A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #173

[July 2003 journal entry]

In his December 1942 ‘After Ten Years’ essay, Dietrich considered as “an incomparable value” his and his readers’ experience of ‘seeing from below’. If he had survived the war, would he have continued this “yes” to ‘seeing from below’ and thereby to all the inseparable “yeses” that would have necessarily/unavoidably followed? I have in mind here the opening lines to a Michel Quoist prayer (Prayers, p. 121)– “I am afraid of saying ‘yes’, Lord. Where will you take me? I am afraid of drawing the longer straw. I am afraid of signing my name to an unread agreement. I am afraid of the ‘yes’ that entails other ‘yeses’.” Is there any indication in the story/play Job that Job considers his ‘seeing from the scrapheap’ to be ‘an incomparable value’?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #172

[July 2003 journal entry]

If Dietrich had survived the war, how would he have responded to the Allies’ impatience to get an infrastructure in place using all available Germans other than the small fraction who had thoroughly embraced Hitler and Nazism. How would he have responded to the superficial ‘denazification’ process?

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #171

[July 2003 journal entry]

A poem I recently wrote about my experience with ‘religion’ --

With Eyes Opened

I began my spiritual journey in a cozy old house.

I played happily.
I ate heartily.
I slept soundly.
I felt safe.

Then I learned about fires, thunderstorms, earthquakes, tornadoes.
And I learned about faulty electrical wiring, termites, deteriorating foundations.
I examined the cozy old house.
I discovered brittle insulation, rotten wood, cracked foundation blocks.

My play ceased.
My meals lost taste.
My sleep became restless.
I felt at risk.

I tried to repair the cozy old house.
I failed.
I could no longer play there . . . eat there . . . sleep there.
I felt sad.

I paused and then moved on with my spiritual journey . . . grateful to have been
disillusioned.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #170

[July 2003 journal entry]

While driving to work with our youngest daughter, we discussed the Nazi Holocaust section of her 8th-grade literature course. In addition to reading Anne Franke’s diary and Corrie ten Boom’s story, she was assigned to do some independent research on the concentration camps. We discussed the widespread anti-Semitism across Western Europe and in the United States as well as in Germany. We discussed the anti-Semitism that can be traced from Christianity’s beginnings into the 20th-century. Morgan asked whether and when most Germans knew about the horrors that occurred at the concentration camps. After talking about the everyday (often every hour) strains/decisions faced by Germans who saw clearly and who dared to resist, we considered the options available to those whose position of privilege and distance permitted them to minimize/avoid seeing/learning too much. They knew enough to attempt not to know more. When Morgan admitted that she often avoids reading or watching news or documentary reports of human suffering, I suggested that the many individuals around her with similar positions of privilege and distance as well as the many institutions/spheres (including ‘religion’) available to her will not seriously challenge her to do otherwise. We then looked at hints in the Synoptic Gospels that being with ‘Jesus’ would have meant to be constantly challenged to see more rather than less, to see all rather than a biased selection, to see ‘from below’ rather than ‘from above’.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #169

[April 2003 journal entry]

During a breakfast conversation while visiting Berlin with Renate Bethge, I asked Renate when she noticed interest in Dietrich increasing after the war’s end. She pointed to the 1963 publication of John A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God and asked my thoughts as to the link. I described for her two competing and contrasting paradigms in the United States at that time – (1) a fundamentalist/nonscientific/‘religious’ paradigm that in the 1950s had considerable momentum and (2) a modern/scientific/secularizing paradigm that in the 1950s was beginning to show rapidly expanding breakthroughs, the results of which (along with the underlying information base) were trickling into public knowledge (in media and education) at a time when the US population was becoming less and less rural. We discussed what I understand to have been the core proposition of the Altizer, Hamilton, Vahanian, Cox, et al professional theologians who fueled a debate sensationalized by the 8 April 1966 Time issue with its ‘Is God Dead?’ cover and lead story – i.e., that the apparent vitality/momentum of fundamentalist/evangelical ‘religion’ in the United States distracted from the deeper reality that Sunday’s ‘God’ language was in fact ‘dead’ on Monday. I suspect these theologians assumed/expected that individuals when challenged (1) would want to live authentically ‘in the world’ and (2) would want to integrate Sunday and Monday. If so, they miscalculated on both counts. In the ‘religious’ sphere toward the fundamentalist/evangelical end of the theological spectrum, the ‘God is dead’ theologies/ians were dismissed (e.g., the God is not dead . . . I spoke to him last night bumper stickers). This dismissal was made easier by the fact that the theologians speaking of ‘God’ as dead were perceived as academic theologians rather than as pastors/ministers. ‘Religious’ leaders toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum who took seriously their ‘God is dead’ point risked losing many disturbed/insecure members to fundamentalist/evangelical churches by acting on such realization. Robinson’s Honest to God was jolting in at least two ways – (1) he was a churchman (though somewhat weakened as a influential witness to fundamentalists/evangelicals by being a liberal Anglican and at the end of his career) and (2) he referenced Bonhoeffer’s prison correspondence (when Bonhoeffer was known in the United States ‘religious’ sphere primarily by his pre-1939 Confessing Church years/writings).

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #168

[April 2003 journal entry]

Dietrich’s investment in the Confessing Church as a non-violent civil disobedience strategy depended on two key assumptions/anticipations – i.e., the expectation that the enemy/aggressor will be caused to pause (eventually responding to the strategy) and the ability of the resistors to remain resolute when injuries, deprivations, deaths begin to occur. By 1939 Dietrich saw that the strategy had failed on both counts. Unlike the British in India (where Dietrich tried to travel several times without success), the Nazis were in their homeland and had utter darkness at their core. The ranks of the Pastors’ Emergency League broke in 1937 when the Nazis confronted the Confessing Church after the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #92

[June 2003 journal entry]

The evidence that humans try to make “all things work together for good” is accessible and discernible. The evidence that ‘God’ (as nuanced within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) makes “all things work together for good” is not accessible and discernible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #91

[June 2003 journal entry]

The ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes monologue are my windows into Jewish scripture and Christian scripture. I draw back from texts/writers that/who add nothing re imagining the missing character in the story/play Job (i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him) and instead endorse the story/play’s fairytale epilogue. And ‘Jesus’? The Gospel writers (in spite of themselves, I suspect) permit imagining ‘Jesus’ as someone who sees ‘from below’ or ‘from the scrapheap’. His death is ‘innocent’, but is most immediately associated with social suffering (i.e., caught in a power struggle). Note that the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm casts his death as divinely willed, leaving as insignificant such considerations as a power struggle. An additional hermeneutic effort/step is required to associate his death with chronic illness victims.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #90

[June 2003 journal entry]

A ‘scrapheap’ has to do with more than the leftovers from one job to be used at the next job. A ‘scrapheap’ represents what is past recycling. Re social/collective ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor represents those so exploited that they are no longer of interest/value to the exploiters, so exploited that no ‘bounce’ remains. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? They are among social workers, public school teachers, et al. Re individual ‘innocent’ suffering – the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor has to do with those so devastated by (chronic) illness/conditions that they no longer have ‘life’. They are beyond the ‘scrapheap’ Job at his worst. And who are the ‘prophets’ here? Dr. Rieux-type physicians.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #89

[June 2003 journal entry]

The story/play Job as we have it in Jewish scripture allows the audience to leave thinking, “Ah, a comforting ending. All is well.” The story/play also more subtly invites those (few, I suspect) who see past/through the fairytale ending instead to embark on the journey beyond the story/play in search of the way of being and the ‘God’ language missing in the story/play (somewhat analogous to being invited to meet after the play at a nearby tavern to talk).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #88

[June 2003 journal entry]

My experience with the story/play Job in Jewish scripture is analogous to returning to a long-running Broadway play every week for more than thirty years. Changes/movements in my life over the past thirty years have altered how I have experienced the story/play Job. And the story/play Job has repeatedly altered my life. Different parts of the story/play Job have touched me at different times and in different ways – e.g., developing the ‘scrapheap’ metaphor or finding a way to engage the fairytale epilogue/ending (which I avoided for years by ‘leaving early’). Perhaps my notes on the story/play Job are similar to a travel guidebook. How is a travel guidebook (to be) used, given that the traveler will not be able to experience all the possibilities described in the book? My notes represent the accumulation of more than thirty years experience with the story/play Job. I cannot separate or easily/often distinguish what has accumulated from repeatedly returning to the story/play Job (as if each performance attended could have its own font in the notes). I am realizing that my reflections assume the reader will return to the story/play Job several times. Thus there are numerous promptings re special, specific, fresh ways to experience the story/play Job.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #87

[May 2003 journal entry]

It remains remarkable to me that so many individuals make very explicit and passionate appeals to divine providence in their personal experiences at the expense of so many others around them who are devastated. Perhaps there is an analogy with the way having a camera’s aperture wide open results in a very thin focal plane with the foreground/background blurred to the point that the details are no longer discernable. Why do individuals surrounded by devastation to others if not to themselves continue to trust/champion some variation on the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re divine providence?

1. Is it because the paradigm satisfactorily accounts for their personal experiences and their closest acquaintances’ experiences? (In other words, the paradigm works for them enough of the time that they do not test the paradigm by taking into account the wider/deeper realities of human suffering.)
2. Is it because their reason/s for adopting the paradigm had nothing to do with testing the paradigm’s credibility against the depth/breadth of human misery?
3. Is it because separating from the paradigm would be too painful, too time-consuming, too difficult to explain, . . . ?
4. Is it because they are not attempting to be truly present with individuals experiencing the worst of life?
5. Is it because the paradigm does not permit or support its being radically (i.e., down into the root) tested? (Those who dare to do so are pressured to ‘repent’. There is something hauntingly akin to spouse abuse -- e.g., “At least he notices me”, “I’m to blame”, “I would not know how to live in any other situation”, “I can’t afford to leave”, . . .)
6. Is it because they are not looking for or wanting to struggle with such questions?
7. Is it because they place more value on other aspects of membership within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
8. Is it because they have made public statements and/or taken public actions of allegiance to the paradigm that would be difficult (embarrassing?) to reverse (analogous to having a ‘lifetime alumnus’ sticker on your car)?
9. Is it because of a desire for childlike comfort and liberty from accountability?
10. Is it because of texts in Jewish scripture and/or Christian scripture that discourage seriously questioning the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm?
11. Is it because of credentialed authorities (e.g., PhDs, faculty members, popular writers, pastors, . . .) who repeatedly reassure the adherents that the paradigm is sound and can be trusted? (These ‘religious’ authorities are analogous to a building inspector requested by a real estate agent because s/he can count on the building inspector’s certification of the property regardless of the items found to need correction. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expects to be certified whenever these ‘religious’ authorities examine the paradigm.)
12. Is it because they fear being in ‘fog’ (i.e., ‘uncertainty’)?
13. Is it because they have taken pivotal actions (e.g., who/whether to marry, what profession to pursue, where to work, . . .) primarily (even solely) on the conviction that ‘God’ specifically willed such actions? (The fabric of these actions would begin to unravel if they step back/away from the paradigm.)
14. Is it because they are concerned not to appear disloyal to or critical of individuals they love and respect who remain unwavering in their allegiance to the paradigm?
15. Is it . . . ?

Fragment -- #220

[July 2003 journal entry]

I offered our twin daughters four landmarks when they left for college – i.e., (1) always be reading something elective, (2) always be creating something, (3) always be in a co-working situation, (4) always have a ‘K-Bar-B’ experience going. I would now add a fifth landmark – i.e., (5) always be taking care of someone’s garbage/waste.

Fragment -- #219

[July 2003 journal entry]

A close physician friend mentioned recently a comment made by a fellow resident near the end of their residencies re my friend’s efforts as chief resident to correct flaws in the system – “David, it doesn’t make a difference. When you are gone, it will be like pulling your finger out of water. No one will know you have been here or what you have tried to do.” I have thought several times about this premise that expending time and energy to ‘make a difference’ is futile and without significance. This premise is not without insight. Infrastructures are especially resistant to change. And most of the ways we benevolently touch another’s life go unnoticed. This premise also raises the important question of motive (i.e., the importance placed on being noticed/recognized). Still, the analogy proposed in this premise breaks down at least slightly in that the finger stuck into the water leaves something – however difficult to trace/identify -- in the water.

Fragment -- #218

[July 2003 journal entry]

Today I watched a skit performed by the Vacation Bible School kids at Harpeth Presbyterian Church (USA) around the story of ‘Jesus’ and Peter walking on the surface of the sea. The theme song for the skit had the refrain – “I can do all things – even walk on the sea – through Jesus Christ who strengthens me”. What did the kids think this statement meant? What did their teachers think it meant? Had there been any discussion that would keep the kids from going to a lake or swimming pool and trying to walk on water?

Fragment -- #217

[July 2003 journal entry]

An ex nihilo beginning to the natural order is widely taken for granted within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. This view – which, in my opinion, is not self-evident – is linked with the premise also widespread within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm that all events (including all human experiences) are willed by ‘God’. Liturgies, hymns, prayers, and sermons reinforce this link. This view marginalizes/devalues all other possibly explanatory variables – including human freedom – when interpreting natural events. I see Jewish thought in antiquity as neither rooted in an ex nihilo view nor (in contrast with Egyptian, Persian, or Hellenistic cultures) given to extensive metaphysical theorizing. This lack of metaphysical theorizing is especially evident in Genesis’ second creation story with its gardener working the soil metaphor and its potter working with clay metaphor for ‘God’ bringing design out of formlessness. Other nuances in these variables present in such metaphors (e.g., quality of soil, amount of rain, grazing of animals, . . . or windblown sand, low humidity, children playing too close to the potter’s spinning wheel, . . .) need not be marginalized as more recently recognized variables (e.g., regularities in nature, randomness, human freedom/choice, . . .) need not be (and are not, in a ‘non-religious’ approach) marginalized.

Fragment -- #216

[April 2003 journal entry]

It is serious/profound to say to another – “Step here. The ground is firm.” (The ‘ground’ metaphor could be replaced by ‘ice’, ‘wood’, . . .). Decisions/actions imply such counsel. Virtually all individuals – when I observe them in the routines/schedules of the day and especially when I listen to them in conversation – look and sound as if they are confident about the paradigm reflected in and implied by their decisions, their actions, their reactions. I have thought about this recurring observation often over the years. Very few individuals seem cautious, questioning, testing. They instead seem to stride through their lives. This impression has contributed directly/significantly to my reticence to do more than suggest radical (i.e., ‘to the root’) paradigm examination to those with whom I am acquainted. I am, however, always ready to participate in such radical examination with those who indicate a need and longing to do so.

Fragment -- #215

[June 2006 journal entry]

I feel more keenly/painfully than ever an identification with Koheleth as he wrestled with being aware of the human misery just beyond the edges of his affluence. Where -- across a spectrum with one end being ‘utter misery’ and the other end being ‘utter affluence’ -- is the lifestyle that does not necessitate colonizing, exploiting, oppressing, impoverishing? where none would have reason to say, “I would not live my life over”? The standard of living experienced or sought by so many in the United States is far toward the ‘utter affluence’ end of the spectrum. A serious move toward the point of a just lifestyle on the spectrum is hard and complicated. Is it possible? . . . I must resist the enticements/sanctions – social, professional, religious – to turn away from seeing, to be distracted, to try to forget. I still see Koheleth tormented, paralyzed, frustrated, disillusioned by his awareness of the human misery just beyond the edge of his affluence. I still wonder if the author found a way to stay focused on ‘life under the sun’ after he wrote Ecclesiastes. I still consider my 1992-present journal entries to be an interpretation of one attempt to remain ‘with the world face to face’. I still place ‘unparalleled value’ on seeing ‘from below’. I still hesitate to claim that I see clearly ‘from below’.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #50

[July 2003 journal entry]
“I’m beginning to feel again an excitement about being a physician” – a mid-40s Johns Hopkins Ob/Gyn Department faculty member (with a specialization in the gynecological care of HIV+ women) during a dinner conversation after I had given the department’s Thomas Elkins Memorial Lecture.

‘the ethical dimensions of patient care’ -- #49

[May 2001 journal entry]
My daughters have often asked me how they should explain to others my work with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians. Over the years, I have offered them a variety of metaphors (e.g., the prompter in theatre, the mudder in interior wall construction, the leaven in baking, . . .). A few days ago, Morgan asked, “Dad, how should I answer when my friends ask -- ‘Morgan, what does your dad do?’” A new metaphor came to mind. I responded, “Just tell them I am an irrigation ditch.” By the end of our conversation about this metaphor, she seemed to understand. Since the early 1980s, I have been privileged to work closely with medical students, residents, academic physicians, and practicing physicians who remain resolved to be humane toward their patients and to exercise a strong social conscience in the practice of medicine. Their resolve places them in the barren regions of the medical education and medical practice environments.