The Successful Christian

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (Philippians 4:11)

But godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Timothy 6:6)

These are relevant passages to my Sabbath School lesson this morning, the first one is our memory verse.

The context of the first passage is Paul's situation and how God can provide for him, there's a famous verse not long after that means that although learning to enjoy miserable conditions seems impossible, Paul (we also) can do it because of the power of Jesus Christ.

The context of the second passage is more general, it is speaking of the importance of contentment. This is the theme of my Numbers 12 Sabbath School lesson. But I want to draw attention to the previous verse:
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:5)
"Supposing that gain is godliness" this phrase troubled me for years. I don't mean it convicted me. The problem was I couldn't understand how anyone could think such an absurd thing. What makes it worse is that condemnation of people who make a similar equation between gain and godliness is found in other places in the New Testament. Is Paul boxing shadows or jousting windmills? I couldn't think of anyone that would seriously suggest that rich people were all good, here is Australia we tend to condemn the rich until they prove themselves generous, and we don't make it easy for them to prove it.

These were my thoughts, and I wondered if this small part of the Bible had to be simply relegated to insignificance. But I did not want to conclude this, and I did not. We need to believe the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16 where we are told that all Scripture is useful for something.

Then as I grew older and began to see more of the world and began to think more critically and began to be on the receiving end of more meaningful prejudice than simply getting teased for this or that; I realised that this false doctrine of prosperity is so alive and so widespread that I had not been able to see it. I had held this false belief, so of course I could not see it for what it was.

In ancient times, the rich were also the most powerful. Governments as we understand them did not exist until perhaps Rome or at a pinch the Delian League (Athens). Society was built on simple principles of buying power and brute force. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair on ancient society, the ancients had many virtues as well, but I am so glad to be living in the twenty-first century. So military success and financial success were the two avenues of power in the ancient world. For Christians in the first century, military success was completely out of the question. Jews and Christians shared the Sabbath, and what good is a soldier that won't do anything one day in seven? Also, unlike the Jews, the early Christians are thought by some scholars to have been conscientious objectors in general. That is, they were not pacifists in the modern sense of refusing to be involved in war even indirectly (such as manufacturing steel), but they felt it was against their purpose and values to do violence to any man. Idolatry was also an integral part of the Roman Army.
So for a first century Christian, the only avenue for prestige and power in the world (success) was through money. So many Christians must have worked very hard to gain a lot of money. Interestingly, Paul seems to be criticising a teaching that the ability to gain a lot of money is not merely evidence of godliness but that it is (in and of itself) godliness. So the rich church members in the early church would be liked, and elected to the church board (if they had one, they may have had something similar) because clearly this is a good man or woman that God has blessed to become so successful. Well, Paul said it was a trait of the false teachers he was condemning to make this argument, and Paul said the virtuous thing was to be happy to stay poor but be hospitable and do things for people and so on.

But what am I going on about? How is this relevant? Unfortunately, I think it is all too relevant. I think we have an almost identical problem in the church today.

But today the world has moved on, and we have followed it. The world today, instead of fawning over those who have a lot of money, is a bit more divided, but most people assume that rich people got that way by luck or dishonesty. It is the old reverse snobbery, where those of us who are not from wealthy families think we're better than the rest and that the rich are oppressing us. For the record, my parents grew up working class and I grew up middle class.

What is success today? Being a medical doctor is success, at least to the middle classes. I have been counselling my little sister who's a brilliant student on her career choices and although I keep telling her the disadvantages of being a doctor I can't help saying she should still apply for medicine. Why? Mostly because there is a glory in being a doctor. You get instant respect. We all admire doctors, all of them, even the average ones. It is the pinnacle of virtue. They help people, they are smart and knowledgable, they are scientists of sorts, they experience drama and excitement, they hold our lives in their hands. Medical doctors sum up the ideals of our society and anyone involved in medicine has a similar aura of righteousness. Except maybe cosmetic surgeons and dentists!

I almost wrote this just now: "Doctors are wonderful people" but if I had stated that as fact I would have been making the exact mistake I am talking about. Some doctors are wonderful, some are not, as any nurse could tell you no doubt. Just because someone is a doctor or any other profession that our society has labelled "aspirational" does not make him a good person. But there is that respect for doctors in the church, they are given positions of authority that have no relevance to medicine over others who are equally spiritual and are able and willing to give it a lot more of their time. We need more handymen in the leadership of the local church, more construction workers and cleaners. Not because they have these roles, but because spirituality is not confined to those who are successful in the world.

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:5-6)

Those men who are humble in the world's eyes can go and study theology and become a pastor, and that elevates them a bit. But why should they need to do this? Every role in the church should be given to the one who has the aptitude, the spiritual stability and the time to do it well.

One of my sisters is in a leadership role in a Christian denomination that pays none of its pastors. The pastors work as cleaners and so on, to make a living while they minister. I don't think this is a good idea, but the point is this: Why can that church be led by cleaners and gardeners and in our churches these people are so often only seen as fit to take up the offering at best?

Many of us in the church today worship what we call "success". We think that any man who is successful in the world's eyes is the best candidate for leadership in our church. This is a dangerous delusion.

I don't think I ought to complain about this to church leaders, partly because the problem is probably not as widespread as I think. But I need to remind myself of this a lot, because I am as bad as anyone when it comes to thinking this way.