Jesus Walk With Me

At it's core I think what we want to maintain is that we all have an infinitely important role to play because of our intimate relationships with Jesus Christ and that even if Christ has given a more explicitly "spiritual" call to some in offices in the institutional church, it doesn't mean that the work Christ has given me to do is any less important for well, me because I'm not a missionary or a Pastor. Nor does it mean that being a Pastor is any less of an honorable position by on a iner-existential level being "equivalent" or "equal", if that makes any sense.

My point, or my contention would be then, that the horizon for the discussion should occur on the lowest level, recognizing the ultimately arbitrary nature of all institutions (in the neo-calvanist sense). I simply don't think there exists any conclusive argument for the "realness" institutions like Dooyewerd and Wolterstorf and those folks would like. But I don't think what they're afraid of occuring by recognizing said institutions arbitrary nature will occur.

Here's why: if we look at the issue at a different horizon, namely, from a pure inter-relational and personal sense, then the most basic thing in life is persons, whether our God or each other, and then build our (forgive me for lack of a better term) life-import philosophy from there. I think this is a safe starting point simply for the reason that the single most important thing i.e. the single most important relationship is our relationship with the Divine/Christ.

If we start from there we end up with a massively affirming approach to just about everything. I own/manage a software development company with all the gusto I've got because its the work Christ has given me and my relationship to him has infinite import for my life. Doing good work is part of me loving Him better. If it ever becomes a situation where I'm not loving Him better or the people around me, than its not something I should be inclined to do anymore.

I think the same thing occurs regardless of your chosen profession, whether its as a college professor, a plumber, a pastor, or a candle-stick maker. You do it because its what God has given you to do. Recognizing a healthy tension 'tween free-will and God's sovereignty helps with all this also, but that's still something I thinking through.

And I know I'm assuming a massive amount of post-modern skepticism about the possibility of knowledge as it relates to institutions and life. I have alot of thoughts about that too. Hopefully I'll get it all out there sometime. I feel like this all connects together in a way I could put together visually on a whiteboard. Mebbe I'll work with Mark to put it together someday.

"Just like Kelly Lee needs Regis, that's how much I need Jesus."

That makes you sound a lot like Hart, come to think of it. The crux of his argument is that not all callings are sacred, and that this is okay. The way I read it, he's trying to do two things: 1) re-infuse the word "sacred" with some actual content by affirming that not everything can be sacred, i.e. "If everyone's special than no one is."; 2) affiirm that trying to make all callings "sacred" simply confuses the issue and distracts one from doing exactly the kind of thing that you're doing. A lot of the time, especially amongst Christian scholars, the focus on doing "Christian" history/philosophy/psychology/what-have-you completely overshadows the focus on being competent in one's discipline and having that discipline contribute to the overall godliness of one's life.

Most of the people I know who are really concerned about "finding God's purpose for their life" spend so much time trying to figure out what they're supposed to do and how that's going to be "sacred" that they never actually wind up doing anything. Which is why I find analyses like your's/Hart's so helpful.

I've got $100 for you and your iPod if no-one comes up with the $250.00