Down the Trump Rabbit Hole 15 November 2016

[15 November 2016]

I am struggling for balance.  I have to remember (1) I am among the majority that voted for Hillary and, therefore, I am not as alone as it can feel and (2) the values – e.g., civil discourse, truthfulness, decency toward others, civil rights for all minorities/marginalized, women’s health privacy, ethnic diversity, LGBT rights, basic healthcare coverage for all, environmental stewardship, Palestinian freedom from oppression, responsible international behavior, and more – are as core/centering after the election as they were before the election and, therefore, are still defining for who I am in the concrete encounters/experiences of each day.  I certainly have a clearer reading on the range and depth of those who oppose these values.  Perhaps that is a ‘silver lining’.  Bernie Sanders and others will surely still lead at the national level. 

Down the Trump Rabbit Hole 9 November 2016

[9 November 2016]

Good morning.  These election results profoundly alter the struggle for peace and justice.  But they do not end the struggle.  Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States has renewed relevance in standing with and advocating for the marginalized.  My manner has always been to try to make eye contact with others, whether in passing or in conversation.  It is sobering to learn I am estranged in core values from so many more in this society than I realized.  I cannot think of a single president in US history who could be nominated or elected by those who voted Trump into the presidency.  So, I am leaving now for work, into a much stronger/dangerous wind than yesterday.  

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #340

[October 2000 journal entry]
My ‘non-religious’ way in/out of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture is via Ecclesiastes and Job. Koheleth’s ‘under the sun’ methodology/perspective resonates with a ‘from below’ scientific methodology. Job’s statements from the ‘scrapheap’ resonate with the Einstein et al attention to the significance of the observer’s perspective for interpreting phenomena (i.e., relativity). The ‘from below’ perspective I see advocated by Koheleth and the ‘scrapheap’ Job also entails unconditional alignment with innocent sufferer/s. I propose that a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics builds upon a ‘from below’ alignment/perspective re seeing and explaining events/experiences.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #339

[October 2000 journal entry]
I have concluded that unrestricted and ‘radical’ (i.e., ‘to the root’) incorporation of the results of inquiry/scholarship pertinent to methodology is not and cannot be done while maintaining a place within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. One can do so only in a partial, guarded, and restricted (at times, secretive or ‘off the record’) way within the ‘religious’ paradigm. ‘Religious’ discourse reverts (sometimes quickly, always eventually) to un(der)examined and pre-modern methodology, assumptions, and language (as is characteristic of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as hymns, prayers, etc.).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #338

[October 2000 journal entry]
I am again giving considerable thought examining the story/play Job from a ‘J-E-P-D’ critical approach (esp., to the ‘God’ language of the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends). I have attempted to critique all theological reflection in the story/play by the results of modern critical scholarship consistently and persistently over the past twenty-five years (i.e., from my graduate school studies forward to today). This hermeneutic task is a critical/pivotal distinction that separates a ‘religious’ from a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #337

[July 2006 journal entry]
The story/play Job begins with a series of tragic reports of death and devastation. Then after months of futility (7:3), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical deterioration leaves him dirty, foul breathed, a mere shadow of his former frame. Food has no taste. The nights drag on. He can read abandonment, fear, ridicule in the eyes of friends, relatives, colleagues. There are several ways to enter the story/play – e.g.,

1. The question “Does Job fear God for nothing?” leads to an interpretation of tragic experiences as a test of integrity (defined as the coherence of one’s actions over a lifetime). In the prologue, Job is not charged with vices. Instead, he is suspected of being double-minded in his virtues. Why does the Accuser think he can win the prologue wager?
   
   
2. The marriage vow “For better or worse” leads to an attempt to see the story/play from the perspective of Job’s wife. Particular attention – unfortunately absent in the story/play -- should be given to the multiple complications faced daily by the spouses/partners of profound sufferers.
   
   
3. Realizing that good intentions can fail leads to a description/interpretation of the inability of Job’s spiritual community -- including his closest friends -- to remain loyal to him.
   
   
4. The claim “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” opens an examination of the chasm that separates pre-scientific and scientific (or modern) understandings of life experiences, with particular attention given to the expanding technological ways we now give and take away life in the practice of medicine.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #336

[July 2006 journal entry]
Does chance have a place in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? No. Is the “time and chance govern (happen to) all” proverb repeated/reflected elsewhere in Jewish or Christian scripture? No. From the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective, Koheleth is simply wrong. At best the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm allows that ‘God’ decides the ultimate fate of an individual, but that the method/experience of that fate can be executed in a variety of ways. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s adherents attribute events not explained by the paradigm to a ‘his ways are not our ways’ mystery rather than to chance.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #335

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re “time and chance govern (happen to) all” (Eccl. 9:11) -- I understand the reference to time to mean timing. ‘Govern’ and ‘happen to’ translate a Hebrew verb that means to encounter, to meet, to befall. Does this word point to an earlier stage in the development of Hebrew thought when chance was considered to be present/manifest in human experience? when ‘God’ had not been figured out as per the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? when the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm did not yet exist? Or does this word point to a later challenge to the established ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #334

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s self-defense and strained grip on his integrity represent the beginnings of an approach to spirituality based on his strengths. The various approaches to spirituality found within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm are based on a low/weak self-understanding, with the result that either ‘God’ is relevant only to/through one’s weakness or weakness becomes the essential/full truth about one’s self. Affirmation of and appeal to human strength/s are viewed within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm as pride heading toward spiritual ruin.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #333

[July 2006 journal entry]
What influence do/should choices about professional and personal paths have on experiencing pressure -- at the paradigm level -- from exposure to and/or experience with the harsh realities of innocent suffering?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #331

[July 2006 journal entry]
Re ‘Jesus’ -- a method is needed that

1. distinguishes ‘Jesus’ from the prima facie impressions left by the four Gospels (e.g., Maccoby’s The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity),
2. delineates the place of ‘religion’ for ‘Jesus’ (e.g., birth place/family, synagogue upbringing, religious ceremonies, custom of attending synagogue services, interest in the use of the Temple, familiarity with scripture texts, . . .),
3. delineates ‘non-religious’ dimensions in ‘Jesus’ (e.g., immediacy of the presence of ‘God’, open-air vs. institutional settings in which to meet/teach, the Sermon on the Mount themes, his death, . . .).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #253

[October 2000 journal entry]
As the ‘religious’ sphere and its language melted down for me during my 20s and early 30s, this conviction re the human Geist survived. I did not derive or deduce this idea/view re the human Geist from a prior idea/view or an authority source. In other words, the idea/view is self-evident. Within the ‘religious’ sphere, there is no pressure/need for recognizing the human Geist to be the starting or unconditioned premise for thought about ethics and spirituality. In fact, there is pressure not to do so. Outside the ‘religious’ sphere, I have found that this conviction re the human Geist is implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged or at least taken seriously. Once the human Geist is acknowledged, consideration of freedom, unpredictability, creativity, . . . becomes possible – which in turn makes reflection on or consideration of a transcending Geist plausible (but not necessary in order to acknowledge the human Geist). This conviction re the unconditioned or self-evident human Geist integrates the ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics I have been experiencing/interpreting all these years.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #252

[October 2000 journal entry]
The anchoring/centering conviction for me is the recognition of a human spirit (Geist) that transcends detection/demonstration by the scientific method. In other words, there could be no scientific method without an independent/observing/imaginative/reflective ‘I’. This ‘more’ about being human is simultaneous to/with natural phenomenon, but not directly subject to scientific verification/examination.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #251

[October 2000 journal entry]
I find myself to be too thoroughly a ‘from below’ respondent to events/experiences to attribute confounding events/experiences to a ‘from above’ explanation. To do so would be a variation on the ‘God of the gaps’ about which Bonhoeffer wrote in his prison letters.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #250

[October 2000 journal entry]
Newton’s methodological proposal, as I understand it, was to consider natural explanations for events before appealing to supernatural explanations. I do not recall that Newton put his proposal in terms of paradigms or worldviews. The significance of doing so has to do with assumptions about those events that are not sufficiently accounted for by the initial step one takes in trying to explain any event. A person using a pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm expects events to be explained ‘from above’, with the assumption that confounding events could be so explained but are at present beyond human understanding (e.g., “God works in a mysterious way” or “We’ll understand it all by and by”). The reverse, it seems to me, is also the case. A modern/scientific paradigm forms around a sufficient and growing number of ‘from below’ explanations of events. Confidence in this paradigm leads one to assume that confounding events will in the future be explained ‘from below’. I am not sure Newton realized (or dared to acknowledge, if he realized) that his proposal called for, in addition to a methodological shift, also and more profoundly a paradigm shift.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #249

[October 2000 journal entry]
I see Bonhoeffer in the prison letters pressing for intellectual consistency. I do too. However, in his day as well as today, a (disturbingly, to me) large number of individuals – certainly in the United States, but perhaps to a lesser degree in England/Western Europe – seem content to shift back and forth between two mutually exclusive worldviews – i.e., modern and pre-modern. I think of this inconsistency when I read in the prison letters Bonhoeffer’s objections to ‘compartmentalization’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #248

[October 2000 journal entry]

In prison Bonhoeffer was reading quite a lot in physics literature (his older brother, Karl-Friedrich, being a leading figure in the physics field in Germany). Note also Ralf Wustenberg’s recent study of the literature Bonhoeffer was reading in prison (A Theology of Life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity). His “God of the gaps” and “before God as if without God” comments in his prison letters should be read in light of this reading. Bonhoeffer may well have had in mind relativity and randomness as well as a traditional ‘laws of nature’ perspective. At least one limitation should be noted re Bonhoeffer – i.e., he had most immediately in mind Germany and western societies. Today’s global connectedness (with most only minimally introduced to the thinking that underlies modernization) is post-Bonhoeffer.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #247

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer asked in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- “How do we speak of God -- without religion, i.e., without . . . .”? I think he was looking intently across the threshold into ‘non-religious’ territory. Before answering him, I would ask how he is nuancing the word ‘God’ in the question. I face at least two other questions re attempting to “speak of God” – an ‘if’ question and a ‘should we’ question -- before getting Bonhoeffer’s ‘how’ question. My variation on a ‘non-religious’/‘from below’ approach leads me to respond to Bonhoeffer’s question with four proposals -- (1) to speak of ‘God’ in a ‘religious’ way is no longer an option (for me, at least), (2) silence is more essential and central to experiencing ‘God’ than is any attempt to speak of ‘God’, (3) the reality to which the word ‘God’ points transcends all efforts to speak of ‘God’ (a Berdyaev-type point re anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic language), and (4) attempts to speak of ‘God’ are most insightful and least vulnerable to idolatrous language when addressing who/what ‘God’ is not.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #246

[October 2000 journal entry]
I waded through most of Barth’s Church Dogmatics and other publications first during my doctoral studies and then through each year’s preparation for the current religious thinking graduate course I taught 1979-92. Barth was very critical of the ‘religious a priori’ considered in liberal thought from Schleiermacher forward to be antecedent to Christian faith/experience. He separated himself unequivocally from the ‘religious a priori’ variations found in Tillich et al and Kierkegaard et al. Barth knew he could not simply deny the results of critical scholarship (thus the error in associating him too closely with evangelical/fundamentalist thought in the United States). By proposing a ‘divine in-break’ prior to human response or theological reflection (the more traditional Reformed side of Barth), he found room to acknowledge but then marginalize the results of critical scholarship (much to the disappointment and frustration of Harnack). Barth played a central/leading role in the formation and development of the Pastors’ Emergency League in the early-1930s (from which came the Confessing Church). The urgently needed opposition to the Nazi-sympathizing ‘German Christians’ (a frightening form of a ‘religious a priori’) weighed heavy on his mind. I would say that Barth proposed/attempted a ‘revelation a priori’ (i.e., Bonhoeffer’s charge that Barth erred in opting for “a positivism of revelation”). I think Bonhoeffer was objecting to Barth’s variation on a ‘from above’ methodology and perspective.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #245

[October 2000 journal entry]
A ‘religious a priori’ is assumed within the ‘religious’ sphere both (1) in traditional, orthodox, pre-modern circles and (2) in liberal/modern circles (e.g., from Schleiermacher’s On Religion to Fosdick’s The Meaning of Prayer and beyond). Traditional, orthodox, pre-modern thought regards this ‘religious a priori’ to have been seriously diminished (according to some, fully destroyed) by/since a literal space-time ‘Fall’, with subsequent recovery coming only through a special/individual redemptive act of ‘God’. Liberal/modern thought is more optimistic about the spiritual potential/capacity of human beings.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #244

[October 2000 journal entry]
In place of a ‘religious a priori’, I would propose a ‘Geist a priori’. Several years ago, I turned to the German term Geist as a way around the front-loaded baggage that weighs down the term ‘spiritual’. Can we account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ (in the sense of exhausting natural explanations for human experience/s) without a remainder, without sensing there is something ‘more’ to being human? Note that attempting to account for ourselves or others ‘from below’ is itself an exercise of this ‘more’ and demonstrates there is something ‘more’ to being human. I have found very few who say “there is no remainder, nothing more” to being human and then live consistently with the consequences of this judgment. A ‘Geist a priori’ opens for serious consideration, but does not mandate, looking beyond the human ‘Geist’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #243

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer elsewhere in the prison correspondence used the phrase “unconscious Christians” to account for individuals who by their integrity demonstrate that the idea of a ‘religious a priori’ is no longer tenable. I am not drawn to his use of ‘unconscious Christian’. Some of the individuals with whom I am acquainted who Bonhoeffer would have considered ‘unconscious Christians’ are very consciously not Christian, at least as the term is variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere. Also, Bonhoeffer’s use of ‘Christian’ in the 30 April 1944 letter strikes me as still very ‘religious’ in nuance. To become ‘non-religious’ is to risk losing a claim on the term Christian as variously defined within the ‘religious’ sphere.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #242

[October 2000 journal entry]
Bonhoeffer, correctly I think, saw in the modern/scientific remaking of Germany and other western societies a serious/significant challenge to the longstanding ‘religious a priori’ for interpreting being human and interpreting human experience. Are humans essentially ‘religious’ -- i.e., ‘God’ conscious and ‘God’ oriented? I hear Bonhoeffer calling attention to evidence that human beings can live very stable, centered, ‘cultured’ lives without reference to ‘God’ and without ‘religion’. His most immediate examples were among his family members and his fellow conspirators. In the 30 April 1944 letter, he questioned the presupposed ‘religious a priori’ and offered his answer in terms of the “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”. I would go further and argue that a ‘religious a priori’ is assumed in Jewish scripture, in Christian scripture, and -- most importantly -- by ‘Jesus’. This conclusion necessitates – for a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics -- a radical (i.e., to the root) and critical rethinking of those sources as well as the subsequent history of Christian thought.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #241

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference in his 30 April 1944 prison letter to a “religious a priori” as the underpinning for “our whole 1900-year-old Christian preaching and theology”, his ‘God of the gaps’ criticism of ‘religion’ should be recalled. Until well into the 19th century, so little could be explained ‘from below’ that a ‘from above’ worldview could easily be taken for granted throughout Germany and other western societies in which modern/scientific foundations were still being laid. In other words, the image of ‘gaps’ itself implies a shift from a ‘from above’ perspective to a ‘from below’ perspective due to scientific breakthroughs already achieved and those anticipated with increasing confidence.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #240

[October 2000 journal entry]
In the 30 April 1944 letter, Bonhoeffer calls attention to the inconsistency of those “who honestly describe themselves as religious”. I would go further and say it is not possible to be consistently ‘religious’ and participate fully in a modern, scientifically shaped/informed society. I would also go further and note, with considerable dismay, that most “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem not to be existentially disturbed by living lives that contradict their ‘religious’ language. But then, I remind myself that the resolve to center on the ‘outer line’ and to be fully engaged in the present situation is a ‘non-religious’ resolve, not a ‘religious’ resolve. Those “who honestly describe themselves as religious” seem – to use Bonhoeffer’s terms -- content with ‘partiality’ or with ‘compartmentalizing God’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #239

[October 2000 journal entry]
I do not think Bonhoeffer – in his 30 April 1944 prison letter -- was jettisoning everything that could be called ‘inward’ or ‘conscience’. However, just as ‘religion’ is a burdened term (to the point that I have long since stopped using the term), so also are the terms inward and conscience. In my variation on a ‘non-religious’ spirituality and ethics, inward has to do with the reflective side of an ‘action-reflection’ rhythm for living. I am drawn to the Quaker idea of simultaneity -- i.e., maturing to the point of experiencing the temporal and the eternal at the same time. Conscience is very important, but should not be the single or final determinant of ethical decision-making. Much is done in good conscience that falls far short of a unifying, altruistic, and self-sacrificing way of life that accentuates respect for ‘the least of these’. To use Bonhoeffer’s phrase, the ‘outer line’ experience should set the agenda for individual and corporate introspection. On what are Bonhoeffer’s 30 April 1944 thoughts about spirituality and ethics based? I do not expect to decipher a very finished answer from the prison letters. I think Bonhoeffer was still in a very early stage of tracing out – beyond the threshold of the ‘religious’ sphere -- the implications of a ‘non-religious’ approach. For me, the basis is an interweaving of perspectives illustrated (1) by Koholeth’s inability to separate his thought from those in tragically desperate circumstances and (2) by Job’s wife who is disturbingly presented in the story as ambivalent at best re maintaining respect for Job. I am convinced that all ‘religious’ bases for spirituality and ethics melt down or die when pressed scientifically and existentially ‘from below’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #238

[October 2000 journal entry]
Re Bonhoeffer’s reference to “the time of inwardness and conscience” (30 April 1944 prison letter) -- I tend to think of inwardness and conscience separately. What Bonhoeffer may have had in mind re inwardness is the clearer of the two to me. I think he was objecting to a turn inward and, therefore, away from one’s present situation. Such inwardness implies a compartmentalizing that is not tolerated by a ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. For Bonhoeffer, ‘God’ is to be experienced in the concrete realities we face, ahead of us in a sense, pursuing reconciliation -- however hard to detect that presence may be. Bonhoeffer sensed a cowardliness in the turn inward that was piously adopted by so many in Germany -- including the Confessing Church -- by/after 1937. Also inwardness offers another example of trying to find gaps where ‘God’ might still be found/relevant in the modern world. I am not so sure what to hear in his reference to conscience. I need to look more closely for clues in his prison letters and in his Ethics. My primary focus to date has been on his discussion of conscience in his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay. My guess at this point would be that the Hitler era had forced decisions with no ‘clear conscience’ options for those who remained focused on and resistant to that horrific situation. Also, he may have heard/known many who claimed a ‘clear conscience’ in their dismissal of or support for Hitler.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #237

[September 2000 journal entry]
I do think the ‘religionless’ idea/concept is time bound as a serious alternative for individuals and societies. Until the various social experiments from the 17th century forward with reorganizing politically, economically, educationally, and ethically ‘from below’ (i.e., the underpinnings being evident in democracies and in scientific inquiry/decision-making) -- the official and majority perspectives from antiquity to the late 18th century were variations on a ‘from above’ (i.e., ‘religious’) a priori. Here lies the radical and revolutionizing significance of the secularization that eventually marginalized ‘from above’ institutions (e.g., monarchy, nobility, religion/church, . . .). I do not think secularization necessarily results in a spiritually empty secularism, naturalism, materialism or a spirituality that is cutoff from ‘Jesus’. However, without considerable care and substantial existential courage/risk, superficial approaches to ‘religionless’ spirituality tend to sprout pretty quickly/easily.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #236

[September 2000 journal entry]
I have only recently noticed Bonhoeffer’s references to time in his 30 April 1944 prison letter. There may be a clue here re his evolving thought about ‘religion’ -- i.e., that he associated ‘religion’ with a period in the history, with ‘religion’ phasing into the narrative around Constantine’s rise and phasing out of the narrative past the early 18th century. As I have wrestled with what the word/phenomenon ‘religion’ means to/for me, the nuances for ‘religion’ I have in mind appear throughout Jewish scripture and Christian scripture as well as throughout Christian history. In other words, I do not see ‘religion’ to be time bound or period specific (as did Bonhoeffer, at least at this early point in his thinking about ‘religion/less’).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #235

[September 2000 journal entry]
I think Bonhoeffer’s reference to ‘Christ’ in his 30 April 1944 prison letter is still very ‘religious’ (somewhat parallel to the ‘scrapheap’ Job continuing to use the ‘God’ language of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #234

[September 2000 journal entry]
In his 30 April 1944 prison letter, what/who did Bonhoeffer include (or exclude) re ‘Christianity’? As a historian and with my variation on a ‘religionless’ approach, I would give a ‘from below’ answer and begin with a historical/social definition of ‘religion’. Bonhoeffer, from his doctoral studies forward, took seriously a sociology of religion explanation of Christianity. Remember Max Weber was a neighbor and family friend. With the Confessing Church as his central case in point, Bonhoeffer kept expecting through the 1930s to find a remainder in expressions of ‘Christianity’ for which sociologists of religion could not account. In the 30 April 1944 letter, I suspect he had both these perspectives in mind, with his thought about ‘religion’ correlating with a sociologist of religion perspective and his thought about ‘religionless’ correlating with his search for the remainder.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #233

[September 2000 journal entry]
It seems to me that faith as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/sphere is unequivocally separated from doubt, thus imposing severe constraints/limitations on thinking/inquiry. Faith -- understood as that which is trusted -- in a ‘religionless’ sense (at least for me) entails integrating, protecting, embracing an essential place for doubt.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #232

[July 2006 journal entry]
The only time or place where conversations ever ring unambiguously true to me is a time or place that is separate from the language, the liturgy, and the theology taken for granted within every ‘religious’ community with which I am familiar.

Fragment -- #320

[October 2000 journal entry]
In addition to contributing to the demonstration of certain ‘laws of nature’, Newton also addressed the implications for acknowledging such ‘laws’ when he proposed that natural (i.e., ‘from below’) explanations for events/experiences should first be considered and, if adequate, adopted without appeal to supernatural interpretations. This method reverses pre-modern/pre-scientific ‘religious’ methods. Not surprisingly, Newton struggled with the theological orthodoxy of his day (e.g., the ‘Trinity’ doctrine) and faced charges of heresy. In Newton’s time (late 17th century) and for some time thereafter, insight into ‘laws of nature’ did not yet account for many or most events/experiences. A ‘from below’ method for interpreting events/experiences did not for some time filter into public/common reasoning sufficiently for the pre-modern/pre-scientific paradigm to be seriously challenged or to give way.

Fragment -- #319

[October 2000 journal entry]
It is my understanding that in antiquity (i.e., prior to the formation of a modern/scientific paradigm) the term ‘miracle’ was used in reference to events/experiences that were surprising or marvelous manifestations of the assumed work of ‘God’ (or ‘Gods’ or celestial powers or . . .) in managing/sustaining nature. Several words would have been available in antiquity to refer to such marvels. What was not available or considered, other than for an exceptional few, was something akin to the Newton-forward ‘laws of nature’ perspective which a ‘miracle’ would violate/suspend.

Fragment -- #318

[October 2000 journal entry]
I was asked recently, “Are most humans intellectually lazy?” Generally speaking, I am convinced the answer must be “yes” -- in and out of the ‘religious’ sphere. The phrase ‘intellectually lazy’ invites a spectrum to sort out the traits of this laziness. I do think one of the subtleties of societal spheres (including but not limited to the ‘religious’ sphere) is the invitation/permission to be intellectually lazy. I think the author of Ecclesiastes and the narrator of Job in different ways challenge the false sense of security and the intellectual laziness characteristic of ‘religious a priori’ thinking.

Fragment -- #317

[November 2006 journal entry]

I am enthused and relieved by the mid-term election results. Bush et al have – without any appearance of awareness or accountability – tragically driven our society into the proverbial ditch. The Democratic majorities’ highest priority should/must be to take sufficiently radical (i.e., to the root) measures re the corrupt/ing DC milieu to restore the minimal degree of respect/trust within the voting public necessary for Congress to function. Only then will there be a chance to recover integrity at the national/international levels.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #330

[July 2006 journal entry]

The writings attributed to Paul in Christian scripture seem deeply ‘religious’ in that (1) they build off the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’, human experience, and history, (2) the methodology is not in any way empirical/historical (in other words, they do not consider seriously the caravan news as does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or what happens ‘under the sun’ as does Koheleth), (3) they do not recognize/affirm innocent suffering as an in-fact reality, (4) they argue for proportionality re the righteous being blessed and the unrighteous being cursed, (5) they separate wisdom from careful and indiscriminate consideration of human experience, (6) they expect the end of time to come soon, (7) they juxtapose faith and doubt, (8) they . . . .

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #329

[July 2006 journal entry]

Corollary observations: (1) Many individuals who experience significant loss or suffering remain safely within and loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. (2) Many others who experience significant loss or suffering do so safely outside of and not invested in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm without nearing the troubled state of the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The beginnings of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality can be found among these individuals -- e.g., humility, gratefulness, empathy, true friendship, . . . (3) It is not clear to me that the ‘scrapheap’ Job crosses the threshold beyond which his pain/suffering can/will open his eyes to and become symbolic of the breadth/depth of innocent suffering. (4) The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is based on a ‘proportionality’ expectation (somewhat analogous to the entitlement mentality/culture that has developed in the United States since the 1960s).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #328

[July 2006 journal entry]
I see the ‘scrapheap’ Job as troubled (beyond the sheer pain of his condition) because his expectations were so deeply rooted in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that is critiqued in the story/play. The ‘scrapheap’ Job cannot say, “I’ve been dealt a bad hand” and refer to the luck, the randomness, the misfortune of a ‘chance factor’ at work in human experience. Instead, he expects to be dealt a good hand and cannot (with integrity) avoid challenging/questioning the dealer (i.e., ‘God’). (Note a limit to the use of the dealer analogy in that there is a personal factor -- the dealer -- and there is a random factor -- the shuffle of the cards -- in the reference.)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #327

[July 2006 journal entry]
The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is dependent on and inseparable from using language about ‘God’ in a literally equivalent manner (rather than in an analogical manner that acknowledges the significance of anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic limitations and restrictions). Assigning meaning to the term ‘God’ in this way -- so evident in the literally equivalent rather than analogical use of language about ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- makes the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm vulnerable to the spiritual, ethical, and theological collapse for sufferers represented by the ‘scrapheap’ Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #326

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is there a variation on the ‘religious’ paradigm in which innocent suffering is recognized as in fact (rather than only in appearance) offensive, tragic, grievously wrong? in which innocent suffering is taken seriously? I do not know of such.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #325

[July 2006 journal entry]
Is there a concept of human freedom in Job? in Ecclesiastes? The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm interpretations of human freedom have developed in light of assumptions re divine sovereignty (e.g., Luther’s ‘two kingdom’ model or the medieval view of human freedom as recovering what one was intended by the design of creation to be). Is the idea of human freedom as autonomy in Job? in Ecclesiastes? in other Jewish or Christian scripture texts? in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? in Jewish theology? in Christian theology? Autonomy as the essence of human freedom is a distinctive characteristic of a ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics (e.g., a more adult nuance rather than an infant nuance re being a ‘child of God’, responsibility for one’s self and others, liberty to make choices, . . .). From within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, any suggestion or affirmation of autonomy is considered pride and condemned (a charge the three close friends attempt to force on the ‘scrapheap’ Job).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #324

[July 2006 journal entry]
Representations of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in American Christianity that move across the theological spectrum from liberal to evangelical/fundamentalist become increasingly individualistic in the interpretation of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s promises of providential protection/security. Is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in its Jewish origins and through the life of ‘Jesus’ rooted in a corporate rather than an individualistic meaning for providence?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #323

[July 2006 journal entry]
Parallels may be drawn between the stories of Ruth and Job (esp., the endings), with Boaz as something of a model ‘wise man’. Would Boaz add anything new to the story/play Job if he were written into the story/play as a fourth close friend? Perhaps he could be presented as doing something for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comfort/recovery the other three close friends do not achieve, highlighting the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s dilemma – i.e., to comfort the ‘scrapheap’ Job is to fight against ‘God’. Would Boaz, therefore, have difficulty or be awkward with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s theological demands? Is there indication of such awkwardness for Boaz in the story of Ruth? Another option for writing in a fourth close friend would be add Koholeth. And then there is the task of writing into the story/play a ‘non-religious’ interpretation of ‘Jesus’ as a character.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #322

[July 2006 journal entry]
The exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends are in poetic form. The prophetic form and the lament form in antiquity had poetic characteristics. MacLeish’s JB is a script for theatre. Did Israel have theatre? Or was theatre not introduced until the rise of the Greeks?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #321

[July 2006 journal entry]

If the narrator is responsible for the official text having the last paragraph (either by writing it or allowing it), then the narrator makes room for the retention of the simplistic ‘religious’ T/O paradigm/theology as well as for consideration of the radical intention/result of the ‘scrapheap’ perspective on spirituality and ethics (affirmed in 42:7-9) inherent in the extended section with the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #320

[July 2006 journal entry]

The short version of the story/play -- i.e., prologue plus the epilogue in the last paragraph of the text (42:10-17) -- stands on its own as a separate composition. The section with the intense exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends (chs. 3-32) also stands on its own as a separate composition that openly and antithetically challenges the short version of the story/play. The whirlwind section -- perhaps including the Elihu speeches, but definitely including the 42:7-9 paragraph -- stands on its own as a separate composition. If the whirlwind ‘God’ is the narrator’s proposal re ‘God’, it seems to me:

• the narrator recognizes the simplistic form of the story/play preferred within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is severely damaged/discredited by the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ remains within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (being anchored by appeal to the sheer sovereignty of ‘God’), but now minus the (D)euteronomic reduction of human experience to a ‘righteous are blessed and unrighteous are cursed’ equation;
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind alternative to the simplistic theology common to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is somewhat analogous to the shift from the Homeric stories of the gods to Greek philosophy (from Socrates through Zeno);
  
  
• the narrator’s whirlwind ‘God’ undercuts the radical (i.e., to the root) ‘scrapheap’ insights of Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #319

[July2006 journal entry]
The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends are charged with “talking nonsense” (Peterson) (RSV “according to your folly”). The thrust of the whirlwind thundering of ‘God’ seems to be to force the ‘scrapheap’ Job to admit folly or nonsense. Why would ‘God’ see a difference between the three close friends and the ‘scrapheap’ Job here? Is ‘God’ sanctioning the courage to test the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? to face offensive life experiences ‘eye to eye’? Does doing so undermine all wisdom within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #318

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation uses ‘friend’ throughout 42:7-8 where the RSV uses ‘friend’ only once (in reference to Eliphaz’s two companions). Is there one word here that can mean ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? How do the Hebrew words compare/contrast with other references in the story/play to ‘friend’ or ‘servant’? The RSV presents the literal Hebrew wording. ‘Friend’ occurs only once in reference to Bildad and Zophar whereas Job is always referred to as ‘servant’ (specifically ‘my servant’). ‘Servant’ might be a higher designation than ‘friend’ in relation to ‘God’. ‘Servant’ can indicate a close relationship.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #317

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation has “either with me or about me” where the RSV has “of me” in translating the charge of dishonesty or truthlessness ‘God’ brings against the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. It is as if the heated exchanges between the ‘scrapheap’ Job and his three close friends occur in the presence of ‘God’ who sits as a silent judge throughout the exchanges and now declares the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be the one who has prevailed. One way to cast this scene would be to have ‘God’ suddenly/dramatically illumined in a previously dark space on stage.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #316

[July 2006 journal entry]
The RSV has “wrath” (42:7). The word occurs five other times in the story/play – (19:11) “He has kindled his wrath against me” (Job), (20:23) “God will send his fierce anger upon them” (Zophar), (32:2) “Then Elihu became angry” (narrator), (32:3) “he was angry also at Job’s three friends’ (narrator about Elihu), (32:5) “Elihu became angry” (narrator). How does this wrath compare/contrast with the anger assigned ‘God’ in the prologue?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #315

[July 2006 journal entry]
Why is ‘God’ fed up with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends? How does what they have said differ so dramatically from what ‘God’ has just said in the whirlwind? The only point that stands out to me is that the three close friends had continued to defend the moral integrity and accountability of ‘God’ whereas ‘God’ as presented in the whirlwind section seems to take offense at the notion of accountability except to someone his equal (i.e., the ‘might makes right’ position). In other words, censoring the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends implies rejection of the (D)euteronomic covenant at the heart of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #314

[July 2006 journal entry]
If the story is to be staged as theater, where are the three close friends during the whirlwind exchanges between ‘God’ and the ‘scrapheap’ Job? They are present as Elihu speaks and there seems to be no dramatic break between the Elihu section and the whirlwind section. Perhaps they are off to the side, oblivious to what is happening. Perhaps they are overwhelmed by the theophany, not understanding or not wanting to understand.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #313

[July 2006 journal entry]
I think it is necessary to include 42:7-9 with the sections of the story/play between the prologue and the epilogue. There is no reference in the prologue to the three close friends speaking. Therefore, the reference to ‘God’ here is still to the whirlwind image of ‘God’.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #312

[July2006 journal entry]
Does the RSV reference to “dust and ashes” mean “in my dust and ashes, I repent” or is the picture one in which the ‘scrapheap’ Job does something new/additional? Unless the sarcastic tone/meaning is maintained, the radical (i.e., to the root of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) position pressed by Job from the ‘scrapheap’ cannot be sustained. To leave the whirlwind situation here (42:6) would lead in one of two unacceptable directions – either ‘God’ throws the ‘scrapheap’ Job out of his presence or the ‘scrapheap’ Job withdraws his case.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #311

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson 42:6 translation seems a bit weak, apparently wanting to reinforce the point mentioned above. The wording corresponds with the RSV only with “I’m sorry -- forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise.” The RSV has “I despise myself”. Peterson then seems to fall away from a sarcastic tone for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. However, the RSV can still be read with a sarcastic tone. ‘Despise’ has been used before in the story/play:

5:17 – “Do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Eliphaz)
7:16 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
8:20 – “God will not reject (despise) a blameless person” (Bildad)
9:21 – “I loathe (despise) my life” (Job)
19:18 – “ . . . even young children despise me” (Job)
30:1 – “ . . . whose fathers I would have disdained (despised)” (Job)
31:13 – “If I have rejected (despised) the cause of my male or female slaves” (Job)
34:33 – “Will he then pay back to suit you, because you reject (despise) it?” (Elihu)
36:5 – “Surely God is mighty and does not despise any” (Elihu)

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #310

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (42:5a) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I admit I once lived by rumors of you” (RSV “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”). What does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind re his pre-whirlwind method for thinking about ‘God’? Peterson (42:6) returns to this question with -- “I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #309

[July 2006 journal entry]

Peterson’s translation (42:3b) has “babbled” and “made small talk” (RSV “uttered”). Peterson’s wording accentuates (to the point of comedy and/or sarcasm?) a self-depreciating posture for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. I would direct the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s comments as double entendre throughout his response.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #308

[July 2006 journal entry]
I find Peterson’s translation (42:3a) – “You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water, ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’” -- much more approachable than the RSV’s translation (i.e., “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”). The RSV is word-for-word, but Peterson catches a very plausible nuance the RSV misses.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #307

[July 2006 journal entry]
Peterson’s translation (42:2) has the ‘scrapheap’ Job say, “I’m convinced” (RSV “I know”). These two options have some obvious common ground. However, the two translations also illustrate two interpretations re whether Job retains or surrenders his ‘scrapheap’ perspective. “I’m convinced” leaves the impression the whirlwind charges by ‘God’ have shaken Job from his ‘scrapheap’ views. “I know” leaves open the double entendre – i.e., saying under duress “OK . . . Uncle . . . You win . . .” -- in order to survive while holding even more firmly to his ‘scrapheap’ views. I opt for the latter interpretation.