A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #10

reflections on his ‘After Ten Years’ December 1942 essay (1)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45)
Biographical Sketch

The Gestapo killed Dietrich Bonhoeffer by hanging 9 April 1945 at Flossenburg concentration camp. The Gestapo had arrested Dietrich and several other high-ranking political and military officials 5 April 1943 on charges of treasonous conspiracy to destroy the Nazi’s Third Reich from within. They responded to interrogation in a way that protected the secrecy of the remaining members of the conspiracy circle who made their attempt 20 July 1944 to assassinate Hitler and end the war. When that attempt failed, the Gestapo tracked down the rest of the conspirators and systematically publicized their trials and subsequent executions.

The Bonhoeffer family was a highly respected family in Germany’s history and culture. The Bonhoeffer family members were among the remnant in the German population who saw as early as Hitler’s rise to political control in January 1933 the tragedies to which he would lead Germany. Several Bonhoeffer family members became participants in efforts to resist Hitler from inside the various social institutions. Dietrich first worked overtly to resist the Nazis through the Protestant churches that chose to resist Nazi takeover of the leadership of the Protestant churches. When Hitler effectively silenced their resistance by 1938, Dietrich first responded by using a travel permit in early 1939 to leave Germany for the United States where he could have remained during the pending war. However, he soon decided he had made a mistake and returned to Germany July 1939, knowing war would soon break out and knowing his efforts to resist Hitler and the Nazis would have to be covert. He agreed to be assigned to the military’s counterintelligence – the Abwehr – in order to join the conspirators (led by has brother-in-law Hans von Donanyi among others) hidden in the Abwehr.

Dietrich continued the family tradition of leadership. His father made his mark in psychiatry; his older brothers, in physics, law, and industry. Such notables as Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, and Adolph Harnack were regular guests in the Bonhoeffer home.

To the surprise but not opposition of his respectfully agnostic or non-institutionally religious family members, Dietrich decided as a teenager to be a theologian/pastor. By 1927 he had earned research and teaching doctorates in theology from the University of Berlin. With dissertations focused on the meaning of being ‘church’, he left clear evidence of his shift from Adolph Harnack’s cultural optimism to Karl Barth’s more recently published cultural pessimism as the key to the human situation against which theology should be worked out. He gained experience pertinent to both career options available to him -- pastoral and academic.

By 1930 the National Socialist Party had rather suddenly emerged as an influential minority party in German politics. When a coalition made Hitler chancellor in January 1933, Dietrich had already aligned himself with the Lutheran/Reformed church leaders who quickly formed the Pastors Emergency League. Most who took this courageous step hoped to stem Hitler’s efforts to gain control of the leadership of the Christian community in Germany. Dietrich -- moved more by ‘the Jewish question’ -- hoped the ‘confessing churches’ would reproduce the effect non-violent resistance was having in India under Gandhi’s leadership.

The ‘confessing churches’ needed leaders trained for spiritual and ethical resiliency as well as theological acumen if the non-violent strategy of resistance was to be effective. The Pastors Emergency League created several training centers, including Finkenwalde Seminary in 1934. Dietrich was asked to lead the Finkenwalde Seminary. Among his efforts to prepare those young men for potentially life-threatening ministries, he confronted them with the Sermon on the Mount. He admonished the students to commit themselves to a radically non-violent confrontation with the concrete evil that had gripped Germany. The now widely read/known Cost of Discipleship is a transcription of notes from these lectures.

Thorough attention to the historical context of this classic in spirituality literature must follow the story of Dietrich and the ‘confessing churches’ into the war years. By 1937 the protesting churches had been outlawed. By 1939 they had been contained, left to turn inward with an agenda reduced to survival. Facing either flight or conscription, Dietrich instead joined a covert effort in a branch of the military’s secret services that was determined to bring Hitler down by coup or assassination. In reflections written before (Ethics) and after his 5 April 1943 arrest (Letters and Papers from Prison), Dietrich felt compelled to account for his participation in the violent plot and in duplicity. His December 1942 essay – Ten Years Later – provides penetrating insight into his self-examination and his interpretation of the shared experience of those who sustained their posture of resistance.

A ‘non-religious’ view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- #9

re ‘with the world face to face’

I am from time to time invited to guide discussions about the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’, both with attention to the phrase’s significance for understanding Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life/thought (my source for the phrase) and with suggestions re the phrase’s implications for ethics and spirituality today. In such opportunities, I usually organize the discussions around four emphases.

The first discussion orients the participants to ‘the world’ for Dietrich during the Hitler years (e.g., reasons for Hitler’s rise/success, the Bonhoeffer family’s resistance, the German Pastors’ Emergency League, the 1936 Berlin Olympics, facing the oath of allegiance to Hitler, the Confessing Church failure, Dietrich’s arrest/imprisonment/death). To bring some vividness to the subject, I share with the participants photographs from my three days in 2003 with Renate Bethge in Berlin and other photographs I have been privileged to take of historical resources/artifacts in the Bethge home during annual visits since 1993.

The second discussion probes the participants’ perceptions of ‘culture’ and of being ‘cultured’. I associate their predictable criteria (e.g., well educated, widely traveled, at ease in the arts, well dressed, refined manners, appreciation for fine cuisine, philanthropy, . . .) with Dietrich’s experience (e.g., his family’s prominence, his socio-economic privileges from birth, his thirst for nature’s beauty, his love for music and art, his gift for the piano, his awareness of injustices in India, his experiences in Spain with being a foreigner, his attachment to Harlem while at Union Theological Seminary, his investment in a confirmation class of rough boys in a blue-collar section of Berlin). Then I introduce them to Dietrich’s 23 January 1944 revised view that “ . . . a culture that breaks down in the face of danger is no culture. A ‘culture’ must be able to face danger and death . . . .” I guide them to distinguish postures toward ‘the world’ other than being ‘face to face’ -- e.g., tangentially, selectively, minimally, close-mindedly, suspiciously, . . . postured toward ‘the world’ -- all of which result in some variation on the ‘inner line’ approach to spirituality and ethics against which Dietrich objected/warned.

The third discussion focuses on Dietrich’s July 1939 decision to return to Germany from New York City and his subsequent experience in the Abwehr covert resistance circle. I contrast his involvement in covert resistance with the choices of pastors Martin Niemoller (imprisoned through the war years as a churchman) and Paul Schneider (executed for openly/persistently defying the Nazis). We reflect on the risk of losing sight/awareness of the beautiful and the inspiring when faced with danger and death. I close with Dietrich’s letter to Eberhard Bethge the day after the 20 July 1944 attempt on Hitler’s life failed.

The fourth discussion opens the questions about being gathered in/as ‘community’ that follow from saying “yes” to the stated resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ (e.g., will the community radically rethink its approach to spirituality and ethics? to science? to the use/value of silence? to the art of sharing experiences ‘with the world face to face’? to hymns? to prayer/s? to confirmation? to communion? to the use of Jewish/Christian scripture? to parenting? to . . . ?). I share with them my observation that I have yet to experience/discover a ‘religious’ community that gathers around the resolve to be ‘with the world face to face’ and that has seriously examined these implications for saying “yes” to this resolve.

A most striking reaction – still vivid to me -- occurred as I led one such discussion group into the questions, “What experiences, events, circumstances count re ‘the world’? On what grounds can I disregard/ignore/avoid any experience, event, circumstance – however disgusting -- and still claim to be ‘with the world face to face’?” I noticed a teenage boy with a horrified expression when, to press the point, I recalled hearing a recent local news report about a little girl who had been taken from her parents by social services when cockroaches were found embedded in both her ears.

Participants always seem very attentive. Many respond thoughtfully during the discussions’ interactive opportunities. Comments after the sessions are often encouraging. The key is whether they will continue into the radical (i.e., down into the root) questions. I end the discussions uncertain/doubtful.

Quoist’s ‘The Subway’ meditation (Prayers, p. 26) serves well as a metaphor for these discussions (which I have adapted into a ‘non-religious’ wording) --

The last ones squeeze in. The door rolls shut. The subway rumbles off. I can’t move. I am no longer an individual but a crowd, a crowd that moves in one piece like jellied soup in its can. A nameless and indifferent crowd. I am one with the crowd, and I see why it is sometimes hard for me to rise higher. This crowd is heavy – laden soles on my feet, my slow feet – a crowd too large for my overburdened skiff. Yet I have no right to overlook these people. . . . I shall head for home “in the subways”.

‘A Non-religious View of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’ -- #8

Reflections from Journal Entries

Now for another set of ten reflections selected/adapted from journal entries written during my Vermont years (1992-95).

11. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be modern and/or post-modern but not pre-modern. To be religious’ is to be pre-modern to an increasing degree across the theological spectrum from ‘liberal’ end to the ‘fundamentalist’ end of the spectrum. Disposition toward thinking scientifically (e.g., cause and effect, critical inquiry, inductive reasoning, careful observation, testing hypotheses, unbiased gathering/handling of data, less than complete certainty, pursuit of objectivity, using statistical analysis, . . . ) is an effective angle for distinguishing ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, and ‘post-modern’.
    
    [Note: analyses such as David Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies had guided me since my graduate studies in the 1970s toward scientific historiography. I had traced as a graduate professor the interplay of science with philosophy, theology, politics, economics that has fueled change in Western culture. My roots by 1992 as ‘a historian first, theologian second’ were already deep. Still I entered the medical education/practice sphere in 1992 not yet adequately familiar with the scientific underpinnings of medicine. As the titles in the list of books I have read since 1992 indicate, I have placed a high priority on deepening my understanding of what it means to think scientifically. Such understanding is necessary for approaching spirituality and ethics ‘with the world face to face’.]
    
12. A ‘non-religious’ view of spirituality and of being human builds on human strengths rather than on human weaknesses.
    
    [Note: I would now change the wording to ‘ . . . builds on human strengths more than on human weaknesses’. On a spectrum with ‘0’ being an equation of humanness with weaknesses and ’10’ being an equation of humanness with strengths, I find myself most often around ‘7’ in my view of myself and others. I have found ‘religious’ language to be nearing ‘0’ on this spectrum as one moves through evangelical to fundamentalist language within Christianity.]
    
13. ‘Non-religious’ spirituality is defined by and experienced as imaged by the ‘wilderness’ metaphor. ‘Non-religious’ spirituality is shaped by and focused on surviving in extremities, in ‘the worst’.
    
    [Note: a few years earlier, I had stated in print my intent to speak as a witness to the spiritual and ethical consequences that follow prolonged exposure to tragic and offensive human suffering. For there is a place where two ten-year-old boys are charged with the brutal murder of a two-year-old child . . . where the memories of sexual abuse seem fresh every morning . . . where an ICU nurse turns and bathes geriatric patients whose skin tears away from their shriveled frames . . . where wounded veterans of war never leave the hospital ward . . . where distraught parents reel from their daughter’s murder by a jilted boyfriend at a youth meeting in the activity room of a church building. There is a place where this does not appear to be “my Father’s world” . . . where few “go for a together” with ‘God’ . . . where no relief comes from trying to “count your many blessings” . . . where it is difficult to “praise ‘God’ from whom all blessings flow”. There is a place where trust is expressed through the language of doubt, lament, fatigue, frustration, self-reliance . . . where the vision of a peaceful time in which to die is shattered . . . where the boldest goal is to “walk and faint not” . . . where being before ‘God’ is experienced as being without ‘God’ . . . where prayer for recovery becomes prayer for the end.]
    
14. A ‘non-religious’ approach to spirituality and ethics takes shape around/from a ‘from below’ resolve to be genuinely present with and deeply conscious of innocent sufferers.
    
    [Note: here I had in mind Bonhoeffer’s 1942/3 ‘The view from below’ fragment (my translation) – “It remains an experience of unparalleled (incomparable) value that we have learned to see for once the great events of world history from below – through the perspective of the barred (put out, cut out, blocked), the suspects, the badly treated, the powerless, the oppressed (restrained), the scoffed (derided, mocked), in short the perspective of those who suffer. (It is) only in this time when neither bitterness nor envy (jealousy) has cauterized (corroded, gnawed away) the heart that we see with new eyes great and small, fortunate and unfortunate, strong and weak; that our view of greatness, humaneness, justice, and compassion has become clearer, more free, more incorruptible (not subject to bribes); indeed, (that we see) that personal suffering is a more suitable (qualified) key (code, cipher), a more fruitful principle, than is personal good fortune for exploring the world by observation and action . . . .”]
    
    
15. A ‘non-religious’ theology does not presuppose a ‘scripture’ perspective. Instead, from an alignment with innocent sufferers, a ‘non-religious’ perspective looks for what in Jewish scripture and Christian scripture ‘rings authentic’ when considered through this existential (Bonhoeffer’s ‘outer line’) grid.
    
    
16. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be iconoclastic.
    
    
17. I am convinced a Berdyaev-type critique of the anthropo-, socio-, and cosmomorphic character of ‘God’ language is true. I am convinced all ‘God’ language that is of such character.
    
    
18. Being ‘non-religious’ is, simply put, being without ‘religion’ or a ‘religious’ factor/facet in one’s approach to and experience of ethics and spirituality.
    
    
19. My primary reference point as I form/follow a ‘religionless’ approach to spirituality and ethics has been Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Secondary reference points include Berdyaev, Merton, Teilhard de Chardin, the Quaker tradition, Harnack, Kierkegaard, Eckhart, Pascal, Quoist, Francis, Erasmus, Dostoevsky, . . . . All these reference points are found on the margin of the ‘religious’ sphere in various ways.
    
    [Note: by ‘on the margin’, I meant controversial and often heretical.]
    
    
20. To be ‘non-religious’ is to be an ‘outsider’ or ‘guest’ in relation to the ‘religious’ sphere.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #36

The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm builds around a spectrum ranging from enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ to unambiguous experiences of being ‘cursed’. This spectrum has two thresholds – (1) a threshold separating enjoyable experiences of being ‘blessed’ from painful reproving experiences of being ‘blessed’ and (2) a threshold separating these two ways to experience being ‘blessed’ from the experiences of being ‘cursed’. Some individuals loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (strain to) see the intention/assessment of ‘God’ in every experience as an indication of a person’s place on the spectrum. Others withhold such an interpretation until the indications of reproof or curse become a strong cluster of experiences that leads to an undeniable conclusion. The evidence for as well as the meaning of being ‘blessed’ steadily shift as the spectrum is crossed. In other words, there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘blessed’ before the threshold into ‘reproof’ is crossed and there is a sub-spectrum (or a shading) re ‘reproof’. Being ‘cursed’ is both the last chance for the one cursed (i.e., discipline by shunning) and protection for the community gathered around the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. ‘Repenting’ when being reproved has to do with a course correction or adjustment (e.g., steering a car or navigating a plane when one is overall going in the right direction). ‘Repenting’ when cursed has more to do with a reversal or turn around due to going in the wrong direction.

At some points (e.g., 5:17), the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends see him as being reproved and, therefore, still among the blessed. At other points, they see him as being cursed. The ‘scrapheap’ Job clearly sees himself as unjustifiably cursed. The three close friends see him after he has been devastated/humiliated by all the tragedies and they still try to apply the reproof model. What more could happen that would move them to consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job cursed? In spite of the cursed evidence, they seem to be grasping for some way to continue considering him to be among the blessed, hoping to avoid the consequences of considering him instead to be among the cursed. I suspect this line of reasoning frames their conversations re how to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job. What are the signals the three close friends have shifted from seeing him as reproved to seeing him cursed?

Why did the three close friends not advocate for the ‘scrapheap’ Job (e.g., the story of Abraham pleading for Lot), given their long friendship with him? Why does the ‘scrapheap’ Job expect such? Is there any indication the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is melting down for his three close friends?

There are two ways within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm to assess one’s spiritual status – (1) to reason inductively from observable behavior to conclusions re being among the ‘righteous’ or the ‘unrighteous’ or (2) to reason deductively from life circumstances re being ‘blessed’ or being ‘cursed’ to conclusions re being among the ‘righteous’ or the ‘unrighteous’. Painful experiences may initially be classified as misfortune and set aside as analogous to statistical anomalies that do not melt/hollow/ruin the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the wicked (as determined by observable behavior) are not cursed, at what point does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm begin to break down?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job points to caravan travelers (6:18; see also 6:19, 8:13, 30:12). (Peterson also has “merchants” and “tourists”.) Peterson’s “tourists” is quite a stretch for antiquity. Few people took long vacations in antiquity. ‘Traveling merchants’ would be better wording. I find insight in associating the caravan travelers in antiquity with the modern taxi driver. The caravan travelers in antiquity saw more widely than those who had not traveled. They had time to ponder what they had seen. Here the focus is on the risk that a caravan gets turned around and lost (like wagon trains in the American West). A wrong turn could move a caravan farther away from water or into greater danger as winter approached. Looking at the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends with this metaphor, they are like a caravan that loses its way and is never heard from again. The ‘scrapheap’ Job spots his three close friends. He goes out of his way for a drink from them. He is confident. But he is soon disappointed. His countenance falls.

Do the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends turn out to be no more than ‘so called friends’ (Peterson)? If so, they are parallel to the ‘pretend to be friends’ in Proverbs.

Peterson (6:21b) has “a hard scene” (RSV “calamity”). I think Peterson is too casual with “hard scene”. The Hebrew word is better translated as terror or fear. What makes a condition hard? terrifying? fearful?

Peterson (6:23a) has “Nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me” (RSV “save me from an opponent’s hand”). Peterson does not appear to retain 6:23b in the Hebrew text (RSV “ransom me from the hand of oppressors”). What would “go out on a limb” have entailed, had the ‘scrapheap’ Job so urged his three close friends to do so? Does he expect his three close friends to join him in challenging the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm or in condemning traditional understandings of ‘God’? The ‘scrapheap’ Job may not be begging them to do so. But he does appear to be stating an expectation.

When compared with the RSV, Peterson (6:24-27) seems to be translating rather freely. How well does his translation align with the Hebrew text (especially the underlined phrases)?

[Peterson]
Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up. Show me where I’ve gone off the track. Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit?

[RSV]
Teach me, and I will be silent; make me understand how I have gone wrong. How forceful are honest words. But your reproof, what does it reprove? Do you think that you can reprove words, as if the speech of the desperate were wind? You would even cast lots over the orphan, and bargain over your friend.

“Gone off track” is much more vivid than “gone wrong”. Would there have been a track in antiquity as rigid/fixed as a train track is today? The track analogy suggests both a path and a destination. What is the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s expected destination?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #35

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s definition of true friendship (6:14) includes the use of the adjective ‘despair’. A feminine noun meaning ‘despair’ from the same root occurs later in the heated exchanges (9:23). The verb from which these words derive means to dissolve or to melt. What experiences with melting might have been common when the extended middle section to the story/play was composed? Ice and snow were possibilities (e.g., Mt. Hermon). Melting wax and melting metal were also common.

References to ‘despair’, ‘weary’, ‘vexation’, ‘crush’ are very common in Job and Ecclesiastes:

Job 3:17 Job sees Sheol as at least a place where the weary rest.
Job 4:19 (Eliphaz) Humans cannot be righteous. They are crushed like a moth.
Job 5:2 (Eliphaz) Vexation kills the fool.
Job 5:4 (Eliphaz) Fools are crushed in the gate.
Job 5:17 (Eliphaz) A man reproved by ‘God’ is blessed. So Job should not despise the Almighty.
Job 6:2 Job comments on the immensity of his vexation.
Job 6:9 Job wishes ‘God’ would crush him.
Job 6:26 Job speaks of himself as a despairing man.
Job 10:3 Job accuses ‘God’ of despising the work of his hands.
Job 10:17 Job says ‘God’ increases his vexation toward him.
Job 15:24 (Eliphaz) The evil ones are distressed.
Job 19:18 Young children despise Job
Job 20:19 (Zophar) The wicked crush the poor.
Job 22:7 Eliphaz accuses Job of not caring for the weary.
Job 22:9 Eliphaz accuses Job of crushing orphans.
Job 24:22 ‘God’ prolongs the life of the evil – when they despair he lifts them up.
Job 34:25 (Elihu) ‘God’ crushes the mighty.
Job 36:5 (Elihu) ‘God’ does not despise anyone.
Job 36:16 (Elihu) ‘God’ allured Job out of distress.
Job 36:19 Elihu wonders if Job’s cries will keep him from distress.
Job 39:15 ‘God’ says an ostrich egg may be crushed if the ostrich leaves.
Job 42:6 Job despises himself and repents.

Eccl. 1:8 All things are weariness.
Eccl. 1:18 In much wisdom is much vexation.
Eccl. 2:20 Koheleth despairs over his labor
Eccl. 2:23 Human work is full of vexation.
Eccl. 5:17 Parents who lose all are in much vexation.
Eccl. 9:6 Wisdom is better even though the poor man’s advice was despised.
Eccl. 11:10 Remove vexation from your mind.
Eccl. 12:12 Studying is weariness.

With Peterson’s translation, the ‘scrapheap’ Job places himself among the desperate and implies he has given up on ‘God Almighty’. Is ‘forsake’ or ‘give up’ equivalent to ‘curse’? . One nuance for ‘curse’ is to make light of. A tragic sufferer who forsakes ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) has concluded that ‘God’ is trivial, powerless, or even demonic. Cursing the ‘God’ thus forsaken would be the extreme expression of disappointment.

Note that cursing ‘God’ implies there is such a ‘God’ to curse. I eventually came to the conclusion that the concepts of ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and variously represented in the story/play Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language) or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering) credible. In other words, I eventually concluded there is no such ‘God’ to curse (a conclusion that does not close, but instead opens, the possibility of other ways to consider a transcending reality). I do not find in Job indication that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.

I see ‘forsake’ as the endpoint of a spectrum that moves from trivializing or making light of across to calling down destruction (curse). ‘Forsake’ is the fork in the road re either remaining ‘religious’ or withdrawing from the ‘religious’ sphere in search of a ‘non-religious’ experience. To remain ‘religious’ means to return to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm either (1) by repenting and stepping back into alignment with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (and, thereby, denying the ‘scrapheap’ perspective) or (2) by moving across the spectrum to(ward) a ‘curse God’ way of being. The latter (i.e., a ‘curse God’ way of being) is where the Accuser expects the ‘scrapheap’ Job to end up. Analogous to the crushing consequences of entering a ‘black hole’, the former (i.e., repenting and stepping back into alignment) crushes Job’s ‘scrapheap’ integrity and the latter (i.e., a ‘cursing God’ way of being) crushes the ‘scrapheap’ Job by trapping him in a ‘religious’ life of bitterness. Both paths for returning to(ward) the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm leave in place the merging of the word ‘God’ with the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. To take a ‘non-religious’ path at the ‘forsake’ fork in the road means setting aside the link between the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s nuances for ‘God’ and the reality to which the word ‘God’ is intended to point. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm views such departure as faithless, as unrighteous, as choosing darkness over light, as heresy, as apostasy.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #34

What attitudes/emotions should be attributed to the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14) re friendship? re his friends? Who does he have in mind – a wider circle of friends with a corresponding shallow expectation or a smaller/inner circle of close friends with a corresponding deep/profound expectation? Is he repeating a familiar proverb? There are three possible parallels in Proverbs for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s remarkable statement about friendship: (1) “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (17:17), (2) “There are friends who pretend to be friends, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24), (3) “Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend” (19:4). Note the phrase ‘by his friend’ in the third parallel with Proverbs is identical to the wording used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:14).

If the ‘scrapheap’ Job has some such proverb in mind, his being abandoned by the wider circle of friends weakens the proverb’s credibility. As his wider circle of friends disappears, the proverb’s credibility depends on the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends. The implications of their failure to meet the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s expectation of friendship (6:14) are existentially profound.

How should 6:14 be translated? I am drawn to Peterson’s “When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them” (which follows the NIV). The RSV has “Those who withhold kindness from a friend forsake the fear of the Almighty”. This translation seems awkward and out of sync with the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. Peterson’s linking “give up on God Almighty” with “desperate people” rather than with “friends” makes more sense, has more force. The RSV translation sounds more like a generalizing proverb than a pained statement by Job from the ‘scrapheap’.

The Hebrew wording is – “For the one who despairs, from his friends, steadfast love; and the fear of Shaddai he forsakes.” The ‘he’ would seem to refer to the one who despairs, with ‘despair’ further defined as forsaking/abandoning ‘God’. The singular ‘he’ would not agree with the plural ‘friends’. 6:14 is the only place where the Hebrew word for ‘steadfast love’ or ‘loving kindness’ occurs in Job. The word does not occur in Ecclesiastes.

What should a true friend’s loyalty imply? Are there any limits? The answers are pivotal. One direction leads the friend safely back to the core/center of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. The other direction leads the friend to a ‘non-religious’ path separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ language.

My view of Proverbs wisdom is that such wisdom does not know or fully/indiscriminately/deeply consider tragic human suffering. The wisdom in Proverbs does not appear to have been carved out of serious/radical engagement with the harsh realities of human suffering. I can imagine conversations Job and his three close friends had shared in which they had made unconditional promises of loyalty to each other. And I can imagine the public teaching Job and his three close friends had done re ‘friendship’. The first words from the ‘scrapheap’ Job to his three close friends (ch. 3) abruptly begin to test their friendships down into the root. What had the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends inferred from observing him in silence for days? Were they already feeling the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm wobble/buckle underneath them? The three close friends are soon saying, “All bets are off. This is not what we had in mind by ‘adversity’.” Their kindness dissolves. They assume a posture loyal to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) that supersedes, reshapes, and diminishes their loyalty to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. In other words, they could not be loyal to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without being disloyal to ‘God’ (who, they all – including Job -- agree, has withdrawn from Job) and without validating/endorsing the meltdown of ‘God’ language for the ‘scrapheap’ Job. They can no longer consider the ‘scrapheap’ Job to be wise. What is the counsel in Proverbs re treating ‘fools’? Do the three close friends follow such wisdom in their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job should realize/anticipate their confusion and let his three close friends off the hook, freeing them to depart or to commit themselves afresh with their eyes now fully open to the severe and tragic realities of human suffering. Would the ‘scrapheap’ Job be justified in expecting or insisting that his three close friends enter the ‘God’ language meltdown with him?

I have found myself for many years struggling to figure out how to be with others without pulling them into such a meltdown. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is being swept into a ‘God’ language meltdown that leaves him hopeless (from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm perspective) whereas his three close friends (consistent with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm) are clinging to the more hopeful idea of being refined or having character built by ‘God’. For many years, I have been using ‘meltdown’ as a metaphorical description of the experience that drove the shift from ‘religious’ to ‘non-religious’ for me.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #33

The ‘scrapheap’ Job now (6:8-13) seems clearly on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm re ‘God’ language. Interpreting his thoughts as sarcastic, ironic, even cynical would not be premature or inappropriate.

Peterson’s “squash me like a bug” is vivid. But the RSV seems to sustain the bluntness of the prayer better with “crush me”. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s view of what ‘pleases God’ include an appeal to be squashed/crushed? Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have a place for a death wish? Is the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s appeal serious? Such an appeal challenges the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm. If the ‘scrapheap’ Job is hoping to end it all, he is saying, “Why not let those arrows hit a vital organ and just take me out? Show some mercy in your wrath.” However, it is also possible to read him as not yet serious. He may still want to accuse ‘God’ to his face.

Remember the ‘whose hand is afflicting Job’ bantering between ‘God’ and the Accuser in the prologue? The ‘scrapheap’ Job reveals his conclusion in his wish that ‘God’ would “let loose his hand” (RSV). I wonder how his wife hears this prayer. Perhaps as -- “He’s coming around to my view of this mess?” Does she now empathize with him? Does she hear his prayer as an accusation against ‘God’?

Peterson (6:10c) has “blasphemed” (RSV “denied”) and (6:14) “give up” (RSV “forsake”). Are these terms equivalent to cursing ‘God’? ‘Denied’ can mean to conceal or to cover as well as to rebel. The ‘scrapheap’ Job may think he has not yet cursed ‘God’, but he senses he is very close. Peterson is correct to accent this implication with “before being pressed past the limits” (6:10).

The ‘scrapheap’ Job’s questions (6:11-12) sound rhetorical. Is he posing these questions to his three close friends? If so, does he think they hear the questions as rhetorical? No doubt the three close friends see a glorious prize awaiting them if they succeed in getting the ‘scrapheap’ Job to repent.

What is the hope, the end, the future about which the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks in these questions? The immediate context suggests he is longing/searching for the answer to his prayer (6:8-9). However, I see him thinking more broadly. If so, what does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm claim to offer the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Perhaps restoration if he repents. Perhaps a deeper spiritual life if he can withstand the educational experience of his suffering. To the contrary, the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees no prize (including the bounty described in the epilogue) that can be worth this trauma.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job is convinced his resources have been all but depleted by ‘God’. Peterson has “Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!” (6:13). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has no ear for such reassurance as -- “You will not be tested above that which you are able to bear”. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm is crumbling around the ‘scrapheap’ Job. The paradigm’s defenders eventually argue that individuals who wither rather than grow under such punishment/discipline turn from ‘God’. They might also argue the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not trying to see the good the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm promises will come from his tragedy.

Here (6:1-7) is the second reference in the story/play to “God Almighty” (Peterson) or “the Almighty” (RSV). The meaning of Shaddai is debated – e.g., ‘mountain one’, ‘almighty’, ‘powerful one’. Some suggest a possible derivation from a verb that means to deal violently with, to despoil, to devastate, to ruin. If presented as a play, how should the ‘scrapheap’ Job utter “God Almighty” – cynically? fearfully? defiantly? I vote for a defiant tone. Within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, how does ‘almighty’ relate to ‘sovereign’? to ‘just’/‘righteous’? to ‘mercy’? It seems clear the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not pointing to ‘God Almighty’ for a demonstration of ‘might for right’ (i.e., King Arthur’s radical vision in Camelot). The emphasis is certainly on having power rather than on being just or being righteous or having mercy.

Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm expect/demand the cowering and the silence implied by the ‘scrapheap’ Job (6:5-7) and demonstrated by the prologue Job as well as the whirlwind section’s ending later in the story/play? Yes. They might respond initially in defiance, but a ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community expects (pressures) the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs eventually (1) to accept the pain/suffering as the intent/will of ‘God’ and, therefore, as just and as beyond question and (2) to repent of the initial defiance.

Peterson has “I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the Holy God, before being pressed past the limits” (6:10). Peterson’s “satisfaction” seems a bit weak when compared with the RSV’s “I would even exult in unrelenting pain”. Peterson’s ‘not yet’ suggestion about cursing ‘God’ seems on target re the direction and pace of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s thought. If the RSV translation is followed, what “words of the Holy One” does the ‘scrapheap’ Job have in mind? What would it mean to deny such words? To deny “words of the Holy One” – as variously understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm -- would put the ‘scrapheap’ Job outside his ‘religious’ T/O paradigm community. Would any of the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends stay with him? Peterson’s translation is very free flowing, but captures the basic meaning. However, the reference to unrelenting pain in the Hebrew wording should be retained. The ‘scrapheap’ Job senses how close he is to crossing the line. Given more time, will he curse ‘God’ as the Accuser predicts?

Peterson (6:11b) has “future” (RSV “end”). What future/end has motivated the ‘scrapheap’ Job to this point? Is he confirming what the Accuser proposes in the prologue – i.e., that Job’s noble behavior prior to his tragedies had been motivated by self-serving ambitions? Yes. Are self-serving ambitions characteristic of ‘religion’ and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Yes. A sustainable ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality builds on an alternative to self-serving ambitions.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #32

Does the word for “answered” (6:1) refer specifically to questioning/answering? to dialogue? Or might the word simply suggest the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks, whether to Eliphaz or to himself or . . . ? He has sharp words for Eliphaz (and subsequently for Bildad and Zophar). If the story is being staged as a play, should the ‘scrapheap’ Job be looking at Eliphaz or to the heavens or, perhaps, toward the audience? Everyone has abandoned him, with his three close friends now beginning to place responsibility for his plight squarely on his shoulders. Looking to the audience implies the ‘scrapheap’ Job is searching for someone who can/will truly/clearly/patiently listen. Looking to the audience presses each one in the audience to ask if s/he can/will be the character missing in the story/play – i.e., the character whose presence with the ‘scrapheap’ Job does not harm him further. Or perhaps the ‘scrapheap’ Job just stares aimlessly, indicating he no longer has any confidence there is such a character.

Peterson’s wording suggests the ‘scrapheap’ Job is aggressive and energetic – e.g., an exclamation point (6:3a) and “Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat?” (6:3b). The RSV suggests a more subdued/fatigued ‘scrapheap’ Job – “Oh” (6:2) and “Therefore my words have been rash” (6:3b). I would stage the ‘scrapheap’ Job more along the RSV’s subdued/fatigued line. Perhaps I think Peterson is a bit off the mark because I do not hear the ‘scrapheap’ Job screaming in his first remarks (or having enough strength to scream at any point, for that matter). The Hebrew word means to talk wildly. The verb occurs only three times (Prov. 20:25 and Obadiah 16 as well as Job 6:3). If the RSV’s “rash” is followed, is the ‘scrapheap’ Job making a confession? or offering an explanation that invites his three close friends to show him some tolerance and that asks them not to take his words too seriously? If so, then he is not yet to the point of having thought fully/radically through the implications of attributing his situation to ‘God’ (as understood within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm). Another angle is to hear sarcasm when the ‘scrapheap’ Job speaks.

A word study for “misery” (Peterson) or “vexation” (RSV) would be useful. The Hebrew word (6:2a) occurs in Job (5:2, 6:2, 10:17, 17:7) in one form and in Ecclesiastes (1:18, 2:23, 7:3, 7:9, 11:10) in another form. The idea is unwarranted pain/suffering. The word for “load” (Peterson) or “calamity” (RSV) (6:2b) -- used only here -- is based on the Hebrew verb ‘to be’, from which the word ‘God’ is derived.

‘Vexation’ makes me think of spiritual/intellectual pain. ‘Misery’ makes room for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s physical/social suffering. The ‘scrapheap’ Job seems to claim both forms of agony during his responses. Are both forms of agony present here?

With due regard for the severity of his situation, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is excessive in his assessment of his misery’s weight. His conclusion that his misery outweighs the sand of the sea sounds as if he thinks no other person’s pain/suffering could be (has been) as heavy as is his pain/suffering. At the same time, I shy away from seeking relief in “there’s always someone worse off than I”. There are serious risks when any sufferer thinks s/he is in the worst situation possible.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job offers analogies and metaphors (6:1-3) in line with the appeal with which he begins his response to Eliphaz. However, in doing so he seems to be moving quickly (unavoidably?) to/past the edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to a theological position the guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (represented in the story/play by the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s three close friends) find heretical and he finds untenable. What meaning/s does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm sanction for the phrase “the arrows of God”? Surely not the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s contention that ‘God’ shoots poison arrows into innocent persons. The ‘scrapheap’ Job describes his thoughts/words as poisoned and attributes his poisoned condition to ‘God’. The ‘scrapheap’ Job knows he is on the outer edge of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm – far removed from the core/center – as/when he attributes his current status to the direct and calculated action of ‘God’.

Peterson (6:4c) has “God has dumped the whole works on me” (RSV “the terrors of God are arrayed against me”). Peterson’s translation seems weak, almost trivializing. The Hebrew wording is as forceful as the RSV translation, if not more so. How the ‘scrapheap’ Job sees the terrors arrayed around him is important. The terrors have been carefully positioned. He is surrounded with strategically selected terrors that are aimed at particularly vulnerable areas. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is not thinking ‘God’ has dumped these terrors on him; he is thinking ‘God’ has organized them into a massive, orderly, and devastating offensive against him.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job turns to animal analogies (6:5). How common are such analogies other than in the story/play’s whirlwind section? ‘Wild ass’ appears also in 11:12 and 39:5. ‘Ox’ appears in 24:3. Peterson’s “so don’t expect me to keep quiet in this” makes explicit the implication in these analogies. What makes a wild ass bray or an ox low over its food -- the scarcity? the taste? satisfaction and contentment? If it would be possible to say the following to the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming him or falling in with his three close friends, I would look for a way to say to him, “Yes, I do expect more from a human being than I expect from a donkey or a cow.”

Re the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s next question – “Do you see what God has dished out for me?” -- a food may not taste good but can still be eaten for nourishment without nausea. However, the ‘scrapheap’ Job adds another forceful analogy – nausea (6:6-7). This analogy is particularly significant in light of the place this metaphor holds in existential thought about the human predicament. The staging/directing needs to make vivid to the audience that the ‘scrapheap’ Job is nauseated by what ‘God’ “has dished out”.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #31

[The primary references to the text for the Job story/play come from Eugene Peterson’s translation -- The Message of Job. I have copied from Peterson’s translation the “scrap heap’ Job’s response to his close friend Eliphaz (6:1-30). Postings #32-#38 follow.]

6.1Job answered:

2If my misery could be weighed, if you could pile the whole bitter load on the scales, 3it would be heavier than all the sand of the sea! Is it any wonder that I’m screaming like a caged cat? 4The arrows of God Almighty are in me, poison arrows – and I’m poisoned all through! God has dumped the whole works on me. 5Donkeys bray and cows moo when they run out of pasture. 6So don’t expect me to keep quiet in this. Do you see what God has dished out for me? 7It’s enough to turn anyone’s stomach! Everything in me is repulsed by it – it makes me sick.

8All I want is an answer to one prayer, a last request to be honored. 9Let God step on me – squash me like a bug and be done with me for good. 10I’d at least have the satisfaction of not having blasphemed the holy God, before being pressed past the limits. 11Where’s the strength to keep my hopes up? What future do I have to keep me going? 12Do you think I have nerves of steel? Do you think I’m made of iron? 13Do you think I can pull myself up by my bootstraps? Why, I don’t even have any boots!

14When desperate people give up on God Almighty, their friends, at least, should stick with them. 15But my brothers are fickle as a gulch in the desert – 16one day they’re gushing with water from melting ice and snow cascading out of the mountains, 17but by midsummer they’re dry, gullies baked dry in the sun. 18Travelers who spot them and go out of their way for a drink, end up in a waterless gulch and die of thirst. 19Merchant caravans from Tema see them and expect water, tourists from Sheba hope for a cool drink. 20They arrive so confident – but what a disappointment! They get there, and their faces fall! 21And you, my so-called friends, are no better – there’s nothing to you! One look at a hard scene and you shrink in fear. 22It’s not as though I asked you for anything – I didn’t ask you for one red cent – 23nor did I beg you to go out on a limb for me. So why all this dodging and shuffling?

24Confront me with the truth and I’ll shut up, show me where I’ve gone off the track. 25Honest words never hurt anyone, but what’s the point of all this pious bluster? 26You pretend to tell me what’s wrong with my life, but treat my words of anguish as so much hot air. 27Are people mere things to you? Are friends just items of profit and loss?

28Look me in the eye! Do you think I’d lie to your face? 29Think it over – no double-talk! Think carefully – my integrity is on the line! 30Can you detect anything false in what I say? Don’t you trust me to discern good from evil?

Fragment #24

[1994] The stubborn realities of offensive suffering make the temptation to anesthetize ourselves with distractions seem irresistible. Many Cabaret masters of ceremonies are nearby, urging us to flee to experiences where “life is beautiful”. We eventually realize that the relief they offer is shallow, providing no more than a veneer over our insecurity and our troubled conscience. By thinning out the ‘good’ in life as well as turning away from the ‘tragic’ in life, cabarets leave us most removed from reality.

To live and work among the vulnerable requires balance for experiencing both joy and heartache. We begin to recover this balance when the unsatisfactory and empty consequences of despairing resignation or escapism drive us back toward indiscriminately facing life’s varying circumstances. More positively, we need an approach to spirituality and ethics through which we acquire instincts analogous to an old farm animal making its way alone back to the barn or a boxer continuing to answer the bell though dulled by several rounds of fighting. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that encourages familiarity with a host of witnesses, the recollection of whose faithfulness draws the weary servant back to his/her post. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics by which the search for meaning in offensive life circumstances does not harm the sufferers by destroying their integrity. We need an approach to spirituality and ethics that permits expressions of doubt and confusion when the search for meaning fails.

It seems that many – sufferers as well as those who care for them -- who lose the footing they brought to tragic suffering are not argued out of those ideas/views. Instead, they have seen more than they or their approach to spirituality and ethics can bear. Suffering can eclipse/melt down every concept of ‘God’ with which I am familiar. But an attempt to regain balance must stop short of concluding that the realities of innocent suffering should be avoided. The sufferers cannot so flee.

Every person who dares to be genuinely present with the disadvantaged and dismembered should expect to grow faint. When they do, they face what may be their most crucial spiritual and ethical test. They should affirm what vision they still have, confess their disappointments, and seek for relief. Then, by lack of an alternative that maintains their integrity or by the recollection of encouraging experiences with the disadvantaged and dismembered, they can find the resolve to return to the journey with renewed courage.

Fragment #23

[1994] I have been thinking often -- since a few nights ago when we used Psalm 15 for our evening meal prayer -- about the proposition that “blessed is he who keeps his vow, even if it hurts”.

Fragment #22

[1994] ‘Homo sapiens’ – There should also be variations that would highlight such traits as economics, ethics, technology, being humane, . . . -- all variations in addition to Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. The paths are mixed and varied re coming to consciousness/awareness of one’s ‘self’. A path may be harsh/destructive (e.g., rebelling against an abuser). Once aware of one’s ‘self’, then one faces the question of accountability to others.

Fragment #21

[1994] I am essentially ‘liberal’ in that

1. I believe in the core goodness of human beings,
2. I affirm human history and culture,
3. I am committed to unrestricted critical inquiry.

Fragment #20

[1994] A ‘paradigm shift’ is far more than a matter of sifting through options analogous to picking out a suit of clothes or looking for a box in which to mail/store something. Such analogies correspond to searching through (or perhaps creating new) variations within the accepted paradigm. In stark contrast, a ‘paradigm shift’ is far more fundamental and radical.

Fragment #19

[1994] I recently read Reichenbach’s From Copernicus to Einstein. The idea that scientists eventually forget the primitive wonder and become disenchanted with the subject matter has variations in so many other academic/intellectual disciplines. I think possible sources for such disenchantment include familiarity, concentration on the mechanics of the inquiry, time constraints, compartmentalization, lack of reflective skills, fatigue, fear, routine.

I am especially drawn to Reichenbach’s observation – “. . . The significance of Copernicus lies precisely in the fact that he broke with an old belief apparently supported by all immediate sensory experiences. He could do it only because he had at his disposal a considerable amount of accumulated scientific thought and scientific data, only because he himself had followed the road of disillusionment in knowledge before he glimpsed the new and broader perspectives” (pp. 13-14). The experience and concept of being disillusioned have been for me inseparable from my aggressive critique of ‘religion’ and my move toward being ‘with the world face to face’ in order to search for an approach to spirituality and ethics that is anchored in a realistic ‘eyes opened’ consideration of human experience. To be disillusioned is to be moved closer to reality. To be disillusioned is also to suffer a devastating blow to motivation, purpose, courage, resiliency, inspiration. Reconstituting one’s self/center whenever on the other side of being disillusioned is essential to sustaining the search.

I now see more clearly the symbolic significance of the invention and history of the telescope. Note: Galileo’s comment to Kepler – “I am very grateful that you have taken interest in my investigations from the very first glance at them and thus have become the first and almost the only person who gives full credence to my contentions; nothing else could be really expected from a man with your keenness and frankness. But what will you say to the noted philosophers of our university who, despite repeated invitations, still refuse to take a look either at the moon or the telescope and so close their eyes to the light of truth?” Galileo then described how another scientist refused to look through the telescope “because it would only confuse him” (p. 23-24).

Nothing shows better the greatness of a scholar’s character than his/her conduct in the face of failure.

Fragment #18

[1994] “We know and submit to dozens of social, economic, and psychological imperatives.” (Cf. Walker Percy by Robert Coles, p. xvi.) How many did Percy think ‘know’? Who are the ‘we’ he had in mind? How many who begin to ‘know’ are changed by that knowledge? How many passively ‘submit’? Can one fully ‘know’ without breaking away from the ‘imperatives’? What rationale/s would justify the decision knowingly and actively to ‘submit’ after being free to envision being together without ‘imperatives’?

Fragment #17

[1993] I have been thinking about three dreams this week. (1) Martin Luther King Day (January 18) reminded me of his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech thirty years ago. (2) In his inaugural address (January 20), President Clinton referenced his life-long dream to be president. (3) Audrey Hepburn, who died this week (January 21), was rescued by a UNICEF-type effort after WWII (she lost family members in the Holocaust). She was a life-long supporter of UNICEF. When asked if she thought there would ever be a time when UNICEF would not be needed, she responded – “That’s my dream.”

Fragment #16

[1994] Metaphor – the Cheshire Cat. [from Alice in Wonderland]

“I wish you wouldn’t keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly; you make one quite giddy!” “All right,” said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. “Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!” . . . As Alice observed, “It looked good-natured.” Still it had very long claws and a great many teeth. So she felt she ought to treat the Cat with respect.

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #30

As a transition signal, Peterson (5:17-18) has “So” (RSV “Behold”). Is Eliphaz drawing his conclusions from his immediately preceding statements? Or does he look back to the beginning of his response to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? ‘Behold’ is a better translation than ‘so’ if the latter implies what follows is a logical deduction from or consequence of what has gone before. Eliphaz changes tactics near the end of his argument. Some have suggested translations such as ‘look’ or ‘listen up’. It seems to me Eliphaz is grasping for something positive to say to the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Perhaps to his surprise, he thinks he has stumbled upon it -- i.e., ‘God’ is making Job a better, stronger person!

Eliphaz shifts to repeated references to ‘you’ (5:17ff). Is he speaking specifically to the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is it possible he is climbing oratorical heights, with the ‘scrapheap’ Job falling further and further out of focus? I think the latter.

Eliphaz introduces the “correction”/“discipline” motif to explain the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight. Has this line of thought been used previously by Eliphaz? Is this interpretation used subsequently in the story/play? What place does this motif have in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? The word for ‘correction’ occurs throughout the story -- 6:25-26 (Job), 9:33 (Job), 13:10, 15 (Job), 15:3 (Eliphaz), 16:21 (Job), 19:5 (Job), 22:4 (Eliphaz), 23:7 (Job), 32:12 (Elihu), 40:2 (‘God’). The word for ‘discipline’ occurs less often -- 20:3 (Zophar), 33:16 (Elihu), though it is found frequently in Proverbs. The ‘religious’ T/O paradigm holds the ‘correction’/‘discipline’ motif as a trump card to explain suffering that seems at odds with the paradigm – e.g., if the ‘scrapheap’ Job is not being punished, perhaps he is being blessed with suffering to make him a better person and prepare him for greater use by and honor from ‘God’.

A word study for ‘despise’ would be helpful. The word – which carries the idea of being rejected -- occurs a few times in the story/play, most often used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- 7:16 (Job), 8:20 (Bildad), 9:21 (Job), 10:3 (Job), 19:18 (Job;), 30:1 (Job), 31:13 (Job).

Why does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ wound or smite? The word translated ‘wound’ means pain. The pain can be either physical or mental. In this text, the causative is used (i.e., to cause pain). The verb form occurs in 14:22 (Job). The word translated ‘smite’ means to wound severely, to shatter. The word also occurs in 26:12 (Job). Eliphaz may have ‘tough love’ in mind. However, I think the ‘scrapheap’ Job is thinking of ‘God’ more in terms of a chronically penitent alcoholic parent who harms when intoxicated. Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) seems to be thinking along similar lines with his conclusion that there is no consistency in whether or not the ‘hand of God’ crushes or cradles what it holds.

Peterson (5:19) uses “disaster” and “calamity” (RSV “trouble”). The Hebrew word means straits or distress. The word occurs also in 27:9 (Job), 7:11 (Job), 15:24 (Eliphaz), 36:16 (Elihu), 36:19 (Elihu), and 38:23 (‘God’) as well as twenty-four times in the Psalms. The word does not appear in the prologue to the story/play.

Is Eliphaz associating (equating?) trouble with evil? What would doing so imply for the concept of ‘God’ in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Is Eliphaz admitting here that the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s tragedies are in essence/fact evil? Perhaps, rather than ontological evil, he considers the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s plight evil because he is in obvious pain. However, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm attributes both good and evil to ‘God’.

Is Eliphaz (5:20) attributing famine and war to the will of ‘God’ too? How do those loyal to the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm avoid this deduction? This same question applies to all the tragic circumstances referenced by Eliphaz. Does the view attributed to ‘Jesus’ re ‘God’ causing rain to fall on the just and unjust (Matthew 5:43-48) include devastating hurricanes, typhoons, flooding, . . ?

‘Trouble’ (3:17) appears often in the story/play. Here the wicked are blamed for causing trouble. Are there other sources? The ‘scrapheap’ Job focuses on ‘God’ as the source of his trouble. Does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm lead to this view? Does the ‘scrapheap’ Job or any other character in the story/play draw on the idea of an Accuser as the ultimate source of such trouble?

Is Eliphaz saying a blessed (righteous) person (5:17) never starves in famine or is never wounded/killed in war? His confidence that, regardless of how tragic or ghastly the experience, the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm works leads him to make predictions (5:19ff) that are (especially in the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s presence!) self-evidently false, indefensible, and outlandish. Is he faithfully representing the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm? Some might say Eliphaz is speaking in hyperbole. However, his closing claim – “Yes, this is the way things are, my word of honor!” (Peterson) – seems to me to argue against a hyperbolic interpretation.

Is the Hebrew word for “deliver” (Peterson) or “redeem” (RSV) used elsewhere with a spiritual meaning? The verb means to ransom and occurs in 6:23 (Job) and 33:28 (Elihu). Outside the story/play, the word is used to refer to ‘God’ delivering Israel from Egypt (Deut. 7:8, 13:6), from exile (Jer. 31:11), and in general (Hos. 7:13) as well as delivering specifically individuals (Isa. 29:22).

How can anyone (5:21) “be protected from vicious gossip” (Peterson) or “be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (RSV)? With gossip about the ‘scrapheap’ Job rampant, Eliphaz reveals his conclusion about his close friend.

How can Eliphaz look at the ‘scrapheap’ Job and say -- regardless of the trouble, “the evil can’t touch you” (5:19)? Eliphaz sounds (5:20ff) as if he is singing a hymn (e.g., ‘It Is Well With My Soul’). He sounds as shocking and insensitive as that hymn sounds to me.

The 5:17 text is the first use of ‘almighty’ in reference to ‘God’ in the story/play. Is the ‘God Almighty’ wording distinctive to J, E, P, and/or D?

The ‘scrapheap’ Job -- #29

Eliphaz begins with a ‘God’ who acts indiscriminately (5:10) and then moves to a ‘God’ with special interests in “the down and out” (5:11). It is as if ‘God’ is just and, if he veers, he veers toward mercy. But then Eliphaz quickly settles back into the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘God’ against evildoers.

Is Eliphaz (5:12ff) suggesting the ‘scrapheap’ Job is the victim of a plot, a conspiracy, an intrigue? But then (5:17ff) he introduces the discipline explanation (i.e., “this is for your good”) for the ‘scrapheap’ Job’s situation. How deep are the roots of this explanation in Jewish thought? What is the etymology/meaning of the Hebrew word translated (by Peterson and the RSV) as “despise”?

Eliphaz argues (5:10-16) ‘God’ is the defender/protector of the “down and out” (RSV “lowly”), “those sinking in grief” (RSV “who mourn”), the “downtrodden” (RSV “fatherless”), and the “needy” (RSV “needy”) against the wiles of “conniving crooks” (RSV “the crafty”) and the “know-it-alls” (RSV “wise”). Is there a clue yet as to where Eliphaz is placing the ‘scrapheap’ Job? Or is he caught up in his oratory, oblivious to how the ‘scrapheap’ Job might be hearing him? I would definitely cast him as caught up in his oratory. If he places the ‘scrapheap’ Job, perhaps a hint is found in his proposition that “the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth” (5:16). The ‘scrapheap’ Job has suffered financial reversals. However, there is no reason to place him among the poor. So Eliphaz may already be deducing that the ‘scrapheap’ Job must be a purveyor of injustices against the poor. The ‘scrapheap’ Job is then one of those crooks and know-it-alls from whose clutches (v. 15) Eliphaz believes ‘God’ saves the poor. Is it possible Eliphaz has been jealous of the prologue Job’s extremely good fortune?

Peterson (5:11b) has “gives firm footing to those sinking in grief” (RSV “those who mourn are lifted to safety”). Peterson captures the essence of the Hebrew wording. But the word ‘safety’ in this text should not be missed. The word stems from the root for ‘salvation’. Eliphaz is challenging the ‘scrapheap’ Job to save himself by becoming lowly in repentance and mourning his sin. The Hebrew wording here is not similar to the 4:4a wording. Note that, for Eliphaz and the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, repenting and mourning mean confessing guilt (and, therefore, absolving ‘God’) to which ‘God’ responds by again drawing near in a protective (rather than attacking) manner. In other words, repenting and mourning saves one from ‘God’.

The word translated ‘hope’ in 5:16a is the same word translated ‘hope’ in 4:6. This word appears often in the story/play, mostly used by the ‘scrapheap’ Job – 6:8 (Job), 7:6 (Job), 8:13 (Bildad), 11:18, 20 (Zophar), 14:7 (Job), 14:19 (Job), 17:15 (Job), 19:10 (Job), 27:8 (Job), 41:9 (‘God’). In trying to follow the line of thought in 5:10-16, I come away with the following -- Eliphaz begins with a reference to a non-discriminating relation between ‘God’ and human experience he finds suggested in weather patterns (5:10). But he abruptly shifts to and lingers with the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s ‘the righteous are blessed; the wicked cursed’ premise. Where do these statements (and the preceding set of statements) leave the ‘scrapheap’ Job -- stricken by fate? among the poor? among those deserving punishment?