The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #151

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works off the premise that life’s divinely intended/designed sense or meaning is sufficiently clear to establish confidence that the paradigm is reliable. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s experience leads him to the opposite view. He sits on the ‘scrapheap’ frustrated and tortured, with the decision whether or not to reject the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm drawing nearer and nearer.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #150

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job laments -- “What’s the point of life when it doesn’t make sense, when God blocks all the roads to meaning?” (3:23). Peterson’s paraphrase is a bit loose. He does, however, capture the sense quite well. The RSV has “a man whose way is hid”. The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s idea/question is -- “Why does a person continue to live when the way is hidden or the person is fenced in? Why would God do such a cruel thing?” This question is dependent on/rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The ‘scrapheap’ Job still thinks at this point that there is sense or meaning to his life, but it is hidden from him. Would disclosure of the prologue’s scenes in the courts of ‘God’ satisfy the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s search for sense or meaning to his plight? I think not. Not far ahead for him is the thought that in fact there is no longer any divinely intended/designed sense or meaning to his life. He then will face a radical (i.e., to the root) decision/threshold – whether or not to conclude that no one’s life has the purpose or the meaning proposed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #149

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job presses -- “Why does God bother giving light to the miserable, . . .” (3:20-22). His statements make vivid how “his suffering was very great” (2:13) – especially his references to those “who want in the worst way to die” (RSV “who long for death”) and “who can’t imagine anything better than death” (RSV “who dig for it more than for hidden treasures”). Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attribute the survival and continuing existence of every miserable individual directly and intentionally to ‘God’? I think this deduction cannot be avoided. There is obvious relevancy here for the assisted dying issues in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #148

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job agonizes, “Why didn’t I die at birth . . .” (3:11ff). It is important to track closely the perceptions of death and dying throughout the story/play. Does Job change his perceptions of death? of the dying process? of the dying experience? Yes. His perceptions change in significant ways as his experience suddenly shifts toward and remains disturbingly similar to the stories the caravan travelers are telling around campfires about the more desperate aspects of the human condition. The ‘scrapheap’ Job experiences firsthand how tragic and ugly suffering/dying can be. Eliphaz (5:26) – true to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- reminds an exasperated ‘scrapheap’ Job the faithful are promised a romanticized, idyllic death.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #147

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re his date of birth, the ‘scrapheap’ Job longs -- “ . . . turn that night into pure nothingness” (3:7). The RSV has “let that night be barren”. Is there a link – philosophical or symbolic – between ‘barren’ and ‘nothingness’? Did Jewish thought in antiquity include the metaphysical concept of ‘nothingness’ (as in existential philosophy)? Koheleth (the Ecclesiastes essay) and the ‘scrapheap’ Job sound ‘existential’ in many ways. Sheol was understood in antiquity to be a fading into nothingness, an eventual nothingness. However, ‘God’ was not thought to have created out of nothingness (ex nihilo creation being a later/Christian extrapolation). Not being inclined toward metaphysical reflection, Jewish thinkers in antiquity apparently did not feel disturbed by the implied dualism of ‘God’ and ‘matter’ (as suggested in the potter and clay metaphor).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #146

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is ‘the day’ to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job refers the day of his conception? Peterson’s translation has “the night of my conception” (3:6). Or is it the day of his delivery (e.g., 3:7, 11)? The Hebrew wording suggests both. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to attributing stillbirths to the intentions and plans of ‘God’ (as 3:16 suggests)? Yes.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #145

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job refers to “those who are good at cursing” (3:8). Who is he asking to curse the day of his birth? What skill do they have? The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s lament shifts from third-person to first-person (vs. 11). Is he addressing ‘God’ in part or all of his lament? Is he addressing anyone at all? Or is he saying he would “curse the day of his birth” if he could?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #144

[July 2006 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job “cursed the day of his birth” (3:1). What concretely would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be expecting if indeed his day of birth is cursed? Perhaps he is wishing the day would somehow be skipped over in the calendar. Or perhaps he is wishing that everyone born on that day would be stillborn or die soon after birth. But he is not the only one born on that day. In cursing his day of birth, he curses their day of birth too. The consequences of such a cursing would have befallen them as well as him. This self-centeredness is noticeably parallel to the lack of regard or respect ‘God’ has for those damaged or destroyed around Job in the prologue’s two cycles of calamities. Servants die and no doubt some of the marauding enemies die too. I would cast the prologue Job as near enough to offer aid to some of these sufferers, but still safely distant -- existentially and theologically -- from the harsh realities of suffering until such came to him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #143

[July 2006 journal entry]

Later in the story/play, the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks of ‘God’ as having no manners (e.g., ‘God’ “snatches”). The prologue makes it no surprise that the ‘scrapheap’ Job would draw this conclusion. I do not think the behavior of ‘God’ (all concepts of ‘God’ in the story/play) can be excused with -- “His ways are not our ways”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #142

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re the intent of Job’s three close friends, Peterson has -- “ . . . to keep company and comfort him” (2:11). Another possibility permitted by the Hebrew wording would be – “to show grief or mourn and to comfort or console”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #141

[July 2006 journal entry]

What could Job do to save his life? The counsel/pressure the ‘scrapheap’ Job receives from his three close friends reinforces the Accuser’s proposition – even to the point of their knowingly counseling/pressuring him to violate his integrity. They press him to trust/hold the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to fall prostrate before ‘God’ begging for mercy (e.g., 8:5). Elihu presses him to consider his plight a divinely engineered opportunity for spiritual refinement. The whirlwind ‘God’ humiliates the ‘scrapheap’ Job without even addressing his plight.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #140

[July 2006 journal entry]

The answers individuals give to “What is more important than saving my life?” reveal each one’s character/integrity. The person for whom saving one’s life trumps all other considerations is very self-centered, ready to manipulate/exploit all others to achieve his/her end. The same is true at the national (foreign policy) level.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #139

[July 2006 journal entry]

Was the Accuser’s counter argument that “a human would do anything to save his life” (2:4) an accepted truism in antiquity? Is it now? I suspect the distribution of individuals would be weighted heavily toward the ‘do anything’ end of the spectrum. Medical decision-making in life-threatening situations is but one illuminating place to look for evidence. A demonstration of the validity of the Accuser’s assessment can also be seen clearly at the foreign policy level. How does the Accuser’s proposition fit with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Would ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies – which are centered by the eventual reduction of all life circumstances to divine will -- justify/encourage attempts by adherents to save their lives? No. For such would finally be seen as defiance and weak faith.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #138

[July 2006 journal entry]

I would cast the prologue’s celestial scene with ‘God’ surrounded by an angelic host as similar to an ancient royal court. Anyone entering a monarch’s presence had to be introduced and had to have some valid reason to intrude. The prologue’s celestial scene should be cast as a monarch receiving reports of the outcome of battles or as a medical school dean or department chair or as politicians (especially federal) (or perhaps as a Wizard of Id!). The point – the monarch and, therefore, ‘God’ have no intimate or direct familiarity with what is happening ‘below’. From the ‘scrapheap’, Job most often seems to be thinking, “If I could only get his attention . . .” or “If I could only get through the bureaucracy . . .” -- suggesting he wants to hold to a view of ‘God’ analogous to Queen Elizabeth behind the scenes as the English Puritans were with her approval systematically contained/crushed all the while thinking the Queen above the bureaucracy was their ally. The whirlwind ‘God’ enters the story minus a royal court entourage and appears to have more immediate knowledge of happenings on earth (though there is no suggestion the whirlwind ‘God’ has any interest in or empathy toward human suffering).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #137

[July 2006 journal entry]

When, in the development of Jewish thought in antiquity, did the pre/nonscientific cosmology (1:6ff) assumed in the story/play Job – e.g., angels, ‘God’ enthroned, an Accuser, celestial beings ‘checking things out on the earth’, ‘God’ causing or permitting things to happen on earth, . . . – become presupposed or taken for granted? With these cosmological presuppositions, how does ‘God’ know of the tragedies described in the prologue? Does the wording in the prologue suggest any divine empathy for the victims? I do not detect it.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #136

[July 2006 journal entry]

What does it mean for the name ‘God’ to be blessed (1:21)? I see one answer in the story/play’s prologue with the messengers cycling through the royal court with reports that end with accolades. This ‘blessing’ – which is characteristic of liturgies (e.g., hymns, prayers, sermons) within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – reminds me of the conniving daughters in King Lear. Such honoring does not accurately or honestly reflect the depth and breadth of human suffering.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #135

[July 2006 journal entry]

The introduction of Job’s children in the prologue creates cause for pause re Job and parenting. Hosting party after party is not what I want my or other’s first thought about my children to be. Some have suggested that Job’s children feasted only on each one’s birthday. But the text could easily refer to round after round of feasting, suggesting that they were quite spoiled and living off their father’s wealth.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #134

[July 2006 journal entry]

Would the wealth attributed to Job in the prologue have appeared exceptional in antiquity? Yes, unless Job is cast as a monarch. Five hundred yoke of oxen imply large fields. And the camels would be for show if the story/play is cast in a time when camels had not yet been domesticated. What would be an equivalent description in current United States terms? Perhaps a Bill Gates. Job is ‘filthy rich’. What should we deduce from this description and from hints scattered throughout the text re Job’s lifestyle? I would cast him as living a pampered life even excessive for (D)euteronomic promises of blessing, . . . beyond a gated community, more like a compound. I would cast him and his family as fenced in by servants and by the walls of a grand estate. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, the explanation/justification would be – “If Job is so incredibly blessed, then he must be incredibly good/righteous”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #133

[July 2006 journal entry]

Who does Job – before, during, and after his ‘scrapheap’ experience -- consider his neighbor (i.e., “love your neighbor”).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #132

[July 2006 journal entry]

Does ‘hate evil’ necessarily imply ‘love good’? The short version of the story/play (i.e., prologue plus epilogue) does not specifically present Job as compassionate or as loving good. The prologue does suggest an intense effort by Job not to be in the presence of or dirtied by evil. The heated exchanges with his three close friends in the extended version of the story/play do suggest he confronted evil with good. The Accuser’s wager raises doubt that Job’s hating evil and his loving good are unconditional behaviors.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #131

[July 2006 journal entry]

A rewriting idea re the story/play – to write Koheleth (who delivers the monologue in the Ecclesiastes essay) into the story/play as a fourth and late-arriving friend of Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #130

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation says Job “hated evil with a passion” (1:1-5). The Hebrew wording literally says that Job “turned away from evil”. Does Job hate with a passion the consequences that befell the unnamed victims in the prologue tragedies? Are there indications scattered through the story/play that would make concrete what this passionate hatred of evil would lead Job to do? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job vary the nuance for ‘evil’ in the course of the story/play?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #129

[July 2006 journal entry]

What does Job consider to be ‘evil’? The two prologue references (1:1 and 2:10) use the same term. Job might define ‘evil’ in several ways. He might think of breaking moral and/or ritual laws. (The Testament of Job – in circulation in the time of ‘Jesus’ and the beginning of Christianity -- draws particular attention to the latter.) Or he might think of not being faithful in relationships (e.g., not caring for the oppressed). The ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends should be cast as sifting through all such ideas of evil in their efforts to explain Job’s plight.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #128

[July 2006 journal entry]

A staging question -- Should the three close friends be staged as all present for all the heated exchanges with the ‘scrapheap’ Job?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #127

[July 2006 journal entry]

‘Suffering’ (2:13) also merits a word study. The Hebrew word is rooted in the experience of pain -- mental or physical. In the story/play, the ‘scrapheap’ Job (14:22, 16:6) and Eliphaz (2:13, 5:18) use the term.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #126

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation has ‘trouble’ where the RSV has ‘evil’ (2:11). Is Peterson’s interpretation appropriate? helpful? The Hebrew word brings to mind misery, distress, injury. The word can be used to refer to moral evil as well as to life troubles. Peterson’s ‘trouble’ may be too mild, more neutral than ‘evil’. The RSV’s ‘evil’ assesses Job’s experiences to be indeed tragic.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #125

[July 2006 journal entry]
‘Friend’ is another key word in the story/play. The word occurs thirteen times (2:11, 6:14, 6:27, 12:4, 16:20, 16:21, 17:5, 19:21, 30:29, 31:9, 32:3, 35:4, 42:7, 42:10). The term is used only by the narrator (2:11, 42;7, 42:10), by Elihu (32:3, 35:4), or by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (all other occurrences). For the disappointed ‘scrapheap’ Job, his three close friends are not friends ‘in the singular’ (i.e., the phrase used by Bonhoeffer and Bethge to describe the liberty and confidence essential to their special friendship) because they are not truly present with him as he thinks and speaks radically (i.e., to root) about the reversals in his life’s fortune. For Elihu (who appears to be a character added later to the story/play) they are not true friends because they fail to defend the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm properly and forcefully in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #124

[July 2006 journal entry]

Christian variations on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm from the beginning have continued the contractual agreement and preferential treatment models. However, the proposition the Gospel of Matthew attributes to ‘Jesus’ (i.e., that “God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust”) introduces a perspective driven by neither of these models, suggesting that ‘Jesus’ – if distinguished from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – might bring the missing character into the story/play Job (i.e., a character who can be with Job without further harming him). What is the radical edge here? Is ‘Jesus’ offering one more variation on the whirlwind ‘God’ in the story/play Job? Or is ‘Jesus’ weaving together the Psalms’ “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases” refrain with the inclusive/universal position in the debate re whether the ‘God’ of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should be understood to be the ‘God’ of the nations?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #123

[July 2006 journal entry]

The (D)euteronomic theology then/now characteristic of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm encouraged/s a contractual expectation that righteousness guaranteed/s blessing and unrighteousness guaranteed/s cursing. The wisdom proposed in Proverbs and affirmed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm taught/teaches that observation demonstrates the righteous have reason to expect preferential treatment in life situations. Both these perspectives – contractual agreement and preferential treatment -- are found in the prologue to the story/play Job. Throughout the heated exchanges, the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends become increasingly strident in defending the contractual agreement model. The ‘scrapheap’ Job attacks both the contractual agreement model and the preferential treatment model. The whirlwind ‘God’ later in the story/play does not accept being held accountable as in the contractual agreement model. Nor does the whirlwind ‘God’ claim to have been preferentially attentive to Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #122

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is the foolishness with which Job charges his wife (2:10) an echo of the wisdom recorded in Proverbs? Is Job’s response to his wife consistent with the wisdom promoted in Proverbs? with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The wisdom recorded in Proverbs and the theologies found wihtin the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm were/are rooted in ‘the fear of the Lord’ or ‘the fear of the Almighty’. The risk in approaching a monarch as pictured in the story of Esther is analogous.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #121

[July 2006 journal entry]

“Curse God and die” exposes the fine print of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’. By analogy Job’s wife appears to be saying, “Just give up and let the king finish the job”. Every other character with a speaking part in the story/play -- including ‘God’ and the Accuser -- thinks, speaks, and acts within the cosmological and theological assumptions/boundaries of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The differences among the characters illustrate that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerates a limited range of variations on core themes. Job’s wife alone is so disgusted with viewing the tragedies as of/from ‘God’ that she is ready to reject both the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and its ‘God’. She certainly no longer sees this ‘God’ as worthy of worship or service. It would be valuable to hear more from her in the story/play. Eliphaz tries to challenge the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, but he quickly moves back to defending the paradigm. Bildad and Zophar do not go as near the edge as does Eliphaz.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #120

[July 2006 journal entry]

As the heated exchanges with his three close friends begin and escalate, the integrity to which the ‘scrapheap’ Job holds becomes more his consistency (even in pushing his pre-tragedy ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to its logical end -- i.e., questioning the integrity of ‘God’). The result – the ‘scrapheap’ Job claims to be ready to sacrifice the reputation and status available to him within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm rather than to surrender his integrity.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #119

[July 2006 journal entry]

The story/play opens with ‘God’ attributing integrity to Job. The prologue references to Job’s integrity appear to be tied to his allegiance to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. In other words, integrity in the prologue means being faithful to and consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The prologue also implies confidence -- over against the Accuser’s charge -- that ‘God’ too has integrity. The Accuser turns the assessment of Job’s integrity toward Job’s motivations. Job’s wife questions the integrity of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s reassurance that all experiences are from ‘God’ and therefore, are ultimately good. (Macleish, in his award-winning Broadway play J.B., takes this position re Job’s wife.) Job responds to his wife by attributing evil as well as good to ‘God’. He does not deviate from the view that either ‘God’ causes evil or does not care that evil exists.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #118

[July 2006 journal entry]

How should the statements of Job’s wife be expressed/interpreted on stage -- “Still holding on to your precious integrity, are you? Curse God and be done with it!” (2:9). It is important to trace the meanings, references, and nuances associated with the concept ‘integrity’ in the story/play. The Hebrew root form for ‘integrity’ occurs five times in the story/play (more times in Job than in any other writing in Jewish scripture). In the story/play, the word is used by ‘God’ (2:3), Job’s wife (2:9), and the ‘scrapheap’ Job (26:11, 27:5, 31:6). Job’s three close friends do not use the term.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #117

[July 2006 journal entry]

The prologue has ‘God’ complain to the Accuser, “You tried to trick me into destroying him” (2:3). The RSV has “without cause”. Is the word ‘destroy’ to be taken literally? materially? spiritually? The Hebrew word means to swallow up. Is the statement -- “You tried to trick me into destroying him?” -- suggesting that ‘God’ has violated the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in that there is, by the admission of ‘God’, no cause? Or, again, is this admission pointing to a fatal flaw/conflict at the core of that paradigm -- i.e., all that happens cannot be attributed to ‘the will of God’ without either attributing evil to ‘God’ or calling evil good?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #116

[July 2006 journal entry]

Job worships ‘God’ (1:20). A word study re ‘worship’ is in order here. Is the term ‘worship’ linked in any way with fear? The Hebrew term for worship builds on the image of bowing. To worship is to bow down, to prostrate oneself, to recognize the superiority of the one worshiped. From a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ perspective, this posture deteriorates into a dog’s rolling onto his/her back in submission analogy. Given Job’s nobility/aristocracy as well as his honesty, he predictably resists rolling onto his back like a submissive dog. What about those not so privileged?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #115

[July 2006 journal entry]

The “did not charge God with wrong” and “did not sin with his lips” (2:10) references to Job’s restraint should be on the list of references/concepts in the prologue (along with the references to integrity, hedge, fear, whirlwind, curse, . . .) that are developed in surprising/intense directions in the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #114

[July 2006 journal entry]

For the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, what appears/feels evil must finally be considered in reality good because the ‘God’ behind the events must be exonerated as only doing good. From a ‘scrapheap’ or ‘non-religious’ perspective, these events and experiences are essentially evil in that the victims are disrespected and have their worth/dignity assaulted. I find no compelling argument in the story/play that Job’s suffering/misery is just. He is humiliated. So many others are victimized. If there is intent, it is a mean, cruel, sadistic. Shifting blame to the prologue’s Accuser finally breaks down within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, unless some form of metaphysical dualism is adopted. But that would contradict the core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (i.e., the unlimited and unquestioned sovereignty of ‘God’).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #113

[July 2006 journal entry]
Does Job’s premise in the prologue that every experience (evil as well as good) comes from ‘the hand of God’ (2:9-10) stem from a fatal flaw/conflict at the core of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. The conclusion that ‘God’ is responsible for all human experiences (or that all human experiences – including the worst of human suffering/misery -- have inherently benevolent intent/value) seems unavoidable within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, given the language/views of divine sovereignty permitted/encouraged by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. As suggested in Job’s prologue comments, any essential distinction between good and evil disappears within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #111

[July 2006 journal entry]

A word study is in order re ‘evil’ in the story/play and in the larger context surrounding the story/play. Job does not point -- either in the prologue or in the heated exchanges with his three close friends -- to the prologue’s Accuser as an independent, separate, and/or primary source for evil. In the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, ‘God’ is not just a monarch with unquestioned power. In the paradigm’s (D)euteronomic form trusted by Job and his three close friends, ‘God’ is expected to act/rule as a good/benevolent monarch who protects/rewards the righteous and who punishes/defeats the unrighteous. The author of the early Christian letter James extended his defense of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to the point of arguing that nothing from ‘God’ could be evil or stem from malevolent motives. All texts/writers in Jewish scripture and in Christian scripture are much nearer to James than to the ‘scrapheap’ perspective in the story/play Job or to the Ecclesiastes essay. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being driven away from the confidence and security in divine providence promised by the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The heated exchanges with his three close friends leave him in the untenable position of concluding that ‘God’ (as he has to this point understood the term ‘God’) is capable of engaging in profoundly evil actions with sobering/frightening malevolent motives toward human beings. By untenable I mean that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thinking must keep moving because this position leaves him no way within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either to respect/honor ‘God’ or to lament before ‘God’ in anticipation of deliverance/relief.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #110

[July 2006 journal entry]

What, from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, is evil about the violent events and devastating experiences recounted in the prologue? What criteria for distinguishing good from evil are common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? What makes an event/experience evil? Koheleth (in Ecclesiastes essay) uses blunt terms such as ‘offensive’, ‘tragic’, ‘grievously wrong’ in reference to human suffering/misery. The ‘scrapheap’ Job insists on similarly radical (i.e., to the root) interpretations of human suffering/misery. Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery found in other parts of Jewish scripture or in Christian scripture? Are such interpretations of human suffering/misery permitted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? by ‘Jesus’?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #109

[July 2006 journal entry]

The frightening calamities (1:13-19) -- from the Sabeans’ violence to destructive lightning to the Chaldeans’ deadly aggression to the terrible storm -- are all attributed to ‘God’ in the story/play. The same explanation occurs re Job’s humiliating afflictions in the second cycle of calamities (2:1-10). Job, in his first lines in the prologue, accounts for the calamities with “the Lord gave” and “the Lord has taken away” (1:20-21). The narrator makes the point that the prologue Job “did not charge God with wrong” (1:22), apparently meaning Job does not accuse ‘God’ of injustice or malevolence when he attributes the calamities to ‘God’. In response to his humiliating afflictions, the prologue Job speaks of receiving good and evil from ‘God’ (revealing that he considers the wave of calamities as well as his personal afflictions to be ‘evil’). Yet the narrator repeats that Job “did not sin with his lips” (2:10). Are Job’s two responses in the prologue acceptable to/within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #108

[July 2006 journal entry]

Is there any sense of ‘friend’ (as in Peterson’s translation) in the Hebrew word translated ‘servant’ (RSV)? The Hebrew word can imply a special relationship (e.g., references to ‘my servants the prophets’, Moses, Joshua, angels, the patriarchs). The Hebrew word can refer to an acquaintance, to a fellow-citizen, or simply to another person. I think of ‘friend’ or ‘servant’ in the prologue description of Job as ‘confidant with influence’. I find no sense of humility or of being ‘among the least of these’ or of ‘taking a lower seat’. I would cast Job in the story/play as aristocratic, as nobility. He has liberties and privileges, even before ‘God’, others do not have.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #107

[July 2006 journal entry]

It seems a contradiction to adhere to and advocate a democratic political structure for society and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that depends/draws on the language/imagery characteristic of a monarchical political structure. It also seems a contradiction to adhere to and live by a modern/scientific view of nature and yet to maintain an approach to spirituality/theology that is inseparable from a pre/non-scientific view of nature.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #106

[July 2006 journal entry]

Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as represented in the story/play Job, ‘God’ must remain unsullied from corruption, removed from the taint of his creation/creatures, and, therefore, contacted only through such worship media as sacrifice and prayer. Think in terms of the distance/barriers between a monarch and the population. A monarch does not tolerate being questioned. The spectrum for the population under a monarchy runs from bowing passively to confronting a corrupt monarch to rejecting royalty of any sort.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #105

[Explanatory Note] The phrase ‘from the scrapheap’ (the defining perspective for me in the story/play Job), the phrase ‘life under the sun’ (the defining perspective for me in the Ecclesiastes essay), and the phrases ‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ (the defining perspectives for me in Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence) lead to the center/heart of the perspective on spirituality and ethics I have been intentionally pursuing since the early 1970s. The journal entries (1992-present) I am sharing via this website constitute my most unfiltered attempt to understand this experience. My understanding and use of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay have matured significantly with the opportunity -- in twice-monthly discussions 1999-2006 with a Hebrew language/literature specialist friend -- to present/test the results from my sustained/intense meditation (analogous to attending the same Broadway play several times each week year after year) on the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay. I kept detailed notes from these discussions. Each discussion was conducted in tutorial fashion, with specific attention to my specialist friend’s judgment whether the Hebrew text permits/tolerates my appropriation of the story/play Job and the Ecclesiastes essay as I have attempted to stay on a ‘scrapheap’/‘life under the sun’/‘from below’/‘with the world face to face’/‘non-religious’ path. He has freely shared his expertise with the Hebrew language and Wisdom Literature. I have disciplined myself not to press him to agree with my conclusions or with the associated approach to spirituality and ethics. I accept full responsibility and accountability for the ideas that have withstood the scrutiny/pressure of this crucible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #104

[September 2006 journal entry]

The story/play assumes a cosmology in which ‘God’ is ‘out there’, in which the Accuser and other angelic messengers are viewed as coming in/out of a celestial chamber ‘out there’, . . . (cf.1:6ff and many similar places in the story/play). How critical is this pre/non-scientific cosmology to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? I would argue it is essential to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, a necessity that becomes increasingly evident as one scans the 17^th-century forward theological spectrum from ‘liberal’ across to ‘fundamentalist’. The assumed cosmology in the story/play is absolutely critical re the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s perspective on divine sovereignty.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #103

[September 2006 journal entry]

I find it thought provoking to associate the ‘scrapheap’ Job with the story of the prophet Nathan before King David, with Shostakovich before Stalin, with a concentration camp survivor. What would these associations imply re ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #102

[September 2006 journal entry]

In light of the surprise affirmation of Job’s ‘scrapheap’ thoughts (42:7-9) near the end of the story/play, is the narrator encouraging the reader/audience to defy ‘God’? One trait of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to ethics and spirituality (some variation of which would be an alternative for the ‘scrapheap’ Job should he choose to take the next steps away from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) is that individuals are encouraged to address ‘God’ bravely, in strength.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #101

[September 2006 journal entry]

Job’s three close friends bless ‘God’ by maintaining the ‘religious’ theologically orthodox (T/O) paradigm, by following protocol, by ‘sucking up’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to defy ‘God’ in the sense of ‘blessing God out’. Does he disown or reject ‘God’ (and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm)? I think the story leaves the ‘scrapheap’ Job (and the issue of his integrity) at this very fork in his spiritual road. To maintain his integrity, I think he only has one option – i.e., to reject ‘God’ as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to which he had long been loyal. Certainly from within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (to which his three close friends remain unwaveringly loyal), the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be seen as having moved across the theological spectrum to the threatening position of disowning or rejecting ‘God’. Once relief comes from his tragedies at the story/play’s end, how will the ‘scrapheap’ Job maintain his integrity? Can he return to his place as a teacher within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community without violating his integrity? How will he parent? How will he speak at the city gate? Will he sacrifice his aristocratic privileges in order to sustain a ‘scrapheap’ perspective? Will he add his ‘scrapheap’ voice to the caravan travelers’ stories?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #100

[September 2006 journal entry]

Catching the word play that differentiates ‘defy’/‘curse’ from ‘bless’ requires an eye for irony. The idea of ‘defy’/‘curse’ then is to mutter “yeah, right” under one’s breath after saying “blessed”. Perhaps the play on the word for ‘bless’ (one of many subtle word plays that are developed through the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends that separate the prologue from the epilogue) is an illustration of the use of contrast to get the attention of the careful reader/audience. To explore the various and surprising nuances for key terms such as ‘defy’ in the prologue, the Accuser (and, I would propose, the narrator) presents a clever, ironic, even sarcastic perspective. Does Job ever represent/express a similar perspective?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #99

[September 2006 journal entry]

Of his children, Job wonders anxiously, “Maybe one of them sinned by defying God inwardly” (1:5, Peterson’s Message of Job). Is Peterson’s ‘defy’ an appropriate rendering (‘curse’ in the RSV)? The Hebrew word translated ‘defy’/‘curse’ is an intensive form of the word for ‘bless’. Perhaps this choice is an example of a hesitation even to speak/write in any other way than to bless ‘God’. In a way, ‘curse’ is a stronger translation than ‘defy’ in that ‘curse’ more definitively connotes rejection. But in another way, ‘defy’ is a stronger translation than ‘curse’ in that ‘defy’ suggests the courage to stand up to and challenge ‘God’. Could/should the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarks in the heated exchanges with his three close friends be construed as a disclosure that he in fact does ‘defy God inwardly’? What would ‘defying God inwardly’ have entailed if Job’s children (in the prologue) had done so as they were partying? And is ‘merry-making’ being criticized in the story?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #98

[July 2006 journal entry]

I had not listened closely to the words of the widely/frequently heard contemporary ‘Christian music’ song -- Blessed Be Your Name – until sitting (silently) in a Sunday morning gathering of the ‘house church’ we have been attending since moving to Memphis. Note how the song’s words affirm/celebrate the ‘God’ language and T/O paradigm represented in the prologue + epilogue fairy tale version of the story of Job. Note how the ‘scrapheap’ Job met in the extended middle section of the full text of the story is entirely absent. Note how the words are sung passionately, enthusiastically, without ambiguity, without angst.

Blessed be your name in the land that is plentiful, where your streams of abundance flow.

Blessed be your name when I’m found in the desert place, though I walk through the wilderness.

Blessed be your name when the sun shines down on me, when the world’s all as it should be.

Blessed be your name on the road marked with suffering, though there’s pain in the offering.

Every blessing you pour out, I’ll turn back to praise.

When the darkness closes in, Lord, still I will say --

“Blessed be the name of the Lord. Blessed be your name. Blessed be your glorious name.”

You give and take away.

My heart will choose to say –

“Lord, blessed be your name.”

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #231

[August 2006 journal entry]

“You do all things well . . . just look at our lives” – yet another example in a contemporary ‘Christian music’ song of the complete disconnection from and the discriminating/purged view of reality ‘under the sun’ characteristic of ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theologies. Such theologies lack, resist, and/or condemn ‘tragic’, ‘offensive’, ‘grievously wrong’, . . . language/reflection re the breadth/depth of human suffering/misery.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #230

[August 2006 journal entry]

A painful consequence of moving from the ‘religious’ path I inherited and traveled into my early 30s to the ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ path I have been describing and interpreting in my journal entries since 1992 is rooted in the shift in my primary/defining focus/concentration to seeing ‘from below’, to seeing from the perspective of the sufferer, to seeing from the perspective of the stranger/adversary. My closest/deepest relationships are with similarly focused/concentrating individuals. The pain stems from diminished closeness/intimacy with individuals – including family members and close friends – who have secondary/conditional focus/concentration on seeing ‘from below’, on seeing from the perspective of the sufferer, on seeing from the perspective of the stranger/adversary.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #229

[July 2006 journal entry]

Re The Matrix – to be ‘religious’ is to take the blue pill; to be ‘non-religious’ is to take the red pill.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #228

[April 2006 journal entry]

As my life continues to unfold in the search/pursuit of a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality/ethics/theology, I see/find myself in experiences beyond Dietrich, beyond the author of the Ecclesiastes essay, beyond the ‘scrapheap’ Job, in a sense beyond ‘Jesus’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #227

[September 2005 journal entry]

Twice Dietrich Bonhoeffer said only the following in meetings of pastors during the Nazi years (cf., I Knew Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 71) --

One man asks: “What is to come?” The other: “What is right?” And that is the difference between the free man and the slave.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #226

[September 2005 journal entry]

Using the pivot foot metaphor – to be ‘religious’ is to have one’s pivot foot planted in the ‘religious’ sphere whereas to be ‘non-religious’ is to have one’s pivot foot planted ‘with the world face to face’.

Fragment -- #316

[August 2006 journal entry

A physician acquaintance recalled in a recent conversation a meeting with a financial planner during the last year of residency. Several of his fellow residents responded in predictably materialistic ways when the financial planner asked the group, “What are your financial goals?” My friend stunned the financial planner when he responded, “Generosity”.

Fragment -- #315

[August 2006 journal entry]

I will say only what I can with integrity think and (aspire to) live.

Fragment -- #314

[July 2006 journal entry]

I am seeking a way through life that requires/demands imagination in order to see, to proceed, to be understood.

Fragment -- #313

[March 2006 journal entry]

The 4 March 2006 Commercial Appeal included an op-ed column by David Brooks -- ‘Headed to Harvard? All is not lost’ -- re becoming truly educated. His proposals –

1. read Reinhold Niebuhr,
   
2. read Plato’s Gorgias,
   
3. take a course on ancient Greece,
   
4. learn a foreign language,
   
5. spend a year abroad,
   
6. take a course in neuroscience,
   
7. take a statistics course,
   
8. forget about your career for once in your life.
   

I have been thinking about his question and his proposals. Here is part of what I think I might propose (not in any particular order) to undergraduate students re becoming educated –

1. a course on the decade of the 60s (United States and international),
   
2. a course on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (Reinhold Niebuhr would be a good United States theological point of reference because of his adapting his theological and ethical views to political realities, but I would prefer Dietrich Bonhoeffer),
   
3. A course on Middle East history since the late 19^th century,
   
4. A course on ancient Rome (ancient Greece would be in the background, but the United States today is much more evident in ancient Rome),
   
5. a course about the Human Genome Project,
   
6. a course on appreciating art, music, dance, poetry (international),
   
7. a course on history (any period) seen from the perspective of the powerless, the victims, the losers,
   
8. a course on the link between fundamentalism (not limited to Christianity, not limited to religion) and violence,
   
9. a course on the nature/limits of language,
   
10. a course on Camus’ The Plague,
    
11. create a discussion group in which each member reads the entire New York Times every day,
    
12. keep a journal of all substantive conversations. I will stop the list at this point.

Fragment -- #312

[November 2005 journal entry]

The death count has passed 86,000 from the recent earthquake that struck the mountainous region separating India and Pakistan. The difficult terrain insures thousands more will perish, especially with winter approaching. And then there are the severely injured. Such events are analogous to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Yet I do not detect existential, theological, or philosophical trauma being confessed/expressed as was the case among theologians and philosophers after the Lisbon earthquake. Why not? To look closely, widely, and without discrimination at ‘life under the sun’ is to be unavoidably on the edge of despair.

Fragment -- #311

[October 2005 journal entry]

I am determined to remain aware that my life experiences have had such abundance and privilege that I must consider myself in the less than 1% similarly ‘affluent’ (L., ad + fluere) among all those who have lived during my lifetime. The less than 1% ‘affluent’ classification is relative in that there is a less than 1% experience of ‘affluence’ at every point along the timeline of human history. Is there a less than 1% group at the opposite end of the spectrum? Or do the standard deviations only move away from the masses of people in the ‘affluent’ direction?

Fragment -- #310

[October 2005 journal entry]

For some time, I have made a habit of keeping a one-dollar bill in my pocket in order to have a dollar ready to give destitute (looking) individuals with whom I make eye contact while walking. The gesture may or may not be helpful to the individual. Making sure a dollar bill is in my pocket reminds me to seek eye contact with these individuals. Giving the dollar bill reinforces my desire to be the sort of person who is ready to participate generously/sacrificially in more coordinated efforts designed to make a difference for destitute individuals.

Fragment -- #309

[October 2005 journal entry]

With two seats on the Supreme Court being vacated in recent months, there has been considerable public discussion either about or based upon assumptions re the underpinnings of the United States Constitution (as amended, which point implies something substantive about the initial draft). I have been thinking specifically about such underlying assumptions as various approaches to epistemology, ontology, ethics, religion, science, political theory, international ‘community’, the environment, . . . . A spectrum re perceptions and methods for interpreting the United States Constitution can be constructed parallel to a spectrum for doing theology, with each spectrum having a threshold separating more fundamentalist/evangelical from more liberal perceptions and methods.

Fragment -- #308

[October 2005 journal entry]

I am reclining on our patio with a cup of coffee, breathing the morning air as therapy for a respiratory illness. I am watching the sunlight slowly spread across the leaves of the oak tree in the center of our backyard. First I heard the birds. Now I am tracking the birds and the squirrels as they begin their day. I hear cars, a few passing the front of our house and more traveling down nearby Poplar Avenue. I just spent several minutes eyeing the moon as it moved across an opening in the tree branches. I feel the gentle breeze. I follow leaf after leaf (including a green one) on its downward journey to the ground.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #225

[September 2005 journal entry]

It appears to me that -- from the perspective of ‘religion’ and the T/O paradigm -- a ‘natural disaster’ is a ‘Divine or Providence disaster’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #224

[June 2005 journal entry]

I was reminded recently of the analysis offered by Bernard of Clairvaux in On Loving God. This little work has long intrigued me, both during and after my place/years in the ‘religious’ sphere. Bernard proposed four ‘stages’ -- i.e., “love of self for self’s sake, love of God for self’s sake, love of God for God’s sake, and love of self for God’s sake”. His ‘religious’ (and very traditionally Augustinian) interpretation saw no legitimacy in “love of self for self’s sake”. He argued instead that we must be saved/redeemed from such. Bernard’s ‘religious’ presupposition re humanity’s depravity led him quite logically to the still selfish “love of God for self’s sake” (i.e., for what I receive/get) stage. He argued that such salvation/redemption from “love of self for self’s sake” leads to “love of God for self’s sake”, a childish stage that must evolve into “love of God for God’s sake”. Beyond this more mature regard for ‘God as God’, Bernard pointed to “love of self for God’s sake”, which he judged to be the most mature but rarely experienced stage. As handled within ‘religious’ discourse (e.g., Augustine, Bernard, et al) and as implied in the title On Loving God -- a condition is placed on, a limitation is set around, a distraction is introduced into any human experience. The likely ‘religious’ rejoinder is – “By focusing on God, the experience is qualitatively better for all than it otherwise could/would be.”

From a ‘non-religious’ perspective, I would agree that “love of self for self’s sake” easily/frequently collapses into destructive experience. Those deep into such experience will find meaning in ‘saved’ or ‘rescued’ language if they recover/discover a healthy self-love. The means/catalysts for such recovery/discovery are very important and interesting aspects of their stories. However, attentive parents begin early to guide their child/ren away from being a ‘taker’ to being a ‘grateful receiver’ (e.g., learning to say “thank you”) and to being a ‘giver’. From a ‘non-religious’ perspective, the goal of such parenting is not “love others for self’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who gives expecting as much or more in return) but “love self for other’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who gives expecting nothing in return) and “love of others for other’s sake” (i.e., the sort of person who is truly and unconditionally respectful of others). This ‘non-religious’ approach to ‘love’ is in the spirit of Mt. 25:31-46 (which is, in my opinion, the most radical/startling text in the gospels) re being unconsciously near ‘God’, of loving the stranger/enemy (Mt. 5:38-48), and of the human-oriented way of being for which ‘blessing’ is announced (Mt. 5:3-16).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #223

[June 2005 journal entry]

I read recently the proposition that “cherished beliefs about the divine” may have be “let go” in order to “stay loyal to the suffering human being”. I agree with the proposition. However, the author was disturbingly casual when making the comment. He left me with no indication he had experienced the complexity/difficulty/pain of the choice he affirmed. Letting go of any idea, thing, or person that/who is truly/deeply “cherished” is profound, disorienting, frightening, nauseating, . . . -- all consequences/dispositions the author of the above statement did not convey (at least to me). The chilling image of ‘letting go’ for me is in the 1979 film Sophie’s Choice (based on William Styron’s novel) when Sophie – a Polish survivor of Auschwitz – finally recounts to an aspiring writer friend her darkest secret. She and her two children – Eva age four and Jan age ten – had disembarked the cramped train car at Auschwitz. They faced a sadistic Nazi doctor who ordered her to choose between (i.e., literally and symbolically to let go of one of) her two children. The one she let go would be sent directly to death in the concentration camp. Pleading in vain and sinking in utter agony, she chose her son to live. My observation has been that most individuals, when forced to choose, hold on firmly to their ‘cherished beliefs’ about the divine and let suffering human beings go. A ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics lets go ‘cherished beliefs’ about the divine in order to hold on to ‘suffering human beings’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #222

[June 2005 journal entry]

Teilhard de Chardin (The Divine Milieu, p. 68) -- “The great objection brought against Christianity in our time, and the real source of the distrust which insulates entire blocks of humanity from the influence of the Church, has nothing to do with historical or theological difficulties. It is the suspicion that our religion makes its followers inhuman”.

Teilhard implicitly separates intellectual honesty – historical, theological, scientific, political, . . . – from being ‘human’. I would instead associate (not equate) intellectual honesty – which necessitates critical examination of ‘historical or theological difficulties’ -- with being ‘human’. I do agree with Teilhard’s proposition re a widespread suspicion that Christianity makes its followers ‘inhuman’. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics – with a view of ‘Jesus’ as essentially human – takes this suspicion seriously and measures itself by the damage or enrichment done to every person’s humanity.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #221

[May 2005 journal entry]

I sense that far fewer than I previously imagined are ready for, capable of, and/or interested in exploring a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ approach to spirituality and ethics. Therefore, I am inclined to be quieter.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #220

[May 2005 journal entry]

Since 1992 I have been attempting to express sequels to the Ecclesiastes essay, to the story/play about the ‘scrapheap’ Job, to Bonhoeffer’s the beginnings in his prison correspondence of a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #219

[April 2005 journal entry]

I recently noticed this observation from Dietrich in a 1941 letter (quoted in Kuhns, In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p. 38) -- “I really believe that a great deal depends on what one experiences in his twenties, and above all on how he experiences it.” His observation was certainly true for me.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #218

[March 2005 journal entry]

A few months ago, I began to study music theory through personal research/reading and through tutorial discussions with a musician friend. In my youth, I learned to play several instruments (e.g., the piano, the trombone, the baritone, the trumpet, the guitar). I have continued to play the piano. However, I gained little understanding of music composition/theory. The impetus for beginning this study of music composition/theory has been my desire to see/hear Dietrich the musician (specifically, the pianist) in his actions/thoughts (particularly in the prison letters). I have long been aware of the places in the prison letters where he draws explicitly from music composition/theory. As photography has become increasingly grounding/centering/defining for me as a ‘non-religious’ exercise over the past several years, my desire to see/hear more clearly/insightfully Dietrich the musician has grown.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #217

[March 2005 journal entry]

To be ‘skeptical’ – L. scepticus from Gr. skeptikos – is to be thoughtful, inquiring, questioning. Being ‘skeptical’ may devolve into being ‘cynical’, but does not inevitably do so. Sustaining a healthy (rather than cynical) skeptical attitude is essential to a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #216

[February 2005 journal entry]

A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics builds off of and reinforces inner independence. I agree with the association Dietrich -- in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay -- proposed between foolishness and the surrender of self-reliance to displays of power and promises of security/control from political or religious figures/institutions. Churches toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum either demand the surrender (subjection) of one’s inner independence or accept such surrender (often with celebration). Churches toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum are less comfortable with and may resist such surrender.

Fragment -- #307

[September 2005 journal entry]

I appreciate the Quaker tradition’s setting the default on ‘silence’. I understand setting the default on ‘silence’ to mean that breaking the ‘silence’ must be justified, that what is said is more substantive than the ‘silence’.

Fragment -- #306

[August 2005 journal entry]

My default is set to be fully transparent in the numerous simultaneous gatherings/conversations in which I participate. When with those individuals with whom I conspire (i.e., ‘breath together’), being freely transparent is a gift, a joy. When in casual gatherings/conversations, I tend to be quiet or to ask questions. When in gatherings/conversations ripe for clashes, I tend to be quiet or to respond ambiguously (i.e., true but not full disclosure). Only in gatherings/conversations against which I am compelled to engage in subversive action (analogous to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in covert resistance against Hitler and the Nazis) would I feel justified in covering my true thoughts with contradictory speech.

Fragment -- #305

[August 2005 journal entry]

Without the resolve to be consistent within numerous simultaneous gatherings/conversations, the concentration and energy required to keep the gatherings/conversations compartmentalized crushes creativity, spontaneity, adventure.

Fragment -- #304

[August 2005 journal entry]

I do not recall having someone – in person or in print – as a guide, as an example, as a conversation partner in thinking/working through the significance of who/how I am in relation to those individuals from whom I am inclined to recoil or turn away. I would trace my experience/formation in this regard as follows – e.g., (1) my mother telling me as a child that she always could tell when I was not telling the truth (i.e., “I can read you like a book”), (2) my older cousin Albert’s speech impediment and limp, our bond, the reaction of my friends when he visited (i.e., “Will I be the same when Albert is absent as when he is present?”), (3) being with my first wife during her battle with multiple sclerosis (i.e., “Will I be the same when apart from her as when I am with her?”), (4) the increasing number of gatherings/conversations as I became a history/spirituality/ethics resource/prompter (e.g., graduate students, fellow faculty, medical faculty, medical students, et al), (5) . . . .

Fragment -- #303

[August 2005 journal entry]

I find the thought that in any particular encounter all encounters are compressed a truly breathtaking thought.

Fragment -- #302

[August 2005 journal entry]

One can be consistently brutal or cynical or selfish or . . . . My intent is to be consistently present, not harmful, respectful, . . . in a comprehensive and non-discriminating way. Being comprehensive and non-discriminating is tested by who/how I am with/toward those I am inclined to shun/exclude. Those individuals I am not presently inclined to shun/exclude could at any time fall into circumstances characteristic of those individuals I am inclined to shun/exclude. I could at any time fall into circumstances characteristic of those individuals I am inclined to shun/exclude.

Fragment -- #301

[August 2005 journal entry]

“Most paintings are influenced more by other paintings than by the natural world, and most books are about other books” (A Center That Holds, p. 499). Which ones are not? Note how medicine can be similar. Medical ethics also. ‘Religion’ also.

Fragment -- #300

[August 2005 journal entry]

Add to the four ‘landmarks’ I recommended to my daughters – always be musically active.

Fragment -- #299

[August 2005 journal entry]

Metaphors – an anchor . . . centripetal force . . . balance . . . footing . . . focus . . . to calibrate . . . a map . . . orientation . . .

Fragment -- #298

[August 2005 journal entry]

At what amount should a person attempt to return found money – a coin? a dollar? several dollars?

Fragment -- #297

[July 2005 journal entry]

I have been thinking recently about creating a spectrum re the timing of severe experiences that expose one’s views/ideas to be nothing more than ‘a house of cards’. The spectrum would move from teenage years (e.g., Eli Wiesel’s Holocaust experience) to young adult years (e.g., my experience with my first wife as multiple sclerosis destroyed her) to mature adult years (e.g., Victor Frankl’s Holocaust experience) to late adult years (e.g., C. S. Lewis’ experience with his wife’s death due to cancer). The point of the spectrum has to do with distinguishing the significance of timing re responses to traumatic experiences that occur in one’s life.

Fragment -- #296

[July 2005 journal entry]

Aaron (the brother of Moses) – a study in being disillusioned with one’s self.

Fragment -- #295

[July 2005 journal entry]

I recently heard a comment about a late-40s pastor who relocated a few years ago from a more progressive church to a more safely conventional church. One comment about this pastor still echoes in my mind – “He is not thinking aggressively any longer”. I cannot imagine such a time.

Fragment -- #294

[June 2005 journal entry]

Imagine a dinner table long enough for at least three separate conversations simultaneously to occur. (1) At one end of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that prohibits any serious questions. Unless the individuals sitting together at this end of the table happen to confess the same ‘faith’, the conversation inevitably breaks down. There is no motive or method for seeking common ground around a shared way of being ‘with the world face to face’. (2) In the middle of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that encourages inquiry for the purpose of understanding the affirmed ‘faith’. The discussion will reveal the degree of difference/diversity re ‘faith’ among the participants. They value the resulting understanding of themselves and their theological neighbor. They need to find a non-theological common ground in order to sustain the conversation without degenerating into the competitiveness heard to their right. (3) Toward the other end of the table, ‘faith’ itself is subject to inquiry. They approach ‘faith’ as that which is intellectually and existentially trusted in life situations. They do not juxtapose ‘faith’ and radical/critical thinking. They have reason to welcome diverse points of view. They clarify early in the conversation what they share in common in their way of being, from which emerges the significance of their discussion.

Fragment -- #293

[September 2006 journal entry]

This past Monday marked five years since the 11 September 2001 plane hijackings that led to thousands of injuries and deaths when New York City’s ‘Twin Towers’ collapsed and the Pentagon was severely damaged. I grieve for that day’s victims. I also grieve for the thousands upon thousands of victims for whom the Bush administration and their champions are accountable. I still stand by the objection I voiced against the Bush administration’s immediately casting the 11 September 2001 tragedies in a language/imagery reminiscent of the medieval Crusades and calling for a misinformed Congress to declare war with imprecise wording easily manipulated by the Bush administration. I still stand with those who supported exhausting the potential of casting the 11 September 2001 tragedies in the language/imagery of criminal behavior. With the language/imagery of criminal behavior, might the perpetrators of the 11 September 2001 tragedies have been marginalized rather than galvanized/lionized? might Osama bin Laden et al have been captured? might the Taliban in Afghanistan have been completely eliminated? might the ‘cells’ of likeminded criminals in this country have been exposed? might Iran have been restrained? might an international unity have been sustained? might the New Orleans calamity have been admirably managed? might . . . ? We will never know. Instead, the Bush administration drank/pushed a poisonous mixture of foolish/careless ‘neoconservative’ political ideology and ‘fundamentalist’/‘evangelical’ Christian theocracy that necessitates a ‘Crusades’ language/imagery of war. Is there another ‘renaissance’ on the horizon?

Fragment -- #292

[April 2005 journal entry]

As I continue to observe individuals in the routines of living, I am again and again struck by the impression that most individuals look to be sufficiently satisfied with their world/life view to move forward.

Fragment -- #291

[April 2005 journal entry]

Voltaire appears also to have felt discomfort, even embarrassment, due to having a life advantaged to a degree that separated him from the vast majority of his contemporaries (cf. Neiman, The Problem of Evil: An Alternative History of Philosophy, p. 131). Reading Neiman’s history has enriched my reflections on the ‘1755 Lisbon earthquake’ experiences of life – i.e., seismic experiences that reduce to rubble poorly constructed houses/buildings of ideas, that reveal the (lack of) integrity of individuals far enough removed not to be harmed but near enough not to avoid seeing.

Fragment -- #290

[April 2005 journal entry]

‘Fideism’ cannot by definition be a choice or a result of the exercise of reason.

Fragment -- #289

[April 2005 journal entry]

The depth/breadth of beauty and of pain/suffering are such that I cannot ‘make sense’ of the world. I do attempt always to take the world seriously, to see the world ‘from below’ (in the scientific and existential nuances of ‘from below’). I reject ideas that ‘make nonsense’ of the world.

Fragment -- #288

[February 2005 journal entry]

‘Life’ represents a spectrum that encompasses all forms of ‘life’ – from no sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’ to the highest levels of sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’. Scientific inquiries over the past century or so have demonstrated that non-human ‘life’ forms have variations not previously known from the least sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’ across the spectrum to higher levels of sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’. Advances in medical interventions over the past century or so have made it possible to sustain the existence of human ‘life’ where there is no (longer any) sense of ‘self’ and ‘community’.

Fragment -- #287

[February 2005 journal entry]

To be compassionate is to be truly present with another.

Fragment -- #286

[January 2005 journal entry]

“It must be remembered that he was writing primarily for himself. . . . He communicated his work to a restricted circle, with no hope of having it published.” (A reflection on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin by his cousin Marguerite in her introductory essay to The Making of a Mind: Letters From a Soldier-Priest 1914-1919, letters he sent to her during his service as a stretcher-bearer during World War One.) The pensees (thoughts) recorded in my journal entries since 1992 have been written with no particular readers in mind and with no expectation of publication. None of what I have written has been restricted by what any particular reader/s would understand or find interesting. I fully realize that few (if any) readers may ever spend time with these thoughts. If I limited/restricted myself to writing that about which a particular readership will/can understand and care, I would/could not engage in a radical (i.e., to the root) examination of ideas.