Wednesday, January 17, 2001
|
Wednesday, January 17, 2001 |
|
We Americans may need to reexamine our definition of 'success' I have spent a significant portion of my work life in efforts to develop leaders in nonprofit settings (particularly ministries and churches). Yet I write to question the perspectives of an opinion piece by the Reverend David Epps in the Jan. 5 edition of your newspaper concerning 10 common traits of "America's most successful people." I do not mean to be merely contentious or even quibbling, but I have serious reservations about the underlying thought and value structures in the article. Let me say I am not primarily taking issue with some of the stated traits and behaviors. I think it is good and right to practice honesty and to show respect; I believe in education, especially as a lifelong endeavor. Moreover, I am not impugning the spirituality and intelligence of the author of the article and any who might agree with the author. (Genuine graciousness or grace-full-ness, meaning in this case a Spirit-induced awareness of self's limits and warping sinfulness surely ought to temper the self-righteous ways we blithely make absolute pronouncements on right and wrong, good and evil.) Nevertheless, I submit that the gist of the article is fundamentally flawed and even antithetical to true Christianity. This fundamental flaw leads unconsciously to particular errors in the article errors that in turn illustrate the fundamental flaw. The fundamental flaw lies in promoting success as a meaningful, valuable, even compelling (self-evident and self-justifying) goal for and measure of human existence and effort. This is an insidiously modern error. Do not mistake me here. Antiquity has no inherent virtue because it is prior to modernity. Modernity has no inherent virtue or flaw because it succeeds (follows) antiquity. I have no desire to seek to be quaintly antiquarian or superficially modernistic. But it seems to me to be a particularly modern perspective to tout success, as we commonly define it, as the measure of human existence and effort. It is an error because it is antithetical to true Christianity. We are not called to be successful people. I am not contending that God calls us to be failures. The precise point is that God is calling us neither to success nor to failure, but to faithfulness. Faithfulness consists in devotion to God as known in Christ. Imbued with the Spirit, such devotion yields people who are images or "little sacraments" of Christ in mind and heart, in word and deed. Faithfulness is not pious code for a foolish quietism opposed to or heedless of the outcomes or results of what we do (and note that "outcome" or "result" is implicitly the alpha and omega of successfulness as commonly touted much could be said here about pragmatism and its facile assertion that results are self-evidently self-justifying, but that would take too long and divert somewhat). Rather faithfulness is the submission of our minds and hearts, words and deeds, to the measure of a crucified savior and lord, not to the idol of success. Why is God not calling us to be successful people? For one thing, success as commonly used in this article and elsewhere is fundamentally self-centered. True devotion is fundamentally Christ-centered. For another thing, success as commonly used is virtually meaningless to most people. What does it mean to be successful? What is the definition of success in "America's most successful people," and why should we emulate or want to emulate their "success"? Either success is so particular in meaning (attainment of certain levels of money, power, status, influence) as to be applicable only to a comparatively few people who are desirous and capable of it. Or it is so malleable in meaning as to be practically meaningless as a tangible, fungible measure for the wide variety of people and contexts in which people exist and act. (For example, people can be truly "successful" in a staggering multiplicity of ways little and big, such as being able to maneuver a fork to one's mouth without spilling the food in the wake of cerebral palsy or a stroke.) The particular errors in this article and in other popular recipes for success consist in defining or identifying success with perspectives and criteria that are implicitly and fundamentally Western, elitist (leader-centered in business and political spheres), male, rationalistic, and work-centered. (What is said below illustrates the two ways "success," as commonly define, is either so particular or so malleable as to be virtually meaningless.) Western Surely it is possible to be "successful" in ways other than those defined by modern, Western culture? As one cultural example, were Indians not "successful" and therefore not what they ought to have been because they did not cover the country with bridges, highways, cities, large businesses, and complex political structures? Were they not "successful" because they did not foster individuals accumulating vast wealth and power? Elitist (leader-centered in business and political contexts) Surely it is possible to be "successful" as a monk, or as a nun, or as a man or woman who primarily tends to his or her children or aging parents, or in countless other ways and contexts? Male, rationalistic, work-centered While there is a great variety among men and women in individual personalities and situations, such that any generalization is fraught with risk and exception (which should temper both men and women in making absolute pronouncements about roles and traits), I think it is likely that men brought up in industrial and post-industrial periods and cultures (thus working outside of or away from the home in factories and offices) are the chief people who place almost exclusive value on "facts vs. emotions," "copious amounts of hours and sweat" while deriding "leisure pursuits," being "goal oriented," and the like. The worth of most people in this world for example, those who die young from illness or crime or war, those who are incapable of "meaningful" work or even self-survival due to severe illness or handicap, women in many parts of this country or other countries, and so on is not and must not be reckoned in view of "America's most successful people" but in the sight of God. Well, much more could be said, but this is long enough, or too long, depending on one's perspective. Again, I do not wish to impugn any one's spirituality or intelligence. It just seems to me that we too easily fall into cultural assumptions and perspectives that do not measure up to the canon of Christ as known in Scripture and Spirit. Gregory Strong, Ph.D. Sterling, Va.
|
||