonhoeffer continues to stop short of a radical (i.e., to the root) interpretation of or defining link with the possible directions Bonhoeffer’s emerging ‘religionless’ ideas in the prison correspondence could have taken him. (3) Bonhoeffer would have had to reposition himself outside the ‘religious’ sphere (including giving up pastoral or ‘religious’ academic appointments).

72 [February 1999 journal entry] Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Eberhard Bethge experienced and spoke of ‘friendship in the singular’ as distinct from the ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’ of traditional Lutheran theology (i.e., state, work, church, family). My definition/use of societal ‘spheres’ corresponds to some degree with the Lutheran definition/use of ‘mandates’ or ‘orders’. One difference is that I have more differentiated spheres in mind than represented in the Lutheran tradition – e.g., education, arts, medicine. Another difference would be the correspondence of my references to ‘spheres’ with existential references to ‘stages’ and to societal controls imposed on individuals. ‘Spheres’ constitute the infrastructure of a society. Such ‘spheres’ determine the rights, obligations, and prerequisites by/through which participants know who they are and how they should act. Bonhoeffer wondered if ‘freedom’ (with which he associated ‘friendship in the singular’) should be considered a ‘mandate’ or ‘order’. I wonder if ‘freedom’ (and, therefore, ‘friendship in the singular’) is possible only beyond ‘spheres’? I would propose that a societal ‘sphere’ can tolerate a limited/conditional ‘freedom’ (i.e., up to the point of threatening or challenging the ‘sphere’). I would also propose that the ‘freedom’ Bonhoeffer linked with ‘friendship in the singular’ (as well as with his ‘religionless Christianity’ and his last thoughts about ‘church’) is beyond, outside, and independent to all societal ‘spheres’.

73 [February 1999 journal entry] The ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I am following requires that I retain/protect my independence while participating in the medical sphere. Doing so means (1) that I must always be willing to surrender any sense of place/privilege (i.e., I must not be seduced by offers of security), (2) that I must never be more than a guest (i.e., I must not seduced by the possibility of tenure), (3) that I must resist a ‘uniform’ look or manner/disposition.

74 [February 1999 journal entry] The following reflections came after a conversation with Eberhard and Renate Bethge late into the night during a recent visit with them in their home outside Bonn. (1) Some search for or seek out the ‘freedom’ and the resulting identity that are not predetermined by societal ‘spheres’. Others are forced to do so without desire for or valuing the task/search. Is one group more likely than the other to re-root themselves in ‘freedom’ and, therefore, in radical liberty from societal ‘spheres’? (2) The deeper the experience in and loyalty to a ‘sphere’, the more diminished ‘freedom’ becomes. It is critical to retain sufficient strength to be able to overcome the gravitational pull inward/back to the sphere’s center. Otherwise, the defining experience and character associated with ‘freedom’ are lost. Perhaps a core purpose of my low profile and ‘arcane’ gatherings on the margins of ‘spheres’ – e.g., the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings in New Orleans or the Bonhoeffer reading group here or our family’s dinner table talks, or . . . – are as much to protect my ability to exit from societal ‘spheres’ as it is to create a strategy to leaven them.

75 [February 1999 journal entry] Bonhoeffer anticipated/predicted in his prison letters to Bethge the demise/marginalization of ‘religion’ after World War I in Germany and other European nations. This demise/marginalization did not happen completely in any of these countries (e.g., to varying degrees in Holland, Germany, France; less so in Italy, Spain). ‘Religion’ survived in England and thrived in the United States after World War I. The point here is (1) not that a ‘non-religious’ alternative direction is invalid, but (2) that becoming thoroughly ‘non-religious’ requires turning away from the available safety/familiarity of ‘religion’ and develops with an overlapping of language (e.g., ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘love’, ‘evil’, . . .).

One part of any writing (for me, at least) re a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics has to be an explanation of how long, laborious, and complicated it is to become thoroughly ‘non-religious’. This process for me has stretched from the seed ideas in the mid-1970s to the departure by 1991 from any official place/role in the ‘religious’ sphere. And then from 1992 forward, this process has involved finalizing the break while raising children. Much of my thought since 1992 has focused on interpreting the experience of becoming and remaining truly/meaningfully ‘non-religious’.

To be ‘non-religious’ (both in reference to the ‘religious’ sphere and to the ‘religious’ character of every societal sphere) is to be awkward within any societal sphere, to be a visitor or guest within any societal sphere, to be discontent within any societal sphere.

How likely is it that very many will dare to or be compelled to seek a ‘non-religious’ path? Does it require (1) traumatic exposure to ‘innocent suffering’? (2) a spontaneous/non-structured personality type? (3) a greater than average intellectual ability? (4) a classical education (including history and historical methodology)? (5) an advanced theological education? (6) . . . ? In a recent conversation with a close physician friend, he answered that such traits and more are required in order to cut through layer after layer of insulation separating ‘religion’ and ‘world’.

A ‘non-religious’ experience of ‘community’ entails the gathering/interaction of individuals each one of whom has leadership traits (1) because each one has experienced an individual/solitary passage to a ‘non-religious’ path and (2) because each one can maintain his/her spiritual journey alone if necessary. Are there any ‘followers’ (with a hierarchy of ‘leaders’ analogous to the ‘religious’ sphere) in a ‘non-religious’ community? I do not think so among those already on this path. What are the implications for parenting in a ‘non-religious’ manner?

76 [March 1999 journal entry] Must one have previously been ‘religious’ in order to be(come) ‘non-religious’? Bonhoeffer was. And I was. Is there a parallel to the necessity of being ‘modern’ in order to be ‘post-modern’?

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #28

[February1999 journal entry]

‘Dignity’ has become a fixed criterion in discussions re end-of-life decision making. (1) How are ‘dignify/ied’ and ‘humiliating/ed’ used in everyday discourse? (2) Can life/death be humiliating and yet experienced in a dignified manner? (3) What are societal/community responsibilities, in comparison to individual responsibilities, for an individual’s retaining ‘dignity’ in death?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #53

[November 1998 journal entry]

Life experiences pushed the story/character of the ‘scrap heap’ Job (and also Ecclesiastes) forward into an independent, foundational, primary position for me. The approach to ethics and spirituality I am taking is rooted/anchored in the affirmation (42:7) of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Accordingly, my interpretations will be compatible and consistent with Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Doing so means rethinking each writing in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture in light of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts. Doing so means interpreting Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts without ‘religious’ or ‘orthodox’ restrictions (including perceptions of ‘Jesus’). Doing so means interpreting the ‘scrap heap’ Job directly and freely in relation to the breadth/depth of human suffering. I have a hermeneutic suspicion that ‘religious’ interpretations of the story/play Job are designed to endorse and reinforce ‘religious’ interests/institutions. Much of human suffering cannot be reduced to ‘religious’ explanations without violating the integrity of the sufferer/s.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #52

[November 1998 journal entry]
[November 2008 NOTE: A mutual acquaintance introduced me to a Hebrew and Jewish Wisdom Literature professor – Bob -- shortly after we had completed our move in November 1998 to Williamsburg, KY, where I began work with a nearby community health center. Bob and his family attended First Baptist Church in Williamsburg, a congregation with a sizable contingent sympathetic toward the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship opposition to the fundamentalist remaking of the Southern Baptist denomination engineered in the late1970s by Adrian Rodgers et al. Bob is a couple of years older than I. He was raised in Virginia and North Carolina. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1971 with a major in mathematics and worked for a few years as a computer programmer and systems analyst before entering Midwestern Baptist Seminary (1997 MDiv). Before beginning doctoral studies at Southern Seminary, he completed the ThM program at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. His principal professors at Southern were Drs. Owens, Tate, and Polhill. He completed his dissertation – The Dark Side of God: The Antagonistic God in the Mosaic Traditions -- in 1983 under Dr. Tate’s supervision. James Crenshaw was his external reader. That year he joined Cumberland College’s Religion and Philosophy Department (which he has chaired since 1990). At my suggestion, Bob and I began in November 1998 meeting twice most months for lunch discussions. I submitted a set of ideas in tutorial fashion, seeking Bob’s response as a specialist in Hebrew and in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Most of our discussions were textual, topical, and word studies rooted in the story/play Job and in Ecclesiastes. I made sure the question – “And shall we continue these discussions?” – remained open for Bob as we looked evermore deeply into my ‘non-religious’ journey. I did not want him to feel cornered/trapped. When I left the community health center ten years later to fill my present position with Barnes-Jewish Hospital, he had continued to answer “Yes” with an enthusiasm that matched mine.]

Bob gave me today his translation and related word study of Job 42:7. This material from Bob confirmed and deepened my intent to ‘do theology’ founded on and anchored by the 42:7 affirmation of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thought/views. Doing so requires radical rethinking of every facet of ethics, and spirituality. This is what I have been attempting for at least the past twenty years. Note that Job – from the ‘scrap heap’ – is outside his ‘religious’ sphere, challenges his longstanding assumptions, refuses to conform to or endorse the ‘religious’ paradigm of his three close friends in order to retain or regain their support. The implications are profound for (1) how to pray, (2) what texts to treat as canonical, (3) hermeneutics, (4) understanding the thought of ‘Jesus’, (5) how to conceive of ‘God’, (6) the basis for ‘ethics’, (7) how to respond to human suffering, (8) liturgy, (9) . . . . I asked Bob if he wants to look down this path on which I have been walking for so many years. He said yes. I hope he continues. In order to stay on this path, it is necessary to be free – in thought, in covenants, in vocation – from ‘organized religion’. I think Bonhoeffer had reached the threshold of this freedom during his prison correspondence. Would he have crossed the threshold and not turned back?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #51

[October 1998 journal entry]
Re the story/character of Job, I am convinced (1) that Job 42:7 is the dramatic/climactic point of the story/play, (2) that the most optimistic interpretation of the ‘scrap heap’ Job’s three close friends is to speculate that they eventually join him in an experience of and search for a new theological paradigm, (3) that my efforts for the past twenty-five years have been to think out spirituality and ethics based on an affirmation of Job’s ‘scrap heap’ thoughts as reliable and compelling.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #21

[October 1998 journal entry]
Relate the “We’ve Got Lots in Common” lyrics in Charlotte’s Web to the call to “love your enemies” (e.g., Matt. 5:38-48) – i.e., focus on the resolve that we all have “lot’s in common”. Our youngest daughter Morgan -- nine years old – watches repeatedly the film of E. B. White’s children’s classic. This song from the film about respect and integration illustrates the numerous conversations in our family sparked by Charlotte’s Web.

Seeing 'Jesus' from Below #20

[October 1998 journal entry]
The ‘Jesus’ portrayed in the four Gospels does not lead into ‘religion’ then or today.

Fragment -- #83

[January 1999 journal entry] [1/99]
There is a ‘what if’ list of events/choices that influenced the direction my story has taken – e.g., What if I had been physically and/or mentally disabled as a young boy when I lost control of my bicycle and skidded in front of a car on a highway that stopped with the front axle just inches from my head? What if I had pursued a professional baseball career past high school? What if I had returned to my home town in rural Western Kentucky to be a teacher and coach? What if I had gone to a college/university associated with the fundamentalist ‘religious’ tradition into which I was born rather than enroll in a state university? What if I had taken the MA-PhD track in speech and communications I had envisioned early in my undergraduate years? What if I had broken my neck or worse when in 1977 I fell backward more than twenty feet off a castle wall in Carcasonne, France? What if my first wife (d. 1987) had not had Multiple Sclerosis (especially in such a devastating form)? What if I had gone to Yale for doctoral work -- as Dr. Hinson suggested I consider doing -- rather than to enter the Southern Seminary program under his supervision? What if I had returned to Oxford after finishing my doctoral program at Southern Seminary to study with Maurice Wiles had agreed to guide my Oxford DPhil thesis (plans/arrangements for which were in place by 1979 to do so)? What if my twin daughters had not been born at such a strategic time in my life? What if I had not (yet) introduced the spirituality classics course in the evening schedule slot when Dr. Elkins was looking for evening classes to attend (as preparation for his beginning an academic career in Obstetrics and Gynecology) and from which our collaborative partnership re the ethical dimensions of medicine formed? What if . . . ?

Fragment -- #82

[November 1998 journal entry]
Proposition: That all pastors and theological teachers/writers be required to be formally trained and actively/meaningfully involved in a social work vocation (with direct involvement to the point of personal risk). This proposition should be applied also to medical ethicists.