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.