Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #49

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The disjunction between ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ views of ‘Jesus’ was most pronounced in the Apostle Paul among the first generation of Christianity’s leaders. He claimed/referenced no personal experience (i.e., historie) with ‘Jesus’. He sidestepped this liability as he aggressively promoted his ‘from above’ theology, thus freeing him from historical restraints and freeing him to engage the dualistic cosmologies widespread in the Greco-Roman world. Paul saw no need for ‘from below’ historie, especially since he was convinced the end of historie was imminent. This gamble is analogous to the short life of a cut flower. To look ‘from below’, to invest in historie, was for Paul to revert to ‘the flesh’, to the past, to the ‘old’, to the ‘dead’. Paul’s extant writings leave no suggestion he would have encouraged a historie investigation of ‘Jesus’. Peter, James, et al could not go ‘toe to toe’ with Paul. His education, his travel, his ease with Greek and Roman culture, his evangelistic successes (and probably his energy!) would have overwhelmed them. The Synoptic Gospels are themselves ‘from above’ interpretations of ‘Jesus’ in that they center on the crucifixion and resurrection narratives. However, they are not similar to Paul’s dismissal of ‘Jesus’ in favor of the ‘Christ Jesus’ he considered sufficiently/profoundly experienced as present in the churches he was founding. Perhaps the Synoptic Gospels were written in part to ensure that the ‘Jesus’ who lived would not be forgotten, just in case time did not end as soon as Paul was confident it would.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #48

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: I find no compelling reason to think that the first leaders of Christianity understood ‘Jesus’ any more clearly after his death than during his life (the Synoptic Gospels indicating they understood very little during his life), their self-certifying claims – e.g., appeals to miraculous confirmations and to immediate revelations from ‘God’ -- after the death of ‘Jesus’ notwithstanding. They lacked an approach to ‘Jesus’ that would call for radically critiquing their various institutionalizing tendencies. Reconstructions and interpretations of the life and thought of ‘Jesus’ by representatives/guardians of Christianity then or now were/are bound by and serve/d the interests of Christianity as a ‘religion’. The reconstructions and interpretations tone/d down and sift/ed out the radical (i.e., to the root) edges of ‘Jesus’.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #47

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity were not centered on ‘the gospel of Jesus’ or anchored in historie, but ironically created and worked off of new versions of the fundamental characteristics of the ‘religion’ opposed by ‘Jesus’ (e.g., hierarchical organization, infighting, otherworldliness, inequities, marginalizing of women, . . .). How would ‘Jesus’ have reacted to a reading of each writing in what became the Christian canon of scripture (including the Synoptic Gospels, but especially Acts through Revelation)? How would he have reacted to the ‘religious’ institutionalizing done in his name? Would he conclude, “They got it!”

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #46

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity retained interest in the historical ‘Jesus’ as the backdrop to the ‘from above’ (or ‘looking back’) angle created by the resurrection narratives and by the subsequent immediately present guidance from ‘God’ they claimed. To use Karl Barth’s categories, geschichte replaced historie. ‘From below’ perspectives were quickly left without representation in what eventually became the official record of the first years after the death of ‘Jesus’. Variations – historical as well as theological -- within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to be approved, had to build off this ‘from above’ methodology. My ‘non-religious’ approach (1) gives priority to historie over geschichte claims and interpretations, (2) considers historie as building material, (3) has reservations about geschichte claims/interpretations both as credible language and as a credible methodological starting point.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #45

[February 2002 journal entry]

It is striking to me that ‘Jesus’ (i.e., the actual person who, if accessible to historical reconstruction, is known almost exclusively through the Synoptic Gospels with minimal contribution from the Gospel of John and a few sources outside the Christian canon of scripture) is virtually absent in the other early writings (Acts through Revelation) that became canonical for Christianity. There are, of course, allusions. But there is no biographical information (other than references to his death), no episodes from his life (other than Paul’s reference to ‘the last supper’), none of his teachings (other than the one quotation in Acts that is not paralleled in any of the four Gospels), no use of his parables (or the story-telling method, for that matter), . . . . No reconstruction of the life of ‘Jesus’ is possible from these writings.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #44

[January 2002 journal entry]

The more critically informed/shaped one’s view of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, the more diminished the finality and authority of the theologies advocated within those writings. At some point across the Christology spectrum from ‘high’ to ‘low’, a threshold is crossed/passed beyond which the lack of finality and authority re the methodology, theology, cosmology of ‘Jesus’ must be admitted and incorporated into one’s approach to ethics and spirituality.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #43

[October 2001 journal entry]

I cannot read the four Gospels or Acts any more literally than I can so read Genesis 1-11.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #42

[September 2001 journal entry]

The lower my ‘Christology’, the more ‘Jesus’ becomes typical of his time re worldview and, thus, subject to criticism from a ‘non-religious’ perspective.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #41

[April 2001 journal entry]

I am very far removed from understanding the ‘give us this day our daily bread’ prayer to imply there is no need to bake the pita, trusting that the baking will occur due to direct and intentional divine intervention. First, the pita simply will not be baked without a baker getting the work done. Second, most ‘God’ language offered as commentary on ‘give us this day our daily bread’ ignores, goes around, is unaware of the anthropomorphic and sociomorphic meaning/limitations of such ‘God’ language.

Where is ‘Jesus’ (as represented in each of the four Gospels and, to the degree possible, as distinguished from these representations)? I want to say that ‘Jesus’ would have much to teach us re understanding the anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic meaning/limitations ‘God’ language. However, I realize that seeing ‘Jesus’ in this way cuts against the grain of the way ‘God’ language is used in Jewish scripture/thought, in Christian scripture/thought, and in today’s ‘religious’ sphere. And viewing ‘Jesus’ as essentially human diminishes the likelihood that he sensed/valued this language limitation.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #40

[January 2001 journal entry]

I have recently been thinking about ‘Jesus’ as leaven, the point being that ‘Jesus’ -- and not just his followers/students -- disappears and is indistinguishable in the way leaven disappears and is indistinguishable in baked dough. ‘Religion’ emphatically opposes this proposition.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #39

[January 2001 journal entry]

‘Jesus’ becomes less and less orthodox as I imagine writing him into the story/play Job as the missing character in the story/play – i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming further or disrespecting him.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #38

[December 2000 journal entry]

In a conversation with the senior pastor for Nashville’s 2^nd Presbyterian Church (USA) re my views of ‘Jesus’, he observed, “Your approach to Jesus gets to the essence. I agree that so much about the ‘religious’ Jesus – heaven, hell, deity, resurrection, . . . – is extraneous to the Jesus who lived 2000 years ago.” He then asked, “Why did you get it when so few do?” Prefaced with an admission that in the final analysis I do not know, I mentioned the following – (1) studying history, (2) being exposed, through my first wife’s illness, to human frailty and old-age conditions as a young adult, (3) the inner drive for thorough analysis and for consistency, (4) . . . .

I am convinced one must either move more deeply into or move out of the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm. Most professional guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have too much invested in the ‘religious’ sphere to do other than draw individuals inward.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #86

[March 2003 journal entry]

In a recent conversation, a burdened friend observed --

How can behaviors and consequences be attributed to ‘the will of God’ when, if a human being were responsible for such, we would call it crime or mental illness. What kind of person would I be if I could do something to prevent such suffering for an individual and did not do so? And yet the ‘God’ talk in churches proceeds to honor ‘God’!

I expressed agreement with his analysis/concern and shared with him at least four decisions I have made in dealing with such conflict – (1) I am resolved to orient my life toward such suffering and toward alignment with such sufferers, (2) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that claim to make sense of or to justify such suffering, (3) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that marginalize or distract from such suffering/ers, (4) I am resolved not to embrace ideas that encourage such sufferers to suppress their raw/honest reactions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #85

[February 2003 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with a Roman Catholic lay pastor/friend re the common ground shared by ‘sacramental’ (e.g., a Rahner or a Teilhard de Chardin) and ‘immanentist’ (e.g., a Schleiermacher) approaches to spirituality and ethics with which he expressed affinity, I suggested that the anchor/context should be the raw realities of human suffering. I proposed that such proximity and focus result in the discrediting of ‘religious’ T/O paradigm nuances re ‘God’. I also proposed that ‘sacramental’ and ‘immanentist’ approaches to spirituality and ethics face two risks/pressures – (1) to drift away from and, therefore, weaken the force of the raw realities of human suffering in order to retain a hopeful vision/message and (2) to redefine/nuance the term ‘God’ in ways that may appear to leave ‘God’ (language) irrelevant to those existentially engaged (by lot or by choice) in the raw realities of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #84

[February 2002 journal entry]

The prologue and epilogue to the story/play Job are ‘from above’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job, in his exchanges with his three close friends, speaks increasingly ‘from below’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #83

[February 2002 journal entry]

Re the story/play Job -- note the words/phrases in the prologue that are reversed, often in startling and dramatic ways, in the exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends – e.g., ‘God’, blessed, hedges, storm, integrity, servant, evil, fool/ish, accuser, friend, trouble, . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #82

[October 2001 journal entry]

The ‘re-entry’ question/angle to the story/play Job and to Bonhoeffer’s narrative had he survived the war as well as to my narrative after my first wife’s disease/death might be described with a phrase from the recent film The Legend of Bagger Vance – “coming out of the shadows”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #81

[September 2001 journal entry]

I recently learned about a pastoral psychologist who is a faculty member at an evangelical college and also a staff member for a very theologically conservative Presbyterian church. I was told by a mutual acquaintance (1) that he has taken the position of valuing/retaining a place within this ‘community of faith’ even if he has to remain silent re numerous theological issues, (2) that he knows that no one is rewarded to think critically at his college or in his church, (3) that he puts issues such as tragic human suffering in what he calls a ‘mystery box’, (4) that he accepts that most individuals want a protective perimeter around their ‘religious’ beliefs, (5) that he would have a lot at stake if he challenged either the college or the church. What kind of friend could/would he be to a ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #80

[July 2001 journal entry]

The 16 July 2001 issue of Time included an article entitled ‘When God Hides His Face’. The subtitle – ‘Can faith survive when hope has died? The Guthries think so.’ The Guthries live near where we live in Franklin, are active members of Presbyterian PCA church, and are employed in businesses that commercialize Christian ‘religion’ (Mrs. Guthrie being a publicist for Christian literature authors). The Time article focused on the Guthries’ response and their church’s response to their having two successive pregnancies (the first died after eighteen months, the second conceived a few months after the death and not yet born at the time of publication) with the infants afflicted with Zellweger syndrome (a syndrome that spreads destructive/deadly entities called peroxisomes in every cell).

The article’s author makes an observation that -- “Along with everything else, Job’s friends eventually turn on him. By contrast, the group of fellow believers with whom the Guthries have met every Sunday night for seven years has been an unfailing pillar of strength. . . .” The article’s author seems to miss the obvious – i.e., the group has not failed the Guthries because the Guthries have not challenged the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as did the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

Though Mr. Guthrie comes across as a bit more cautious than Mrs. Guthrie, their responses and those within the Sunday night group unequivocally affirm confidence (1) that ‘God’ is all powerful and in complete control of all life events and (2) that ‘God’ is just and purposeful in controlling all life events. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm could hardly be more completely presented. One of the Sunday night group members is quoted as saying, “At a time like this, you either believe or not. The group finally concluded that we will go down with the ship, believing in our hearts that God is in control.” The article’s closing includes this very revealing exchange –

(Mr. Guthrie) Without a couple of bedrock assumptions, none of this makes sense to anybody. You take them away and, boy, it is . . .

(Mrs. Guthrie) . . . bitter.

(Mr. Guthrie) It’s all bad.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #79

[May 2001 journal entry]

The “Who are you to challenge me?” condescension/bullying the ‘scrapheap’ Job faces from ‘God’ in the whirlwind section of the story/play constitutes a critical decision point for audiences/readers. (Bethge, in his essay in the 1968 Bonhoeffer in a World Come of Age, says Bonhoeffer wrestled with this issue.) If audiences/readers accept that Job is out of line with his ‘scrapheap’ questions/conclusions, then they will answer “No one” – characteristic of the ‘religious’ sphere – to the question “If not Job, then who?” It took me several years to realize that ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm would accept no other answer. A ‘non-religious’ path leads me to object strongly to the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s being bullied and intimidated by ‘God’ in the whirlwind section of the story/play.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #78

[February 2001 journal entry] I am now going through Proverbs from a ‘scrapheap’ perspective as part of my analysis of the epilogue to the story/play Job – e.g., the difficult attempt to return from the ‘scrapheap’ to be a voice for those who are shunned by and cannot speak for themselves inside societal spheres.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #153

[December 2001 journal entry]

A young pastor recently asked how I had come to my ‘non-religious’ approach to and understanding of ‘community’. I drew on a napkin a circle representing ‘community of faith’, encompassing the full/diverse denominational spectrum. I then drew a line from the center outward beyond the circle’s edge, representing where the voiceless and marginalized are found. I explained it was during the first of my years as a graduate professor that being present with my first wife as multiple sclerosis pulled her into humiliating deterioration undermined the existential credibility of the ‘religious’ sphere simultaneous with my coming to the conclusion that the ‘religious’ sphere also lacked intellectual credibility (e.g., lack of place for radical thinking, for critical historiography, for facing the limitations of ‘God’ language). At various points along that line stretching out beyond the circle’s edge to where being with my first wife took me, I marked where various acquaintances (e.g., family, friends, colleagues), schools of thought (both philosophical and theological), writings in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, seminal thinkers in the history of religious thought, and Christian denominations lost credibility for me. Very few in any of these categories retained credibility for me amid the voiceless and marginalized victims of neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis. I explained that I discovered a sense of ‘community’ by straining to be near the voiceless and marginalized and with the individuals (for me, mostly health care professionals) who had chosen to be with and serve them. From this discovery evolved my four-tiered understanding of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #152

[December 2001 journal entry]

‘Non-religious’ thinking pursues questions/ideas to the end. ‘Religious’ thinking does not.

Fragment -- #195

[December 2001 journal entry]

When in conversation with someone who claims to be an atheist, I begin with the assumption that the person means that s/he does not find credible certain ways the term ‘God’ is used or nuanced (often with the confession that I share his/her reaction to such ‘God’ language). I then suggest that the term ‘God’ is best considered via a spectrum with one end equating ‘God’ language and ‘Santa’ language (in my opinion, not credible ‘God’ language) and the opposite end representing silence re ‘God’ language. I propose that to claim with certainty there is no reality transcending the human geist is to claim an exhaustive comprehension of all reality (a claim human wisdom cannot accomplish).

Fragment -- #194

[December 2001 journal entry]

Why study history? --

1. to acquire important mental habits,
   
2. to promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts,
   
3. to promote respect and, therefore, ‘community’,
   
4. to learn indirectly by considering the experience of others,
   
5. to address causes rather than symptoms,
   
6. to promote humility,
7. to avoid the repetition of errors and tragedies in the past.

Fragment -- #193

[December 2001 journal entry]

While on a wine tasting outing with friends after I had delivered a lecture at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (sponsored by the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department), a physician friend contrasted his eventual professional anonymity with the generations of students/physicians who will be aware of a colleague whose anatomy research has secured his place as a referenced authority in his speciality. He then observed that virtually all individuals are forgotten -- even by descendents -- within three generations. Since this conversation, I have returned several times to the question implicit in my friend’s observations – i.e., “Why then do we choose to live sacrificial and altruistic lives?”

Fragment -- #192

[December 2001 journal entry]

In a conversation a few days ago with an artist friend, he spoke of the special value he places on our friendship because “you see from below without being morbid”. I was reassured by his observation.

Fragment -- #191

[December 2001 journal entry]

While driving my first wife’s mother home, we shared various reflections on our experiences with her daughter during her illness and death (d. 1987). At one point, she asked, “Doug, are you happy now?” I offered her a variation on a four-point spectrum with one edge being ‘the beautiful in life = the sum of reality’ (with the reality of human suffering eclipsed and avoided) and the other edge being ‘the ugly/tragic in life = the sum of reality’ (with the reality of the beautiful in life eclipsed and doubted). I explained the two perspectives inside these edges on either side of the threshold dividing the spectrum. I positioned myself on the ‘ugly/tragic’ side of the threshold. I concluded, “Yes, I would say I am happy, though happiness for me will forever be muted/complicated by my consciousness of the breadth/depth of human suffering. On the other hand, perhaps it is more accurate to say I am not happy. I am able to truly enjoy beautiful experiences (e.g., meaningful conversation, a delicious dinner, fine wine, travel, music, athletic events/activities, celebrations, . . .). But I am not content or peaceful or optimistic or . . . .” Since this conversation, I have been looking back/within to see how I have understood ‘being happy’ and what priority I have placed on ‘being happy’. ‘Being happy’ has moved for me toward more mature and less self-gratification nuances. From the time I first resolved to stay truly/deeply near my first wife regardless of the consequences, I have not placed ultimate priority on being happy.

Fragment -- #190

[November 2001 journal entry]

Metaphors that have mattered deeply to me:

1. the pole climber leaning back from the utility pole and trusting his work belt,
2. crawling under the Vermont house we were ready to purchase only to find a seriously cracked foundation,
3. the need to find healthy tissue before beginning a hernia repair,
   
4. placing storm windows when you do not have enough to cover all windows,
   
5. my eyes locking with my eight-year-old daughter’s eyes as she lost control of her bicycle in some gravel,
   
6. the decision to remove training wheels,
   
7. a black hole’s inward pull and resulting destruction,
   
8. the free yet shared experience when jazz musicians play together,
   
9. being in Parliament but not in ‘the government’,
   
10. the huddle behind the line of scrimmage on the football field,
    
11. the wilderness,
    
12. the difference in perspective when traveling through Appalachia on the interstate or on the back roads,
13. a solar or lunar eclipse,
    
14. remodeling a house,
15. my Boy Scout 2nd-class required five-mile hike through fields compass in hand with my Dad,
16. theatre’s prompter,
    
17. leaven,
    
18. the porch,
    
19. the Norwich ‘dump’ where parents taught children about recycling and ‘community’,
20. the irrigation ditch,
    
21. the mudder on a drywall team,
    
22. the elementary school student who learns there is no Santa Claus at the North Pole,
    
23. driving a nail deep into the wood,
    
24. the parcel in Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence,
    
25. the pivot,
    
26. . . . .

Fragment -- #189

[November 2001 journal entry]

Turning fifty years old – I

1. am more reflective,
   
2. have a heightened awareness of nearing life’s end,
   
3. feel an urgency to get my various ‘non-religious’ writing projects written,
   
4. feel content with my personal and professional choices over the past twenty years.

Fragment -- #188

[November 2001 journal entry]

Proposition -- I ‘meet’ (in the Martin Buber sense), therefore I am.

Fragment -- #187

[October 2001 journal entry]

I find much of myself in the character Tarrou in Camus’ The Plague.

Fragment -- #186

[October 2001 journal entry]

This week I traveled by air (to Phoenix) for the first time since the September 11 World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies. I found myself looking at everyone as if looking at a sonar screen for a submarine.

Fragment -- #185

[October 2001 journal entry]

In a conversation with the late-30s pastor for a group of families aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (the remnant that resolutely resisted the fundamentalist reversal engineered within the Southern Baptist denomination in the 1980s) attempting to launch a new ‘low key’ congregation, I introduced the idea that ‘God’ language seems inevitably to fall back to literal/idolatrous use after every pause to say ‘God’ language is anthropomorphic. The young pastor asked for an alternative. I suggested beginning with and concentrating on human geist experience. Doing so inductively opens awareness of a transcending geist without necessitating a specific/definitive ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #184

[September 2001 journal entry]

During a Sunday adult discussion at a nearby Presbyterian Church (USA), the pastor asked, “What reminds or focuses you on the greatness of God?” All answers pointed to beautiful nature scenes. As I listened to the responses, my mind turned to the crooked/tragic experiences in nature and in human suffering. Near the end of the discussion, I mentioned listening to a symphony and listening to jazz. Such evidences of a remarkable human ‘spirit’ keep open the ‘God’ question for me.

Fragment -- #183

[August 2001 journal entry]

Why did C.S. Lewis’ World War One experiences as a soldier not have the impact on his thought (as evidenced in his ability to take the confident positions re theodicy found in The Problem of Pain) as did the death of his wife near the end of his own life (as evidenced in his humbled/shaken reactions found in A Grief Observed)?

Fragment -- #182

[July 2001 journal entry]

On turning fifty years old:

1. I am moving from being the oldest of the young to the youngest of the old.
   
2. I am more mindful that most of my life – assuming a full life span – is in the past tense.
   
3. I am noticing that medical reactions and predictions dramatically change.
   
4. What do I have to say? any wisdom?
   
5. . . . .

Fragment -- #181

[July 2001 journal entry]

The Nashville Tennessean recently ran an Associated Press article about ‘The Jefferson Bible’. In what way/s is my ‘non-religious’ hermeneutic ‘grid’ similar to Jefferson’s selection of what he considered the most authentic material in the four Gospels? One possible difference might be my care/precision in delineating the components of the hermeneutic ‘grid’ by which I make such decisions. Did Jefferson simply pick what he liked? I certainly would not agree with Jefferson’s comment to Adams – i.e., that deciding what to keep was easy because it was “as distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill”.

Fragment -- #180

[July 2001 journal entry]

Life is ‘tense’ (i.e., living with ‘past’, ‘present’, ‘future’). Note the link between consciousness of time and authentic experience.

Fragment -- #179

[July 2001 journal entry]

At least since my doctoral studies, I have acted as consistently as possible with the understanding that the goal of objectivity in historical and existential interpretation/reflection is not possible to achieve. Knowing and acknowledging such led to two methodological choices – (1) that I will continue to strive for and maximize my approximation of objectivity and (2) that I will fall short of objectivity due to giving disproportionate attention to the experience and perspective of the marginalized, the disadvantaged, the voiceless (rather than to my affluent/advantaged experience and perspective).

Fragment -- #178

[July 2001 journal entry]

In reflecting on a Presbyterian USA pastor’s sermon I heard recently re ancient Israel’s King David dancing ‘with’ or ‘before the Lord’, I have no reservations about expressing feelings of joy or angst. I do have concerns about debilitating or destabilizing expressions of such feelings, especially when constrained by the assumptions of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. I do not support compartmentalizing celebration from lament. For me, celebration and lament are to be simultaneously experienced, with lament being primary and most basic (i.e., the focus of one’s ‘aim eye’). In other words, my ‘with the world face to face’ path/experience leads me to consider soberness and angst re the breadth/depth of human suffering as greater/deeper than celebration of joys and beauty in life experiences.

Fragment -- #177

[June 2001 journal entry]

I have been preparing to write for the first time to the small circle of physicians with whom I have experienced ‘community’ as a group about the ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality that has formed for me over the past twenty years as I have worked with them in advocating a humane practice of medicine that is grounded in a resolute social conscience. My experience with them individually and collectively is my most authentic and intimate experience of ‘community’. However, few of them know each other or think of each other in this way as far as I know. As I have thought about what to say to them, my appreciation has deepened re the reality that entering a ‘non-religious’ experience/identity of ‘community’ (as I will be describing to/for them) puts significant pressure on one’s sense of place and loyalty within other ‘spheres’. At one end of the spectrum is the option of assigning priority and finality to one’s ‘spheres’. My motive for writing to these physicians is not to pressure them to address such pressure, but to give to them the results to which working so closely with them has led me.

Fragment -- #176

[June 2001 journal entry]

I have been asking again – Why am I so deeply and persistently engaged with questions regarding interpretation? Why am I constantly ‘under the house examining the foundation’? Why do I insist on consistency of thought down into the deep roots?

1. The ideas common to the ‘religious’ sphere crumbled for me under the combined weight/pressure of exposure to the depth/breadth of human suffering and commitment to an unrestricted exercise of the methods for historical inquiry I acquired through my doctoral work.
   
2. By the early 1980s, my defining experiences were coming increasingly from outside the ‘religious’ sphere with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians – secular as well as religious and in many other ways very diverse – where thinking ‘from below’ and thinking scientifically ground the practice of medicine.
   
3. My most intimate experience of ‘community’ began by the early 1980s and had fully formed by the early 1990s with a core of (now about twenty) physicians to whom I was drawn by a shared set of values and by a shared way of being (though we come from a variety of backgrounds).

Fragment -- #175

[May 2001 journal entry]

To be consistent in my conversations with others, I must be radically (i.e., to the root) consistent within my own thought.

Fragment -- #174

[11 September 2001 journal entry]

Today history radically changed. Two commercial jets were hijacked in Boston and intentionally flown into the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center (resulting in thousands of casualties after both towers collapsed). Forty minutes later, another commercial jet hijacked at Dulles airport was flown into the Pentagon (resulting in hundreds of causalities). The human, material, and symbolic consequences are beyond calculation. I was taking my youngest daughter – 12 years old -- to her riding lesson when the news began to break. During the day and at dinner, we discussed these events together with her – e.g., ‘terror’, terrorism, religious and political fundamentalism, why the United States is vilified, the core conflict re individual freedom, . . . . Before going to bed, I sent the following reflections to a physician colleague and close friend:

“Yes, today is one of those rare days about which, years from now, we will know exactly where we were and what we were doing. As for initial attempts to frame today’s terrorist actions, I think a democracy – with such high value placed on individual freedom – permits travel liberties and restricts government, with an implied willingness to risk such ‘first blows’ as happened today. I think our society has placed such a high priority on convenience and is so impatient that, as a consequence, our border security and airport security have been very minimal and very lax, again inviting such events as happened today (e.g., plane hijackings from so many different airports at the same time). I do not yet understand how an airliner can turn abruptly due south and fly for thirty minutes directly into New York City air space and the airline/security authorities be surprised (i.e., the Pearl Harbor surprise all over). Nor do I yet understand how the Pentagon can be such an easy target.”

During the days after September 11, my wife and I have had several conversations with our daughter about her questions and observations – e.g., “Why would these people hate us so much?” . . . “I have never thought of myself as someone’s enemy before.” . . . “Why did this have to happen in my generation?” . . . “Why would I wish this to happen in my children’s generation instead of mine?” . . . “This isn’t going to be over soon, is it?” . . . “Dad, will you have to fight?” . . . “Dad, if something happens to you on the way to Phoenix (October 12), I will just go to pieces.” . . . “What’s the difference between justice and revenge?”

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #151

[November 2001 journal entry]

Being ‘religious’ begins and ends ‘from above’. Being ‘non-religious’ begins and ends ‘from below’. The point (to use Martin Buber’s terms) – ‘I’ precedes and governs the ‘thou’ experience.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #150

[October 2001 journal entry]

Pre-modern ‘religious’ thought assumes/proposes that the inclination of the human heart is toward evil. Modern (Renaissance/Enlightenment) thought assumes/proposes (as did the Socratic tradition in antiquity) that the inclination of the human heart is toward good. My variation on a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics assumes/proposes (along the line of Pascal and existentialists) that the human heart is torn by a tension/paradox, with amazing potential both to care and to take/harm.

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.