please-draft-a-response-to-another-students-discussion-board-post

Please draft a reply to another students discussion board Post. This is what the other student wrote:

1. Of all of the concepts presented by Keller and Alsdorf (2012) I found the following particularly significant:
   1. The first concept that stood out to me is that “even if your work is not fruitless, it is ultimately pointless if “life under the sun” is all there is” (pg. 96). This statement made me immediately think of the search for meaning in life, and how that translates to the meaning of our work. I have often found myself dealing with this very conundrum throughout my professional life, and feeling a certain futility to the entire venture.
   2. The second concept that resonated with me was in chapter 7. In this chapter the authors were referencing the book of Esther, and making a point about the commonality of corruption in its myriad forms and to various degrees that permeates many working environments. Specifically, they give a number of examples of people compromising their morality and integrity and stating that “because of these compromises, they have all risen and now occupy high positions; but their consciences are not clear” (pg. 117).
   3. “In modern societies there is often no higher cause than individual interests and desires” (pg. 139). This was the next idea that resonated with me personally. I have very strong feelings about the importance of the individual in the modern world, and the authors provided some interesting insights in context and from a cultural perspective.
   4. In chapter 11 the authors present the idea of ethical limitations and discuss ethics in terms of their profitability. They posit that “integrity is profitable, dishonesty isn’t” (pg. 204), and suggest that ethics are adoptable due to their positive balance in a cost-benefit analysis. The question they pose in this chapter is what I found particularly important though; is that enough? The idea that ethics serve as a minimum moral stance is one that I whole heartedly agree with.
   5. The final concept that I’d like to mention, and the one I find perhaps the most significant, is that “freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones” (pg. 25). The authors suggest that the only real path to freedom is only seeking the freedoms that suit our nature as human beings. I also think that this is true, but not in the same context as the authors.
2. In regard to the concepts identified above I generally agree with them, but not necessarily in the particular ways that they are presented. As for the idea that all work “under the sun” is pointless I certainly agree on a cosmic, metaphysical, and spiritual level, but there is something to be said for completing something purely to complete it; an accomplishment for its own sake as it were. I make this statement in terms of merely the accomplishment with no regard for pride in said accomplishment as that is a completely separate component that has its own biblical connotations. I feel that accomplishment is a measure of the extent of work, and according to www.theologyofwork.org “God commands all people to work to the degree they are able” (2018), and as such accomplishment is an indicator of the adherence to this. By extension, the work itself can’t truly be pointless as the act has value and is measured by the results…the accomplishments.

As for the idea of corruption or a compromise of character being widespread and commonplace, often leading to advancement for those who are willing to engage in such, I see a much more insidious type of compromise frequently at work; the compromise resulting from self-deception. I personally think this is the most common corruption in the workplace, even though it is not the result of purposefully malicious intent. This can lead to individuals placed in roles that they don’t have the capacity for or accepting responsibilities that they can’t meet, therefore degrading or devaluing the work being performed. www.gotquestions.org points to the example of Goliath, stating that he believed his “great size and physical strength would ensure victory” (2019), which obviously prove itself to be a delusional perspective.

In this interest of keeping this short (though I fear that ship has already sailed), I’ll just sum up my thoughts on the last three points I talked about above. The concept of people putting themselves first, or the idea of the individual being more significant than the community, is something I find pervasive in modern American society. This seems to be a very culturally dictated philosophy that is more prevalent in the west and appears in all aspects of community be it work or home. I think ww.christianity.com puts it best though with the statement “individualism and doing life on our own is not part of God’s design. After all, God is a community in himself” (2019).

The idea of ethics being a mere starting point for moral and virtuous work is fairly self-explanatory and I think is a significant concept that should be more widely accepted. Just because something is strictly legal or ethical doesn’t necessarily make it right.

Lastly, the idea of finding the correct restrictions was the most interesting to me. I personally think the value in finding the limits and restrictions of our positions as humans is essential, but only because of the need to have a limit to surpass. The text provides an example of birds flying only because they obey the laws of aerodynamics and suggests they are only able to soar by doing so. My counter point to that is the bumblebee. There is nothing aerodynamic about them yet they not only fly, but fly with real purpose. Essentially, restrictions are not limitations, but sliding barriers and obstacles to be overcome.

1. Lastly, in answer to the final prompting question about integrating Christian worldview into my own research design, I don’t think it would have any impact. Afterall, if the individual creating the design adheres to a Christian worldview to begin with, then their research methodologies will follow suit. The process is driven by the individual’s intent after all.

I apologize to everyone for this being so long winded, but the reading and this assignment gave me a lot to think about. I could likely keep going on the various topics, and likely will throughout this program. Additionally, I realize that the resources I looked at don’t necessarily constitute scholarly resources in the traditional sense, but I found various Christian perspectives on the topics at hand to be more useful for this discussion. Thank you all for reading and I look forward to any discourse or feedback.

References

Fox, C. (2019). Don’t Go It Alone, You Were Made for Community. Retrieved from Christianity.com: https://www.christianity.com/christian-life/spirit…

Got Questions. (2019, February 14). What does the Bible say about self-deception? Retrieved from Gotquestions.org: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-self-deception….

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K.L. (2012). Every Good Endeavor. New York: Penguin Books.

TOW Project. (2018). Calling & Vocation: Overview. Retrieved from Theologyofwork.org: https://www.theologyofwork.org/key-topics/vocation…

Here is what the original question was that this student posted on:

Now that you have read the Keller and Alsdorf text, (1) describe 5 things that you found to be most important from the text, (2) list anything that you disagree with and why, and/or state why you agree with the text, and (3) explain how if a biblical worldview component was added to your research design, how would it change, or not change, your research approach. Be specific, and include at least 3 additional outside scholarly resources. The Keller and Alsdorf text will be your fourth resource, with the Bible, if used, counting as 1 resource (no matter how many times it is cited, and no matter how many different versions are used).