Fragment -- #274

[October 2004 journal entry]

This past Tuesday evening, I learned my friend Charles had died that afternoon of a heart attack. Later in the evening, I spoke with Charles’ middle daughter who conveyed the family’s request that I give one of the eulogies during the funeral. Charles’ death has led me to think back across the nearly three decades since our friendship took such special form during my years in Louisville when I was a searching doctoral student. Charles – a highly respected lawyer who had remained in a small practice with his father to protect his professional freedom -- took me on as a project, I think. He was the first adult I knew well who had a wide-angle view of ‘the world’, who respected the complex textures of ‘the world’, who relished being in ‘the world’. On the eve of my departure in 1979 from Louisville to fill a graduate faculty position, Charles and I had a ‘David and Jonathan’ moment together. We looked back. We speculated about the future. We exchanged symbols of our friendship. I gave him a paperweight he kept on his desk all these years. The paperweight (which I now have) has the inscription – “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David. And Jonathan loved David as his own soul”. He gave me the replica of a turtle that has been on my desk now for twenty-five years. That turtle was his parting counsel to survive, to persevere, to know when to take shelter, and “to never let them see your hands sweating”. During the days since Charles’ death, I have again placed our friendship alongside the David and Jonathan story in Jewish scripture. The paperweight inscription comes in the story just after David defeats Goliath. King Saul prohibits David’s return to his home and instead virtually adopts him into the royal court. These are heady years for the young shepherd boy turned military legend. David and Jonathan – the king’s son -- share a vision of their ruling together, with Jonathan at David’s side. For this and other reasons (including symptoms hinting at psychiatric disorder), Saul turns against David. Jonathan finds himself in the dilemma of attempting to remain true to his friend and to his father. David eventually flees into the wilderness as a hunted/marked fugitive charged by Saul with treason. He lives among the Philistines. The story includes one brief meeting between David and Jonathan. Jonathan repeats their vision of ruling together, with Jonathan at David’s side. Otherwise, they live on in very different settings. Jonathan dies with his father in battle at the hands of the Philistines. David had offered to fight with the Philistines, but had been turned away by military commanders who questioned his trustworthiness in fighting against the Israelites. Among the speculations set up by the story – What if David had fought with the Philistines in the battle and faced Jonathan? What if Jonathan had survived the battle and come to David with the vision of ruling together?

Fragment -- #273

[September 2004 journal entry]

Imagine: A teacher singles out for preferential treatment two students of the thirty-three students in his/her class. The reasons could be any combination of factors – e.g., ethnicity, intellectual gifts, familiarity with parents, gender, appearance, . . . . Or there may be no reason/s. The preferential treatment occurs unambiguously in front of the entire class (e.g., tutoring, seating, extra credit, field trips, . . .). The teacher simultaneously and intentionally discourages/deprives the other students of assistance/resources that would be beneficial to their education. The ignored/harmed students and their parents object to this blatantly unfair behavior. Ethics question: What should the two students singled out for preferential treatment think? do? Theological question: How can individuals who would object to such behavior on the teacher’s part use/approve/advocate ‘God’ language that is strongly similar to the imagined teacher’s preferential treatment of the students?

Fragment -- #272

[September 2004 journal entry]

As a teacher/friend commented on what his year away from high school teaching had meant for him, he introduced the idea of ‘calling’ and asked what I think about the concept. Based on our previous discussions, he anticipated that I would have reservations due to the implied anthropomorphic image of a ‘God’ who ‘calls’. I introduced ‘accountable’ as the operative term for me. I explained that, as a starting premise, I consider myself accountable for all experiences however large or small. In reality, many experiences pass without much notice or reflection. I try hard not to miss potentially pivotal experiences. To illustrate, I reflected on several pivotal experiences for which I continue to feel accountable – e.g., the discovery of historiographical questions and source criticism, exposure to chronic illness through my first wife’s illness/death, ‘friendship in the singular’ with a small circle of physicians, openings into the medical education/practice settings, . . . . The point -- accepting accountability for such experiences alters/shapes the course my life takes.

Fragment -- #271

[September 2004 journal entry]

Hurricane Ivan destroyed a Pensacola woman’s business she had maintained for fifty years. She said to a news reporter – “This is God’s way of telling me it’s time to retire.” Did she not see or care about the implications of this assertion for others?

Fragment -- #270

[September 2004 journal entry]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- with his decision to return to Germany in July 1939, his subsequent participation in covert/violent resistance against the Nazis, and his courage to begin radically rethinking his core ideas -- stood out for me in a singular way among the seminal thinkers in the Western tradition as I made the move into being ‘with the world face to face’. Going beyond either the ‘scrapheap’ Job or the Ecclesiastes author, Dietrich assigned “unparalleled value” to the experience of learning to see “from below” (i.e., from the perspective of the sufferer). His experience from the time of his doctoral studies through 1938 (by which time the Nazis had crushed the Confessing Church as a form of civil disobedience) and my experience from the time of my doctoral studies to the ‘imprisoning’ last three years of my first wife’s battle with multiple sclerosis (1984-87) differed in one foundational way – i.e., Dietrich during his university studies stepped back/away from Harnack et al and their participation in modern critical scholarship as he began to study closely and eventually came to collaborate with Barth (who, in the 1920s and in intentional contrast to Harnack et al, was attempting to recover as much as possible of the classic Protestant/Reformed ‘from above’ methodology/theology). I studied Barth carefully in a doctoral seminar and presented him (as I did all seminal thinkers) as forcefully as possible in the ‘Current (20^th century) Religious Thinking’ graduate course I taught (1979-92). But in my personal spiritual and ethical journey, I had no ‘Barth phase’. To the degree that Dietrich drew from and aligned with Barth, he (1) neither would nor could consider himself to be a historian first, then a theologian, and (2) would not have felt pressure to engage radically (i.e., into the root) the implications of the ‘world come of age’ realization. His immediate conversation partners during his time as assistant pastor with a German-speaking Church in Barcelona (1928) and his time with New York City’s Union Seminary (1930-31) put no such pressure on him as far as I have been able to determine. The cultural/moral deterioration in Germany that resulted from Hitler’s coming to power seemed to reinforce Barth’s bleak perspective on ‘the world’. I suspect Dietrich’s valued place within his largely ‘non-religious’ extended family contributed directly and deeply to his having a wider, more complex, and more penetrating insight than Barth (who was in Basel after 1934) into the German situation during the Confessing Church pre-war years of resistance. Dietrich could have retained some variation on Barthian methodology/theology if he had remained in New York City in 1939. Instead, he returned to Germany after only a few weeks. His decision to return to Germany minus an intent to ride out the war huddled with the contained Confessing Church put before him in a new/radical way the methodological challenges associated with taking a ‘non-religious’ approach to being ‘with the world – come of age -- face to face’. I am not surprised to find him explaining his disappointment with and his distance from Barth in his prison letters to Eberhard and Renate. Nor am I surprised to find in his prison correspondence frequent requests for and reactions to books about science, philosophy, history, physics, . . . . I think Dietrich felt an urgency to deepen his understanding of ‘the world come of age’ free of a Barthian perspective on ‘the world’. The list I have kept re my reading since 1992 demonstrates that gaining the necessary orientation to be ‘with the world face to face’, to remain ‘non-religious’, and to keep seeing ‘from below’ requires an ever-deepening inquiry, self-examination, and re-thinking. This reading followed naturally for me from my years as a student and teacher of the history of ideas.

Fragment -- #269

[September 2004 journal entry]

Across the years since 1992, I have tried to handle carefully and thoroughly the question re what image (if any) of ‘Jesus’ is possible/legitimate outside the ‘religious’ sphere. (My prior years of rigorous consideration of the ‘historical Jesus’ question were useful but not sufficient as I engaged this question even more earnestly outside the ‘religious’ sphere. The same limitation was true of the attempts I had made prior to 1992 to critically test ‘God’ language.) By the end of my doctoral studies (1981), I was determined to be first a historian, then a theologian. Among the many implications, this methodological commitment meant that my theological efforts would be based on the results of an unrestrained and critical assessment of the resources – principally the ‘gospels’ of Christian scripture – for constructing an image of ‘Jesus’. During my graduate study years, my center of gravity re Jewish scripture and Christian scripture shifted to the story/play Job and to the Ecclesiastes essay because (1) neither depended on resolution of historiographical questions similar to the ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ and (2) both focused on the core life-questions re suffering and integrity I was facing. This shift gave me (1) a position both in life and within Jewish scripture and Christian scripture from which to engage the historiographical questions prerequisite to imaging ‘Jesus’ and (2) an existential grid by which to sift through the sources re ‘Jesus’. These methodological decisions have remained matters of intense inquiry for me to the present. Not surprisingly, ‘Christology’ steadily diminished for me as ‘Jesus’ the human being became increasingly real to me. And as ‘Jesus’ the human being came into focus for me, his being a man of his time/setting (as Schweitzer argued, convincingly in my judgment, a century ago against the 19^th-century ‘lives of Jesus’) became increasingly evident – e.g., his pre-modern/pre-scientific view of the world, his limited education, his lack of family responsibilities, his anticipation of a near end to history, his use of ‘God’ language minus reservations about the morphic (e.g., anthropo-, socio-, cosmo-) limitations of such language, . . . . I lost sight of ‘Jesus’ as a ‘lord’ or a ‘king’ with a final or authoritative word/path to follow. I gained sight of ‘Jesus’ as a possible example for the missing character in the story/play Job and as a potential conversation partner for the Ecclesiastes author. This ‘Jesus’ would have to set aside any ‘religious’ T/O paradigm ideas that would undermine his ability to be such. The ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes author would have insights to offer him. I find the fact that ‘Jesus’ was seen/treated as dangerous and heretical by the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm of his day a compelling reason to think (1) he would be seen/treated similarly by the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm today and (2) he might be a candidate for the missing character in the story/play Job and a conversation partner for the Ecclesiastes author. This surviving image of ‘Jesus’ remains in my vision as I journey further and further away from the familiar (to me) shoreline of the ‘religious’ sphere and into the open seas of being ‘with the world face to face’.

Fragment -- #268

[September 2004 journal entry]

My experience as the spouse of a multiple sclerosis victim put me in a position analogous to Job’s wife as I have studied closely the story/play Job since the early-1970s. My affluence (in the etymological sense of ‘flowing to’) – e.g., privileges and resources associated with being male, white-skinned, American, healthy, athletic, intelligent, with having opportunities to travel abroad, with never being uncertain about employment or my next meal, with . . . – has put me in a position analogous to the Ecclesiastes author’s deep existential turmoil once he had seen how exceptional his privileged life was when compared with what he saw of the severe want and suffering the vast majority of individuals were experiencing just beyond the edge (and perhaps due to) his affluence. When I began (1979) teaching graduate courses in history and theology, my lived connections with the characters in the drama around the ‘scrapheap’ Job and with the Ecclesiastes author (1) led to my introducing a human suffering course that was framed by and tied to a ‘scrapheap’ Job perspective and (2) led to the attempt to construct an imagined dialogue between the Ecclesiastes author and ‘Jesus’ as the format, essence, challenge of my systematic theology course (with whom in Jewish scripture or Christian scripture could the Ecclesiastes author have a dialogue?). The ideas tested in those two courses contributed directly and significantly to my loss of confidence that the ‘religious’ sphere can either produce the missing character in the story/play Job (i.e., a character representing a way to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him further) or sustain a dialogue with the Ecclesiastes author that takes seriously and embraces his scrutiny of the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery in ‘life under the sun’ (with the last paragraph in the Ecclesiastes text – which I view as tacked on by a ‘religious’ editor -- illustrating the ‘religious’ withdrawal from the dialogue on methodological grounds). My intent to seek a way of being that is a variation on the missing character in the story/play Job and my intent to test the credibility/integrity of ideas from the perspective of and against the reality of the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery in ‘life under the sun’ meant I had passed the point of considering further or seeking to return to the ‘religious’ sphere as my spiritual and ethical ‘home’. By the 1991 resignation from the institution where I had been on faculty, my move outside the ‘religious’ sphere in order to be(come) ‘with the world face to face’ was complete. I did not seek another place (‘home’) within the ‘religious’ sphere. Instead, opportunities to live/work within the medical education and practice settings created ways for me to relocate where the depth/breadth of human tragedy/misery is seen ‘face to face’ and where there is no more crucial ethical challenge than to be near suffering patients without harming them further.

Fragment -- #267

[September 2004 journal entry]

“Many more Americans die each year from poverty, hunger, pollution, dangerous jobs, or poor access to high-quality health care than from terrorism. Who weeps for these people?” – Ralph Nader (speaking at a Philadelphia church on 11 September 2004).

Fragment -- #266

[September 2004 journal entry]

The attempt within a theological or philosophical paradigm to make sense of an existentially threatening incident of human suffering is analogous to the attempt a physician makes in going through his/her differential diagnosis reasoning to make sense of a patient’s symptoms.

Fragment -- #265

[September 2004 journal entry]

The ontological question shifted in subject/focus from ‘God’ to the ‘self’.

Fragment -- #264

[September 2004 journal entry]

Is certainty ignorance? Yes. Does certainty lead others into ignorance? Yes.

Fragment -- #263

[September 2004 journal entry]

Can justification/rationale for a modern/liberal approach to education be traced back into early Christian scripture/tradition? into Jewish scripture/tradition? into the life/teachings of ‘Jesus’ (seen independent from and antecedent to the guardians of the early Christian tradition)?

Fragment -- #262

[September 2004 journal entry]

When the poor are assisted, the sick medically attended, and sufferers encouraged -- can such actions be understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm other than as implied indictments of ‘God’ and as implied corrections of the actions of ‘God’?

Fragment -- #261

[August 2004 journal entry]

Eli Wiesel has asked, “What can he (i.e., the person who has seen into the darkness of human suffering and cruelty) achieve by making you (i.e., the reader/listener) sad?” (See After the Darkness: Reflections on the Holocaust, p. 9.) I would reword this question to say – “ . . . by possibly making you sad?” Not everyone who reads/listens will pause to reflect. Not everyone who reads/listens will be made sad. I think Wiesel’s question is especially serious when the witness to the darkness of human suffering and cruelty takes the initiative (in conversations, in presentations, in publications) to expose readers/listeners.

Fragment -- #260

[August 2004 journal entry]

Have I later rejected an idea I had tested carefully/radically?

Fragment -- #259

[August 2004 journal entry]

I was born into and raised within a way of seeing ‘the world’ that had a radius of 200 miles at most from/around my small hometown and that retained/assumed an essentially pre-modern paradigm. My first years of college came at a junior college within that radius that insisted on a fervent loyalty to an essentially pre-modern paradigm. My decision to complete college at a regional state university began a long and arduous educational journey that eventually repositioned me within a much larger ‘world’ and that challenged/dissolved my confidence in the essentially pre-modern paradigm from my upbringing. I became more and more aware that I was living within a modern paradigm.

Fragment -- #258

[July 2004 journal entry]

References such as ‘the remains’ and ‘the body’ regarding a deceased person imply something ‘more’ about the person that is no longer present.

Fragment -- #257

[May 2004 journal entry]

A congregation that takes seriously the rich variety of ways to use language for reflecting on human experience and the limits of language when ‘God’ language is attempted will intentionally guide children across the threshold from a simplistic/literal use of language to an appreciation for ‘story’ and for the morphic nature of ‘God’ language. Congregations toward the evangelical/fundamentalist end of the spectrum intentionally stand against this approach. I do not yet know of a congregation within the ‘religious’ sphere that incorporates this language growth/task in confirmation discussions (an ideal and symbolic time to do so). As children cross from elementary school to middle school, they are being introduced directly (as in literature studies) and indirectly (as in science, history, math studies) to the potential and the limitations of human language. Public schools and private schools not religiously affiliated/restricted do so more uniformly and consistently; religiously affiliated private schools do so less uniformly and consistently, depending on their position on the theological spectrum. A few home school curricula – e.g., the Calvert curriculum – do so in an exemplary manner, in sharp contrast to most home school curricula that are designed to protect a fundamentalist/pre-modern use of language.

Fragment -- #256

[May 2004 journal entry]

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield – Tennyson.

Fragment -- #255

[April 2004 journal entry]

When our youngest daughter mentioned to her Honors World History teacher that I had studied with a Benedictine monk who specialized in the medieval period, her teacher invited me to be a guest speaker re this transition period in western civilization. During the 50-minute class, I worked off the wide-angle photography and micro-photography analogies for studying history. After explaining the analogies (using my camera and lenses as visual aids), I led the students into the ‘scholastic method’ as a ‘wide angle’ perspective on the shift away from the earlier ‘dark’ times toward the emerging sense of increasing ‘light’. We then turned to Bernard of Clairvaux (as seen in his Steps of Humility) versus Peter Abelard (as seen in his Sic et Non) for a ‘micro’ approach, with Anselm’s ‘faith seeking understanding’ angle as an example of an ‘in between’ alternative.

Fragment -- #254

[April 2004 journal entry]

Last month another “God told me to . . .” tragedy occurred. A Texas woman stoned to death two of her young children. She was an active member of a fundamentalist church. The pastor was quoted in the newspaper coverage. As in other similar cases, psychiatrists concluded this woman was suffering from a psychotic break, a mental collapse. Instead, I can imagine the woman hearing stories in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture -- such as Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice Isaac in response to the voice of ‘God’ (which the Apostle Paul exalted in his letters) -- uncritically told/endorsed in sermons time and again. I would hold her ‘religious’ thought-world accountable for her tragic behavior.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #215

[February 2005 journal entry]

A close friend asked recently during a dinner conversation, “Doug, what is ‘worship’? What is it for you?” This question followed her observation that ‘worship’ for her had to do with awakening, becoming spiritually conscious, being aware. After expressing appreciation and interest in her way of nuancing ‘worship’, I explained that I associate ‘worship’ with awe (reverence, intense admiration, devotion, deep love), suggesting that awe overlaps with and perhaps expands on her ideas re ‘worship’. I acknowledged an aversion to the word ‘worship’ because of (1) my reservations about the underlying anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic ‘God’ language that is used uncritically in ‘religious’ gatherings, (2) my dissociation from the fundamentalist/evangelical theologies that surround the ‘worship’ experience in most liturgies, (3) my rejection of the ‘I am weak and helpless’ spirituality so widespread in ‘religious’ gatherings, (4) my opposition to the diminished attention given the depth/breadth of human suffering in virtually every ‘worship’ service I recall. My ‘awe’ stems from seeing into nature (micro and macro) and from seeing into the human story (capacity for construction and destruction, for the beautiful and the offensive). My ‘awe’ is very active, seeking, expressive re nature and the human story. My ‘awe’ becomes still, quiet, wordless beyond nature and the human story (thus my resonance with the liberal Quaker tradition). Resolved to be ‘with the world face to face’, I strain to see rather than close my eyes. I stand rather than bow. I do not surrender my inner-independence, my self-reliance (see the ‘Foolishness’ section in Bonhoeffer’s December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay). I always have my copy of Peterson’s translation of the story/play Job with me when I attend a ‘worship’ service inside the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #214

[January 2005 journal entry]

‘Religious’ institutions are structured – e.g., confessions, hymns, sermons, prayers, . . . – in ways that limit the range/depth of inquiry and that constrain/block radical (i.e., to the root) inquiry.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #213

[January 2005 journal entry]

The dismissal of factuality/objectivity fostered by ‘post-modernists’ is providing energy for two constituencies – (1) fundamentalists/evangelicals (for whom ‘dogma’ and ‘revelation’ make factuality/objectivity irrelevant) and (2) a political elite (who intend to control the public perception of reality by controlling the flow of information). Both constituencies value power, authority, control. Both constituencies are dangerous.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #212

[January 2005 journal entry]

Why, for the past fifteen years, have I read the Sunday New York Times (and, as available, the Monday and Friday editions)? At least two reasons -- (1) for a global perspective, (2) for a ‘from below’ perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #211

[November 2004 journal entry]

“Keep your eye/focus/concentration on Jesus . . . on the Bible . . . on the church . . . on heaven . . .” is being ‘religious’. “Keep your eye/focus/concentration on life experiences under the sun . . . on the concrete realities of human experience . . . on your neighbor, your friend, the stranger, your enemy . . .” is being ‘non-religious’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #210

[November 2004 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, it seems to me that saying “life is not fair” is the same as saying “God is not fair”.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #209

[November 2004 journal entry]

Being ‘religious’ – across the theological spectrum from fundamentalist to liberal – entails assigning final authority to ‘God’, ‘Christ’, Jewish scripture, Christian scripture, and/or Christian traditions. Since every such final authority requires a human medium (including human language), every such final authority is inescapably idolatrous in that the assigned finality at some point shuts off questioning and doubt. Being ‘non-religious’ means for me (1) that ‘God’ by definition transcends (breaks) human language, (2) that Jewish scripture, Christian scripture, and Christian traditions serve as a compilation of narratives/reflections, and (3) that ‘Jesus’ is an imagined conversation partner.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #208

[November 2004 journal entry]

What theological systems in the history of Christian thought (and their institutionalized constituencies) would fade like cut flowers if they were restricted to the Synoptic Gospels and ‘the gospel of (not about) Jesus’? I contend that all but a very few exceptions (e.g., the liberal Quaker tradition) would fade and those exceptions are vulnerable (e.g., Francis of Assisi being expelled from the order he founded).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #207

[September 2004 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with a high school teacher/friend, he offered some reflections on the several months from summer 2002 through spring 2003 during which we met regularly (e.g., conversations about Bonhoeffer, ‘religion’, integrity, existentialism, . . .) and the past five months during which he stepped back from our meeting together. He mentioned a ‘mentoring’ relationship he had had with an individual several years ago that became very one-sided and threatening to him. He suggested that his hesitancy/caution after that experience had made him nervous and, in a sense, competitive or defensive at times during our conversations. He indicated a readiness to return to our conversations. I repeated my intent that he (and anyone else with whom I have serious conversation) understands he “sits next to the door” (i.e., he always has liberty to manage/frame/exit the conversation/s). We then discussed his use of ‘mentor’ to categorize our relationship. I offered the theatre-based ‘prompter’ metaphor as an alternative. ‘Prompter’ seems the more modest of the two images. I illustrated the distinction with my relationship to Bonhoeffer’s life/thought. Bonhoeffer’s influence on me had much to do with ‘mentoring’ through the ‘imprisoning’ three years I experienced with my first wife before her death (d. 1987). As my experience eventually passed beyond Bonhoeffer’s experience (e.g., the afterward decisions about the place/value of the ‘imprisoning’ years, the experience of being married, the experience of being a parent, the experience of resigning a place within the ‘religious’ sphere, . . .), Bonhoeffer diminished as a ‘mentor’, but enlarged as a ‘prompter’ (and as a ‘friend’). He thus remains in a singular position in my vision as I continue on a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ path re ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #206

[September 2004 journal entry]

Once any source – political, religious, scientific, philosophical, educational, scholarly, . . . – can no longer be considered a final word or above/beyond question/criticism, an individual must assess evidence/ideas, make careful judgments, and bear the responsibility for outcomes. One characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ path for me is the realization that there is/will be no source that is a final word or that is above/beyond question/criticism.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #205

[August 2004 journal entry]

I have for many years pondered what Dietrich’s assigning ‘unparalleled (incomparable) value’ to seeing ‘from below’ would have meant for his direction/decisions had he survived the war and remained true to his ‘unparalleled (incomparable) value’ assessment. I have for many years pondered the fact that the author of Ecclesiastes did not have Koheleth go as far as Dietrich in assigning value to his seeing ‘life under the sun’. The author of the ‘scrapheap’ Job section to the story/play Job stopped short as well.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #204

[August 2004 journal entry]

‘Religion’ permits one not to think critically and/or requires one to refrain from critical thinking.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #203

[July 2004 journal entry]

I prepared the following metaphorical interpretation of the empty chair at a table as metaphor to be read at a conference after the reading of a Fernando Pessoa poem about a vulnerable child. Note my adaptation of Dietrich’s ‘seeing from below’ paragraph.

Thank you for reading Pessoa’s poem so eloquently that you have brought this child and so many with her into our midst. Where might they be seated? Perhaps the empty chairs at our tables? I have been asked to comment briefly on the metaphorical force of the empty chair. The physician with whom I have worked most closely over the past ten years is a 43-year-old family physician. He leads a not-for-profit community health center that exists to make comprehensive primary care -– including obstetrics -– accessible for the uninsured population in three poverty-ridden counties in the Appalachia Mountains of East Tennessee. He and I speak together often about the reasons we have for many years assigned symbolic value to an empty chair at the tables –- personal and professional tables -– at which we sit in conversation with others. The empty chair keeps us mindful of the many individuals -– some living, some deceased –- who have healed and enriched our lives. The empty chair also sits as a reminder of those individuals whose life stories we know to be far more fragile than our own, whose lives unfold on the margins. We consider it an experience of unparalleled value to be learning to see from the perspective of the barred, the badly treated, the powerless, the scoffed, the lonely, the forgotten, the ignored, the disgraced. Why ‘unparalleled value’? Because seeing these sufferers in our mind’s eye sitting in the empty chair forces us to rethink what it means to be strong and what it means to be weak; it radically alters our view of greatness, humaneness, justice, empathy, peace. My physician colleague and I –- both with advantages and privileges flowing easily/plentifully to us –- have vowed to hold each other accountable to speak in table conversations in ways that honor and respect those for whom life is hard. It takes courage to say “yes” to individuals represented in Pessoa’s child, to reach out to them with a genuine “welcome” into our conversations. ‘Jesus’ was persecuted and killed because of the table he was trying to set and the individuals he welcomed to his table. To be with them is perhaps as close as we come in this life to the presence of ‘God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #202

[May 2004 journal entry]

Signs of falling back/away from living life on a ‘non-religious’/‘from the scrapheap’/‘with the world face to face’ path -- (1) treating ideas/conclusions as beyond further critique, (2) reading and listening only to sources that confirm previously adopted ideas/conclusions.

seeing 'Jesus' from below #55

[July 2004 journal entry]

A friend invited me to go with him to the annual Chet Atkins Appreciation Society gathering here in Nashville. By the end of the day, I found myself thinking about the choice of ‘appreciation’ (L., to value, to rise in value) by the individuals who named/coordinated the gathering. The appreciation so many musicians expressed for the liberty to explore/grow that Atkins encouraged impressed me most. Atkins did not limit or dwarf these musicians. Instead, they drew inspiration from him. Some have in certain ways moved beyond him. This experience strikes me as much healthier than the widespread approach to ‘Jesus’ within the ‘religious’ sphere.

seeing 'Jesus' from below #54

[April 2004 journal entry]

If history fades into myth re the story of Israel from the reign of David back to the opening chapters of Genesis (as I think occurs), then does not something similar happen re the story of ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels?

seeing 'Jesus' from below #53

[April 2004 journal entry]

I often hear radio advertisements for a ‘Christian Radio Station’ that promotes its programming as ‘positive and upbeat’. I realize the station has benefits for many teenagers. Still, I have two reservations – (1) It is clear the station is a variation on the fundamentalist/evangelical aim to stay far removed from actual ‘face to face’ experience in/with ‘the world’ and (2) The image of ‘Jesus’ that results from a ‘positive and upbeat’ framework/intent does not align well with the ‘Jesus’ I see through a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #57

[February 2005 journal entry]

A doctoral student/friend recently introduced me to some of his Philosophy Department faculty and fellow students. We spent an hour in conversation with the department chair, a junior faculty member, and a doctoral student just beginning her dissertation. We later spoke with another doctoral student who is partway into his dissertation. They all seemed intrigued with my irrigation ditch metaphor, medic metaphor, and anthropologist image as explanations of my experience living/working within the medical education and practice settings. My friend conveyed to me the next day that the department chair later said to him, “Please try to invite him back. I would like to sit and talk with him for hours.” My friend was pleased with the conversations. I was relieved that I had not diminished his status or standing in the department! Prior to the above meetings, my friend and I had met for dinner and conversation. In anticipation of the discussion with the individuals from the Philosophy Department, I had been thinking about how my approach to ethics, values, spirituality might be associated with the various approaches studied in academic circles (e.g., utilitarian, virtue, existential, deontological, pragmatic, . . .). After my friend summarized the angle of two authors he had most recently been reading/studying in his applied ethics course, we discussed how my approach might be classified. I identified for my friend three ‘markers’ by which I get my bearings and by which I test my decisions/actions – i.e., (1) the resolve to speak/act consistently in the multiple, simultaneous, distinguishable relationships/conversations of which I am a participant, (2) the resolve to be humane and to exercise a sacrificial social conscience, and (3) the resolve to be the sort of person who can be with individuals experiencing the worst in life and not harm/bruise them further. My friend and I later had the following e-mail exchange –

[Friend] “I feel as though I stammered more than anything when I attempted to describe (categorize) your ethical approach during our dinner conversation. Despite my poor analysis, I think your approach is superior to all others with which I’m familiar . . . at least in that you provide persons with concrete help/guidance and a foundation that, instead of having been primarily assumed, has been tested and found to be valuable. . . . Or is it that such ideas (e.g., integrity) only seem valuable? Is there tension between this claim and your willingness to identify what is not real (e.g., ‘religious’ claims)? The former idea appears to endorse the Kantian distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal (i.e., X seems valuable, but in reality might not be), while the latter does not (i.e., X does not seem to be real and, therefore, is not).”

[Doug] “I listened closely to your analysis of my approach to ethics (which is inseparably linked to spirituality re ‘the more’ about human beings). I have thought quite a bit about that part of our conversation. I did not in 1973 know Martin Buber’s life/thought, but I think his ‘I-It’/‘I-Thou’ paradigms re relationships/encounters capture the decision I had to make (daily, even hourly) re being with my first wife as multiple sclerosis hit her and never relented. To be ‘I-Thou’ with her necessitated the three ‘markers’ I mentioned.”

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #56

[August 2004 journal entry]

Bonhoeffer’s December 1942 After Ten Years essay ends, in its published form, with ‘The View from Below’ section that begins – “It remains an experience of unparalleled value that we have learned to see for once the great events of world history from below . . .” (my translation). His assessment offers one answer to the question I have found at the core of the experience of medical students whose medical school education and residency training -- contrary to most chosen professions -- require them to see ‘from below’ once they move from the classroom into their clinical rotations and their specializations. They cannot avoid the question -- “What value, if any, am I placing and will I place on this exposure to the extremities of the human experience?” They cannot avoid the exposure required by their clinical rotations and, therefore, cannot avoid assigning a value somewhere on a spectrum from ‘no value’ to ‘unparalleled (incomparable) value’. Since the 1980s in my various roles within the medical education and practice settings, I have attempted to identify and interpret the decisions/approaches students in medical school and subsequent years in their professional careers take on this ‘no value’ to ‘unparalleled value’ spectrum – e.g., (1) How free, independent, responsible are they in the value they assign? (2) How is their choice of specialty affected? (3) How is their choice of a residency program affected? (4) How is their choice of a practice affected? (5) How are their efforts to teach affected?

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #55

[July 2004 journal entry]

If ethics (i.e., the language of caring) adds a fourth professional language within the medical education and practice settings (in addition to the scientific/clinical, business, and legal languages), then spirituality adds a fifth language. In contrast to the fluency (in the full/complex sense of the term) required re the scientific/clinical, business, and legal languages, fluency in the language of caring is not required. Fluency in the language of spirituality is even further from the required languages.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #54

[July 2004 journal entry]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer to his ‘friend in the singular’ Eberhard Bethge – “Aren’t there things like purification plants in lakes? You know my technical naïveté – but there is something like that, and that’s what you are to me.” The purification plant metaphor sits well with my irrigation ditch metaphor re a way to interpret my (hoped for) relation to the circle of physicians with whom I have worked closely since the early 1980s.

Fragment -- #253

[March 2004 journal entry]

In a recent conversation with a doctoral student re his graduate school and professional plans (which include concentrations in medical ethics and public health), he asked what I might change re my professional training and experience. I told him I would not change my acquisition of a historian’s mental habits or the concentration on the way philosophical, theological, artistic, scientific, political, and economic ideas evolved in the formation of western civilization. I also told him I would acquire some set of skills that would be considered weight-bearing within the medical education and practice settings (e.g., nursing, emergency care tech, social worker/case manager, . . .).

Fragment -- #252

[March 2004 journal entry]

To maintain balance/perspective -- always be creating something, . . . and be reading something of your own choice, . . . and be working with others on something, . . . and be near someone deeply wounded, . . . and be caring for an animal, . . . and be taking care of someone’s garbage.

Fragment -- #251

[March 2004 journal entry]

I should not expect from others more than what I am prepared to give/do/be for them.

Fragment -- #250

[March 2004 journal entry]

Indianapolis Colts coach after a playoff defeat – “As a Christian, I do not think anything happens arbitrarily”. I object to his implicit ‘God’ language and to his restricting ‘Christian’ to those who share/endorse his implicit ‘God’ language.

Fragment -- #249

[March 2004 journal entry]

I ask any reader of my journal entries for patience with repetitions as did Leonardo da Vinci in his description of his notebooks (The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, p. 41) –

This will be a collection without order, made up of many sheets which I have copied here, hoping afterwards to arrange them in order in their proper places according to the subjects of which they treat; and I believe that before I am at the end of this I shall have to repeat the same thing several times; and, therefore, O reader, blame me not, because the subjects are many, and the memory cannot retain them and say ‘this I will not write because I have already written it’.

Fragment -- #248

[February 2004 journal entry]

35,000+ Iranians were recently killed in a devastating earthquake. How will such destruction and loss be interpreted within the ‘religious’ T/O sphere? Will the devastating earthquake be referenced, much less considered, within the ‘religious’ T/O sphere?

Fragment -- #247

[February 2004 journal entry]

I often imagine standing in line with individuals whose misfortunes in life have been severe and tragic. My affluence, privileges, and abundant experiences (1) put me in a sobering and embarrassing minority (hardly measurable statistically) among individuals who have lived on this earth and (2) do not justify my seeking or accepting a position at/near the front of the line. I see myself silenced by my affluence, privileges, and abundant experiences rather than praying/asking for personal interests. I want instead to think and behave in a manner that respects and seeks the well-being of the vast majority in the line.

Fragment -- #246

[February 2004 journal entry]

A real estate agent represents the seller when s/he is with a potential buyer. The potential buyer easily slips into an openness with the real estate agent that would only be justified if the real estate agent represented the potential buyer.

Fragment -- #245

[February 2004 journal entry]

Why have I invested the time/energy necessary to track my thought and experience through years of journal entries since going past the point of no return re the ‘religious’ sphere? Why have I kept detailed notes on virtually all extended conversations over these years? Why have I engaged in more probing examination of my experiences and ideas than anyone around me expects?

to reduce mistaking movement for progress;

to avoid unintentionally and unwittingly circling near the outer boundary of the ‘religious’ sphere;

to make sure my move from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ is thoroughly radical (i.e., to the root);

to remain aggressive as a historian and as a theologian;

to take seriously the consequences for my wife and children;

to put pressure on my ideas that meets/exceeds the accountability medical students and residents face on rounds;

to strengthen the core/center of my thought as I seek to maintain consistency in the widening and increasingly diverse conversations in which I participate (i.e., in musical terms -- the theme from which variations are developed);

to leave a path/record (which I found from others only to a limited degree through access to the inner thoughts of a few who had done similarly – e.g., singularly Bonhoeffer as well as to a lesser degree Pascal, Kierkegaard, Berdyaev, Wiesel, Merton, Lewis, . . .);

to leave a record for family and friends who might, at my life’s end, wonder what gave my statements and actions meaning/consistency;

to attempt simultaneously to act and reflect (e.g., Quaker-like integration of spirituality and ethics, ‘Liberation Theologies’ methodology, Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers process, C. S. Lewis’ A Grief Observed, . . .);

to track my re-formation;

to create an inductive explanation of moving from a ‘religious’ to a ‘non-religious’ life;

to eliminate the risk of not being physically or cognitively able later in life to recall clearly or to interpret insightfully this spiritual/ethical/theological journey.

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?