Comments on: Theologies of work, Part III

By: Karen O

Karen O — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:47:07 +0000

Xion – Beautiful post.

By: Xion

Xion — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:11:08 +0000

Finally, I have read all 3 of Tony’s topics and every last post by everyone. I had been putting it off because the subject is a very important one and wanted time to carefully consider. Great comments all!

I detect (perhaps incorrectly) a little elitism in Tony’s comments. After slamming Arminians, I am am surprised that Tony would think that one’s occupation is somehow his own choice. Note: I am just teasing you Tony

Who can truly choose their occupation? Who can control the available opportunities that come along? Does not God’s Word apply also to slaves and prisoners and the oppressed and the suffering? Does God review their products? And I think the influence of the spouse is greatly overlooked. For me, marriage is the entire issue.

If I weren’t married my life would be completely different. My life’s dream was to study ancient languages and I would be living near Jerusalem. As it stands now, dead languages are merely a hobby and Jerusalem an occasional vacation destination.

But, because I am married to someone who does not support my dreams and aspirations, none of them will ever be fulfilled. This bothered me in my younger years, but we had children to support so I soldiered on. Does the Bible still apply when I can’t have my own way? Of course, and moreso!

I eventually decided that my marriage was my calling, as unpleasant as that often is. I decided that the tough times are God given opportunities to practice love and grace. I decided that my life’s work was to sanctify my wife and family through the Word.

I’m guessing I have maybe 20 years left to live and then I will be in heaven. Will God care more about what products I’ve produced, or a godly heritage?

And so, my work has become secondary. It does not define who I am. Who I am is father and husband. Work is merely something I do a few hours each day.

If I were honest when someone asked me what I do, I would say, “Not my will, but God’s will”. And so, the challenge for me is to find God working through the things I do not enjoy. And oddly enough, his grace is sufficient. I have found joy in the things I do not enjoy.

Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:02:33 +0000

Thanks Tony. Blessings to you.

However, I already felt confident you were not talking about me when you used that word. I was defending those whom you apparently did mean to describe as “warmongering” (whoever the “they” is in your note). I still think a more charitable stance toward them is justified. And where it isn’t justified, those cases should be criticized individually and specifically.

Report comment to moderator

By: Tony Woodlief

Tony Woodlief — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:06:12 +0000

Joel,
I made a terrible error, in my hasty choice of wording, that led you to believe (understandably) that I was referring to all conservatives as “warmongerers,” etc. I used some code that is clear to me, but of course not to you, which is “big-C Conservatives,” i.e., members of the political establishment centered on Washington, D.C. who have adopted the label Conservative and Republican more because it suits their purposes than because they have anything close to the value set that you hold dear. I’ve spent enough time with these people, and seen enough of how they behave in private, how they treat their families, what they do to friends and enemies alike, to have the lowest regard for them — in part because I am, believe it or not, a conservative. They have ruined that label just as the radical Left long ago ruined the word “liberal.”

So to be clear, I don’t think conservatives in general are gleeful war wagers, and I never meant to imply that you relish bloodshed.

I think where we often disagree, politically, is that I cast aspersions on this professional political class of charlatans who pretend to share “middle-America” values, and you hear it as an attack on your beliefs. I’ll try to be more careful to distinguish between the Ann Coulters and Joel Marks of the world, because there is an ocean of difference between them.

Report comment to moderator

By: REG

REG — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:58:15 +0000

more on Tartuffe:
The father’s inability to keep from going to extremes on everything. Something was either all good or all bad, including people. It wore him out and prevented healthy relationships; it prevented him from being able to listen and ask questions.

Report comment to moderator

By: REG

REG — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:50:40 +0000

What I got from Tartuffe (and I am slow at “getting it” if I am not reading, in other words in play or movie form, I would have to watch it several times to really get it all)
but what were a lot of parallels to my own experiences. It was the father’s devotion to his religious idol (Tartuffe) that turned away from his own family, temporarily, at least. The only thing that would break the spell, so to speak, was for the husband to hide like a mouse and see Tartuffe trying to seduce the husband’s own wife. Up to that point, no one in the whole family could reason with their father/husband.

The only answer I can give to general questions about the modern church set-up is to suggest reading Pagan Christianity; it opened my eyes to the world of confusion that I have endured all of my life, growing up in the church.

Report comment to moderator

By: Karen O

Karen O — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:02:04 +0000

In an earlier comment, Reg asked if someone (Joel Mark, I think) had seen the play “Tartuffe”.

I haven’t seen it, but I’ve read it.

Tartuffe is about a dishonest minister who is taking advantage of a family.

Reg – (You rarely answer my questions, but I’ll try again. ) – Do you think that picture fits most pastors? Why did you happen to ask?

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:17:22 +0000

i got upset at Tony’s use of the word “warmongering” to describe conservatives at Worldnetdaily.

I want to say that I don’t mean anything personally to Tony, but I expected better of him. This is not a responsible criticism of decent mainstream conservatives, nor of those at Worldnetdaily. When will it occur to those on the left that those of us who may support the war do so on principle and hate the fact that it is necessary. I have sobbed over the death (in Iraq) of the son of dear friends. There is NO “mongering” about it!!! But the left often has to ridicule and demonize the right so they can apparently olr somehow feel better about their positions (at least it sure seems that way).

If you stand by that Tony, please tell us who is doing the “warmongering!”

Report comment to moderator

By: Karen O

Karen O — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:27:19 +0000

Tony –

“…Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and any number of big-C Conservatives gathering in places like WorldNetDaily…” do not speak for me or most of my conservative Christian friends.

In fact, the conservative Christians I know are quite compassionate, see war as an occasional “necessary evil” but do not like it, & are very concerned about the environment. My very conservative pastor is a fanatic about recycling.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:08:27 +0000

Pauline wrote; “All I was trying to do was give McLaren the benefit of the doubt, that he might have had experiences which led him to believe that such errors are more widespread than they are.”

Everyone has “expereinces” of all sorts, Pauline. But we are responsible for drawing fair-minded conclusions from them about others. Just by analogy, what if someone had negative experience with blacks and then attributed that negativity to all blacks? That’s an outrage, but why is it so acceptable to do that with conservatives?

Clearly, McLaren is the one who refuses to give “the benefit of doubt” to those of a traditional mindset he makes into straw to criticize them. But I know the rules; only the critics of conservatives are to be given any benefit of doubt, not conservatives themselves (which if you re-read McLaren’s quote, he did not give).

Pauline continued, “What else do I want? Just that you consider that McLaren might not have intentionally created a straw man.”

Sorry. We disagree.

Report comment to moderator