Fragment -- #244

[February 2004 journal entry]

Re ‘community’ ( in Birds & Blooms, December/January 2004) –

“One New Year’s Day, a large Canada goose landed in our snow-covered garden. It appeared to have been shot. One leg was limp from the knee down, and it looked exhausted. I left the goose some food and water so it wouldn’t have to move. After several days, the large bird let me rub an antibiotic on its leg. The bird sat in my flowerbed the whole time, and the rest of the gaggle waited at the edge of the creek, encouraging it to continue the journey. They’d chirp and grunt, each of them taking turns repeating the same sounds – like they were crooning a familiar song for comfort. One morning, I saw the injured goose standing on both feet. It preened and stretched, called to the group near the creek and took off. Once airborne, the rest of the flock joined it until they formed a perfect ‘V’, with the injured bird flying in the rear position. I was amazed that this entire ‘community’ postponed its southward flight to wait for one bird’s recovery – and impressed that they placed it in the least strenuous position when they left.”

Fragment -- #243

[February 2004 journal entry]

Being on a ‘cautiously/modestly modern’, ‘non-religious’, and ‘from below’ path – no idea in Jewish scripture or Christian scripture is for me categorically true or authoritative. By not ‘categorical’ I mean that verifying an idea’s place in such documents and critiquing an idea’s meaning are methodologically necessary for assessing an idea’s trustworthiness.

Fragment -- #242

[January 2004 journal entry]

I suspect that ideas dependent on a pre-modern worldview are smuggled across the hermeneutic bridge into discussions in modern settings when a presenter classifies a text such as Genesis 1-3 as ‘story’. Story is one among many ways to convey ideas. But the ‘story’ designation is not enough to cross the hermeneutic bridge. The ideas conveyed in a story that depend on a pre-modern worldview to be credible must be identified/critiqued. Not only may a metaphor be left behind (e.g., ‘king’, ‘sheep’), but also the idea/s carried by the metaphor (e.g., low/passive/dependent view of being human).

Fragment -- #241

[December 2003 journal entry]

Spiritual maturity has to do with realigning one’s self interests with a larger vision.

Fragment -- #240

[December 2003 journal entry]

Which of two paradigms – one that finds divine will/intent immediately and directly expressed in any/every event or one that explains events in terms of nature’s (ir)regularities – makes the best sense of the data re human experience? For me, it is the latter. Two keys – (1) what is considered to be data and (2) the weight given to various kinds of data. ‘Make sense’ describes how most individuals make their way through the day. If a paradigm does not make the best sense of the data re human experience, then why would it continue to be held/used?

Fragment -- #239

[November 2003 journal entry]

Reading Getting a Grip on Evolution reminded me that – until social/medical advances a couple of centuries ago in western societies – (1) infant and maternal mortality was very high (with infant mortality estimated to have been as high as 40% by five years of age several centuries ago), (2) a typical lifespan did not commonly exceed forty years or so (estimated to be several years fewer in pre-recorded history), and (3) a view of life beyond reproductive years was largely an idea/experience neither conceived or developed.

Fragment -- #238

[November 2003 journal entry]

As I walked the streets of the French Quarter, I once again looked closely at the individuals – all strangers – around me. As often before, I was struck with their appearing to be settled and confident about their ways of seeing/being in the world.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #201

[March 2004 journal entry]

‘Seeing from below’ is not equivalent to ‘being from below’ or ‘living from below’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #200

[March 2004 journal entry]

A Sermon on the Mount vision could be considered a ‘non-religious’ confessional statement/profession in the time of ‘Jesus’. What ‘religious’ T/O paradigm confessional statement/profession in the history of Christian thought centers on a Sermon on the Mount vision?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #199

[February 2004 journal entry]

I heard recently a speaker mention that William James referred to a ‘more’ about human beings from which religious experience springs. I was not aware of James’ use of ‘more’ when, several years ago, I began using ‘more’ in the proposal that the ‘more’ to being human than can be empirically demonstrated is a starting point re spirituality and ethics in conversations outside ‘religious’ circles.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #198

[February 2004 journal entry]

‘Religion’ fails to establish a foundation/rootedness for the curiosity, the wonder, the questioning, the risk-taking, the imagination, . . . upon which a modern/scientific society is based.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #197

[February 2004 journal entry]

‘Religion’ creates stumbling blocks rather than signposts.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #196

[January 2004 journal entry] [1/04]

I am cautiously/modestly modern in that I stand apart from a fundamentalist disposition toward ‘modern’ as a tradition. But I cannot with integrity and candid (unrestricted) self-knowledge do other than identify myself as modern. I think cautious and modest indicate appropriate/necessary (1) recognition of the adolescent dispositions/actions early in the modern era (as Kant noted in his What Is ‘Enlightenment’? essay) and (2) recognition of the criticisms of the minority of post-modernists whom I take seriously because they take life seriously (rather than spin a literary and/or academic career by parasitically feeding off ‘modern’). I remain deeply concerned that ‘post’ inappropriately and inaccurately diminishes/dismisses ‘modern’. Moving from/past Newton to/past Einstein (1) does not eclipse or nullify all aspects/use of a Newtonian view of the world, (2) does not justify reaching back to or reasserting a pre-Newton view of the world, (3) does not discredit Newton-era critical assessments of pre-modern views of the world.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #195

[December 2003 journal entry]

Kant answered the question “What is ‘enlightenment’?” (see his essay by that title) by appealing to the ‘come of age’ metaphor. At some point across the continuum from infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood, an individual is expected to ‘come of age’ and is considered responsible (and accountable) for his/her actions. The relationship between parent and child evolves across this continuum. The child becomes increasingly independent. The parent’s control (‘sovereignty’) and accountability diminish. The parent’s beneficent instincts should be restrained as the self-determining child matures toward the point of making decisions about his/her life. Kant extended such observations about individuals to ‘enlightened’ societies and cultures as well.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #194

[December 2003 journal entry]

Newton (late 17^th century) identified a pivotal (and, in my estimate, irreversible) shift occurring re interpreting events/experiences. In place of beginning with the premise or assuming that events/experiences reflect divine or supernatural will/intervention, Newton proposed that natural explanations of events/experiences be sought and, when satisfactory, preclude the need to look for divine or supernatural will/intervention to explain events/experiences. Natural or ‘from below’ explanations of events/experiences were few in Newton’s time. Since then the natural or ‘from below’ penetration of events/experiences has been so deep and broad that Newton’s observation has been widely amended – i.e., wait in confidence for a satisfying natural or ‘from below’ explanation of events/experiences when such explanation does not yet exist.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #193

[December 2003 journal entry]

The ‘two kingdoms’ – one good, one evil – theological framework foundational from the later Augustine (e.g., City of God) through Luther/Calvin had framed questions re human will in terms of which kingdom’s sovereign (i.e., ‘God’ or ‘Satan’) controlled/determined the character/behavior of human beings. This framework had/has no place for the premise that formed from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment re human will – i.e., that humans are capable of truly free/autonomous choices (self-determination) and should be permitted/encouraged to exercise this facet of being human. The disagreement between Erasmus (On the Freedom of the Will) and Luther (On the Bondage of the Will) had essentially to do with this clash.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #192

[December 2003 journal entry]
The exercise of human freedom/will/choice had transitioned by the 17th century from generating seminal ideas to transforming social structures and worldviews (e.g., Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, the introduction of statistics, Locke, the beheading of the British monarch, Newton, . . .). We are irreversibly past that 17th century transition. We have immediate/direct control (i.e., ‘sovereignty’?) over more and more that happens to/around us. Note the frequent references to ‘playing God’. The origins from which all Christian theological traditions have emerged predate that 17th century transition (most by many centuries), thereby creating a complicated hermeneutic task if one’s intent is to radically (i.e., into the root) participate in the modern setting. Some Christian theological traditions in/since the 17th century (have) responded with suspicion; others (have) embraced the spirit of critical inquiry that was building momentum on numerous fronts (including challenges to traditional sources of religious authority). No Christian theological traditions (have) responded with more suspicion/resistance to this spirit of critical inquiry than the traditions that evolved from Luther and Calvin into the Synod of Dort (1619) and the Westminster Confession (1648) statements of orthodoxy. Both the more suspicious and the more embracing responses faced (and continue to face) substantial theological challenges re participating in a scientifically-based society/profession (most pointedly in my judgment – the pressure from such ideas as ‘innocent suffering’ and ‘theodicy’).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #97

[April 2004 journal entry]

What ideas do I trust unconditionally? A carefully considered few – e.g.,

1. the regularities of nature,
   
2. the scientific method (and the antecedent ‘scholastic method’ that fueled the turn from the ‘dark’ centuries to ‘enlightenment’ in the unfolding of European/Western thought) re careful and rigorous inquiry,
   
3. that there is ‘more’ about being human than can be empirically detected,
   
4. that the clearest insight into a person comes when s/he encounters strangers and adversaries,
   
5. the way of being that is implicit in the resolve to give expecting nothing in return,
   
6. that respect heals/unites,
   
7. a ‘beatitudes’ way of being,
   
8. courtesy,
9. the ideas expressed in the ‘I Have Time’ poem and the ‘To Live Life Well’ poem I wrote for our daughters,
   
10. that all ‘God’ language is morphic (i.e., anthropo-, socio-, cosmo-),
11. . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #96

[April 2004 journal entry]

Whom do I trust unconditionally? Whom do I know that well? Whom have I tested that carefully? With whom have I faced together the necessary existential challenges over many years? In whom has unconditional trust not proven to have been misplaced? With whom have I shared the deepest wounds as well as the deepest joys? Very few. I try to express clearly and often my gratitude to each one for this rare gift. Individuals I know only indirectly through historical sources – e.g., (of deepest significance for me) the 1939-45 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the ‘non-religious’ ‘Jesus’, the author of the ‘scrapheap’ Job middle section of the story/play Job, the author of Ecclesiastes – form a second crucial circle re ‘trust’, distinguishable from the first/inner circle of ‘trust’. I imagine trusting these individuals unconditionally. However, they are more difficult to trust unconditionally than individuals with whom I live and work due to uncertainties re historical reconstruction of their lives and thoughts, absence of shared experiences, inability to converse, differences in the concrete realities faced, lack of intimate familiarity, inability to share corrective and/or restorative feedback, . . . . Beyond the few individuals I trust unconditionally and the few individuals I know only through historical sources I imagine trusting unconditionally, there are many persons I trust with varying levels of caution or self-protection.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #95

[April 2004 journal entry]

I realize now more than I did 20+ years ago that my ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ path is very far from the shore or the marked paths desired/preferred by most individuals and characteristic of most ideas. I regret putting more stress (than I or they anticipated in our mutual understanding) on persons I trusted unconditionally who finally broke under that stress. I did not foresee the painful consequences. I do not regret putting stress on any idea that has resulted in the collapse of the idea. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is necessary to relieve relatives and friends of feeling trapped in a relationship with me as I continue on a ‘non-religious’/‘from the scrapheap’/‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’ path once they realize how many standard deviations from the mean this path makes/takes one. They may choose to remain near. I want them to be able to step back without guilt. The unrealistic expectations the ‘scrapheap’ Job had re his three close friends illustrates the undesirable and damaging consequences of not taking this approach.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #94

[April 2004 journal entry]

The utility pole climbers knew to examine repeatedly and regularly their security belts (and other equipment). They knew to protect their security belts from unnecessary damage or deterioration. I try to avoid trusting unconditionally any person or any idea I have not carefully/thoroughly tested (i.e., when the testing is the focus). In other words, I try only to trust a person or idea as far as I have tested that person or idea. I knowingly trust unconditionally a very few persons or ideas. I trust with varying levels of caution many persons. However, since ideas are linked, I trust fewer and fewer ideas as the level of caution increases or as the number of questionable links to other ideas increases. I test persons and ideas existentially as well as intellectually before putting any significant trust in them. I look for honesty, for consistency, for steadiness when ‘eye to eye’ with life’s severities. I have made mistakes, miscalculations.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #93

[April 2004 journal entry]

For many years, the utility pole climbers I recall from my youth -- who, trusting their security belts, had to turn loose of and lean back from the pole in order to work -- have been my image of ‘trust’. The trust they placed in their security belts -- unconditional, everything at risk -- illustrates one end of a spectrum. To trust unconditionally is to be completely at ease, completely free of distraction, completely exposed, completely vulnerable. Complete distrust stands at the opposite end of the spectrum. At some point across the spectrum, the paradigm switches from ‘trust’ to ‘distrust’, with numerous gradations on either side of the threshold. We begin life very (completely?) trusting. We soon experience betrayals and disappointments (some playful, some malicious) that teach us to test, whenever possible, before trusting. Once betrayal/disappointment occurs or trust fails, forgiveness is possible. However, lost trust may never be recovered and perhaps only in obligatory relationships (e.g., marriage, parent-child, co-worker).

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #53

[August 2006 journal entry, reflecting on the unfolding Terri Schiavo case]

A noticeable complexity re decisions about withholding/withdrawing artificial nutrition/hydration technologies, ventilators, antibiotics, and/or dialysis is the inescapable reality that affecting the time and manner of death is central to the decision-making process and the decision’s consequence. In other words, the reason for the withholding/withdrawing of these interventions does not have to do with the ineffectiveness or futility of the particular intervention. Each one may be effective when assessed in terms of the intervention’s specific/narrow function – e.g., nutrition/hydration may reach the body, air may reach the lungs, infection may be overcome, waste may be eliminated. The reason to withhold/withdraw, therefore, has to do more directly with the larger issues of the patient’s quality of life and of managing the patient’s dying process (i.e., ‘in league with death’). I think it takes great maturity re such considerations as ‘life’, ‘death’, ‘conflicts of interest’, ‘power’, . . . when faced with these decisions. If individuals oppose/shun this complexity and maturity, then I do not think they should employ modern/intensive medical care. I think the reactions from the religious ‘right’ in the Terri Schiavo case demonstrate the result of a one-sided use of modern/intensive medical care. ‘Playing God’ begins long before decisions about existence-sustaining technologies. I am not too confident in the maturity of those toward the ‘left’. However, there is the possibility of encouraging such maturity toward the ‘left’. I do see evidence of the needed maturity in the United States (or in Holland, for that matter) of those toward the ‘left’.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #52

[August 2006 journal entry, reflecting on the unfolding Terri Schiavo case]

I do not consider artificially delivered nutrition/hydration to be equivalent to or interchangeable with a plate of food and accompanying drink. I know firsthand there is a spectrum re the preparation/delivery of food and drink for individuals who cannot eat/drink easily – e.g., selecting food that does not require chewing to swallow/digest or holding an individual’s head up/forward when s/he tries to drink or selecting food drink that can be more easily digested or . . . – the far end of such a spectrum being giving the disabled person ice chips and other comfort measures. I do not place nutrition/hydration technologies on this spectrum but instead view such technologies as methods devised in the last few decades to override the physiological consequences of an individual’s inability to eat or drink. Justification is required for them to be used. Justification that is compelling on the ‘fighting illness and death’ side of the ‘care’ spectrum’s threshold is not compelling on the ‘in league with death’ side of the ‘care’ spectrum’s threshold. Before the development of these overriding and artificial interventions, caregivers were not thought to be cruelly abandoning or starving a patient who could no longer eat or drink.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #51

[August 2006 journal entry, reflecting on the unfolding Terri Schiavo case]

If a person accepts as fact the miracles reported in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture (e.g., stories of the sun standing still, or of raising Lazarus from being dead, or of correcting withered limbs, or of restoring sight to the blind, or . . .) and believes such can/do happen in the present, then all hope is not gone if a patient is in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ or is ‘dead by neurological criteria’. Such a person will regard a completely flat EEG or a completely atrophied brain or a completely absent brain or . . . to be no more insurmountable than Lazarus being brought back to life after being dead three days. Therefore, it should not be surprising when such a person insists on all existence-extending interventions for patients at life’s end. For such a person to do otherwise (i.e., to regard the situation as futile) would be to draw a faithless conclusion and make a faithless decision. The core issue has to do with such a person’s appeal simultaneously to two contradictory worldviews – i.e., the modern/scientific worldview underlying the development/use of the technological existence-extending interventions vs. a pre-modern/pre-scientific religious worldview.

Fragment -- #237

[November 2003 journal entry]

When does one get to the point of scrapping rather than continuing to revise a hypothesis/theory/paradigm – (1) when there exists an alternative minus extraneous/irrelevant ideas (i.e., the ‘Ockham’s Razor’ principle – pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate or “do not multiply ideas without necessity”)? (2) when an alternative hypothesis/theory/paradigm accounts for more of the (relevant/weighted) data? (3) when the hypothesis/theory/paradigm is no longer recognizable?

Fragment -- #236

[November 2003 journal entry]

‘A good sense of humor’ is often included in a listing of ideal traits for a friend, a spouse, a partner/colleague, an employee, et al. Why? – (1) because of life’s unexpected, surprising, incongruous moments? (2) because one will otherwise take him/herself too seriously? (3) because of the health benefits?

Fragment -- #235

[November 2003 journal entry]

‘Lord’ . . . ‘king/dom’ . . . ‘judge’ . . . ‘almighty’ . . . ‘inerrant’ . . . ‘infallible’ . . . – such concepts are weight-bearing within the (Christian) ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (e.g., creedal statements, theological language, liturgical materials, . . .). Toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum, the implied authority in such terms is considered (1) to be equally/consistently present throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture and (2) to be comprehensive, absolute, and final in all fields of thought. Toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum, the implied authority in such terms is considered (1) to be presented in varying ways throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture and (2) to be qualified by accepted advances in fields of thought subject to critical inquiry (e.g., the natural sciences, the social sciences, medicine, the arts, mathematics, political theory, economics, law, . . .). Does not a single qualifier eliminate absolute or unconditional meaning for such concepts in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’, et al? An analogy would be the “I am absolutely against abortion . . . except for rape or risk to the mother’s life or . . .” position re abortion. At what point do the number and/or weight of the qualifiers so restrict/condition the concepts ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’ et al that the rationale for using them is undermined? It might be argued that the accepted qualifiers correct earlier interpretations of the texts/ideas rather than creating exceptions or limits on the sources of authority (e.g., ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Jesus’, . . .) to which the concepts ‘lord’, ‘king/dom’ et al refer. This argument seems to imply that a qualifier demonstrates that the sources of authority (e.g., ‘God’, ‘scripture’, ‘Jesus’, . . .) have been in fact ‘modern’ all along. I do not find this argument compelling.

Fragment -- #234

[September 2003 journal entry]

Expanding one’s non-discriminating exposure to ideas and to the breadth/depth of human suffering is analogous to overlaying a 3x5 card with a 5x7 card with a 6x8 card with a 8.5x11 sheet with a 11x14 sheet with . . . . Expansion keeps requiring radical examination of previously trusted paradigms. Or – unacceptable in my judgment – expanding exposure is either shut down or becomes discriminating (i.e., attention given only to observations or information favorable to the most current paradigm).

Fragment -- #233

[September 2003 journal entry]

Jewish scripture and Christian scripture are for me analogous to boxes of puzzle pieces, various selections of which can be combined into partial/incomplete pictures without any one combination that uses all the pieces. The idea of an everlasting ‘hell’ is for me a piece that stays in the box. The Ecclesiastes essay and the emerging of the ‘scrapheap’ Job in the story/play Job function for me in a way analogous to beginning to put a puzzle together by locating corner pieces and edge pieces.

Fragment -- #232

[September 2003 journal entry]

Studying the history of ideas can leave a person with an inability to make sound life judgments (i.e., ‘insane’) when the study is conducted without an unbreakable link with concrete life realities/circumstances. The history of ideas is an ever-expanding and never-exhausted/mastered field of inquiry. Without the existential link, studying the history of ideas can easily be(come) analogous to being lost in a maze and no longer searching for an exit. The existential link for me formed with my experience at the side of my first wife (d. 1987) as she was irreversibly defeated over fourteen years by multiple sclerosis. The link continues to today for me through efforts daily – both personally and professionally –to seek fresh ways to see ‘from below’.

Fragment -- #231

[September 2003 journal entry]

I have come to think in terms of six ‘focusing’ experiences –

1. maintenance (e.g., personal health and hygiene, property repair, assisting others, garbage management),
   
2. personal relationships (e.g., marriage, parenting, extended family, friends, strangers, adversaries),
   
3. professional relationships,
4. creativity (e.g., photography for me),
   
5. observation (i.e., indiscriminate awareness of the full range of human conditions),
   
6. retreat (i.e., rest, meditation).
   

I prefer the ‘focusing’ metaphor to ‘quadrant’ or ‘sphere’ because these alternatives suggest too much compartmentalization, not enough simultaneity. A well-lived life integrates/balances these six ‘focus’ experiences in response to the specific circumstances in a situation that demand attention.

Fragment -- #230

[September 2003 journal entry]

Our youngest daughter (now fourteen years old) recently disclosed the anxiety she sometimes experiences re realizing her mortality – “You are a teenager . . . then you marry . . . then your children are raised . . . then you grow old . . . then you die. There are times when it feels so fast and it’s all over. It scares me.” I offered her a perception that has assisted me in finding a measure of peace re my mortality – i.e., that at least by age thirty I had already experienced a wider and deeper life than will be the privilege of virtually all human beings (most of whom will not even conceive of such experiences). How, with this realization, can I feel penalized by illness or death? And how, with this realization, can I justify draining the resources of those near me and the resources of society when I am no longer able to make significant contribution to them?

Fragment -- #229

[September 2003 journal entry]

George Eliot (Middlemarch) –

“She (Dorothea) had no dream of being praised above other women, feeling there was always something better which she might have done if she had only been better and known better. Her full nature spent itself in deeds which left no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculable. For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts and on all those Dorotheas who live faithfully their hidden lives and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Fragment -- #228

[September 2003 journal entry]

One reason physicians found toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the theological spectrum experience dissonance with their practice of modern medicine is that their ‘religious’ perspective is centrally and ideally ‘paternalistic’ (e.g., their ‘God’ language) whereas the perspective essential to modern medicine is centrally and ideally ‘self-determination’.

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.