A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #149

[September 2001 journal entry]

Turning fifty years old seems to have been pivotal re my attempts to speak and/or write about the ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering. Prior to turning fifty years old, I hesitated for many years due to concerns not to write prematurely. Since turning fifty years old, I am feeling an increasing urgency to move my various writing projects forward (e.g., the journals, the notes from conversations, the ‘thresholds’ analysis of medical education and medical practice, the ‘scrapheap’ Job material, the patient narratives, the Dutch euthanasia study, the Elkins correspondence, the Korones story, . . . ) due to angst that illness or injury may incapacitate me, leaving these projects unexpressed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #148

[September 2001 journal entry]

‘Religion’ begins with and is anchored by the proposition/conviction that ‘God’ (as nuanced and understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is. This ‘from above’ premise is not subject/ed to intellectual/existential doubt or radical examination within the ‘religious’ T/O sphere. All other subjects and questions (including consideration of human suffering) are approached from this ‘from above’ proposition/conviction. The ‘non-religious’ approach I am discovering begins with and is anchored instead by four propositions/convictions – i.e., (1) the human geist (the ‘more’ re human beings that cannot be accounted for by empirical analysis), (2) non-discriminating and unrestricted inquiry, (3) the limitations of human language re ‘God’ language, (4) the overwhelming depth and breadth of human suffering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #147

[July 2001 journal entry]

I recently read in the New York Times that 4.1 million copies of The Prayer of Jabez have been purchased in the last three months. The prayer – “Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border (territory), and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from hurt and harm” (1 Chronicles 4:10). The author admonishes readers –

“I want to teach you how to pray a daring prayer that God always answers. It is brief – only one sentence with four parts – and tucked away in the Bible, but I believe it contains the key to a life of extraordinary favor with God. . . . Thousands of believers who are applying its truths are seeing miracles happen on a regular basis. Will you join me for a personal exploration of Jabez? I hope you will. . . . You will change your legacy and bring supernatural blessings wherever you go. God will release his miraculous power in your life now. And for all eternity, He will lavish on you His honor and delight. . . . ”

Thousands and thousands of readers who are now praying the formula over and over every day are willing customers for unabashed commercialization (e.g., sequels for specific age groups as young as eight years old, CDs, key chains, a line of jewelry, backpacks, candles, mouse pads, mugs, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #146

[July 2001 journal entry]

Remaining focused on and moving along a ‘non-religious’ path add a layer of complexity to relationships with individuals who are not traveling a similarly ‘non-religious’ path (e.g., spouse, children, extended family, friends, co-workers, . . .). Since a ‘non-religious’ path must by definition be ‘lived’, withholding my core thoughts from my relationships with individuals who are not so traveling is not an option. Nor is expecting or insisting that only my perspectives can/should shape these relationships an option. Managing the obvious dissonance must be a high priority. Staying well within the edges of the spectrum – one edge being ‘completely hidden/misunderstood’ and the opposite edge being ‘completely open’ – is a helpful indirect way to assess how I am managing the dissonance.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #145

[June 2001 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ sphere – ‘experience’

1. is not indiscriminately considered,
   
2. is stratified in a way that disproportionately weights experiences that confirm the ‘religious’ theological paradigm, and
   
3. is not allowed to radically challenge the ‘religious’ theological paradigm.

The opposite is true for the ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #144

[May 2001 journal entry]

For the ‘non-religious’ experience/perspective I am discovering, what (if anything) is the essential difference for me between the death of ‘Jesus’ and the death of Bonhoeffer?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #143

[May 2001 journal entry]

‘Religion’ and the T/O paradigm failed/collapsed/died for me under the accumulating and combined weight of

1. an expanding/deepening awareness of the harsh existential realities of human suffering,
   
2. an open/unrestricted method for historical inquiry,
   
3. my willing acknowledgment that I view experiences from a ‘modern’, scientific, ‘from below’ angle,
   
4. my caution re the limits of human language,
   
5. the resolve to speak consistently with my closest collaborators (i.e., the very diverse circle of physicians with whom it has been my privilege to work over the past twenty years).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #142

[May 2001 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ approach to prayer for me means to pray “with Jesus, the faithful, the forgotten, the abused, . . . amen”.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #141

[May 2001 journal entry]

My resolve to move toward/among and remain unwaveringly with my ‘circle of conspirators’ (i.e., the twenty or so physicians with whom I have worked most closely over the past two decades in promoting a humane and socially responsible practice of medicine) was fixed by 1992 (or perhaps as early as 1989). Is there indication in his prison correspondence that Bonhoeffer had adopted such a resolution? Or was his involvement/partnership with the Abwehr conspirators a departure in extreme circumstances from his ‘religious’ alignments before the war or from the ‘religious’ alignments he would have established had he survived the war?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #140

[May 2001 journal entry]

As ‘religion’ and the T/O paradigm failed/collapsed/died for me, my understanding of ‘Jesus’ came under both historical/intellectual and existential review. My ‘religious’ views/interpretations of ‘Jesus’ failed/collapsed/died. Is there evidence Bonhoeffer’s pursuit of the implications of a ‘non-religious’ interpretation was leading him thoroughly into a similar review? I think the prison correspondence indicates he had begun, but much had yet to be addressed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #139

[May 2001 journal entry]

Bonhoeffer correctly (in my judgment) realized (e.g., 30 April 1944 letter to Bethge) that any ‘religious a priori’ had to be set aside. For me, ‘religion’ here has the nuances Bonhoeffer addressed in his prison letters as well as the nuances I address throughout my journal entries since 1992. The ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality I am discovering builds instead on an ‘ontological a priori’. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm begins any consideration of ontology (i.e., the nature/essence of being) ‘from above’. For me, the ‘ontological a priori’ begins ‘from below’ with the exercise of observation/reflection and with indiscriminate attention given to the full range of human experience (i.e., from the beautiful to the tragic).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #138

[April 2001 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ approach necessitates that the language cluster surrounding ‘monarch’ and ‘lord’ be critiqued and, if necessary, set aside – e.g., ‘kneel’, ‘worship’, ‘rule’, ‘up there’, ‘power’, ‘obey’, ‘control’, ‘bow down’, ‘praise’, ‘worthy’, ‘not questioning’, ‘court’, ‘will’, ‘king’, ‘royal’, ‘crown’, ‘sword’, ‘kingdom’, ‘judge’, ‘throne’, ‘sovereign’, ‘command’, ‘banner’, . . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #137

[April 2001 journal entry]

Re the ‘God’ language common to the ‘religious’ sphere – my experience is analogous to knowing there is no ‘Santa’ when virtually everyone around me thinks there is, a situation that leaves me feeling I may have little to say to them. I realize there are risks in this position. My formation – existential and methodological – has led me further and further from the ‘religious’ norm/mean re ‘God’ language.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #136

[April 2001 journal entry]

I have been reflecting again on thinking scientifically, especially on Karl Popper’s argument that the falsifiability of a thesis is more basic than the verifiability of a thesis (see Popper’s 1963 Conjectures and Refutations essays). For many years, I have been vigorously testing the falsifiability primarily of my ideas and secondarily of other’s ideas. I think this process must be foundational to a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethic and spirituality. I have found no sustained demonstration of falsifiability efforts in the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #135

[April 2001 journal entry]

The term ‘worship’ is a holdover ‘religious’ concept that must be radically critiqued (and, if necessary, discarded) in order to remain on a ‘non-religious’ path re ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #134

[April 2001 journal entry]

Re a ‘from below’ approach – how many can? should? must? will? do?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #133

[April 2001 journal entry]

I see four distinguishable points along a hermeneutic spectrum. (1) At one end of the spectrum are variations on the fundamentalist/evangelical (‘the Bible says/teaches’) method. This method is incompatible – in method and views/ideas -- with contemporary understandings of science, history, political theory, . . . . (2) At the opposite end of the spectrum are variations on the collapse of efforts to interpret phenomena due to a loss of confidence in the liberty of the human mind/spirit. (3) Back from the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the spectrum are liberalized variations on the ‘religious’ paradigm by which views/ideas that cannot be maintained as credible are trimmed away without altering/abandoning the basic disposition or language of ‘the Bible says/teaches’ method. (4) Back from the dispirited end of the spectrum is where a ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ approach to ethics and spirituality has taken me. A ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ method and perspective (e.g., unfiltered observation, the severe realities of human suffering, natural explanations for phenomena, . . . ) govern the interpretation of Jewish scripture, Christian scripture, and any other source. No source has final authority or shuts down the interpretation task.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #132

[March 2001 journal entry]

I vigorously/relentlessly examine the foundation of my thought. Many seem to neglect the foundation of their thought, analogous to renters or negligent house owners. The first house we considered buying in Vermont was a beautiful Swiss chalet style house. We quickly/easily envisioned ourselves settling into each room. However, when I crawled under the house, I found on one side of the house’s foundation a crack running through the foundation blocks and I found on the opposite side of the house’s foundation the upper half of the foundation blocks off-set three inches from the lower half of the foundation blocks. We did not buy the house due to the damaged and faulty foundation. By analogy -- while lively theological conversations (from fundamentalist across the theological spectrum to liberal) go on in the fireplace room, in the library, in the kitchen, in the bedrooms, on the balcony, . . . of the ‘religious’ house, underneath I find an unreliable foundation. I do not think very many crawl under the ‘religious’ house or, if they do, I do not think they stay long enough to be irreversibly affected by what is found/seen.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #131

[January 2001 journal entry]

Proposition: That the ‘come of age’ break from being ‘religious’ to being ‘non-religious’ re ethics and spirituality entails/requires being disillusioned. The Latin root for ‘disillusioned’ is in + ludere and means to mock at, to play, to trick. The prefix ‘dis’ means to break in two, to tear apart, to do the opposite of, to deprive of, to exclude, to expel. ‘Disillusioned’ is thus linked to ‘ludicrous’, ‘deluded’, . . . . Being under an illusion is to be intellectually deceived or misled, to see a misleading image, to perceive something so as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature. Therefore, to become ‘non-religious’ is to be ‘dis-illusioned’.

Most think being ‘disillusioned’ is an experience to be avoided, overcome, defeated, . . . . Instead of disillusionment being an experience to defeat or from which to be rescued, being disillusioned is essential/critical to the search for a ‘non-religious’/‘come of age’ experience of and approach to ethics and spirituality. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job attempts to return to who/where he was prior to wasting away on the ‘scrapheap’ (as suggested in the story/play’s epilogue), he must achieve what surely is impossible if he is to find peace and maintain his integrity – i.e., he must re-illusion himself.

Fragment -- #173

[May 2001 journal entry]

To get to Philadelphia – where I gave two presentations for the Jefferson College of Medicine Obstetrics and Gynecology Department – in the least expensive way, I flew to Baltimore and then took an Amtrak train to Philadelphia. I retraced this route to return home. As the trains passed through Baltimore, Philadelphia, and smaller cities in between, I was struck by the miles and miles of desperate/dilapidated living conditions that are visible from the train but hidden by the street-front facades.

Fragment -- #172

[March 2001 journal entry]

“Who am I? Am I my resume?” (from A Chorus Line)

Fragment -- #171

[March 2001 journal entry]

In another of my twice-monthly 6:00 AM meetings with a young family physician in Nashville I first met in his third year of medical school, I had the following thoughts as we discussed what I proposed to be a deep tension experienced by physicians who express loyalty to a theological perspective that finds divine will in the essence of every human experience/event – e.g.,

1. note the implications for such ‘God’ language in comments in the medical sphere about ‘correcting’ or ‘fixing’ or ‘intervening’ or . . . an illness/injury,
   
2. note that this theological perspective builds on the pre-modern/Augustinian ‘perfection-fall-perfection’ theological paradigm,
   
3. note the theological implications for such ‘God’ language in an action such as the British beheading Charles II,
   
4. note the urgency to find new sources for spiritual nourishment once the deficiencies of this theological perspective are exposed.

Fragment -- #170

[March 2001 journal entry]

A close friend recently spoke with me about the ‘tug of war’ he said he feels between radically pursuing consistent/logical thought and the lure toward what is intellectually/existentially comfortable. I proposed that he cannot have it both ways. To radically pursue consistent/logical thought is to accept intellectual/existential discomfort as unavoidable, as a given. What are the consequences of making an exception to radically consistent/logical thought for a bit of intellectual/existential comfort? What would be the rationale for doing so?

Fragment -- #169

[March 2001 journal entry]

I went to a building in Athens where male refugees are fed a dinner each day. I squeezed into a packed elevator to get to the 7th floor dining room. It was difficult to open the elevator door as the foyer in front of the dining room door was already crowded.

Fragment -- #168

[March 2001 journal entry]

Sitting in an evangelical worship service with friends, I was reminded again that my ‘non-religious’ hermeneutic grid is always up/filtering. Note the pastor’s argument that appeals to human suffering represent a ‘smoke screen’ to avoid serious questions.

Fragment -- #167

[February 2001 journal entry]

By the early 1980s, I was out on an open sea. The water was deeper than the length of my anchors.

Fragment -- #166

[February 2001 journal entry]

For many years now, I have been making decisions on specific issues – cosmology, science, ethics, text criticism, politics, . . . – that imply core/root questions about using the ‘authority’ language (e.g., ‘lord’, ‘master’, ‘king’, . . .) common to Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. I have come to use such language less and less. The reality is that I do not make decisions based on sources considered authoritative when I cannot establish that authority. My approach to ethics and spirituality does not call for such. My way of being ‘with the world face to face’ would not collapse if ‘Jesus’ or any other reference point were completely discredited.

Fragment -- #165

[February 2001 journal entry]

By the time my first wife died (d. 1987) from complications associated with multiple sclerosis, I had learned to live/survive in the ‘wilderness’. After her death, I knew I would not return to a discriminating or artificial separation from the ‘wilderness’. Instead, I would remain as face to face as possible with the ‘world’. But I was not yet so familiar with the ‘marketplace’.

Fragment -- #164

[January 2001 journal entry]

After watching a Russian-produced 1960s version of War and Peace with my artist friend Dean, he noted that the Russian production’s treatment of battle scenes gets to the point where he wants to say, “Enough! Enough! I don’t want to see/know any more.” I began thinking about this reaction as a critical/radical threshold re awareness of the realities of human suffering. Some may react thus in an attempt not to cross the threshold beyond which lies radical rethinking/reordering of one’s life.

Fragment -- #163

January 2001 journal entry]

What accounts for my move so many standard deviations away from the mean in my approach to ethics and spirituality?

1. Doctoral studies in the field of history led to my adopting/forming a radically modern/critical historiography.
   
2. Existential experience with chronic illness and death (i.e., my first wife’s multiple sclerosis and death) during my 20s led to my resolving to align with the marginalized/outcast (i.e., a ‘from below’ perspective/journey).
   
3. Being born within and raised within a fundamentalist Christian denomination created firsthand knowledge of the ‘black hole’ inward pull of the ‘religious’ sphere.
4. Taking/finding opportunities to move outside the ‘religious’ sphere (personally and professionally) led to my thinking in the world’s ‘marketplaces’ and ‘wildernesses’ without the blinders/restrictions of the ‘religious’ sphere.
   
5. My resolve to strive for consistency in multiple diverse conversations required that I prioritize my place in those conversations.
   
6. Exposure to the breadth and depth of human suffering -- symbolized by my first wife’s experience with multiple sclerosis -- led to my crossing a threshold beyond which I could not forget, minimize, or compartmentalize such realities.
   

My sense is

1. that few individuals face such a combination of experiences,
   
2. that few individuals who face one or some combination of such experiences pursue the implications radically to the end, and
   
3. that facing simultaneously an increasing number of such experiences multiplies the force/resolve/initiative to follow out the implications radically to the end.

Fragment -- #161

[December 2000 journal entry]

I have come to think in terms of a spectrum with ‘beautiful’ on one side of the spectrum’s middle threshold and ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ on the other side of the spectrum’s middle threshold. Four perspectives on life experiences can be distinguished, two on each side of the threshold. At the far end of the ‘beautiful’ side of the spectrum is the perspective that ‘beautiful’ life experiences are all that is real, with attention to or consideration of ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ life experiences totally eclipsed/avoided. Nearer the threshold on the ‘beautiful’ side of the spectrum is the perspective that ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ life experiences are seen/considered through ‘beautiful’ life experiences, with ‘beautiful’ life experiences being more primary/defining. At the far end of the ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ side of the spectrum is the perspective that ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ life experiences are all that is real, with attention to or consideration of ‘beautiful’ life experiences totally eclipsed/disregarded. Nearer the threshold on the ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ side of the spectrum is the perspective that ‘beautiful’ life experiences are seen through ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ life experiences, with ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ life experiences being more primary/defining. Perspectives on the ‘beautiful side of the threshold encompass all variations of ‘from above’ perspectives. Perspectives on the ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ side of the threshold encompass all variations of ‘from below’ perspectives. I think perspectives at/near either end of the spectrum miss or undervalue substantial life experiences. I think most ‘religious’ individuals and most societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) cluster – in thought if not in experience – around/near the ‘beautiful’ end of the spectrum, with exceptions being nearer the threshold. I strive to live and see from a perspective near the threshold on the ‘ugly’/‘tragic’ side of the spectrum.

Fragment -- #160

[December 2000 journal entry]

From the beginning of my simultaneous educational and existential reconstruction in the early 1970s until the present, I have considered it essential to speak consistently in the increasingly diverse relationships and conversations in which I participate rather than attempt to keep these relationships and conversations separate/compartmentalized. Along the way, I have had to prioritize these relationships and conversations (e.g., the central and non-negotiable status of my friendship with Dr. Korones).

Fragment -- #159

[December 2000 journal entry]

To (re)enter societal spheres is to experience dissonance – existential, moral/ethical, spiritual, political, intellectual, . . . .

Fragment -- #158

[November 2000 journal entry]

What distinguishes an ‘authentic’ community?

1. Being penitent.
2. Being confessional with a strong rather than weak self-image.
3. Being socially engaged/invested in an honorable defeat.

Fragment -- #156

[September 2000 journal entry]

Hope for the Flowers is Trina Paulus’ tale about two caterpillars – Stripe and Yellow – has for many years been ‘canonical’ in our family discussions. The tale begins with Stripe doing what all caterpillars do. As soon as he is old enough, Stripe crawls with mounting excitement to the nearest caterpillar pillar. Those pillars -- rows and rows running to the horizon – seem to touch the clouds. Every caterpillar’s life goal? Make it to the top of one of those pillars. The method? Climb or be climbed. The rationale? No one knows or has time to think about that. Stripe quickly gets used to pushing and being pushed, to kicking and being kicked, to stepping on and being stepped on. There is no authentic communication. Only the outsides of the tangled caterpillars touch. From time to time, Stripe sees caterpillars falling to the ground below. At one point part way up the caterpillar pillar, he is muttering to himself -- “What’s at the top? Where are we going?” -- as he crawls over a little yellow caterpillar. Yellow gasps, “What did you say?” Stripe pauses. The more they talk, the less single-minded Stripe becomes. He wonders to himself, “How can I step on someone I’ve just talked to?” Stripe avoids Yellow as much as possible as they continue the climbing life, but one day she is blocking his only way up. He warns, “I guess it’s you or me”, and he steps squarely on her head. Something in the way Yellow looks at him makes Stripe feel awful about himself – “Can getting to the top be worth that?” He crawls off Yellow and whispers, “I’m sorry.” Yellow begins to cry. She suggests, “Let’s go down.” Stripe agrees. So they stop climbing, convinced there must be another way ‘up’. They decide to crawl down the pillar – a hard decision but the beginning of their search for another way of being. The remainder of the story tells how they pass through their existential cocoons into butterflies -- Yellow quickly and with little hesitation; Stripe eventually but only after being lured back for another aborted effort to climb to the top of a caterpillar pillar.

We have spoken often together as a family about how a single encounter forces Stripe to rethink carefully and radically his values, his goals, his habits . . . to rethink who he wants to be. Stripe and Yellow conclude their only option is to withdraw. We have discussed that it is not so simple for individuals who are resolved to care for the injured and ill, for individuals who are resolved to act consistently with a strong social conscience.

Fragment -- #154

[September 2000 journal entry]

My artist friend Dean recently described an experience that led me to think afresh about the way narratives form and are shared relative to the perspective of the storyteller. Very early one morning, Dean – in his pajamas and robe – let Lady (his black Lab) outside through the front door. Dean was standing on the front porch when he saw Lady dashing away from the house. Dean began shouting over and over, “Lady, you come here! Come here right now!” Then he noticed on the street in front of his house an older woman out for an early morning walk. She froze. Then she turned and fled. Dean had no chance then or later to correct her frightened interpretation. Dean’s narration and her narration of this shared experience are surely different.

Fragment -- #153

[September 2000 journal entry]

Variations to add to the ‘non-religious’ four-tier approach to ‘community’ I take: (1) in the ultimate and most radical experience of ‘community’ (i.e., initiating/demonstrating respect toward strangers and adversaries), strangers and adversaries who remain distant should be distinguished from those who respond favorably to the unconditional gestures of respect, (2) among the individuals found to be extending unconditional gestures of respect toward strangers and adversaries, those who choose to be near strangers and adversaries should be distinguished from those who had no such choice.

Fragment -- #152

[April 2006 journal entry]

2006 was our East TN Appalachia health center’s thirtieth year as a ‘community health center’. The community health center model for delivering medical care was devised in the 1960s as a tactic for fighting the ‘War On Poverty’ President Johnson on 16 March 1964 challenged the Congress to declare. This non-profit and community-led model for confronting the barriers poor/uninsured individuals face re access to primary medical care is one of three ‘War On Poverty’ initiatives still active. The other two – the Peace Corps and Head Start. I recently circulated among our medical, nursing, and administrative staff members a prayer I wrote many years ago about my awakening to the plight of those injured by poverty.

DISTURBED FROM PEACEFUL SLUMBER

O compassionate One, I shy from calling you ‘father’ now that my eyes and ears have opened to your other children – the abused, the displaced, the disabled, the destitute. I had no idea how many and how near are my sisters and brothers who scavenge garbage cans in search for food, who cannot (or need not) read the list of ingredients on food cans, who steal to survive, who wake each day to a violent ordeal. I had no idea how surely my closets, my refrigerator, my diet, my choices for work, my recreation, my morning shower, my education all settle any question about whether I am ‘rich’. I had no idea how entangled my lifestyle is with an economy that carelessly consumes the earth’s resources, that encourages selfish fantasies, that lures impoverished kids with ads holding out impossible dreams, that offers me an easy conscience by pointing to charitable gifts and taxes.

Why had I not noticed the family resemblance with these sisters and brothers of mine? Was it embarrassment? haste? fear? economic prejudice? ignorance of ancient Israel’s prophets? the ease with which I spiritualized ‘rich’ and ‘poor’?

I am without excuse. Endless blows dull these sisters and brothers of mine. I have added to the wind that has blown out the light in their eyes. I have only now realized that the task is not to make them materially rich, yet another form of slavery. No, the task is to make them free -- free to dream, to hope, to risk, to rest, to love, to choose.

May my conscience be disturbed by the loss of dignity ‘getting rich’ and ‘staying rich’ imposes.

May my self endure the teaching of ‘Jesus’ against self-serving values and habits.

May my lifestyle maximize the diversity of individuals who feel welcome in my home.

May my possessions be rid of any thing I value more than “one of the least of these”.

May my prayers express dis-ease with being materially rich.

May my witness encourage a way of being together in which “there is neither rich nor poor”.

Amen

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #130

[December 2000 journal entry]

It is naïve to suggest/expect that societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) with conventional traits (e.g., property, debt, constituency, tradition, . . . ) can/will permit or encourage radical (i.e., to the root) inquiry/thinking.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #129

[December 2000 journal entry]

I must identify and root out all vestiges of ‘Santa’ language in my ‘God’ language. I feel in the position of the first kids at elementary school who know there is no ‘Santa’ – what do you do with this realization?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #128

[December 2000 journal entry]

A ‘come of age’ approach to ethics and spirituality is incompatible with the ‘religious’ use of such terms as ‘lord’, ‘king’, ‘shepherd’, . . . .

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #127

[November 2000 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with a family therapist, she asked, “So do you just not talk about God?” I responded, “I am very hesitant to use ‘God’ language. My speaking rarely and cautiously about ‘God’ stands in sharp contrast to the casual use of ‘God’ language within the ‘religious’ sphere. I think there is an essential difference between saying ‘I am loving’ and saying ‘God is loving’. What I call the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (which I defined for her) works/holds for individuals (1) who are ‘normal’, (2) who are distant from tragedy, (3) who face acute pain/suffering far more often than chronic pain/suffering, (4) who will not risk the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s offer of security.”

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #126

[November 2000 journal entry]

It seems ironic that it takes being radically (i.e., to the root) repositioned outside the ‘religious’ sphere in order (1) to see ‘religion’ for what it is and (2) to find/form an alternative approach to ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #125

[November 2000 journal entry]

Using a ‘religious’ method -- the sequence flows from the ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to a refusal to question the implications of such language to decisions re a way of being based on such language. Using my ‘non-religious’ method -- the sequence flows from reflection on the ‘more’ about being human to reflection on the sort of person to be to living consistently with that sort of being to a ‘God’ language (if any) that is guarded against idolatry and that has metaphorical meaning.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #124

[November 2000 journal entry]

The following quotation comes from an article in Nashville’s newspaper The Tennessean:

Sandy Phillips made an agreement with Brian Kelley when she first saw him just hours after his arrest in the killing of his 13-month-old daughter in August last year. Kelley told Phillips, a clinical psychologist at Cumberland Mental Health Service, that he had suffocated his daughter Erin on instructions from God as a way to bring about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, who would arrive by sundown. “I said we would certainly see each other tomorrow – in heaven if he was correct or in the Wilson County jail if he was wrong,” Phillips told a jury yesterday in Kelley’s first-degree murder trial. Phillips was one of a line of mental health experts who testified yesterday that Kelley was anything but sane when he suffocated his daughter shortly after midnight on August 15, one day from his own birthday. . . . Kelley may have known that killing was illegal, but he was compelled by his delusion that God had instructed him to kill his child as an Old Testament-style sacrifice -- Farooque (another expert witness, DB) and the other experts testified. “He didn’t think what he did was wrong,” Farooque testified. “He was not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act.” . . . Martell (another expert witness, DB) said he came to the same conclusion as his local colleagues – that Kelley had suffered a psychotic breakdown. “It is a disorder that will continue to plague him the rest of his life,” Martell testified.

How does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm not lead to the end to which Kelley went? On what basis would teachers/preachers within the ‘religious’ sphere – especially those toward the fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum – who uncritically exalt the Abraham and Isaac story referenced in the article as an example of ‘faith’ oppose Kelley’s thought and action without undermining the T/O paradigm itself?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #123

[October 2000 journal entry]

Might ‘God’ be in a way analogous to ‘time’, ‘gravity’, ideas, . . ?

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #48

CONCLUSION

Adding to patient care the responsibility of assessing patients’ spiritual wellbeing increases the likelihood that caregivers will often be in a position to share their beliefs and values with patients. Healthcare professionals who interpret the responsibility to assess their patients’ spiritual wellbeing as liberty to look for opportunities to impress their own beliefs and values on patients risk failing to respect or to be truly present with their patients. Pressing their beliefs and values may lead them to prejudge the spiritual wellbeing of patients whose beliefs and values differ from their own. Their attention span may narrow. Their diagnosis and/or management may be adversely influenced. Also, considerable diversity regarding ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’ is usually found among the numerous professionals involved in a patient’s care. Liberty to impress one’s own beliefs and values on patients would not be restricted to the attending physician. Instead, all the professionals involved in a patient’s care -- including consultants, residents, medical students, nurses, social services personnel, et al -- could assume the same liberty, thus potentially putting patients in confusing as well as insecure situations. In order to guard against disrespecting patients and weakening their trust, caregivers should limit the way they share their beliefs and values with patients to discussions (1) they would summarize in the patient’s chart and (2) the medical team would consider part of the patient’s care.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #47

5. ‘Respect’ as the anchor for assessing patients’ spiritual wellbeing:

‘Respect’ is foundational to effective assessment of patients’ spiritual wellbeing. The root meaning of respect – i.e., ‘to look at again and again’ -- is very vivid. There is very little benefit from attempting to assess a patient’s spiritual centeredness or spiritual distress if the professionals responsible for the patient’s care do not genuinely respect the patient.

It should not be taken for granted that caregivers possess the skill/art of truly respecting their patients. I suspect that many caregivers have been born into and/or raised in fairly conservative religious and social settings. I was. In the religious and social setting into which I was born and in which I was raised, I remember being taught to doubt the motives and to avoid taking seriously the ideas of all others who differed with ‘us’. In time I came to see this instruction as instruction in disrespecting others. Variations on instruction in disrespecting others are implicit, if not explicit, to some degree in virtually all organized constituencies or spheres in our society (including the medical sphere).

‘Respect’ does not mean ‘cater to’. It does mean ‘take very seriously’. This clarification calls attention to the rather complicated process by which the attending physician and medical team work with the patient and family/friends in decision-making.

The following set of questions illustrates the skill/art physicians and other caregivers need in order to be fully informed about and respectful of hospitalized patients who are experiencing spiritual distress:

1. “What makes for a good day for you?” – with attention given to how ‘good’ is described
   
   
2. “What are your difficult days like?” – with attention given to how ‘difficult’ is described
   
   
3. “Do your good days help you make it through your difficult days?” – with attention given to indications of how firm a ‘yes’ is and whether the good:difficult ratio is diminishing
   
   
4. “Do you more often find yourself waking up in the morning hoping for a good day or hoping not to have a bad day?” -- with attention given to how encouraged or discouraged the patient is
   
   
5. “What do you want me to know as I and the team consider how best to take care of you? – with attention oriented toward acceptable or unacceptable outcomes rather than toward management plan details
   
   
6. “What outcomes do you want to keep fighting for?” – with attention drawn to feasible outcomes
   
   
7. “Are you concerned that your illness will interfere with your participation in any activities or events in the near future that are especially important to you?” – with attention given to what demands these activities or events would make on the patient, to how feasible it is for the patient to participate, to what condition the patient hopes to be in at the time of these activities or events
   
   
8. “Do you have any questions or worries that are hard to talk about with your family or friends?” – with reassurances that such can be discussed with you in complete confidence
   
   
9. “Patients sometimes tell me they find themselves thinking ‘that would be worse than dying’. Have you had this thought?” – with attention given to what such conditions would be
   
   

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #46

4. Defining/distinguishing ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’:

I suggest that caregivers begin with this premise – i.e., all individuals are more than the insights made possible through various empirical analyses. In the health care sphere, this premise implies that patients are more than potential or actual illnesses and accidents; professionals, more than highly skilled scientists/technicians. To consider this ‘more’, a vocabulary and a manner of discourse -- in addition to scientific/clinical language -- are required. I have found that most (perhaps all) individuals have, with varying levels of sophistication, such vocabulary and manner of discourse. Such vocabulary and manner of discourse disclose, in the most elemental and inclusive way, each individual’s spirituality. An individual’s spirituality reaches, shapes, and sustains his/her integrity (i.e., wholeness, oneness, character).

The definition of ‘spirituality’ that has worked well over the years for me in opening discussions of this subject with health care professionals is:

‘Spirituality’ has to do with the sort of person a patient is, with the basis upon which her life has integrity and balance. A patient reveals her spiritual identity when she shares her core beliefs and life values and when she explains how she sustains these beliefs and values. Feelings of fear, loneliness, and guilt as well as happiness, contentment, and wonder are windows into a patient’s spirituality.

Some caregivers may question the absence of the word ‘God’ or a reference to a divine transcendence in this definition of spirituality. This definition represents an attempt to define spirituality so as to minimize the risk of eliminating individuals as ‘spiritual’ by definition. I strongly recommend against making either a reference to a divine transcendence or a claim of experience of/with a divine transcendence prerequisite to being considered ‘spiritual’. Instead, the transcendence that, in my judgment, is prerequisite to a fully inclusive approach to spirituality is the human spirit (i.e., the ‘more’ about human beings for which empirical analysis/explanation alone does not account). I am proposing (1) that this transcendent realm is present in/with all patients and (2) that this transcendent realm is very relevant to empirically-driven health care professionals who are expected to assess their patients’ spiritual wellbeing. With this transcendence – i.e., the human spirit -- in common, patients experience and express their spirituality in ways special/peculiar to each one (including but not limited to those who interpret their spirituality in terms of experience of/with a divine transcendence).

The definition of ‘religion’ that has worked well over the years for me in opening discussions such as this one is:

‘Religion’ has to do with the way many patients experience and express their spirituality. They center their lives on worshipful devotion to ‘God’ as a mystery that transcends human beings and the world. They are encouraged in their communities of faith to live this way through the study of sacred writings, the affirmation of core beliefs and life values, the sharing of inspirational stories, and the celebration of special rituals.

Some caregivers may express concern that this definition of religion is decidedly institutional in wording. There are certainly less institutional ways to define/nuance ‘religion’. However, in order to meet the Joint Commission regulations for assessing patients’ spiritual wellbeing and in light of the likely assumptions many caregivers hold re ‘religion’, it seems to me that an institutional definition of religion accomplishes the primary objective of distinguishing religion as a subset of the larger phenomenon of spirituality.

I suspect that a significant number of physicians and their support staff as well as most of their patients are more familiar with the following association of spirituality and religion:

‘Religious’ subdivides into --
‘Spiritual’ (a favorable assessment according to the particular religion’s criteria)
‘Not spiritual’ (an unfavorable assessment according to the particular religion’s criteria)

rather than:

‘Spiritual’ subdivides into --
‘Religious’ (in experience and expression)
‘Non-religious’ (in experience and expression)

The definition of and approach to spirituality followed by a hospital, in a clinic, and by a medical team need to be inclusive of all the patients for whom care is being delivered. Not all patients are religious. Not all patients are affiliated with a particular religion. Not all patients are members of any one sub-division of one particular religion. And crucial non-religious aspects of every patient’s spirituality are missed when ‘being spiritual’ is viewed as interchangeable with or a subset of ‘being religious’. Concerning these missed windows into a patient’s spirituality, here are some examples:

a morning/evening walk
participation in community/civic organizations
a refreshing hobby (e.g., photography or gardening or hiking or . . .)
participation in volunteer community service activities
reminders of life-changing experiences
travel opportunities
inspiring music
the company of a pet
a thought-provoking book
a favorite art gallery or museum
social pleasures (e.g., a glass of wine or a pleasant dinner or a theater outing or a sports event or . . .)
a special friend

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #45

3. Understanding a patient’s spiritual distress:

The root meaning for ‘distress’ has to do with pressure, strain, . . . . To be distressed, therefore, is to be strained, tense, troubled, oppressed, threatened.

‘Spiritual distress’ has to do with the loss of peace, joy, hope, and resolve individuals experience (to varying degrees) when faced with unsettling life circumstances that threaten to overwhelm their core beliefs and values.

Responses to respiratory distress may range from ‘observe closely’ to ‘intensive intervention’. Caregivers are trained to think in terms of the least invasive/intrusive means (i.e., ‘do no harm’) to resolve a patient’s problem. The response to an asthmatic patient who is wheezing should be less intensive than the response to an asthmatic patient who is listless. The intervention should match the level of concern/danger. Caregivers should have an analogous framework by which to assess a patient’s spiritual wellbeing. Visualize a diagram with two paradigms – i.e., ‘spiritually centered’ and ‘spiritually distressed’ – separated by a threshold. Variations of the ‘spiritually centered’ paradigm range from ‘thriving’ to ‘holding’. Variations of the ‘spiritually distressed’ paradigm range from ‘troubled’ to ‘despairing’.

<-- ‘Spiritually Centered’ -------------|-------------‘Spiritually Distressed’----->


<--‘thriving’------------'holding’ ------|------‘troubled’ -----------‘despairing’-->


Caregivers cross a threshold when the paradigm or framework that most fully accounts for their observations about a patient shifts from ‘spiritually centered’ to ‘spiritually distressed’.

Patients who are spiritually centered are capable of participating meaningfully in the decisions about their care and can be counted on to be diligent in fulfilling their responsibilities. Some of these patients may appear to be undisturbed by their condition. They come across as attentive, hopeful, and self-confident. They ask insightful questions, make accurate comments about their condition, and have a sense of humor. Other of these patients may be struggling to maintain their balance and focus. They show signs of being fearful, upset, disoriented, and impatient. As these dispositions strengthen, they are moving toward and may eventually cross the threshold into the ‘spiritually distressed’ paradigm.

Patients who are spiritually distressed complicate the decision-making process and the management of their care. Some of these patients are troubled for inward as well as circumstantial reasons. They are losing confidence, motivation, hope. They may appear despondent or panicky. They may deny the reality of their situation. Other of these patients are despairing. They are immobilized, depressed, apathetic, fatalistic. Their spiritual distress may surpass in urgency their injury or disease. Professionals with special training for such situations (e.g., social workers, psychologists, chaplains, ethicists, . . .) may need to be more central to the medical team’s care for these patients.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #44

2. Objectives for considering a patient’s spiritual wellbeing:

Given the immediate attention in health care settings to patients’ physical needs, the objectives for integrating attention to spiritual wellbeing into patient care need to be precise and appropriately circumscribed. Hospitals and outpatient clinics do not have purposes parallel to spiritual retreat centers, synagogues, churches, mosques, . . . . What would be objectives for attending to a patient’s spiritual wellbeing that are consistent with the purposes of health care settings? Possible answers might be (1) to insure effective communication, (2) to show respect for and understanding of patient preferences regarding their medical care, (3) to maximize the health benefits associated with patients having the heart of a fighter, (4) to search for factors contributing to a patient’s failing health, (5) . . . .

Attending to a patients’ spiritual wellbeing, then, has to do with minimizing the spiritual disturbance she is experiencing due to being in a hospital and/or due to injury/illness in order to maximize the benefits from her spiritual resources (1) for making decisions about her care and (2) for realizing her full measure of healing. To make the objectives for assessing a patient’s spiritual wellbeing concrete, think in terms of assessing a patient’s centeredness – her balance and her focus. It is crucial that the patient has (or recovers) sufficient balance and focus to communicate well (which requires listening carefully, thinking courageously, and speaking clearly) and to participate appropriately in decisions about her care.

Assisting patients in the recovery of balance and focus is, in my judgment, the primary goal/consequence that makes giving attention to spirituality pertinent to caring for patients. (Fear of) serious illness or injury can challenge/threaten a patient’s balance and focus, thus raising crucial questions about the credibility of the spiritual foundation upon which she has built her life. A hospital is a particularly difficult setting in which to face this possibility. Sheer pain may eclipse a patient’s use of her spiritual resources. By being in a clinic exam room or in a hospital, she is distant from (or even cut off from) the activities and experiences essential to her spirituality. Then again, a patient’s spirituality may be contributing to her loss of balance and focus.

Loss of balance and focus may be a deeply significant process by which a patient’s spirituality is tested and eventually strengthened. How many individuals, before being confronted with (the possibility of) significant injury or disease, have ever taken seriously the existential premise that facing one’s finitude is prerequisite to authentic living? Whatever the fraction who have, the number is far too low for caregivers to assume that patients will retain their balance and focus when faced with (the real possibility of) life-threatening injury or disease. You, thus, may face a dilemma -- (1) on the one hand, you need your patients to be balanced and focused in order for management decisions to flow, (2) while on the other hand, you may have to give some of your patients time/opportunity to experience the spiritually refining/restructuring that may be necessary for them again to be centered.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #43

1. When to consider a patient’s spiritual wellbeing:

For several years, the senior physician at the Appalachia community health center where I worked before coming to Barnes-Jewish Hospital and I met weekly to review his most perplexing and burdening patient encounters. Below is a summary narrative of one such case:

It was a busy Wednesday afternoon. The patient was in her late-20s, had four children, and was now 32-weeks pregnant. The fetus’ fundal height was smaller than expected. She had sought no prenatal care. A colleague asked David to do an ultrasound. The patient was sitting on the edge of the exam table when David and his nurse entered the room. David helped the patient into a supine position. She was covered with a sheet up to her blouse. The nurse turned down the light. As David began the exam, the patient said barely above a whisper, “I have a lot of scars.” David’s first thought – “surgery . . . perhaps a previous c-section”. Once he saw the scars, he thought – “accident . . . perhaps a burn”. He asked the patient, “Did you have a car accident or . . .?” She interrupted and, as she starred at the wall, said quietly, “My mother set me on fire when I was three.” David had no response. It turned out the baby was fine. As we later reflected on the case, David explained to me, “Her life is so far removed from my range of experiences. I didn’t know how to respond. She will never be free of this childhood experience, these scars. If my mother had . . .” His voiced trailed off.

When the patient said “I have a lot of scars”, she was making a figurative as well as a literal observation. Simply put, she was saying, “My story is broken. Can you help me fix it.” (Howard Brody, MD/PhD, is my source for this way to frame a patient’s meaning.)

Imagine you and your medical team are looking down a hallway with patients in most of the rooms. Whether or not the patients in these rooms share similar definitions of or approaches to spirituality is immaterial to each patient. The patients are not together in the hospital as a community. What does matter to each patient ultimately is her own particular spirituality. However, you and your medical team – moving from room to room – need a definition of and an approach to spirituality that prepare you to meaningfully integrate the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘physical’ in caring for each patient. Finding/embracing such a definition of and approach to spirituality is no simple task.

Most hospitals and outpatient clinics exist to respond to patients’ physical needs and, therefore, are centered by scientific/clinical language and perspective. Scientific/clinical language is the ‘first language’ of health care settings. With symptoms, with injuries, with diseases, . . . – patients come (or are brought) anticipating that their physical conditions can be corrected or brought under control. The expansion/deepening of the scientific knowledge base and the introduction of increasingly sophisticated technologies continue to concentrate attention on patients’ physical interests in health care settings.

Patients hope that entering a hospital or a clinic will be no more than a pit stop or, at most, a repair shop delay in their day-to-day routines and life journeys. The circumstances that lead patients to seek medical attention are often benign and/or quickly resolved. In these situations, assessing a patient from a spiritual perspective may remain (by patient choice and/or by caregivers’ choice) on the periphery. By ‘periphery’ I mean that caregivers remain attentive to subtle or incidental indications that, in addition to the patient’s immediate problem, there may be a deeper ‘wound’. Such indications put the caregivers in the tough position of deciding whether they have the time and emotional capacity to determine if indeed there is a deeper ‘wound’. And the circumstances that lead patients to seek medical attention may in fact have to do with a deeper ‘wound’. In these situations, a spiritual language and perspective should be more centrally and intimately present for caregivers as they attend to the patient’s needs.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #42

With entries #42-#48, I want to share most recently revised draft of a Grand Rounds lecture on the subject of assessing patients’ spiritual wellbeing I was invited to deliver in August 2000 for the Obstetrics and Gynecology residents in the Phoenix area. I did not know personally any resident or faculty member in the Phoenix audience. In an attempt to justify why I had been asked to speak on this subject, I began by profiling my experience and training in four ways. First, I explained my three ‘weight-bearing’ positions (as distinguished from an ‘ethicist’ role) on the medical education/practice ‘field’ over the previous eight years – i.e., (1) as project coordinator and evaluator with an intervention project at the University of Miami for 125 cocaine-abusing women who had prematurely delivered cocaine-exposed babies, (2) as residency coordinator and ethics educator while on faculty with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Louisiana State University in New Orleans, and (3) as a member of the executive leadership team for a non-profit community health center serving medically un(der)insured individuals and families in three poverty-ridden Appalachia counties of eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. Second, I referenced my participating as an adjunct faculty member with Michigan State University’s Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences in the development of a curriculum for addressing spirituality in medical education. I had corresponded for several years with Howard Brody, MD, PhD, at Michigan State as he attempted to keep his course in the medical school curriculum on ‘spirituality and the practice of medicine’ from collapsing into a ‘religion’ course. Third, I recalled my first wife’s fourteen-year struggle against her deterioration and eventual death due to multiple sclerosis. Fourth, I mentioned the impetus for clarifying my thought re ‘spirituality and medicine’ that came from preparing to participate in the creation of an educational video at Vanderbilt for hospital employees re assessing patients’ spiritual needs.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #77

[August 2000 journal entry]

Is it plausible to see the composer of the story/play Job most thoroughly represented in the Tempter/Accuser? This idea recently crossed my mind as I have moved to the conclusions (1) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job did in essence/spirit curse ‘God’ and (2) that the ‘scrapheap’ Job had lost his rationale/motive for acting altruistically/sacrificially toward others. Concerning #1, it seems to me that this conclusion can only be avoided by arguments based on technicality re the definition of ‘cursing’. Concerning #2, I have not yet found indication in the story/play that the ‘scrapheap’ Job –- either in thought or action – has other than the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in his rationale/motive for acting in the interests of others. In other words, the Tempter/Accuser was pretty much on target re Job’s character.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #76

[August 2000 journal entry]

Can correlations be seen between the prologue picture of ‘God’ in the story/play Job and pictures of ‘God’ in other texts in Jewish scripture or Christian scripture?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #75

[August 2000 journal entry]

What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s offering a sacrifice (in the epilogue) for his three close friends suggest for how his post-tragedy reentry should be imagined/portrayed? Is there any reason to interpret the story/play to suggest that others than the three close friends should be thought of as hearing or knowing Job’s remarks from the ‘scrapheap’? Is there any reason to interpret the story/play to suggest that anyone other than the three close friends knows of the sacrifice in their behalf? Is the sacrifice in the epilogue suggesting that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is endorsing the ‘P’(riestly) perception of ‘God’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #74

[August 2000 journal entry]

Perhaps – in addition to silent presence -- the courage to say “I don’t understand either” and then quickly return the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions to him for further comment would be the way the missing character in the story would gently but persistently prompt the ‘scrapheap’ Job. To do so, s/he would have to possess a radically (i.e., to the root) different perspective from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is of ultimate importance to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #73

[August 2000 journal entry]

Is there any indication in the story/play Job that the ‘scrapheap’ Job continues -- after the tragedies had struck him and those immediately around him -- to pursue the altruistic values attributed to him before the tragedies struck? that altruistic values are so rooted in him that he continues to think and react -- during as well as after the tragedies – in a manner consistent with the unique friendship he expects from his three close friends (see 6:14 in the text)? Or does his dependence on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm turn him inward, take away his incentive/motive for being this sort of person, and leave him inattentive to other sufferers around him? Are all references to his virtues in the past tense? The story/play leaves the impression that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is abandoned and alone except for the painful presence of his three close friends. Is there any indication that his mind’s eye sufficiently clears/focuses to see and identify himself with other sufferers? Or is he stuck in the “There’s been a big mistake! I don’t belong here!” mindset created by his dependence on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

Fragment -- #151

[September 2000 journal entry]

What anchors a well-lived life? For me, the anchors are (1) a simple/unambiguous statement re who I am and intend to be, (2) the realization that I am finite, (3) a ‘from below’ alignment with and respect for the most vulnerable.

Fragment -- #150

[September 2000 journal entry]

By what criteria should an experience be called ‘tragic’ – e.g., timing? severity of circumstances? quantity/quality of lost potential?

Fragment -- #149

[July 2000 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with my new artist/theatre friend Dean, he asked me to explain my use of the ‘wilderness’ metaphor. Among the reflections I shared with Dean were – (1) the centrality of silence/solitude, (2) being in natural (rather than artificial) surroundings, (3) the necessity of simplicity, (4) the absence of conventional societal spheres, (5) the necessity to be self-reliant, (6) the dangers, (7) the pressure to concentrate, (8) the importance of imagination, (9) . . . .

‘Wilderness’ experiences may come suddenly/abruptly. They may not. ‘Wilderness’ experiences may be entered willingly. They may not. ‘Wilderness’ experiences may be entered naively. They may not. ‘Wilderness’ experiences may become home. They may not.

For me, the transition from a sense of place within societal spheres to the existential isolation of the ‘wilderness’ was gradual enough to adjust to living without the assumptions and props of the various societal spheres within which I was raised and continued to live until several years into my first wife’s illness. Perhaps this gradualness is the reason I did not think of ‘terror’ (as did Dean) when explaining to him my use of the ‘wilderness’ metaphor. He proposed that I had been a bit naïve in hoping/striving for some radically different direction to be possible within the ‘religious’ sphere. I told him that, looking back, I agree. It took me so long to get past this naiveté for several reasons, not the least of which was my awareness that to act consistently would leave an unbridgeable chasm between me and those closest to me.

Fragment -- #148

[July 2000 journal entry]

What centers/anchors who I am (aspire to be)?

1. To be(come) the character absent in the story/play Job (i.e., the character who is able to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him).
   
2. To be the sort of person who can be truly present with the most vulnerable, difficult, troubled, harmed, shunned, displaced.
   
3. To consider my most essential/radical ‘community’ experiences to be found in extending gestures of respect toward individuals from whom there is no reason to expect similar gestures in return.
4. To be intellectually critical and thorough without restrictions re previously held ideas.
   
5. To be consistent re who I am (perceived to be) across/within the various situations in which I find myself.
   
6. To be consistent in how I participate in the multiple conversations and discussions central to my work and life experience.

Fragment -- #147

[August 2000 journal entry]

The premise of the song The Rose is again being proven true for me – i.e., it is not possible to have the richness of an unconditional relationship without also having the piercing pain that may be caused either

1. by accident or injury,
2. by the end of circumstances within which such a relationship has developed, and/or
   
3. the eventual end of such a relationship in death.

And the converse of the premise is also being confirmed again for me – i.e., the piercing pain does not outweigh the sacred experience of an unconditional relationship. The circumstances and roles are changing. But the essence remains real and true.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #122

[August 2000 journal entry]

I plan to think in a more penetrating way about Bonhoeffer’s observation in his prison correspondence addressed to Eberhard Bethge that he had become more at ease speaking of ‘God’ with ‘non-religious’ than with ‘religious’ individuals (see the 30 April 1944 prison letter). What was the nature of the ‘God’ language he thought was credible with ‘non-religious’ individuals? How does this observation square with his proposition later in his prison correspondence with Bethge that “God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, or science has been surmounted and abolished; and the same thing has happened in philosophy and religion” ( see 8 June 1944 and 16 July 1944 prison letters)? Was his ‘God’ language with ‘non-religious’ individuals less vulnerable to idolatrous use?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #121

[August 2000 journal entry]

It seems to me neither Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts/insights nor Bonhoeffer’s prison ideas should be seen as having had sufficient time to mature when they (including Bonhoeffer had he survived the war) would be facing the pull/pressure to conform associated with reentering societal spheres (including the ‘religious’ sphere).