Down the Trump Rabbit Hole 7 December 2016

[7 December 2016]

A close friend who lives in Iowa sent me a news report that documents the vileness Trump has drawn into the open.  I had not seen or known about this letter.  But the revelations resulting from the recent election demonstrate how serious such views/threats truly are.  We – I specifically have those who voted for Hillary and/or supported Sanders in mind – must stand with those targeted.  Do we have the courage of the non-Jewish Danes who wore the star of David?  Since November 8, I have worn my Clinton campaign cap (navy blue with a white ‘H’ plus horizontal red arrow) every day and will continue to do so both as a reminder to myself and also as a statement of alignment with all those Trump et al are attacking.  Yes, the hat draws many looks and an encouraging number of supportive responses/comments.  When a conversation appears possible, my centering explanation is some variation on – “Trump stands against all my core values, every one of my core values”.  I joined ‘Democracy for America’ and have signed most of the petitions about which I have been notified by them.  Small gestures with far less risk (for now) than the risk the Danes faced, but gestures nonetheless.  Bottom line – we must be seen and heard. 

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.