Fragment -- #138

[May 2000 journal entry]

Note: ‘majority’ is not equivalent to ‘consensus’. Key differences include

1. how a group or society moves forward re the contested issue, and
2. the way those with deep objections to the contested issue are handled.
   

The Dutch handling of assisted dying from the late-1960s forward is an excellent study for distinguishing ‘majority’ and ‘consensus’.

Fragment -- #137

[May 2000 journal entry] I cannot regard statements that claim to be factual and interpretations of events recorded in Jewish scripture and/or Christian scripture as credible when I would not regard such statements and interpretations as credible if they were expressed or proposed by someone today.

Fragment -- #136

[May 2000 journal entry]

Is my attempt to salvage/retain the term ‘spiritual’ linked to my being born/raised in the ‘religious’ sphere? Is the term ‘spiritual’ laden with too much baggage to be effective/useful for those not raised/experienced in/with ‘religion’? Is it too much to ask/expect secular individuals to add/use a term that may appear to them to be a ‘religious’ term? Is this analogous to asking/expecting them to move near the edge of the ‘religious’ black hole?

Fragment -- #135

[May 2000 journal entry]

I am realizing there can be no ‘God’ language that is safe from idolatry. ‘God’ language seems inevitably to fall back into idolatrous use. The alternative – finally – is silence.

Fragment -- #134

[April 2000 journal entry]

‘Liberal’ representations of the Christian ‘religious’ sphere stop short of radically (i.e., to the root) addressing and challenging the flawed core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #133

[April 2000 journal entry]

Re ‘God’ language – I think we are by analogy in the “there’s no Santa” phase without the ability to construct an ‘adult’ alternative language. Virtually all individuals I know sound like ‘Santa Claus’ believers when they use of ‘God’ language. Why are they?

1. Perhaps they lack the ability and education required to think critically through the ‘God’ language questions.
   
   
2. Perhaps the tragic human suffering they have experienced and/or have been pressed to take seriously is limited.
   
   
3. Perhaps they place more value on acquiring/holding a place in one or more of societal spheres (which do not encourage, much less build upon, critical inquiry).

If ‘God’ language is used in ways analogous to ‘Santa Claus’ language (which I think is the case), what are the ‘Santa believers’ claiming to be experiencing re ‘God’?

Fragment -- #132

[March 2000 journal entry]

Every person’s views/decisions are relative and situational – i.e., (1) relative at least in the sense that every person’s views derive from some perspective or angle on the subject and (2) situational at least in the sense that every person’s previous experiences influence the manner and degree to which present situations are engaged. Therefore, the question is not whether views/decisions are relative/situational, but from what perspective/angle and set of experiences do one’s views/decisions derive.

If one’s perspective/angle for forming views/decisions is essentially ideological, then individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real will inevitably be viewed/treated within the parameters of the observer’s ideology and will be forced to confirm the credibility of that ideology. The observer’s views/decisions will often and easily be expressed as obvious, clear, and categorical . . . at the expense of objectifying or disrespecting individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real.

Treating as most basic (i.e., cornerstone or anchoring) the responsibility/art/practice of being truly present with individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real creates an alternative perspective/angle from which views/decisions derive. The observer’s views/decisions from this perspective/angle will rarely be obvious, clear, or categorical and individuals whose life experiences make the ‘subjects’ concrete/real will not be objectified or disrespected by the observer.

Fragment -- #131

[March 2000 journal entry]

Reflections on ‘faith’ and ‘doubt’ after hearing a sermon based on the Mark 9:14-29 text by the senior pastor for a Presbyterian USA congregation --

1. ‘Religious’ options move across a spectrum – from ‘faith’ vs. ‘doubt’ with no place for critical thinking to inquiry permitted/expected in order to confirm predetermined and unconditionally accepted views to inquiry permitted to test/cleanse pre-established views.
   
   
2. For the ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering, ‘doubt’ centers and shapes what I trust.
   
   
3. I do not accept the Mark 9:14-29 story’s ‘religious’ way and am not seeking help in overcoming ‘unbelief’ in this ‘religious’ or T/O paradigm sense.

Fragment -- #130

[February 2000 journal entry]

“No one is innocent” – the polite but emphatic response of a physician to a colleague who had shared his views about tragedy, innocent suffering, and “the silence of God”. I think the theology implicit in the statement “No one is innocent”, when examined vigorously and critically, implicates ‘God’ and must be challenged if human suffering is to be considered innocent. Anchored by a literal view of ‘original sin’, the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm (1) makes human suffering a consequence and punishment for ‘the fall’ and (2) requires a pre-modern/pre-scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I think everyone has to contend with forces that pull strongly away from a commitment to contribute to and advocate for the relief/recovery from physical, mental, and socio-economic suffering.

Fragment -- #129

[February 2000 journal entry]

‘Freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) makes my short list of great ideas and highest values, meaning that ‘freedom’ has been/is central to my intellectual efforts and that to diminish my ‘freedom’ is to diminish my ‘self’ (and, therefore, my integrity or identity).

The establishment/protection of ‘freedom’ in a society such as the United States is analogous to the concentration in medical school and residency training on the mastery of the core scientific/medical knowledge base and the technical skills prerequisite for practicing medicine. These tasks have to be treated – at least temporarily – more as ‘ends’ than as ‘means’. However, as special knowledge and technical skills do not equal being ‘professional’ or result in ‘the art of medicine’, neither does the establishment/protection of ‘freedom’ necessarily result in a ‘well-lived life’.

I would propose (1) that the Christendom era (@600-1600 AD) had no foundational or weight-bearing place for ‘freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) and (2) that, in the modern era to date, the establishment of ‘freedom’ (understood as individual choice and responsibility) still remains more an ‘end’ to be achieved than a ‘means’ by which to achieve other ends. Reaching back for and attempting to recreate medieval Christendom are neither realistic nor appealing aspirations. Instead, using the above analogy of medical education/training, I see the modern era at present as analogous to recently graduated residents who face the realization that they are not yet ‘professionals’ or able to practice in a seasoned way the ‘art of medicine’. The context in which they mature is often not particularly helpful/encouraging. Nor is the present context in the United States very supportive for maturing from treating ‘freedom’ as an ‘end’ to treating ‘freedom’ as a ‘means’.

Fragment -- #128

[February 2000 journal entry]

I recently listened to a group of physicians discuss the concept ‘grace’ in a way that associated experiencing grace with the confession of spiritual weakness. The discussion led me to realize more clearly I have come to think --

1. of grace as an invitation/opportunity to step into (even seek out) new, unfamiliar, intimidating, challenging, threatening circumstances and experiences without fearing the inevitable stumbling, falling, trembling, . . . ;
   
   
2. ‘the gospel of Jesus’ has essentially to do with daring to live as he embodies and teaches (i.e., being profoundly radical or ‘to the root’) and, therefore, entering new, unfamiliar, intimidating, challenging, threatening circumstances and experiences;
   
   
3. those who overcome their fear of failing by remaining safely within the familiar ironically remain far removed from the ‘presence of God’ – a consequence that seems to me to be inseparable from interpretations that link experiencing grace to the confession of spiritual weakness and that make childlike dependence the spiritual ideal and a prerequisite for experiencing grace.

Fragment -- #127

[February 2000 journal entry]

Though in certain ways I was a ‘child of the 60s’ re resistance to established institutions (as much as was possible in the rural western Kentucky small town in which I was raised), my aim/goal eventually became centered on being truly present with individuals with whom it is very difficult and existentially dangerous to be truly present. Initially, this resolve took a very personal and concrete form – i.e., being truly present with my first wife (d. 1987) in her struggle with multiple sclerosis. However, in time she and that experience brought light/attention for me on the breadth/depth of human suffering. I have never recovered (in the sense of being peaceful) from this realization. It is from this perspective/angle that the ideas and propositions I have to offer have been and continue to be crafted/tested. One consequence/cost has been that I have become an ‘outsider’ to societal spheres, being left with ‘guest’ rather than ‘member’ privileges. This consequence/cost leaves me wondering if these ideas and propositions have circulation potential inside societal spheres or only for other ‘outsiders’. I think the answer may be a selective ‘yes’ re inside circulation. But I do not take this for granted, nor do I assume such communication is simple.

Fragment -- #126

[February 2000 journal entry]

My answers to “Who am I?” and “What (if anything) do I have to offer?” continue to come from the convergence of two core variables – i.e.,

1. an unwavering commitment to radical (i.e., to the root) and indiscriminate inquiry (with scholarly/professional expertise in the history of ideas and in the ethical/spiritual realities of chronic illness and medical education) and
   
2. an early and sustained existentially dangerous alignment with individuals for whom life experience is tragic and offensive.
   

The interplay and inseparability of these two core variables have left me with two observations that stand in some degree of tension – i.e.,

1. I have a growing confidence that some of the ideas and proposals coming to maturity after 25+ years ‘gestation’ are credible and compelling not only to me but to at least some others, yet
2. I am uncertain how many others have the urgency, resources, energy, and/or time necessary to make the ideas and proposals their own other than by testing them in their life experiences. (In other words, do the ideas and proposals themselves ‘ring’ sufficiently authentic or self-validating not to necessitate a similar 25+ year ‘gestation’?)

I know the core ideas and propositions that have formed for me over the past 25+ years are radical (i.e., to the root), unorthodox (by the standards of social spheres/institutions including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere), and unsettling/disturbing for many. I have drawn this deduction from

1. the reactions I have received from certain friends, family members, former students, and peers,
   
2. my thorough study of the history of ideas that have shaped western societies,
   
3. the constructive counsel I have received from Dr. Hinson (my doctoral supervisor and mentor) and from the Bethges.

Fragment -- #125

[February 2000 journal entry]

Thesis: That an association exists between

1. indiscriminately critical thinking/inquiry and
2. alignment with the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances.
   

If critical thinking/inquiry is narrowed in order to protect one’s paradigm (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm), then alignment with the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances is diminished/reduced. If one withdraws from the most vulnerable ‘from below’ victims/circumstances, then critical thinking/inquiry narrows.

Fragment -- #124

[February 2000 journal entry]

Note how quickly pastors have to settle/plateau in their thought (method as well as content), after which they at most are permitted/expected to speak or write only within the limits/expectations of the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm. My resistance to this restriction eventually and inevitably resulted in my separation from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere.

Fragment -- #123

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering requires that the four Gospels be critically read through two filters – i.e.,

1. modern and scientifically informed thinking and
2. the ‘in fact’ (rather than ‘apparent’) tragedy of human suffering.

Re the first filter -- it seems to me that the four Gospels reinforce and presuppose a pre-modern/pre-scientific worldview/cosmology. ‘Jesus’ is most often presented as thinking/speaking within that thought worldview/cosmology.

Re the second filter -- the tone/intent of the narrative re Herod having the infants slaughtered reflects an insensitivity to suffering/tragedy. However, several texts do encourage thoughtful attention to suffering/tragedy -- e.g.,

1. texts that challenge an institutional/ritual approach to spirituality,
2. the Beatitudes,
3. Matt. 25:31ff,
4. the reduction of the law and prophets to ‘love’,
5. the “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” question from the cross,
6. the focus on the poor and the vulnerable in Luke,
7. the stories about lepers,
8. . . . .

Fragment -- #122

[January 2000 journal entry]

Instead of considering the premises and vision of ‘democracy’ cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with the premises and vision of ‘democracy’ with the realization that little (if any) of the social, economic, and political underpinnings of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is compatible with the premises and vision of democracy.

Instead of considering modern/scientific ideas/insights cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with modern and scientific interpretations of human experience as the basis for determining what can be retained from pre-modern and pre-scientific traditions.

Instead of considering the breadth/depth of human suffering cautiously and only up to the point the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is threatened, I am resolved to be aligned unconditionally and existentially with innocent sufferers/ing without regard for the theological or spiritual risk/cost of such alignment.

Fragment -- #121

[January 2000 journal entry]

A ‘fundamentalist’ mindset today is parallel to Galileo’s opponents who refused to even look at or consider his evidence because the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox paradigm’s dogma to which they were loyal and which Galileo challenged made consideration of his evidence unnecessary.

Fragment -- #120

[January 2000 journal entry]

The ‘from below’ perspective I am discovering builds on a two-fold foundation – i.e.,

1. an indiscriminately and unreservedly critical methodology for thinking and
2. a resolve to take seriously the truly tragic realities of human suffering.

One result has been the realization that the ‘God’ language within the ‘religious’ sphere could not remain weight bearing for me. I could not claim the experience implied or assumed by such ‘God’ language. I do regard a ‘noumenal’ dimension beyond the human ‘spirit’ to be a reasonable derivative of what is weight bearing for me.

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. . . . .