Fragment -- #227

[August 2003 journal entry]

Walking quickly along the edge of the Vanderbilt Medical Center campus on my way to participate in an orientation session for the new class of medical students, I passed a poorly-dressed unkempt man – perhaps in his late 30s – who was walking in the direction opposite mine slowly and with a noticeable limp. Our eyes met for an instant as we passed, his hand outstretched as he asked for money. I walked by him without responding and cut diagonally toward the Medical Center. I immediately questioned myself re the obvious gap between my ideas/profession and this concrete moment. Though with only a slight margin for error re arriving on time for the orientation session, I turned around to discover the man was no longer in sight. I walked back to the point where we passed and saw him about a half-block away. I ran to him, gave him a few dollars, said “Have a better day”, and hurried away. I heard him say “Thank you”. I still felt disappointment over my response to this encounter.

Fragment -- #226

[August 2003 journal entry]

In a news interview, a woman – years after having her only child burn to death in a fire that started in the kitchen when she had gone to a neighbor’s house for some food item – said she finally forgave herself when she accepted that “God must have needed him”. I simply do not grasp how individuals find solace in such ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #225

[August 2003 journal entry]

The Synoptic Gospels portray ‘Jesus’ as having a ‘hermeneutic suspicion’ (akin to the first wave of ‘liberation theologians’) re the perspectives of the rich and the guardians of institutionalized ‘religion’.

Fragment -- #224

[August 2003 journal entry]

Looking existentially more closely/widely/deeply into the present and/or into history increases consciousness of human beings’ pain/suffering. There is no “It’s not as bad as I feared” relief.

Fragment -- #223

[July 2003 journal entry]

Thoughts on aging – (1) Since by early adulthood I had already experienced more in life (e.g., travel, education, entertainment, friendship, political liberties, . . .) than most individuals contemporary with me and virtually all individuals back into antiquity, how could my death from this point forward be considered premature or tragic (considered separately from the manner of my dying)? (2) My time to die will have come when I can no longer give or serve (rather than when I can no longer experiences pleasurable moments) and when maintenance for my existence becomes the focus and essence of my life.

Fragment -- #222

[July 2003 journal entry]

Agape . . . Phileo . . . Eros – three experiences of love that when integrated occasion fully enriching marriage (e.g., mutual respect, conversation, humanizing intimacy). (1) Agape with Phileo minus Eros leaves a diminished (but still maturing) marriage relationship caused by any number of factors (e.g., aging, personal or social trauma, biochemical changes, injury, disease, . . . – some controllable, others not). (2) Agape with Eros minus Phileo results in a more diminished marriage relationship as friendship withers (e.g., distrust, loss of confidence, estrangement, lost conversation, and even expressions/actions of disrespect) and as Eros becomes awkward (e.g., intimacy is less a shared experience, often a manipulating tool). (3) Agape shared by both parties without either Phileo or Eros leads to a radically diminished marriage relationship that nonetheless retains the constructive disposition that undergirds all meaningful relationships. The loss of Eros in this scenario requires setting one’s default on the absence of intimacy. The loss of Phileo as well as Eros in this scenario adds solitude. If Agape is retained by only one of the two parties, a constructive posture in a profoundly diminished marriage relationship remains, though the relationship at best is hardly distinguishable from encounters with a stranger or with a casual association and at worst is hardly distinguishable from encounters with an adversary.

Fragment -- #221

[July 2003 journal entry]

It is simple enough to say – “I am for justice”. I have yet to come across a person who says – “I am for injustice”. It is much more complicated to live out a commitment to justice as fairness. One reason has to do with the risks associated with such resolution. Another reason has to do with the complexity re defining/envisioning fairness. For some time, I have given thought to the way the executive leadership team (of which I am a member) for the non-profit community health center where I work employs different definitions/concepts of fairness in our decision-making from situation to situation – e.g.,

1. our seven physicians all receive the same compensation (other than a small additional stipend for the three physicians who also do surgical obstetrics),
2. our physicians have no productivity incentives,
3. our nursing and administrative support staff members are compensated as nearly as possible to their ‘market’ earning potential, with the distance from ‘market’ increasing across the compensation spectrum to the physicians (who are compensated at about 70% of their ‘market’ earning potential among community health center physicians),
4. bonuses for nursing and administrative support staff members are the same amount for all, whereas bonuses for physicians are calculated using an equation that weights tenure,
5. we are committed to delivering the same quality of care to all patients, though we intentionally give disproportionate attention to the health care needs of the most disadvantaged patients in our impoverished service area,
6. as a community health center, we make decisions re the use of human and capital resources based on public health needs/priorities,
7. we have exempted our physicians from the Saturday morning walk-in clinic schedule (covered instead by our three mid-level providers).

I suspect there are still other illustrations to be found in our decision-making. Is it legitimate to employ such varying and distinguishable interpretations of fairness within the same organization or ‘community’? If so, what holds these decisions together as ‘fair’? Is there an aesthetic quality to fairness (e.g., harmony, balance, health, beauty, reciprocity)? Are ‘treating equals equally’ and ‘treating unequals with disproportionate regard for the less powerful’ the anchors for fairness? If so, how is complacency (or resignation) re inequalities overcome? What (in)equalities by/at birth matter re fairness? Should the interests, rights, and/or liberties of some ever be sacrificed (as distinguished from being voluntarily surrendered) for the interests, rights, and/or liberties of others? How far beyond the defined/gathered ‘community’ should consequences be considered in assessing the fairness of decisions made within/for the ‘community’? How should being ‘non-profit’ affect deliberations about a fair distribution of benefits and advantages? Why do organizations intentional about fairness have/need personnel policies and procedures to address grievances?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #191

[November 2003 journal entry]

It would be accurate to describe my approach to interpreting Dietrich’s prison correspondence as ‘non-religious’ (in clear distinction from the ‘religious’ approaches to his prison correspondence common within academic and ‘religious’ circles). My ‘non-religious’ approach recognizes that Dietrich, in much of the prison correspondence, remained very ‘religious’ even as he began to see/consider the contours of a radically different (i.e., ‘non-religious’) path ahead.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #190

[November 2003 journal entry]

I have come to realize, after many years’ experience with and reflection on a ‘non-religious’ or ‘scrapheap’ approach to spirituality and ethics, that this approach is several standard deviations removed from the mean/norm. I accept the responsibility for taking the initiative in respecting and adjusting – as a guest – to the habits and perspectives of those nearer the mean/norm with whom I associate. This responsibility requires a strong and expanding capacity to tolerate the dissonance inseparable from these associations. Analogous to a bridge or a building, I measure my integrity by the degree to which I bend without breaking/crumbling.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #189

[November 2003 journal entry]

I recently met with a group of seven Christian physicians – from a variety of theological traditions -- to facilitate a review/revision of their ‘ministry statement’ (which commits them to respect and encourage one another in the shared resolve to provide medical care for the poor). The discussion revealed the extent to which several of the seven physicians who align with Calvinistic theologies (which reduce all events/experiences to divine sovereignty/will) and the underlying mental habits (e.g., uncritically accepting ‘religious’ T/O paradigm presuppositions re ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Christ’, ‘creation’, . . .) struggle to integrate such with the scientific mindset and mental habits characteristic of modern medicine. Some of the physicians proposed to distinguish patient conditions that can be medically modified from patient conditions that cannot be so modified, with ‘divine sovereignty’ associated with the latter conditions. I reminded them (1) that this approach entails a ‘God of the gaps’ theology, (2) that patient conditions once considered not modifiable have, due to medical/surgical advances, later become modifiable, and (3) that individual patients often have conditions that are modifiable up to a point beyond which their conditions are no longer modifiable. We discussed two ‘forks in the road’ – (1) the ‘human freedom understood as returning to your divinely intended nature’ (pre-modern) path or the ‘human freedom understood as autonomy’ (modern) path and (2) Erasmus’ cautious optimism that a few latent seeds of spiritual life survive in human beings or Luther’s/Calvin’s categorical insistence that the spiritual health/life of all human beings was completely destroyed by ‘the Fall’. Concerning the latter ‘fork in the road’, I suggested that Erasmus took an ‘anchor dragging’ approach to the ‘renaissance’/‘humanist’ current of ideas; Luther/Calvin, an ‘anchor firmly caught’ approach. Erasmus was cautiously open to some degree of optimism or confidence about human beings; Luther/Calvin, threatened and categorically opposed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #188

[September 2003 journal entry]

A ‘from below’/‘scrapheap’/‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics necessitates an existentially porous ‘community’ in which (1) ‘eye opening experiences’ are welcomed, (2) being face-to-face with the concrete world is encouraged and is the reason for the community to exist/gather, and (3) doubt/questioning is protected as essential to integrity. Such an approach is radically (i.e., down into the root) incompatible with an existentially non-porous ‘community’ that intentionally seals itself off from ‘eye opening experiences’ and necessitates being distracted from the concrete world. Spirituality exercises, the way specific ethical issues are addressed, and ‘God’ talk are clearly distinguishable in existentially non-porous and porous models for ‘community’. I have had three sustained experiences with an existentially porous ‘community’ – (1) the ‘Who cares?’ gatherings at O’Reilly’s Tavern with a subset of the LSU Ob/Gyn medical faculty members, (2) the visits with the children at K-Bar-B Youth Ranch run by the State of Louisiana for children removed from their homes who had been so scarred by abuse that they could not be placed in foster care, and (3) the Dayspring Family Health Center medical staff weekly breakfast gatherings at Gregory's Restaurant. I have yet to discover a church that embodies/illustrates the existentially porous model of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #187

[September 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich, in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay written for his family and his fellow conspirators, confessed crossing a crucial threshold when he assigned ‘incomparable (unparalleled) value’ to seeing ‘from below’, from the perspective of the sufferer. Crossing this threshold means embracing and resolving to sustain the experience of seeing ‘from below’, the experience of seeing from the perspective of the sufferer. Koheleth, in the Ecclesiastes essay, clearly had not yet crossed that threshold. I think it may be inferred that the author of the expanded version of the story/play Job had crossed that threshold, though no character in the story/play makes such a decision explicit in the text.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #186

[September 2003 journal entry]

It is important to incorporate the varying ways adolescence is experienced (e.g., exuberance, fear, denial, insecurity, cockiness, . . .) when developing the ‘come of age’ metaphor.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #185

[September 2003 journal entry]

Re the ‘non-religious interpretation’ method Dietrich introduced in his prison letters – I think it is very clear that Dietrich was just breaking the surface of this dramatic methodological shift. He remained very ‘religious’ even as he expressed his radical ideas to Eberhard in the prison letters. A ‘non-religious interpretation’ method must be applied to Dietrich’s prison letters to Eberhard.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #184

[September 2003 journal entry]

I think Dietrich gave up looking (in)to the church in its various familiar forms once the Confessing Church failed to be/have the ‘Present Christ’ in/for Germany. “If not the Confessing Church, then where else is there to look in the church as it has been formed and reformed up to now?” is where I see Dietrich to have moved by the prison correspondence. Yes, his prison question “Who is Christ for us today?” implies continued confidence/expectation re a ‘Present Christ’. Addressing that question led him to radical rethinking re methodology (e.g., a ‘non-religious interpretation’) and to radical rethinking re ‘community of faith’ (e.g., the ‘outline for a book’ near the end of the prison letters). I also think it is significant that Dietrich put the question in terms of ‘who’ rather than ‘where’. And remember he was looking ahead to the decisions after the war re reconstructing ‘religion’ in Germany. By the last months of the prison correspondence, I see Dietrich becoming increasingly passionate that the response after the war not be to piece back together something familiar. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #183

[September 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich (as I recall) began his 1933 Christ the Center lectures in Berlin with a ‘Present Christ’ section. He had lost this confidence in a ‘Present Christ’ as some remnant of the church (i.e., ‘religion’) after the Confessing Church failed to persist effectively as a resistance movement against the Nazis. The Bonhoeffer met in the Christ the Center lectures and in the pre-1938 Confessing Church years was very Barthian in theological orientation. Remember that Barth (who was removed by the Nazis from his teaching position at Bonn in 1934 and returned to his homeland of Switzerland where he spent the rest of his career) had just come out with the first volume of his Church Dogmatics before Dietrich presented his Christ the Center lectures in Berlin. Dietrich’s 1939 decision to return from New York City to Germany and his decision to join the Abwehr covert resistance circle necessitated that he abandon Barth’s theological method/perspective as he pondered afresh the ethical (as evident in the various drafts of his Ethics) and the theological (as evident in the prison correspondence) implications of these decisions. Note Dietrich’s stinging critiques of Barth in the prison correspondence. Remember that after the war Barth would not guide the research of students who proposed to study Bonhoeffer past the 1939 point in his life/thought.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #182

[September 2003 journal entry]

It is very important to put in historical and cultural context the ‘come of age’ metaphor (which I trace to Kant’s response to the question – What Is ‘Enlightenment’?) which points to the autonomy/accountability associated with advancing from childhood to adulthood and Dietrich’s contention in the prison correspondence (but not before as far as I have been able to tell) that theology (specifically in the German/Protestant tradition of which he was a part) must make the radical (i.e., to the root) changes necessary to catch up with and be relevant to ‘the world’ (which he was convinced would, after the war and the fall of the Nazis, move forward on a secularized path rather than turn back to pre- ‘come of age’/pre-modern perspectives) which ‘religion’ had hesitated to embrace at the price – Dietrich had concluded and I agree – of an increasing and irreversible marginalizing of ‘religion’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #181

[September 2003 journal entry]

Being ‘religious’ builds around a young/immature child metaphor for spirituality and ethics; being ‘non-religious’, around a ‘come of age’/maturing child metaphor for spirituality and ethics. Proposition – that the vision and teaching of ‘Jesus’ implies a ‘come of age’/maturing self-understanding.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #180

[August 2006 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with Renate Bethge, I suggested a spectrum with ‘enthusiastic German Christian/Church’ at one end, Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’ at the opposite end, and ‘attempt to be neutral’ at the midpoint. Renate reminded me there were distinguishable dispositions from the midpoint toward the ‘enthusiastic German Christian/Church’ end. Then she placed Otto Dibelius – who, as the first bishop of the recently formed Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenburg (1945-66), became the most prominent Protestant leader immediately after the war’s end – slightly off the midpoint toward Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’, she placed Walter Dress (theologian/churchman married to Dietrich’s younger sister) a bit past Dibelius toward Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resis’, and the vast majority of those associated with the Confessing Church further toward but noticeably short of Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’. Renate then observed – “I always felt the fact that Dietrich and Eberhard did not have wives and children made a difference in their stance against the Nazis. Niemoller represented those in the Confessing Church ranks who did risk. He had ‘Traitor to the Fatherland’ painted on his house.” I asked Renate to describe and interpret those who were content to be classified ‘moderate’. She agreed that some ‘moderates’ on either side of the ‘attempt to be neutral’ midpoint on the spectrum saw some validity to the views held on the opposing side of the midpoint. However, for others on the Dietrich’s ‘resolve to resist’ side of the spectrum, ‘moderate’ had to do more with the level of risk to which they would expose themselves, their families, and – in the case of pastors – their congregations.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #179

[August 2006 journal entry]

I spent another few days with Renate Bethge a few weeks ago. The many hours of conversation with the Bethges since our friendship began in 1993 have deeply enriched my search for a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics by/through which to be ‘with the world face to face’. I think often of Dietrich’s observation that “the mind’s hunger for discussion is much more tormenting than the body’s hunger for food” (25 December 1943 prison letter to Eberhard and Renate). Had Dietrich survived the descent ‘below’ as a prisoner in the brutal grip of the Gestapo, I have often wondered -- Who would have been his most cherished conversation partners if/as he continued to think through and live out the radical (i.e., into the root) ideas he anticipated in the December 1942 ‘Ten Years Later’ essay and began to see/consider in prison? No doubt many individuals would have drawn near to Dietrich, would have crowded around him. They could have satisfied some of his ‘hunger for discussion’. But I can imagine only a few who could/would have stayed in meaningful conversation with him if/as he strained to keep ‘seeing from below’. Eberhard and Renate, given their having been addressed by Dietrich in the smuggled prison correspondence, would already have been familiar with the cutting edge of Dietrich’s thought/life. Dietrich’s father (religiously/theologically agnostic), given his professional familiarity with the disturbing and in some cases bizarre psychiatric agony of his patients, could have deepened Dietrich’s experiences ‘seeing from below’ by placing such experiences within the larger context of tragic human suffering. Dietrich’s brother Karl Friedrich (also religiously/theologically agnostic), given his expertise in modern physics and given their longstanding mutual respect, could have prompted Dietrich’s resolve to become more firmly grounded in the scientific method/disciplines. Unfortunately, a new acquaintance in prison -- ‘Herr Engel’ -- would not have been there. He was killed in the 27 January 1944 bombing. Dietrich wrote of him to Eberhard (29/30 January 1944 prison letter) –

I am sorry to say that I suffered a severe loss the night before last. The man who was, to my mind, by far the most intelligent and attractive in the place was killed in the city by a direct hit. I should certainly have put him in touch with you later, and we already had plans for the future. We often had interesting talks, and the other day he brought me Daumier und die Justiz, which I still have. He was a really educated man of working-class origin, a philosopher, and father of three children. I was very much distressed by his death.

I know Dietrich’s craving for meaningful conversation. I began to realize several years ago that, the further I existentially travel on a ‘non-religious’ path by/through which to be(come) ‘with the world face to face’, the fewer and fewer my conversation partners become. I cherish each one who comes near. Since 2000 I have recorded detailed notes after each such conversation. When I am alone and the longing for meaningful conversation is especially acute, the recollections awakened by turning to these conversations as reconstructed in my notes bring relief and encouragement.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #178

[April 2005 journal entry]

My appreciation for the music training/experience I received in my youth (e.g., piano, trombone, baritone, trumpet, guitar) has grown steadily during my adult years. In recent years, I have arranged to be tutored in music theory/composition (which had been a minimal part of my music training). The reason – as the importance of photography has matured for me into my most valuable spiritual exercise over the last several years, my desire to catch the subtle as well as obvious indications of Dietrich’s being a pianist (i.e., being ‘musical’) in his life and thought has grown.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #177

[August 2004 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with Renate Bethge (Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s niece and his special friend Eberhard Bethge’s wife), we discussed an article that covered this year’s annual July 20 gathering in Berlin to honor the resistors involved with the 20 July 1944 attempt to bring Hitler and the Nazis down. The article quoted Prime Minister Schroeder’s comment that the resistors’ actions were “Christian and humanistic, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, and also Prussian”.

Renate and I discussed at length Schroeder’s reference to ‘Christian’. After reviewing Christianity’s (1) long history of anti-Semitism (with roots back into Christian scripture) and (2) submission to political authorities as divinely established/sanctioned (also with roots back into Christian scripture), we agreed that Schroeder’s use of ‘Christian’ could be misleading without careful and detailed nuancing. When I questioned whether any official creed or confession of faith explicitly/centrally/pivotally values matters of character and ethical responsibility (i.e., a Sermon on the Mount type creed or confession of faith) that would support action such as the Abwehr conspirators took, Renate could not think of an example (as I said I could not). She said several times, “You need to write one”. She recalled as having such form and tone the ‘I Have Time’ verse I wrote for my twin daughters when they were two years old –

I will have time . . .

To promote truth in all areas of inquiry.
To respect every human being’s dignity and worth.
To follow a lifestyle that eclipses neither God nor neighbor.
To measure myself and others by the content of character.
To care for the weak and powerless.
To encourage artistic imagination and expression.
To keep alive the vision of freedom, peace, and justice.
To maintain my integrity in all the seasons of life.
To wait patiently for the new heaven and the new earth.

And she recalled as having such form and tone the ‘To Live Life Well’ verse I wrote for my youngest daughter when she turned thirteen years of age --

To live life well –

Your cup, drink completely
Your faith, test existentially
Your love, release freely
Your joy, reveal tastefully
Your vision, pursue boldly

Your lifestyle, simplify radically
Your family, shelter vigilantly
Your friend, stand with unconditionally
Your neighbor, meet respectfully
Your vocation, embrace cheerfully

Your darkness, enter courageously
Your fears, confront vigorously
Your disappointments, weather patiently
Your wounds, tend silently
Your failures, see honestly

Your integrity, grip firmly
Your gifts, develop humbly
Your victories, celebrate gratefully
Your insights, remember clearly
Your path, mark carefully

We noted fragments of a ‘non-religious’ creed or confession of faith in Dietrich’s prison correspondence. With his ‘man for others’ language about ‘Jesus’ as a case in point, we discussed the incomplete (and heretical) nature of this language when measured by the historic creeds and confessions of faith.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #176

[August 2004 journal entry]

Re Dietrich’s December 1942 observation/proposition that “It remains an experience of unparalleled value that we have learned to see for once the great events of world history from below . . . .” – imagine a spectrum with “no value” at one end and “unparalleled value” at the opposite end. By assigning unparalleled or incomparable value, Dietrich took the step neither the Ecclesiastes author nor the ‘scrapheap’ Job took (at least in the canonical texts).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #175

[July 2003 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is analogous to an old tree that begins to show signs of dying (illustrate). The tree is not declared dead immediately and cut down. The tree carries too many memories. Adjustments are made. Allowances are made. Interventions are attempted to restore health or compensate for decay. However, as the signs of dying persist/increase, the tree’s significance begins to decrease. Birds build nests elsewhere. Shade is sought elsewhere. Swings are hung elsewhere. Play occurs elsewhere. At what point is the tree dead? Similarly, I agree with Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence assessment that ‘religion’ – the pre-modern T/O paradigm variations as well as variations on liberal ‘religion’ (e.g., from Schleiermacher to Harnack) – has been showing signs of being intellectually and existentially dead at least from the 17th-century forward. ‘Religion’ has not been cut down. In Germany (and Western Europe generally), ‘religion’ has steadily deteriorated and been marginalized. In the United States, ‘religion’ has weakened this society’s intellectual underpinnings and has distracted this society from existential accountability. Thus, neither radical (i.e., to the root) inquiry nor existential risk occurs in United States churches. It could be argued that, in Western Europe, ‘religion’ does not disturb society if/when the attempt is made to be ‘face to face with the world’ and, in the United States, ‘religion’ does not need to attempt to be ‘face to face with the world’ in order to survive.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #174

[July 2003 journal entry]

To take actions to change or control outcomes in life is to be ‘before God as if without God’ (at least in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm nuances for ‘God’). I think a central reason Dietrich turned to this phrase in his prison correspondence with Bethge was that he (Dietrich) and his fellow 20 July 1944 conspirators had crossed the threshold into taking action against Hitler that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm would leave to ‘God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #173

[July 2003 journal entry]

In his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay, Dietrich considered as “an incomparable value” his and his readers’ experience of ‘seeing from below’. If he had survived the war, would he have continued this “yes” to ‘seeing from below’ and thereby to all the inseparable “yeses” that would have necessarily/unavoidably followed? I have in mind here the opening lines to a Michel Quoist prayer (Prayers, p. 121)– “I am afraid of saying ‘yes’, Lord. Where will you take me? I am afraid of drawing the longer straw. I am afraid of signing my name to an unread agreement. I am afraid of the ‘yes’ that entails other ‘yeses’.” Is there any indication in the story/play Job that Job considers his ‘seeing from the scrapheap’ to be ‘an incomparable value’?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #172

[July 2003 journal entry]

If Dietrich had survived the war, how would he have responded to the Allies’ impatience to get an infrastructure in place using all available Germans other than the small fraction who had thoroughly embraced Hitler and Nazism. How would he have responded to the superficial ‘denazification’ process?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #171

[July 2003 journal entry]

A poem I recently wrote about my experience with ‘religion’ --

With Eyes Opened

I began my spiritual journey in a cozy old house.

I played happily.
I ate heartily.
I slept soundly.
I felt safe.

Then I learned about fires, thunderstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes.
And I learned about faulty electrical wiring, termites, deteriorating foundations.
I examined the cozy old house.
I discovered brittle insulation, rotten wood, cracked foundation blocks.

My play ceased.
My meals lost taste.
My sleep became restless.
I felt at risk.

I tried to repair the cozy old house.
I failed.
I could no longer play there . . . eat there . . . sleep there.
I felt sad.

I paused and then moved on with my spiritual journey . . . grateful to have been
disillusioned.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #170

[July 2003 journal entry]

While driving to work with our youngest daughter, we discussed the Nazi Holocaust section of her 8th-grade literature course. In addition to reading Anne Franke’s diary and Corrie ten Boom’s story, she was assigned to do some independent research on the concentration camps. We discussed the widespread anti-Semitism across Western Europe and in the United States as well as in Germany. We discussed the anti-Semitism that can be traced from Christianity’s beginnings into the 20th-century. Morgan asked whether and when most Germans knew about the horrors that occurred at the concentration camps. After talking about the everyday (often every hour) strains/decisions faced by Germans who saw clearly and who dared to resist, we considered the options available to those whose position of privilege and distance permitted them to minimize/avoid seeing/learning too much. They knew enough to attempt not to know more. When Morgan admitted that she often avoids reading or watching news or documentary reports of human suffering, I suggested that the many individuals around her with similar positions of privilege and distance as well as the many institutions/spheres (including ‘religion’) available to her will not seriously challenge her to do otherwise. We then looked at hints in the Synoptic Gospels that being with ‘Jesus’ would have meant to be constantly challenged to see more rather than less, to see all rather than a biased selection, to see ‘from below’ rather than ‘from above’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #169

[April 2003 journal entry]

During a breakfast conversation while visiting Berlin with Renate Bethge, I asked Renate when she noticed interest in Dietrich increasing after the war’s end. She pointed to the 1963 publication of John A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God and asked my thoughts as to the link. I described for her two competing and contrasting paradigms in the United States at that time – (1) a fundamentalist/nonscientific/‘religious’ paradigm that in the 1950s had considerable momentum and (2) a modern/scientific/secularizing paradigm that in the 1950s was beginning to show rapidly expanding breakthroughs, the results of which (along with the underlying information base) were trickling into public knowledge (in media and education) at a time when the US population was becoming less and less rural. We discussed what I understand to have been the core proposition of the Altizer, Hamilton, Vahanian, Cox, et al professional theologians who fueled a debate sensationalized by the 8 April 1966 Time issue with its ‘Is God Dead?’ cover and lead story – i.e., that the apparent vitality/momentum of fundamentalist/evangelical ‘religion’ in the United States distracted from the deeper reality that Sunday’s ‘God’ language was in fact ‘dead’ on Monday. I suspect these theologians assumed/expected that individuals when challenged (1) would want to live authentically ‘in the world’ and (2) would want to integrate Sunday and Monday. If so, they miscalculated on both counts. In the ‘religious’ sphere toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum, the ‘God is dead’ theologies/ians were dismissed (e.g., the God is not dead . . . I spoke to him last night bumper stickers). This dismissal was made easier by the fact that the theologians speaking of ‘God’ as dead were perceived as academic theologians rather than as pastors/ministers. ‘Religious’ leaders toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum who took seriously their ‘God is dead’ point risked losing many disturbed/insecure members to fundamentalist/evangelical churches by acting on such realization. Robinson’s Honest to God was jolting in at least two ways – (1) he was a churchman (though somewhat weakened as a influential witness to fundamentalists/evangelicals by being a liberal Anglican and at the end of his career) and (2) he referenced Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence (when Bonhoeffer was known in the United States ‘religious’ sphere primarily by his pre-1939 Confessing Church years/writings).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #168

[April 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich’s investment in the Confessing Church as a non-violent civil disobedience strategy depended on two key assumptions/anticipations – i.e., the expectation that the enemy/aggressor will be caused to pause (eventually responding to the strategy) and the ability of the resistors to remain resolute when injuries, deprivations, deaths begin to occur. By 1939 Dietrich saw that the strategy had failed on both counts. Unlike the British in India (where Dietrich tried to travel several times without success), the Nazis were in their homeland and had utter darkness at their core. The ranks of the Pastors’ Emergency League broke in 1937 when the Nazis confronted the Confessing Church after the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #92

[June 2003 journal entry]

The evidence that humans try to make “all things work together for good” is accessible and discernible. The evidence that ‘God’ (as nuanced within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) makes “all things work together for good” is not accessible and discernible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #91

[June 2003 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes monologue are my windows into Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. I draw back from texts/writers that/who add nothing re imagining the missing character in the story/play Job (i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him) and instead endorse the story/play’s fairytale epilogue. And ‘Jesus’? The Gospel writers (in spite of themselves, I suspect) permit imagining ‘Jesus’ as someone who sees ‘from below’ or ‘from the scrapheap’. His death is ‘innocent’, but is most immediately associated with social suffering (i.e., caught in a power struggle). Note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm casts his death as divinely willed, leaving as insignificant such considerations as a power struggle. An additional hermeneutic effort/step is required to associate his death with chronic illness victims.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #90

[June 2003 journal entry]

A ‘scrapheap’ has to do with more than the leftovers from one job to be used at the next job. A ‘scrapheap’ represents what is past recycling. Re social/collective ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor represents those so exploited that they are no longer of interest/value to the exploiters, so exploited that no ‘bounce’ remains. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? They are among social workers, public school teachers, et al. Re individual ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor has to do with those so devastated by (chronic) illness/conditions that they no longer have ‘life’. They are beyond the ‘scrapheap’ Job at his worst. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? Dr. Rieux-type physicians.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #89

[June 2003 journal entry]

The story/play Job as we have it in Jewish scripture allows the audience to leave thinking, “Ah, a comforting ending. All is well.” The story/play also more subtly invites those (few, I suspect) who see past/through the fairytale ending instead to embark on the journey beyond the story/play in search of the way of being and the ‘God’ language missing in the story/play (somewhat analogous to being invited to meet after the play at a nearby tavern to talk).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #88

[June 2003 journal entry]

My experience with the story/play Job in Jewish scripture is analogous to returning to a long-running Broadway play every week for more than thirty years. Changes/movements in my life over the past thirty years have altered how I have experienced the story/play Job. And the story/play Job has repeatedly altered my life. Different parts of the story/play Job have touched me at different times and in different ways – e.g., developing the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor or finding a way to engage the fairytale epilogue/ending (which I avoided for years by ‘leaving early’). Perhaps my notes on the story/play Job are similar to a travel guidebook. How is a travel guidebook (to be) used, given that the traveler will not be able to experience all the possibilities described in the book? My notes represent the accumulation of more than thirty years experience with the story/play Job. I cannot separate or easily/often distinguish what has accumulated from repeatedly returning to the story/play Job (as if each performance attended could have its own font in the notes). I am realizing that my reflections assume the reader will return to the story/play Job several times. Thus there are numerous promptings re special, specific, fresh ways to experience the story/play Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #87

[May 2003 journal entry]

It remains remarkable to me that so many individuals make very explicit and passionate appeals to divine providence in their personal experiences at the expense of so many others around them who are devastated. Perhaps there is an analogy with the way having a camera’s aperture wide open results in a very thin focal plane with the foreground/background blurred to the point that the details are no longer discernable. Why do individuals surrounded by devastation to others if not to themselves continue to trust/champion some variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re divine providence?

1. Is it because the paradigm satisfactorily accounts for their personal experiences and their closest acquaintances’ experiences? (In other words, the paradigm works for them enough of the time that they do not test the paradigm by taking into account the wider/deeper realities of human suffering.)
2. Is it because their reason/s for adopting the paradigm had nothing to do with testing the paradigm’s credibility against the depth/breadth of human misery?
3. Is it because separating from the paradigm would be too painful, too time-consuming, too difficult to explain, . . . ?
4. Is it because they are not attempting to be truly present with individuals experiencing the worst of life?
5. Is it because the paradigm does not permit or support its being radically (i.e., down into the root) tested? (Those who dare to do so are pressured to ‘repent’. There is something hauntingly akin to spouse abuse -- e.g., “At least he notices me”, “I’m to blame”, “I would not know how to live in any other situation”, “I can’t afford to leave”, . . .)
6. Is it because they are not looking for or wanting to struggle with such questions?
7. Is it because they place more value on other aspects of membership within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
8. Is it because they have made public statements and/or taken public actions of allegiance to the paradigm that would be difficult (embarrassing?) to reverse (analogous to having a ‘lifetime alumnus’ sticker on your car)?
9. Is it because of a desire for childlike comfort and liberty from accountability?
10. Is it because of texts in Jewish scripture and/or Christian scripture that discourage seriously questioning the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
11. Is it because of credentialed authorities (e.g., PhDs, faculty members, popular writers, pastors, . . .) who repeatedly reassure the adherents that the paradigm is sound and can be trusted? (These ‘religious’ authorities are analogous to a building inspector requested by a real estate agent because s/he can count on the building inspector’s certification of the property regardless of the items found to need correction. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects to be certified whenever these ‘religious’ authorities examine the paradigm.)
12. Is it because they fear being in ‘fog’ (i.e., ‘uncertainty’)?
13. Is it because they have taken pivotal actions (e.g., who/whether to marry, what profession to pursue, where to work, . . .) primarily (even solely) on the conviction that ‘God’ specifically willed such actions? (The fabric of these actions would begin to unravel if they step back/away from the paradigm.)
14. Is it because they are concerned not to appear disloyal to or critical of individuals they love and respect who remain unwavering in their allegiance to the paradigm?
15. Is it . . . ?

Fragment -- #220

[July 2003 journal entry]

I offered our twin daughters four landmarks when they left for college – i.e., (1) always be reading something elective, (2) always be creating something, (3) always be in a co-working situation, (4) always have a ‘K-Bar-B’ experience going. I would now add a fifth landmark – i.e., (5) always be taking care of someone’s garbage/waste.

Fragment -- #219

[July 2003 journal entry]

A close physician friend mentioned recently a comment made by a fellow resident near the end of their residencies re my friend’s efforts as chief resident to correct flaws in the system – “David, it doesn’t make a difference. When you are gone, it will be like pulling your finger out of water. No one will know you have been here or what you have tried to do.” I have thought several times about this premise that expending time and energy to ‘make a difference’ is futile and without significance. This premise is not without insight. Infrastructures are especially resistant to change. And most of the ways we benevolently touch another’s life go unnoticed. This premise also raises the important question of motive (i.e., the importance placed on being noticed/recognized). Still, the analogy proposed in this premise breaks down at least slightly in that the finger stuck into the water leaves something – however difficult to trace/identify -- in the water.

Fragment -- #218

[July 2003 journal entry]

Today I watched a skit performed by the Vacation Bible School kids at Harpeth Presbyterian Church (USA) around the story of ‘Jesus’ and Peter walking on the surface of the sea. The theme song for the skit had the refrain – “I can do all things – even walk on the sea – through Jesus Christ who strengthens me”. What did the kids think this statement meant? What did their teachers think it meant? Had there been any discussion that would keep the kids from going to a lake or swimming pool and trying to walk on water?

Fragment -- #217

[July 2003 journal entry]

An ex nihilo beginning to the natural order is widely taken for granted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. This view – which, in my opinion, is not self-evident – is linked with the premise also widespread within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that all events (including all human experiences) are willed by ‘God’. Liturgies, hymns, prayers, and sermons reinforce this link. This view marginalizes/devalues all other possibly explanatory variables – including human freedom – when interpreting natural events. I see Jewish thought in antiquity as neither rooted in an ex nihilo view nor (in contrast with Egyptian, Persian, or Hellenistic cultures) given to extensive metaphysical theorizing. This lack of metaphysical theorizing is especially evident in Genesis’ second creation story with its gardener working the soil metaphor and its potter working with clay metaphor for ‘God’ bringing design out of formlessness. Other nuances in these variables present in such metaphors (e.g., quality of soil, amount of rain, grazing of animals, . . . or windblown sand, low humidity, children playing too close to the potter’s spinning wheel, . . .) need not be marginalized as more recently recognized variables (e.g., regularities in nature, randomness, human freedom/choice, . . .) need not be (and are not, in a ‘non-religious’ approach) marginalized.

Fragment -- #216

[April 2003 journal entry]

It is serious/profound to say to another – “Step here. The ground is firm.” (The ‘ground’ metaphor could be replaced by ‘ice’, ‘wood’, . . .). Decisions/actions imply such counsel. Virtually all individuals – when I observe them in the routines/schedules of the day and especially when I listen to them in conversation – look and sound as if they are confident about the paradigm reflected in and implied by their decisions, their actions, their reactions. I have thought about this recurring observation often over the years. Very few individuals seem cautious, questioning, testing. They instead seem to stride through their lives. This impression has contributed directly/significantly to my reticence to do more than suggest radical (i.e., ‘to the root’) paradigm examination to those with whom I am acquainted. I am, however, always ready to participate in such radical examination with those who indicate a need and longing to do so.

Fragment -- #215

[June 2006 journal entry]

I feel more keenly/painfully than ever an identification with Koheleth as he wrestled with being aware of the human misery just beyond the edges of his affluence. Where -- across a spectrum with one end being ‘utter misery’ and the other end being ‘utter affluence’ -- is the lifestyle that does not necessitate colonizing, exploiting, oppressing, impoverishing? where none would have reason to say, “I would not live my life over”? The standard of living experienced or sought by so many in the United States is far toward the ‘utter affluence’ end of the spectrum. A serious move toward the point of a just lifestyle on the spectrum is hard and complicated. Is it possible? . . . I must resist the enticements/sanctions – social, professional, religious – to turn away from seeing, to be distracted, to try to forget. I still see Koheleth tormented, paralyzed, frustrated, disillusioned by his awareness of the human misery just beyond the edge of his affluence. I still wonder if the author found a way to stay focused on ‘life under the sun’ after he wrote Ecclesiastes. I still consider my 1992-present journal entries to be an interpretation of one attempt to remain ‘with the world face to face’. I still place ‘unparalleled value’ on seeing ‘from below’. I still hesitate to claim that I see clearly ‘from below’.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #50

[July 2003 journal entry]
“I’m beginning to feel again an excitement about being a physician” – a mid-40s Johns Hopkins Ob/Gyn Department faculty member (with a specialization in the gynecological care of HIV+ women) during a dinner conversation after I had given the department’s Thomas Elkins Memorial Lecture.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #49

[May 2001 journal entry]
My daughters have often asked me how they should explain to others my work with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians. Over the years, I have offered them a variety of metaphors (e.g., the prompter in theatre, the mudder in interior wall construction, the leaven in baking, . . .). A few days ago, Morgan asked, “Dad, how should I answer when my friends ask -- ‘Morgan, what does your dad do?’” A new metaphor came to mind. I responded, “Just tell them I am an irrigation ditch.” By the end of our conversation about this metaphor, she seemed to understand. Since the early 1980s, I have been privileged to work closely with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians who remain resolved to be humane toward their patients and to exercise a strong social conscience in the practice of medicine. Their resolve places them in the barren regions of the medical education and medical practice environments.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #167

[April 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich invested in the Confessing Church as a non-violent civil disobedience strategy and was deeply disappointed when the strategy failed. The credibility of such a resistance strategy depends on two key assumptions/anticipations – i.e., the expectation that the enemy/aggressor will be caused to pause (eventually responding to the strategy) and the ability of the resistors to remain resolute when injuries, deprivations, deaths begin to occur. By 1939 Dietrich saw that the strategy had failed on both counts. Unlike the British in India, the Nazis were in their homeland and had a deep/dark core. The ranks of the Pastors’ Emergency League broke in 1937 when the Nazis brutally confronted the Confessing Church after the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #166

[April 2003 journal entry]

I have pondered for some time how young Confessing Church pastors trained by Bonhoeffer at Finkenwalde would have conducted confirmation instruction for the youth in their congregations during the Nazi years. What would have been Bonhoeffer’s counsel if/when students asked for guidance? I suspect a spectrum existed among Confessing Church pastors – i.e., with an approach that would have blurred the distinctions with the confirmation experience of ‘German Christian’ youth at one end of the spectrum and with close/clear transposition of Cost of Discipleship instruction for Confessing Church youth at the opposite end of the spectrum.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #165

[February 2003 journal entry]

At least since the mid-1990s, photography has contributed substantively to my ‘non-religious’ experience of and approach to spirituality and ethics. (Music, elective reading, and most recently sketching have somewhat similar importance.) Beyond being a source of relief, photography refreshes (recalibrates, refocuses, replenishes) my attentiveness to the details in everyday situations and my instinct to anticipate (look for) composition in everyday situations. Photography quickens my ability and readiness to be truly/fully present.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #164

[January 2003 journal entry]

Virtually all who strive to live life deeply/genuinely respectful of others (esp., those who live in life’s darkest shadows) are eventually ‘leaven’ – i.e., they are hardly noticed influences on temporal realities and on history. The number of individuals who know about their leavening and the radius within which notice occurs are both limited. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm offers divine notice and ultimate/eternal reward, thus anticipating an eventual separating of the ‘leaven’ from ‘the bread’. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics is content with the incognito of ‘leaven’ and does not yearn for an eventual separating of the ‘leaven’ from ‘the bread’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #163

[January 2003 journal entry]

The Matthew 25:31-46 story has been pivotal for my decision to align with ‘the second commandment’ (i.e., love your neighbor as yourself) as I wrestle with the complexities/limitations I find inseparable from understanding or experiencing ‘the first commandment’ (i.e., love ‘God’ with all your . . .). The Matthew 25:31-46 story supports this reverse ordering of these two ‘commandments’. The story can easily (and ironically, I think) be read through the perspective of the ‘goats’ in the story – i.e., with the readers/interpreters concluding, “Let us, therefore, serve ‘the least of these’ because in doing so we are serving ‘God’.” The ‘goats’ in the story beg for a second chance to do just that. The ‘sheep’ in the story are commended because their motive for caring for ‘the least of these’ is free from such self-serving, from such self-promoting, from such ‘means to the end of strengthening my case in judgment’ objectives. The ‘sheep’ in the story care for ‘the least of these’ in a pure and unconditional sense. If I had stayed on the ‘religious’ path of having to settle ‘the first commandment’ issues as a prerequisite for participating in ‘the second commandment’ ethic, I would either have given up the further inquiry re ‘the first commandment’ I already knew had to be pursued to maintain intellectual integrity or I would have neglected my responsibilities as a spouse, as a parent, as a neighbor. Stepping instead directly into ‘the second commandment’ responsibilities actually liberated and energized my continued inquiry into ‘the first commandment’ questions. Doing so also necessitated a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ rationale for seeking to be the sort of person who sees and cares deeply for ‘the least of these’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #162

[December 2002 journal entry]

I spoke recently with a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend about Countee Cullen’s poem The Incident –

The Incident

Once riding in old Baltimore
Heart-filled, head-filled with glee,
I saw a Baltimorean
Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,
And he was no whit bigger,
And so I smiled, but he poked out
His tongue, and called me, ‘Nigger’.

I saw the whole of Baltimore
From May until December,
Of all the things that happened there
That’s all that I remember.

Countee Cullen (1903-46) was raised in New York City by his grandmother and then by F. A. Cullen, the pastor of the largest African-American Methodist Church in the city. Cullen was raised in privilege re both culture and education (including New York University and Harvard). Cullen sought recognition for his poetry beyond his being considered a leading African-American poet. He turned down numerous professorships at the peak of his reputation in the 1920s. He subsequently taught in the New York City public schools.

My pastor/friend was preparing to facilitate a discussion of the poem with his congregation. I encouraged him to imagine the church experiences the three characters in the poem might have had – i.e., (1) the child harshly labeled, (2) the ‘Baltimorean’ child, and (3) a child sitting near enough to have observed and overheard this incident. What is ‘the gospel’ in each child’s church? I suggested that the word ‘religion’ should be approached as one of those words for which a dictionary lists several meanings in a descending order. I would make the nuances Bonhoeffer gave ‘religion’ and the nuances I have added to his in these journal entries the first/common meanings in the list of meanings.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #161

[November 2002 journal entry]

Being radically (i.e., without restriction or discrimination) open to ‘from below’ inquiry and to ‘from below’ consciousness of the depth/breadth of human suffering is essential to a ‘non-religious’ path re spirituality and ethics. Most expressions of Christianity in the United States are located toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the spectrum and, therefore, are separate from as well as antagonistic toward these ‘from below’ positions/perspectives. Fundamentalist traditions/groups are sealed/airtight against radical inquiry and radical consciousness of human suffering. Evangelical traditions/groups are closed but not sealed/airtight, careful to stop short of either radical inquiry or radical consciousness of human suffering that would threaten the evangelical theological paradigm. The remaining expressions of Christianity in the United States are located toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Liberal traditions/groups are open optimistically to radical inquiry, but do not strain to be radically conscious of the depth/breadth of human suffering. The authentic expressions of Christianity in the United States I have found re these ‘from below’ perspectives/positions are among the Quakers and among isolated/marginalized individuals within liberal traditions/groups.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #160

[September 2002 journal entry]

During a conversation with Renate Bethge (Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s niece), she asked about an observation in one of my letters to her – i.e., that “I am a historian first, a theologian second”. I began my explanation with a 1974 exchange with a fellow graduate student re how to approach and handle research into the critical scholarship about Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. The student said he intended to take seriously only research results that supported his already established and uncritical view of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as ‘inspired’. I said my approach would be the reverse. I have never knowingly veered from the approach with which I aligned myself in that conversation. I explained to Renate that in time I concluded I could not maintain ‘a historian first, a theologian second’ approach within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere. We then spent most of our time associating the ‘historian first, theologian second’ position with my subsequent interaction with the beginnings of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics in Dietrich’s prison letters.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #159

[August 2002 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ interpretation of a text gives special attention to characters who are criticized, who are not affirmed.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #158

[August 2002 journal entry]

Paradox – To be aligned by choice ‘from below’ with the marginalized and disenfranchised is often to be distant from those who are sensitive to language’s limitations and who are articulate re a scientific worldview.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #157

[May 2002 journal entry]

I was recently asked how – in 1973? in 1979? in 1987? in 1992? – I would have read my journal entries. The question made me wonder. Given my response to Bonhoeffer’s prison letters when I first read them in 1975/76 and my response to a widening exposure to the history of ideas during the years in question, I think I would have responded with considerable interest and openness.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #156

[March 2002 journal entry]

The ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘community’ I am experiencing is descriptive of my sorting and prioritizing relationships as the following experiences unfolded in a simultaneous and interweaved manner during the 1970s/80s – (1) being with my first wife over the course of her disease and death (d. 1987), (2) struggling with tensions in my association – as a historian and as a theologian – within the theologically and socially/politically conservative Christian denomination into which I was born, (3) stepping into a steadily widening range of opportunities within the medical education/practice sphere. Until several years into my thirteen-year tenure as a history and theology professor (1979-1992), I continued to look for vitality in a ‘religious’ understanding of ‘community’. Analogous to the decision to withdraw artificial/intensive life-support technologies, I eventually concluded that the effort was futile, given my irreversible and no longer negotiable decisions (1) to engage in unrestricted historical inquiry, (2) to be as closely aligned as possible with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering without regard to my existential and theological costs, (3) to be as fully present as possible within the medical education/practice sphere with health care professionals who are committed to the same alignment without my having prior knowledge of their religious or philosophical convictions. I realized that my experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere had been dying for some time. Analogous to a boat crushed in a storm, my experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere had proved to lack integrity as I moved further and further into face to face (rather than ‘religiously’ filtered) engagement with the world’s ‘marketplaces’ and ‘wildernesses’. In this ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘community’, the first-order and primary experience of ‘community’ is the resolve to initiate ‘community’ in every encounter, with particular attention to encounters with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering. All other experiences of ‘community’ are valued as secondary means to sustain the first-order and primary experience of ‘community’. I do not know of ‘religious’ congregations that have in their origin and as their reason for existing this unconditional alignment with victims of the broad and deep realities of innocent suffering. One reason I persist in testing my thought in these journal entries – far beyond the expectation of anyone with whom I have been or am associated – is the desire to be consistent in my conversations that occur across the primary and secondary experiences of ‘community’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #155

[February 2002 journal entry]

I continue to think about the correlations on the one hand of ‘religion’ and the ‘God’ language characteristic of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and on the other hand the ‘Santa’ traditions/experience – e.g., (1) the naïve, simple, and innocent ‘Santa’ belief of a six-year-old, (2) a confident 2^nd-grader who defends ‘Santa’ belief in reaction to the suspicions of another student, (3) the first serious questions about the illogic of the ‘Santa’ story, (5) a 3^rd-grader’s more frantic and haunted attempts to defend ‘Santa’ belief.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #154

[February 2002 journal entry]

Bonhoeffer’s prediction that ‘religion’ in European countries generally and in Germany specifically would die and/or become increasingly irrelevant/marginalized proved true. Reasons a similar diminishment did not occur re ‘religion’ in the United States would include – (1) the evolution of ‘religion’ into a business with a sustainable market (e.g., church construction, profitable publishing, the mega-church phenomenon, the ‘Christian music’ industry, TV evangelists, . . .), (2) accredited private and independent ‘religious’ colleges, (3) no recent tragedies on United States soil on the magnitude of the Civil War, the world wars, and the Nazi holocaust, (4) the economic and educational legacy of slavery, (5) widespread indifference toward rigorous examination of ideas, (6) . . . .

Fragment -- #214

[April 2003 journal entry]

Being conscious, aware, engaged, present in an open and concrete manner is not a given, a once for all. I must fight for it every day, every hour. There is much resistance. There are many distractions.

Fragment -- #213

[February 2003 journal entry]

It seems that radical (i.e., to the root) cultural/global change now occurs so rapidly that what one person (generation?) settles on, after vigorous/careful examination/testing, as firm existential footing for decision-making is by that point already too out of date to be quickly/easily relevant to the new ‘present’ being faced.

Fragment -- #212

[February 2003 journal entry]

Christian congregations across the spectrum from fundamentalist to liberal expect sermons, regardless of the starting point or line of reasoning, to conclude with an affirmation of some theological variation consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

Fragment -- #211

[January 2003 journal entry]

To ‘counter’ culture, one must first and persistently ‘encounter’ culture.

Fragment -- #210

[December 2002 journal entry]

If ‘sin’ is missing the mark/target, then the identity of the mark/target is of utmost importance.

Fragment -- #209

[October 2002 journal entry]

We recently enjoyed having my artist friend Dean as our houseguest for a few days. In one conversation, Dean asked why western cultures appear to have drifted/declined into decadence (as he considered an audio-book at Borders that argued this thesis). I responded, “Information overload.” We had a very stimulating conversation about the consequences of having too much information to be able effectively to organize information into a construct or paradigm. Since that conversation, I have been considering the association of ‘cadence’ with ‘decadence’.

Fragment -- #208

[July 2002 journal entry]

A Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend asked what place ‘resurrection’ has in my ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. I began with -- “‘Resurrection’ is not weight-bearing.” I told him I am open to ‘resurrection’, but do not know of a way to conceive of or meditate on ‘resurrection’ that does not slip into literal language. He then asked what place ‘myth’ has. I admitted considerable reservation due to the widespread literal use of such, meaning that what he was calling ‘myth’ is rarely treated as ‘myth’ (even in liberal churches where the word ‘myth’ is permitted). Were ‘myths’ conceived/transmitted in pre-modern/pre-scientific settings understood then to be ‘myths’? Given the widespread understanding of such as literally true within the ‘religious’ sphere (with corresponding opposition to considering such as ‘myth’) in our modern/scientific time, it seems unlikely.

Fragment -- #207

[July 2002 journal entry]

From It’s a Wonderful Life – “Is he sick?” “No. Much worse. He is discouraged.”

Fragment -- #206

[July 2002 journal entry]

Today I happened to catch a segment of a Discovery Channel program about Bobby, a dog whose master had died and been buried at Grey Friars in England in 1858. Bobby walked in the funeral procession and kept vigil at the grave for the next fourteen years (fed by neighbors) before he died.

Fragment -- #205

[July 2002 journal entry]

Today I watched a Robin trying to make a companion Robin lying in the middle of Hillsboro Road move after it had been hit by a car.

Fragment -- #204

[June 2002 journal entry]

I am beginning to notice times when I feel tired, old, passed by.