‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #36

[As written/circulated 2008-09 for the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Ethics Committee members]

“What do we invite patients and families to trust?”

Do you have an experience or event that helps you visualize the concept ‘trust’? Mine is from childhood back in the late 1950s and early 1960s when I would accompany my father -- a Western Kentucky group manager for the phone company -- to work sites where linemen would be repairing, upgrading, or expanding the phone lines.


I remember being mesmerized watching a lineman strap heavy spikes around his work boots and loop a long leather belt around the utility pole before buckling it to his waist work belt that was full of tools. I had to crane my neck upward as I watched the workman ‘walk’ up the utility pole to his work station. I stood in amazement as the workman turned loose of the pole and leaned away from the pole. Each time my father patiently explained the workman’s counter-intuitive actions based on trust that the long leather belt wrapped around the pole would hold.

The basic tool I use when analyzing the ethical dimensions of patient care proposes four answers to the question – “What does the hospital invite patients and families to trust about you and your co-workers?”


Each answer puts into everyday and clinically familiar language one of the four standards of medical ethics -- i.e., non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. When those involved in a patient’s care are able to follow through on these four intentions in a balanced/integrated way, the ethical dimensions of the patient’s care are sound. And the caregivers’ comments indicate they have experienced what brought them into the medical profession. For cases in which the ethical dimensions of care are deteriorating, I use this basic tool as a starting point for determining which one or combination of the four intentions has failed to such a degree that respect has given way to loss of confidence, suspicion, adversarial defensiveness.

Re this tool’s four concentric circles –

The root meaning of ‘intention’ is ‘to stretch or reach toward’. ‘Intention’ is used here in place of the more common ‘principle’ due to the reservation clinicians often have about ‘principle’ (e.g., “the word ‘principle’ is cold, mathematical – like a geometry axiom” or “the word ‘principle’ is easy to stay detached from” or “the word ‘principle’ is abstract”).

The focus is ‘patient/s’ and ‘families’ (pl). Caregivers appropriately take into account their other patients as they attend to any one patient.
‘Professional’ is in single quotes to indicate this subject should not be equated with ‘code/s of ethics’. To profess is to acknowledge openly before others (L., pro + fateri). For the care of patients to be a ‘profession’, caregivers use their base of knowledge and technical skills for the stated purpose of delivering healthcare services that contribute to the public’s well-being.

Those involved in a patient’s healthcare make ‘professional’ and ‘code/s of ethics’ commitments to the public as well as to their peers. These commitments should function as filters or lenses that orient caregivers toward alignment with the intentions patients and their families are invited to expect/trust when in their care.

Walking into the hospital in professional dress and with professional identification is an invitation to patients and their families to expect that we will be respectful/altruistic toward them. This professional dress and accompanying identification fit some of us more naturally/easily than they do for others of us. Self-care must not be ignored. Authentic interest in others’ well-being is an exhaustible disposition.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #35

[As written/circulated 2008-09 for the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Ethics Committee members]

“Why do well-intended individuals come to different conclusions about what ought to be done?”

Reworded for application to the patient care setting – “What might well-intentioned patients, family members, medical team members, administrative personnel, et al be considering when they disagree about what should be done in a patient’s care?” The ‘all things considered’ phrase in the previous post's definition of ‘ethics’ provides a way into the question. One reason well-intentioned individuals come to different judgments about what should be done in a situation has to do with what they are considering -- i.e., they may be considering quite different aspects of the situation and/or they may be assigning different weight, priority, value to considerations they share in common.

We make frequent use of the words ‘consider’ and ‘consideration’. Many etymologists think these words had their origin in a marvelously engaging Latin combination that means to gaze at the stars. Thus, to consider is to look intently at, to think carefully about, to pay attention to, to regard with respect.

I have the opportunity to round in various patient care settings two or three weeks of most months. I always take copious notes as I move with the medical team from patient to patient. It hardly ever fails that members of the medical team -- perhaps a resident, or a nurse, or a medical student, or . . . -- will pull me aside at some point to ask, “What are you writing down? What are you hearing?” I will often answer – “I am listening to how you and your colleagues are talking about the experience of caring for the patient. Not so much what you eventually write in the chart. But the discourse that includes your adjectives, your adverbs, your emotions, your metaphors, your narratives, your whispered exchanges, your humor, your editorial comments. That discourse -- not the note in the chart -- reveals far more completely what you and your colleagues consider important enough to influence what you think should be done in caring for the patient.”

So a few months ago, I created for didactic sessions the two-part exercise below. The exercise begins by asking the caregiver/s to imagine being in the middle of a busy day with a complicated/difficult patient. The first part of the exercise then introduces in clinically relevant wording several theories of ethics, with each one accompanied by a ‘marginal to ultimate’ scale of weight/importance. The second part of the exercise introduces several other considerations I routinely detect on rounds. The considerations introduced in the second part of the exercise are rarely addressed in textbooks or courses about ethics (including biomedical ethics). These considerations nonetheless often deeply influence the judgments medical team members make about what should be done in caring for a patient.

It is vitally important to encourage conflicted parties to cling to the ‘well-intended’ assumption about each other as long as possible and only surrender the assumption after careful/thorough examination produces overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #34

[As written/circulated 2008-09 for the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Ethics Committee members]

Defining ‘ethics’

Each individual forms a personal sense as to what is of ultimate value and what is of lesser value. These core values serve as a filter through which information is interpreted before being applied to life’s decisions. Certain relationships, experiences, circumstances, and objects are thus regarded to be of such importance to an individual that s/he is prepared to suffer great loss rather than to violate them. Judgments about what ought or ought not to be done can usually be acted upon safely without much conflict. However, some situations require a collective judgment from a number of individuals with competing goals or divergent viewpoints. In such situations, a reflective approach to decision-making -- i.e., ethics -- is necessary.

Ethics has to do with the determination of what ought to be done in a given situation, all things considered. Some differences in judgment can be traced to variations in reasoning patterns. For instance, one person may be very logical, deductive, abstract. Another person may be more intuitive, pragmatic, affective. Other differences in judgment can be traced to variations in what is taken into consideration and the value given to what is taken into consideration. For instance, one physician may support a woman in her desire to obtain treatment for her infertility, while another physician -- the gatekeeper for the patient’s health maintenance organization -- may be most concerned with providing cost-effective primary care for a large number of patients. Before a thorough analysis of options can be undertaken, the participants in the decision-making process must respect each other enough to listen carefully in order to recognize and understand these differences.

The intent is to place the subject of ‘ethics’ quickly/clearly near to individuals directly/actively involved in patient care. The words ‘ethics’ and ‘ethical’ are used frequently in routine discourse (and not, therefore, limited to intentionally/formally ‘ethics’ discussions). In seeking to understand how these words are being defined, I look for opportunities to draw attention to the phrase – “the ethical dimensions of patient care” -- in the BJH Basics poster re the hospital’s ethics consultation assistance. When appropriate I often ask caregivers what they understand to be the ethical dimensions of care in their patient care settings. The two linked definitions of ‘ethics’ above focus on the way we make decisions, first in reference to core values and then in reference to the interests of others affected by our decisions. If/when ‘ethics’ needs to reduce to a single concept, I invariably point to the resolve to be respectful. By pausing to consider the etymology and component parts of ‘respect’ (i.e., L., re + specere), this very common word regains its force as a prism by which to analyze our decisions. I find that many enjoy creating the cluster of words that share the root verb -- specere.

the ethical dimensions of patient care -- #33

[As written/circulated 2008-09 for the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Ethics Committee members]

Most days entail a series of encounters – turning a hallway corner, crossing a lane of traffic, reaching for an object, finding a place in line, looking up from a table, chasing a prize, competing for a position, . . . Encounters reveal the set of values and the sense of purpose out of which we each decide how to proceed. To treat someone humanely is to be artistic, subjective, freeing, reciprocal, gentle, engaged, holistic, attentive, patient, modest, trusting, graceful, reconciling. In short, to be treated humanely is to be respected. To treat someone inhumanely is to be rough, indifferent, curt, suspicious, selfish, alienating, exploiting.

Excellent medical care is scientific, being grounded in research results. Statistical associations and concentration on damage/diseased body parts objectify the patient. Differential diagnoses reflect plausible cause and effect explanations. The patient’s immediate problem receives more attention than the patient’s larger story. Caregivers must be sufficiently detached to maintain aequanimitas or balance. Only by keeping the ‘aim eye’ fixed on patients as individuals worthy of respect, compassion, and fairness can caregivers avoid the indifference that degrades patient encounters into self-serving alienation . . . the indifference that leaves patients bruised, manipulated, exploited.

Do educational and medical practice settings promote humane encounters? Listen closely to discourse during rounds, call-room conversations, doctors’ lounge conversations, grand rounds, morbidity-mortality conferences, evaluation sessions, faculty meetings, medical staff meetings, discussions about ranking residency candidates, depositions, productivity reviews, . . . .

Professionalism and ethics firmly rooted in a humane approach to patient encounters necessitate a fourth language integrated with the scientific/clinical, the legal/regulatory, and the business languages upon which patient care is based. This fourth language is the language of respect, compassion, and fairness. Fluency with the language of respect, compassion, and fairness is not required to complete medical education, to pass post-graduate boards, to be rewarded by practice management, to secure hospital privileges, to pass recertification examinations, to be promoted, to be elected to national positions of leadership, . . . . Fluency with the language of respect, compassion, and fairness is, however, essential for sustaining the experience of being a humane caregiver who cares deeply about patients – especially the most difficult patients – and who brings a resolute social conscience to the practice of medicine.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #32

[August 2000 journal entry]

I think of myself as a prompter, as leaven(ing), as an encourager re my presence with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians (especially with the ones with whom I am in ongoing/open-ended conversation). At the same time, I am very suspicious of the inner-workings of the medical education/practice sphere in which they/I work – to the point that ‘subversive’ or ‘revolutionary’ may be accurate descriptions of my presence. I sense that my suspicions -- or at least the time I invest in analyzing the medical education/practice sphere – exceed the suspicions of most. Perhaps my vision for medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians exceeds the vision they have for themselves. In other words -- the more radical the vision, the less compatible with the medical education/practice sphere. I have had comparatively little experience with undergraduate pre-med students as they make the decision to pursue a medical career.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #31

[March 2000 journal entry]

I do not think a fundamentalist/evangelical thought world supports/nurtures the practice of medicine – due to the pre-modern and pre-scientific underpinnings of a fundamentalist/evangelical thought world, the anti-critical thinking inherent in a fundamentalist/evangelical thought world, opposition to consideration of ‘chance’ or ‘innocent’ suffering in interpreting life experiences, the preference/inclination for categorical rather than situational thinking, . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #114

[July 2000 journal entry]

What meaning (if any) remains (for me, at least) for the concept ‘lord’ (in reference to ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’) from a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality? (Related terms include ‘master’ and ‘king’.) I have considerable reservations about using the term ‘lord’. Reasons?

1. The concept ‘lord’ is sociomorphic language and, therefore, vulnerable to the idolatrous use of ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere.
   
   
2. The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere necessitates an assumption about ‘revelation’ that also is anthropo-/cosmomorphic language and vulnerable to the idolatrous use of ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere.
   
   
3. The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere leads to a passive spirituality and ethics (with a decidedly stronger sense of authority for ‘lord’ than for ‘shepherd’). My methodology is ‘from below’ and, therefore, grounded in the sense that I am accountable for my life decisions/actions as well as grounded in the recognition that human beings are meaningfully (not absolutely) ‘autonomous’.
   
   
4. The concept ‘lord’ as used in the ‘religious’ sphere implies comprehensive authority for the sanctioned views in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. To deviate in the realms of politics, science, medicine, . . . is to weaken/diminish the meaning and usefulness of the concept ‘lord’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #113

[June 2000 journal entry]

If ‘God’ language within the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm is analogous to ‘Santa’ language, then there should be insight re ‘non-religious’ prayer through studying the language changes (e.g., sending wish lists to ‘Santa’) that occur when children cease to believe in a literal ‘Santa’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #112

[June 2000 journal entry]

How far should Bonhoeffer, the ‘scrapheap’ Job, or ‘Jesus’ be seen as going when measured by ‘non-religious’ criteria? I would argue that, once the threshold separating ‘religious’ from ‘non-religious’ has been decisively crossed, there is no way back across that threshold into the ‘religious’ sphere without violating one’s integrity (analogous to the spikes at a rental car return gate that make it impossible to reverse without damaging the tires). No adult returns to a childish belief in Santa Claus. Once the curtains had been pulled back, the wizard could no longer awe Dorothy and her friends.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #111

[June 2000 journal entry]

Proposition: that a ‘from below’ approach to ‘God’ language has less risk of idolatrous language than the ‘from above’ ‘God’ language sanctioned/used within the ‘religious’ sphere.

Fragment -- #146

[July 2000 journal entry]

I have experienced three ways to consider Jewish scripture and Christian scripture in forming life-views, establishing values/aspirations, and making decisions. Imagine a circle representing the ‘religious’ sphere. Two of the three ways are inside this circle; one is outside this circle. Imagine widening circles around three points – i.e., Interpretation #1, Interpretation #2, and Interpretation #3.

I was born and raised with Interpretation #1 (which is located deep within the ‘religious’ sphere) taken for granted. This disposition/approach begins and ends with final authority assigned to Jewish scripture and Christian scripture (including the historical, cultural, and contextual records/expressions of ‘religious’ faith found therein). The received ‘canon’ collection -- also taken for granted -- is considered the authoritative text for cosmology, scientific questions, political decisions, history, marriage/family, sexuality, social laws/mores, . . . (essentially the equivalent of a set of educational texts for a school curriculum). The interpretation of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is assumed to be clear and without ambiguity. My public school experience – though hardly cutting edge in rural West Kentucky – revealed other views to me as a youth and planted questions in my mind re Interpretation #1.

By the time my first wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (1973) and I had begun graduate studies (1974), I had moved to Interpretation #2 – variations of which are also located within but toward the outer edge of the ‘religious’ sphere. This disposition/approach also begins and ends with final authority assigned to Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. However, the results of critical scholarship re historical, cultural, and contextual records/expressions of faith found therein alter what is considered normative or feasible. Interpretation is seen to be far more complicated. More and more exceptions to the conclusions of Interpretation #1 arise. Interpretation #2 moved me far from the ‘religious’ tradition in which I was raised. I found examples of Interpretation #2 as early as Origen of Alexandria in the history of Christian thought, though Interpretation #2 did not become a clearly defined alternative until well into the 19th century in response to the rapidly expanding results of scientific inquiry.

By our 1992 move to Vermont, I had moved to Interpretation #3. Other than Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence, I had found no direction for Interpretation #3 (which is located outside/beyond the ‘religious’ sphere). Interpretation #3 begins and ends with observation and judgment in the concrete ‘present’ of life experience as understood (1) from the perspective/angle of alignment with the most vulnerable and existentially threatened/ing individuals and (2) with foundational weight given to insights into life experiences gained through ‘from below’ inquiry. Jewish scripture and Christian scripture are considered seriously in my peripheral vision and through this two-dimensional ‘grid’. My movement toward Interpretation #3 was prompted/sustained from five directions:

First, I matured into a historian who consciously and intentionally inquires into a subject/question without predetermined paradigm allegiances (in contrast to the ‘confessional historians’ who are permitted/sanctioned within societal spheres including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere). The earliest evidence of this approach to historical inquiry I remember is a 1974 conversation I had with a fellow graduate student. We were both enrolled in a ‘Critical Introduction to the New Testament’ course. It was my second graduate course. My research topic was to study the “that it might be fulfilled” sayings in the Gospel of Matthew. In a conversation about the implications of our research for viewing Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as inspired, the student (name long since forgotten) told me he intended to make his research fit his already settled view of inspiration. I told the student it would be the reverse for me – i.e., that my thought about the inspiration of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture would be altered by the results of my research. A couple of years later, I read for the first time David Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies. I have since worn out several copies reinforcing my caution and resolve as a historian. Soon after the exchange, I accepted that every attempt at historical interpretation is ‘a history’, never ‘the history’. Since that time, every historical question/subject has remained open to further examination.

Second, the experience with my first wife (d. 1987) as she fought multiple sclerosis opened my eyes to the breadth and depth of human suffering. In graduate classes I taught (1979-92), I had students do their assignments in hospital waiting rooms or other such settings rather than in a library or at dormitory desks in order to expose them to my conclusion that human suffering is the place/angle from which to think about ethics and spirituality. Since that time, it has been of highest priority for me to be so positioned when thinking about ethics and spirituality.

Third, I first read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s prison letters in Spring 1976 and soon embarked -- oriented by his analysis -- on a radical (i.e., to the root) critique of ‘religion’. My critique of ‘religion’ – which remains ongoing – eventually resulted in the discrediting of ‘religion’ as a reliable paradigm or sphere within which to think about ethics and spirituality.

Fourth, my friendship and collaborative relationship with Tom Elkins, MD, began in the early 1980s an expanding opportunity to be present inside the medical sphere with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians. I quickly felt (and continue to feel) accountable for the authenticity and justification of every word/thought I express in their midst (a level of accountability that far exceeds the level of accountability I had experienced within the ‘religious’ sphere). Also, a deep collegiality/fellowship developed with a circle of physicians (some while they were still in medical school or residency) who, without encouraging incentives in the medical environment, retained the aspiration to be humane physicians who care deeply for their patients and who bring a strong social conscience to the practice of medicine.

Fifth, during the last and most tragic three years before my first wife died, a very deep spiritual relationship formed with the one individual who was able to be fully/truly present with me – Sheldon Korones, MD. Shelly is Jewish. This relationship has remained central and weight bearing for me to this day. My approach to ethics and spirituality has, from 1985 forward, formed in a way that welcomes and celebrates the affirmation/maturing of my relationship with Shelly.

Fragment -- #145

[June 2000 journal entry]

Re the ‘fork in the road’ I faced after my first wife’s death (d. 1987) – one direction led back into the conventions of societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) and the other direction pointed into unmarked territory beyond the boundaries/norms of societal spheres. The ‘radical’ (i.e., to the root) impact of her illness and death left me with only one choice I could make with integrity – i.e., into the unmarked territory. One reason I have been wrestling so intensely with the ideas tracked in these journal entries has had to do with leading my family and with parenting minus knowing where we have been headed.

Fragment -- #144

[June 2000 journal entry]

While having my cast changed at Vanderbilt’s Orthopedic Clinic (tendon and ligament repair), I heard in the next room the nurse say to a patient “You have a purpose” in response to the patient telling her how his broken leg resulted from being run over by a car. The nurse’s comment parallels the interpretation given to Hitler’s surviving the 20 July 1944 attempt on his life. Any ‘God’ language that has such elasticity in meaning must be rejected.

Fragment -- #143

[June 2000 journal entry]

To what degree (if at all) do animals have any level of freedom? volition? memory? feeling?

Fragment -- #142

[June 2000 journal entry]

Exceptions/deviations for me from Jewish scripture and Christian scripture (as interpreted and sanctioned within the ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm):

1. I oppose slavery,
2. I oppose capital punishment,
3. I oppose a political theory/structure based on royalty/nobility,
4. I reject a pre/non-scientific interpretation of the universe’s beginning and function,
5. I reject witchcraft and demon possession,
6. I endorse a political theory/structure based on individual freedom,
7. I endorse an equal/non-discriminating treatment of women,
8. I reject homophobia,
9. I reject the use of casting lots and similar activities to decipher ‘the will of God’,
10. I apply historical/contextual hermeneutics consistently and without restriction.

As these and other exceptions/deviations began to accumulate for me during my graduate studies, I initially treated each exception/deviation as an isolated matter that could be filed away as tolerable while I continued to hold/use some variation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. Eventually I came to realize the collective weight of the accumulated exceptions/deviations, which led me to move deliberately and intentionally away from the fundamentalist/evangelical traditions of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. In time, the accumulative weight of these exceptions/deviations undermined the credibility/integrity of the entire theological spectrum of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm for me. As examples of the results, I took such radical (i.e., to the root) steps as

1. framing and studying all questions from a ‘from below’ perspective/position,
2. permitting and speeding my experience of the deconstruction (meltdown) of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm,
3. constructing a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality,
4. resolving to thoroughly tease out the differences between this approach and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #72

[June 2000 journal entry]

The epilogue to the story/play Job suggests the ‘scrapheap’ Job should be viewed as being drawn back into conventional societal and ‘religious’ spheres. When compared to the opening paragraph of the story/play, the formerly ‘scrapheap’ Job is presented in the epilogue as even ‘greater’ than in the prologue. What does the epilogue mean for affirming/interpreting the story/play’s pivotal text (42:7-9)? Must one or the other be rejected? If so, I reject the epilogue. The epilogue raises question about ‘re-entry’. Bonhoeffer died before facing such decisions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #71

[April 2000 journal entry]

How parallel are Koheleth’s concept of ‘God’ in the Ecclesiastes essay and the whirlwind concept of ‘God’ in the story/play Job?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #110

[May 2000 journal entry

It seems to me that, if Bonhoeffer prior to 1939 considered his theology during his Confessing Church years to have been essentially true, then he would have been pressured either (1) to stay in the United States in 1939 where he could have maintained such theology or (2) to turn away from resisting the Nazis upon his return to Germany (i.e., taking ‘the inner line’ which, in the smuggled prison letters, he criticized the Confessing Church for adopting). Was Bonhoeffer, therefore, questioning the validity and credibility of his pre-1939 theology by criteria separate from whether or not the Confessing Church could/would put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? Or did he assess the credibility and validity of theological ideas/views (including his own) by the criterion of the Confessing Church’s ability to put non-violent leverage on the Nazi regime? I think that, in reference to my following a ‘non-religious’ path, the answer is ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’. In other words, the ‘religious’ thought world did not for me prove to be intellectually/academically credible. Additionally and centrally, the ‘religion’ failed/died for me due to its incapacity to respect and to be truly present with the victims of tragic/innocent human suffering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #109

[May 2000 journal entry]

Note: If Bonhoeffer had survived the war, no one would have yet read any of Bonhoeffer’s smuggled prison letters -- other than the Bethges -- thus making it conceivable he would have attempted to suppress/disregard/forget the radical ideas he had expressed in the smuggled prison letters.

Note: For both Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job, they would have faced many re-entry opportunities into societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere). Some of these opportunities would have been pressed on them, whether or not they would have been drawn to them (analogous to Augustine of Hippo being pressed into the priesthood). Other of these opportunities would have been attractive to them.

Note: Bonhoeffer would have been misunderstood, pressured, and/or inwardly drawn back onto the ‘religious’ path (and, therefore, away/back from a ‘non-religious’ path). Note: Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in 1939 in order to be in a position to participate in the postwar reconstruction. To what degree (if to any significant degree) had he begun to consider the radical/seminal ideas expressed in his smuggled prison letters at the time he returned in 1939?

Note: How might Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job have sustained a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience? How much of the initial/extremity experience needs to be sustained? What are the dynamics that need to be retained?

Note: With whom would Bonhoeffer or the ‘scrapheap’ Job have been able to talk re this experience/task and the related ideas? Eberhard mentioned several times in our conversations his struggle after the war with how to respond to the radical ‘non-religious’ ideas in the smuggled letters he received from Dietrich.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #108

[May 2000 journal entry]

The ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experienced by Bonhoeffer and the ‘scrapheap’ Job contributed directly to their seminal ideas. I have long pondered

1. whether Bonhoeffer would have remained/continued on the ‘non-religious’ path he was beginning to see/describe in his smuggled prison letters to Eberhard Bethge and
2. whether the ‘scrapheap’ Job should be interpreted as sustaining the radical insights/perspective he expresses in the exchanges with his three close friends.

A ‘yes’ answer to these questions would imply that they would have intentionally (had) to retain a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience (for Bonhoeffer, after prison; for the ‘scrapheap’ Job, after relief from his physical afflictions). I have attempted to retain a ‘wilderness’, ‘prison’, ‘isolation’ experience since my first wife’s death (e.g., taking advantage of isolation times, staying near individuals in desperate situations, taking actions that are consistent with being ‘with the world face to face’, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #107

[May 2000 journal entry]

Who has remained on a ‘non-religious’ path re ethics and spirituality? Should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be envisioned to have done so? Would Bonhoeffer have done so had he survived the war? How/where would there be a record of the experience? As far as I know, a ‘non-religious’ path has not been worn down into an established and well-marked ‘way’. I have concluded that very few have looked or are looking for such a path.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #106

[April 2000 journal entry]

There seems to be a ‘saint’ status assigned to Bonhoeffer across much of the Christian ‘religious’ sphere. The 1939-45 Bonhoeffer is either dismissed or minimized or in other ways not treated seriously (i.e., as central and radical) other than to get to his execution. His 1939-45 years are interpreted ‘religiously’. I view his 1939-45 years as the core/focus, accenting the disjunction with his pre-1939 ‘religious’ years. I think it remains unclear whether Bonhoeffer, had he survived the war, would have followed through with the ‘non-religious’ path and ideas on which he reflected in the secret prison letters. In this same line of thought, I do not share the ‘saintly’ worship/adoration of ‘Jesus’ that formed during his life, increased after his death, and led to the ‘high Christology’ of ‘religious’ traditional/orthodox (T/O) paradigm theologies.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #105

[April 2000 journal entry]

Analogies for my continuing to test ‘God’ language and to remove ‘religious’ nuances from my thinking in search of firm/healthy language/ideas are –

1. cleaning/cutting out a tumor as well as all surrounding diseased tissue,
   
2. drilling out all of a tooth’s decay before putting in a filling,
3. looking for healthy tissue from which to begin a hernia repair,
4. tearing out all rotten wood before repair/remodeling begins.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #104

[April 2000 journal entry]

All ‘religious’ language is metaphorical. One difference between ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ approaches to spirituality and ethics is that a ‘non-religious’ approach acts radically (i.e., to the root) on this realization.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #103

[May 2001 journal entry]

During a recent visit with Renate Bethge, she asked if I might have some ideas/suggestions re a presentation she has been invited to give to International Bonhoeffer Society members attending the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in Denver. She has been asked to speak about ‘Memories and Perspectives’. At various times during these days together, I offered and we discussed the following ideas/suggestions (listed in no particular order) --

1. How Dietrich is remembered is linked to the perspective/s of the one/s remembering.
   
   
2. Consider working off of Dietrich’s prison correspondence thoughts about memory and remembering. Discuss the indications in the prison letters (a) that Dietrich anticipated being remembered and (b) how he wanted to be remembered.
   
   
3. To be studied is not necessarily to be remembered in a way that calls for a verdict.
   
   
4. It is ironic that organizations such as the International Bonhoeffer Society and the American Academy of Religion make it difficult for the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer to be remembered in a radical, vibrant, and challenging way.
   
   
5. Drawing from Dietrich’s exchange in New York City with the young French pastor who aspired to become a saint (Dietrich’s 21 July 1944 letter to Eberhard), challenge the beatification or making into a saint/icon that has occurred in the ‘religious’ recollection/treatment of Dietrich.
   
   
6. Develop Dietrich’s ‘from below’ perspective (e.g., the paragraph attached to Dietrich’s December 1942 Ten Years Later essay).
   
   
7. Reconstruct how confusing and ambiguous Dietrich’s 1939-45 Abwehr conspiracy involvement was to those after the war who viewed him from a Confessing Church/Finkenwalde perspective.
   
   
8. Point to Dietrich’s sense of accountability to the next generation (e.g., the frequent references in his December 1942 Ten Years Later essay).
   
   
9. Critique various perspectives of Dietrich in light of Dietrich’s perceptions of himself as indicated in his ‘Who Am I?’ prison poem/prayer.
   
   
10. Note that how Dietrich has been remembered is somewhat analogous to the interpretations that developed around the life of ‘Jesus’ soon after his death.
    
    
11. Very soon no one will remain who knew Dietrich – his eyes, his manner, his scents, his tone, his habits, his touch, . . . .
    
    
12. Dietrich will be remembered. The question is – How will he be remembered?
    
    
13. Eberhard and Renate have invested their postwar lives to making it possible for Dietrich to be accessible to subsequent generations.
    
    
14. Consider beginning with personal memories before shifting to more prophetic reflections.
    
    
15. Eberhard knew Dietrich in ways unique to being the ‘friend in the singular’. What stands out in how Eberhard remembered Dietrich?
    
    
16. Were there detectible/significant transitions after the war in the ways Eberhard and Renate remembered Dietrich? in the ways immediate family members remembered Dietrich?
    
    
17. Should Dietrich be remembered as who he was or as who he was on the verge of becoming? according to familiar categories (i.e., pre-1939 categories) or according to unfamiliar categories (i.e., post-1939 categories)?
    
    
18. Perspectives by which Dietrich is remembered – e.g., religious, Jewish, immediate family, scholar, historian, Finkenwalde student, fellow conspirator, friend, Maria, fellow prisoner, Confessing Church colleague, . . . perspectives.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #102

[March 2000 journal entry]

With a statistical ‘standard deviation’ curve as a reference point, the individuals who are ready and motivated to pursue a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality correlate with 2+ standard deviations from the mean. These individuals are sifted out by such variables as

1. the resolve to think consistently,
2. multidisciplinary reading/perspective,
3. the decision to live and think ‘from below’,
4. the experience of a language/paradigm ‘meltdown’ early enough in life and thoroughly enough not to hesitate to respond radically and irreversibly,
5. the availability of sufficient time and energy.

Fragment -- #141

[May 2000 journal entry]

After 1987 my repositioning outside the Churches of Christ denomination and the larger ‘religious’ sphere became complete and final as I radically (i.e., to the root) reconstructed my thinking. My integrity as a person was and continues to be clarified/determined by where this ‘outside’ experience takes me.

Fragment -- #140

[May 2000 journal entry]

Thesis: That the human points of reference in ‘God’ language are more meaningful, significant, and experienced than are the metaphorical/morphic adaptations of those points of reference into ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #139

[May 2000 journal entry]

My intent is to approach life (given the uncertainties re health, longevity, . . .) in such a way that my centering goals/intentions are realized to a significant degree each day and can be so realized in the widest variety of circumstances in which I find myself.

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.