I am an American. Yes, I voted. Yes, I’m disappointed. I hope all you Kiwis are putting in your vote as we speak! Go National! Now, enough about both elections 
Something that has been on my heart this week, and really for quite some time but has come to the forefront recently, is professional ambition and Christian life. I studied business at university (in the States), and my dad has run his own business since before I came abounding into this world. I have business in my blood. I do aspire to achieve in the business world.
But, can a true Christian aspire to climb the corporate ladder or have a drive to be at the top of their profession, and still follow Jesus’ call to love Him beyond all else, to abandon ourselves for Him? As Jesus said to the rich man, “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me…….How hard is it for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” (Luke 19:22-24)
I have been reading a book titled, ‘The selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life’, by Henri Nouwen, a dutch Catholic priest who died in 1996. He wrote many books, but this one concentrates on our ‘upward mobility,’ our ambition of achieving success in life being spectacular, praised, and powerful in this life. On ‘upward mobility’, he notes:
‘We are taught to conceive of development in terms of an ongoing increase in human potential. Growing up means becoming healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more mature and more productive. Consequently we hide those who do not affirm this myth of progress ,such as the elderly, prisoners, and those with mental disabilities. In our society, we consider the upward move the obvious one while treating the poor cases who cannot keep up as sad misfits, people who have deviated from the normal line of progress.’
He goes on to say:
‘The story of our salvation stands radically over and against the philosophy of upward mobility. The great paradox which Scripture reveals to us is that real and total freedom is only found through downward mobility. The Word of God came down to us and lived among us as a slave. The divine way is indeed the downward way.’
So, how do I reconcile this upward mobility with my downward call of Christ? Can I truly follow Jesus while aspiring to achieve in the business world? Or am I just fooling myself? Do I need to give up everything and become a missionary to really live the ‘poverty of Christ’?
I believe that we are called to be in this world, not of it: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” We are called to be disciples of Christ in the midst of our world- in our professions, our vocations, our homes….yet, in a world of upward mobility, we must constantly examine how and why we do things- truly, what is my ambition? As Nouwen states, our spiritual life, the life of Christ in us, is the downward way of salvation while living in the midst of an upwardly mobile society.
So, as long as Christ wills it, I will continue to march into the business world, hopefully shining His light on all that I reach. I must resist the temptation to allow ‘upward mobility’ rule my thoughts and ambitions, instead offering all success for the glory of Him who gave it. But, every step of the way will be questioned- For who and for what reason am I doing this? What am I ultimately striving for?
I believe this is a serious question for each one of us that is easily overlooked in our world today.
Here is a very interesting video I found of Henri Nouwen preaching, titled Being the Beloved
[googlevideo]3701709082567809182[/googlevideo]
God Bless.
“But, can a true Christian aspire to climb the corporate ladder or have a drive to be at the top of their profession, and still follow Jesus’ call to love Him beyond all else, to abandon ourselves for Him?”
These thoughts raise interesting questions. This close following of Jesus which is a turning away from the world and ‘all that glitters’ seems to inspire a journey which seems more righteous and closer to Jesus example of actual poverty etc. On the other hand we are faced in life with the realities of making a living and ‘using our talents’ and contributing to the good of all which involves all the human capacity and reaping often abundant ‘first fruits for ourselves’.
I think these two tensions are also observable in Christian history from the earliest Christians expecting the imminent return of Christ. Then the Church developing in thought i.e. St Thomas in how the Church should be in the world, as it was then a Christian world where it engaged. Then we have the break away Christian sects who took their place as ‘true Christians’ oppressed by the Church. Even from this developed two irreconcilable positions on how to act – pacifist and ‘just war’. They give us a clue………
We can see Nouwen and the desire to live the life of Christ ‘as man can be’. As God intended him to be. This is noble if that is a truly inspired position. personally I think in this imperfect world it is a particular call within the Christian life. The Church has always recognised it – the call for God alone in monastic life etc.
On the other hand there is living as we are, as man is in reality – but informing that reality with the Christian love and hope. Here society and its members recognise the bad we are and the good we hope to be. So living in the world with all its challenges, including that of success and money is okay. It is how one deals with it. Do we despise it and feel guilty? No not at all.
For those in the world living – can they aspire to success and still live for God. Yes! If that is God’s inspiration and call for you. It is discerning the end – is my goal money, success or are they just outcomes of doing what I want to do well.
Also should money come your way you have the opportunity to help others more effectively.
I had for a while in my life the opportunity to make a large income. It lasted for a few years. Not enough to make me rich but helped put us on our feet, be independant. This opportunity was self made. In effect the more I did and the better I did it the more I made. I loved it. It waas a competitive position and I remember writing an entry for a competition against others. I wasn’t in the Church then but God was ahead of me I think. I wrote…
That money was an energy in the world for good or for bad. I had the opportunity to let it grow or let it diminish. By respecting its power for good or for bad I found that it made demands on me to treat all those acts that produced the money to be ‘good acts’. What I found was that as from time to time I turned down the temptation (and they were there) to use ‘not so good acts’ to create opportunity and seemingly lost an opportunity, almost always in a short time – something would just turn up and go very easily.
Just food for thought……..go for it, it is fun to be good at what you do and be rewarded for it. Stay faithful to God and master the art of being detached within the world. Hold things lightly – I used to try and approach it like a game, something I could choose to do or not. I hhave to say putting it down too was easy.
Benedicta,
I don’t think pacifism and “just war” are irreconcilable.
The Church doesn’t teach that any war ever met the Catechism conditions for the legitimate use of military force in defence.
And pacifists would agree with that.
The US Catholic Bishop issued a statement a few years back on war which endorsed both the “just war” and pacifist traditions which does seem to underline that these are not actually irreconcilable.
The catechism conditions are very useful for establishing that a proposed war is not legitimate.
The way to reconcile apparantly conflicting currents in the tradition is to go deeper in to them to explore their exact teaching status and exactly what is taught (which is often a little different to common impressions).
I’ve had opportunities to make lots of money, to travel, and in politics.
I’ve always turned them down because they were never my vocation.
And I’ve struggled financially in consequence, I’ve always been glad I did.
While one can serve God in business, one can’t serve both God and Mammon.
John Key is a classic example of this. Jewish by birth, he’s rejected the faith of our people and instead focused on making money (he’s worth $43 million) and seeking power.
Unfortunately that path is always spiritually corrupting and doesn’t lead to true happiness.
God Bless
Just had to be a judgemental crack at John Key, eh Chris?
And now Key has a chance to prove he wasnt corrupted and that his desire to serve is genuine.
If you have 43 million in the bank what is there to prove? Possessions in themselves are not sinful only an attachment to them.
And now Key has a chance to prove he wasnt corrupted and that his desire to serve is genuine.
If you have 43 million in the bank what is there to prove? Possessions in themselves are not sinful only an attachment to them.
Helen Clark is quite wealthy as well.
Sorry guys, I got it wrong.
Turns out John Key isn’t worth $43 million. In July he was worth $50 million.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10542108
The contrast on TV Saturday night between Helen Clarke’s modest $700,000 old wooden bungalow and John Key’s $6 million mansion in Parnell was very graphic.
John Key told Campbell last night that he wanted to be Prime Minister since he was 11 years old and that he told the lady who became his wife, on one of their first dates, that his ambition was to be Prime Minister.
If that’s not focused on power, getting to be Prime Minister, I don’t know what is !
God Bless
chris,
you can’t make that judgement as to what was in john key’s heart when he made that statement. john most likely was wanting to serve nz, and give his time, talents, and skills, at the service of nz becuse he believes in nz; he believes in helping nz prosper, and he believes in helping others, and the common good.
you just can’t make those judgements chris.
simply desiring a “top job” is not evil, nor a sin. it can actually be virtuous if the intentions are right. some men are called to lead. some are called by the Holy Spirit, and that call is manifested through their desire.
i’m NOT AT ALL saying that the Holy Spirit has called john key, but i’m trying to show you that simply having the desire to be leader is not wrong or sinful in itself, but for you to judge john key like that mostly like is.
“If a man desires the office of bishop he desires a good thing” (I Tim. 3:1)
it is normal for human beings to desire to succeed in life, and it is normal for them to desire to acheive good things in life, even big things. it is about our human desire to excell. it also normal to desire to help others, and help one’s country (patriotism). being prime-minister is a good thing. it is a good office of service. and, as long as one desires to serve the common good truly, then it is very good to desire to be prime minister. i admire him for his tenacity and determination to get there. well done john!
john key looks like he has all the makings of being a good primister. let’s see how he goes.
peace
dave,
Agreed.
I’m not judging John Key’s motives in seeking power.
Who knows, maybe God has inspired this desire in him to do some good ? Time will tell.
I’m just pointing out that Key, in his own words, has been focused on attaining Prime Ministerial power since he was 11 years old.
God Bless
Chris,
> “I’m not judging John Key’s motives in seeking power. …I’m just pointing out that Key, in his own words, has been focused on attaining Prime Ministerial power since he was 11 years old.”
Ah ha. That’s why you said:
Right.
“I’ve had opportunities to make lots of money, to travel, and in politics.
I’ve always turned them down because they were never my vocation.
And I’ve struggled financially in consequence, I’ve always been glad I did.
While one can serve God in business, one can’t serve both God and Mammon.
John Key is a classic example of this. Jewish by birth, he’s rejected the faith of our people and instead focused on making money (he’s worth $43 million) and seeking power.
Unfortunately that path is always spiritually corrupting and doesn’t lead to true happiness.”
Chris #2
I wondered when I mentioned ‘pacifism and Just War’ whether you would wade in. You missed the point I was making about it which is correct and established by scholars such as James Turner Johnson and Stanley Hauerwas. One deals with man as he is and one deals with man as he should be.
I found the above comments from you re John Key or applied to anybody else for that matter rather self righteous and a form of inverse snobbery. God didn’t mind riches – what about Solomon. There is more discipline and self mastery in achieving success which is never mentioned. Also one can be extremely unattached from money and stuff. If you ever collected a beneift Chris, which I think you have at some stage, then people like John Key enabled that to be provided. No benefits in Communist countries nor in India or in Myanmar, or anywhere in the Middle East etc for Israel!
I was in Mass yesterday and found myself unexpectedly next to someone I know keeps his faith to himself (I was surprised to see him there, I had thought him a cultural Catholic), is very human, leads an exemplary life re his family, is a wonderful employer and very wealthy and runs a wealth creating company. He is generous and human to his people, helping them in tough times and low levels of tolerance for ‘bad character’. He is not a holy person but I know he prayed his heart out from where I was sitting. Good on him.
God didn’t mind riches – what about Solomon.
I suppose he didn’t mind Solomon’s 700 wives either.
Or Solomon’s use of slave labour to build the temple.
A man can only create so much wealth from his own labour.
Anything above that (Solomon’s a good example) and he’s managed to appropriate the wealth created by others. That’s a violation of the commandment “thou shalt not steal”. Therefore it is not holiness but greed.
Live like that and you’ll wind up like Solomon did.
God Bless
Chris,
I agree with Benedicta. I find your judgements on John Key unfair, quite self-righteous and borderline offensive.
John Key is a classic example of this. Jewish by birth, he’s rejected the faith of our people and instead focused on making money (he’s worth $43 million) and seeking power.
Funny, I’ve never seen you slate Helen Clark for rejecting her Presbyterian faith and seeking power.
Scribe,
Wouldn’t you agree that there are few people who started with nothing and are now worth $50 million that managed to get there without being focused (at least to some extent) on making money ?
God Bless
Having an aim of making money isn’t in itself a bad thing – otherwise we’d have to ban those immoral school children from fundraising! There is such a thing as an intermediate end.
Chris #12
Well there would have to be somthing wrong with Solomon…..no winning on that one. I don’t think God reads ‘poor’ as in financial – that is a political reading. ‘Poor’ are those without Him. Dives and Lazarus – Dives (the rich one) his crime was ignoring Lazarus not being rich.
“A man can only create so much wealth from his own labour.
Anything above that (Solomon’s a good example) and he’s managed to appropriate the wealth created by others. That’s a violation of the commandment “thou shalt not steal”. Therefore it is not holiness but greed.”
That is a socialist understanding and its wrong and its crazy who sets the benchmark – is God into fiscal drag; so in 1550 he dishes you for 5 quid a year and in 1960 the rate goes up (though no one knows what it is) to say 500,000 quid and then in 2020 you’ve had it at 1 million. What currency is he using and what country – a high salary in New Zealand is very average in the USA and in fact half of that with the current exchange rate. Its nonsense.
The idea there is only so much wealth that can be created from your own labour is nonsense. For an extreme example take the writer of Harry Potter – writes a book and it sells millions – problem? I can’t see one except the theme is a bit dicey but as an example she became a millionaress. So someone else writes a book and makes $4000. Same effort. Also if I put some money in the bank and make 8% and pay 20% tax is a lot different to putting it into the share market taking a risk and making four times the amount. Why does one demonstrate more greed than another it only demonstrates prudence.
There isn’t just so much money in the world and one half is the Sherrif of Nottingham and stealing it and the others are peasants who get robbed. It is boundless.
Also people like the man I know at Mass – he charges no more for his labour than when he worked alone. What he does is give others the same opportunity to do what he does and he gets paid when they achieve what they are supposed to do. What he does do is take the risk associated to running the company as a Director and employs lots of people and is subject to quite strict Company Director laws in New Zealand. Not too mention all the employment laws. So he gets paid as a Director and if the company is in profit he gets paid more and if it doesn’t make a profit he takes a hit. No problem here.
You are too cynical about people who get out there and provide work and use their talents.
Chris
It is interesting that you can be very narrow and bigoted on your own issues. It is tall poppy syndrome and very cynical. How can anyone look at anothers life and assume what their goal was, that they jjust wanted to make money.
When I was working I met some wonderful people who made lots. To those on the outside who envied them they made comments like this. But I was amazed at their personal stories and really inspired at their courage and determination. I never met one who did it ‘for the money’. Often it was a case of survival and catch up.
Two stories – one a woman in Auckland whose husband left her and also unbeknown to her had financial problems. There she was at 50 with not a penny and just avoiding bankruptcy. She moved to Wellington and started her line of work again. Went flatting with a local DJ who she reckoned saved her by making her do the extra work when she got home. Her boss felt sorry for her and used to put $100 in her desk drawer every week for petrol. In five years she had three houses and was almost debt free on her own home. Brilliant.
Another, a working man who got himself in trouble financially in the 1990s downturn. He had bought a reasonable house in a family suburb but lost his job and then everything. He also just avoided bankruptcy by selling everything he owned (he was a delivery type truck driver) and put his wife and three children into rented accomodation. He asked his wife to keep looking after the kids and didn’t take the usual go get a job routine with her. He wanted a traditional family with mum at home and so did she. Well he started in my line of work and worked like a trooper and clawed his way back up. Now his family have a good home debt free and they have no financial worries. It just about killed him.
Personally I think they are heroes and I can tell you they did good and honest work, great ethics. To those on the outside they probably looked like they were in it ‘for the money’.
I think St Paul said that those who don’t work should not live off others. Bankruptcy in both of these cases would have been ‘easier’ as I know the effort they put in.
Benedicta.
I can relate to what you’re saying. Three years ago my business was defrauded by my employee salesman to whom I gave full trust, of $250k – killed the business and put me into a lot of debt – personal guarantees meant that at 66 I now have a $230k. mortgage. My lawyer and accountant suggested that I go bankrupt. But to me, that was the easy way out, and besides, created other problems.
After I got my head back together, I have been working – contracting as a builder and have kept head above water, but only inching ahead. But I’m still very fit, and will get through this. My brother & I, along with a couple of friends are trying to get another business off the ground which, if successful, will solve all the issues. Hard work and a couple more years – well, we’ll see.
Wealth is not only a financial thing; but if it is, its how its used and ones attitude to it that is important.
Look at Stephen Tindall – founder of the Warehouse – a good Catholic and a very generous man. Tonight on TV John Key said that he gives away a lot of his money because he doesn’t need all of it.
The uninformed judgements we make…………….
Good on you Don the Kiwi. I shall put you on my list of work heroes. These are the stories that have so much to say about the human spirit. I know many more and each one I hear I think – could I do that!
I wish you every good thing in your venture. You have a lot to do and I think there are probably a few saints up there who would happily cheer you on. One of the things I love about men – sorry to say this as it is not PC in a feminist world but I have worked with the best of them and like rubgy pros when the heat is on something happens to them – they fire up and get all workmanlike and steam ahead. I think it is a latent ‘provider gene’ courtesy of Him upstairs.
My lady who had to start again at 50 was quite amazing but interestingly she told me she did the girl thing first – she went under the duvet for about 9 months wondering how she would survive and then took flight to a tourist centre and worked as a barmaid until she had her feet again.
My father was a self made man -atarted as a builder and then became a public valuer and had a very good private business with a partner. We never went without any essentials and he gave us a good education (or tried to!). My mother never worked. He was a Depression child – his father lost his job, they had to keep skipping rented accommodation as they couldn’t pay the rent. Then his father died of pheumonia when he was 11. We don’t know we are alive today.
As the Indian taxi driver told my husband the other day – there are no poor in New Zealand, not like India anyway. There are no benefits in India. But as Mother Theresa said India is rich and America is poor. Rather makes everything upside down doesn’t it.
To wind up on this long winded posting, Don the Kiwi, and back to the original posting of our young go getter being challenged by Henri Nouwen downward sprialling for a more authentic life I would like to say to Henri Nouwen, sweet as you are dear chap, with your own life challenges – what we need is a Theology of Work.
Thanks for the inspiring stories. Keep’em coming.
The father of one of my good mates from school had been a lineman (not for the county, but for Telecom).
In 1993 in our last year he was the head honcho for Telecom in our area.
Not long after that he went to work for the World Bank (I think).
He wasn’t focused on making money (to my knowledge).
He worked hard.
If you check the facts you’ll discover that John Key has been giving his entire ministerial salary to charity since he came into parliament.
Hardly the actions of a greedy money-monger.
God Bless
God bless,
Christopher,
10% of the world’s population have 90% of the wealth.
That 10% includes you.
Good luck with that camel/needle experiment.
There’s hope for us (and John Key) though, since this follows the verses Chris quoted (and before the parable of the vineyard labourers in Matthew 20):
Best start those Divine Mercy chaplets!
God bless
Just a question.
Why is it bad if Key wanted to be PM from age eleven?
Since I was about 20 have thought about going into politics later on in life.
Is that a bad thing? I have no idea why it was even brought up!
Also its been brought up but wealth is a matter of perspective.
Chris you are ridiculously wealthy in the eyes of much of the world.
Good on Key for donating his salary to charity!
Chris #23;
“…the eye of the needle, a small door fixed in a gate and opened after dark. To pass through, the camel must be unloaded. Hence the difficulty of the rich man. He must be unloaded, and hence the proverb, common in the East. In Palestine the “camel”; in the Babylonian Talmud it is the elephant”.
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm
there are also other possibilities that suggest that while riches can be a difficulty they dont make entering heaven impossible for the rich man as the literal interpretation suggests.
To whom much is given much is expected in return? Perhaps John Key recognises this truth even if he is blind to some others?
Gianna,
> “Is that a bad thing? I have no idea why it was even brought up!”
No, it isn’t. There are three elements in considering the moral quality of any act, which are:
1. Object
2. End
3. Circumstance
(See Catechism #1750ff)
We know that the object, the desire to become a Prime Minister, is morally neutral (as opposed to wanting to be a prostitute, for example, which would be morally evil in itself).
The end, which is the intention, is unknown. Given the lack of any evidence to suggest that there is any sinful intent here, it wouldn’t be good to presume that that is the case (in fact, charity would seem to suggest that we presume a good motive unless there are reasons to think otherwise).
Circumstance isn’t particularly relevant here (there isn’t a licit law against becoming a Prime Minister, for example).
So, objectively speaking, we can’t say one way or the other, but we ought to give him benefit of the doubt for charity’s sake.
Given the lack of any evidence to suggest that there is any sinful intent
We have evidence.
http://catholic.org.nz/statements/9804_employment.php
The evidence of what the last National Government did to the poor and the complete absence of any repentance or solid evidence that the Nats intend to do different this time.
God Bless
Chris,
if you truly take the policies of a party nine years ago to be evidence of the personal, objective sin of John Key in wanting to be prime minister, then I would respectfully suggest that, at the very least, you need to revisit your claims about judging others unfairly.
Or perhaps you have simply misunderstood.
AMDG
The evidence of what the last National Government did to the poor and the complete absence of any repentance or solid evidence that the Nats intend to do different this time.
Sorry but this calls for a ‘Holy Zarquon’
Chris,
um… if that counts as evidence, I would suggest that we have a lot more evidence suggesting an irrational bias against Key/National and for Clark/Labour on your part.
Perhaps you did misunderstand the context, as Jennings suggests?
The National Party front bench is packed full of the same National Party MPs who were in government in the 1990’s when National attacked the poor.
The likes of Maurice Williamson who remains as right wing and free market as he always was.
When he was last in cabinet, Maurice tried to introduce private roads with tolls to use them. He’s saying he wants to do the same again.
Like Bill English who as Minister of Health in the 1990’s introduced user pays into public hospitals so that patients got a bill when they went into public hospital.
Like Murray McCully who as National Minister of Housing in the 1990’s raised state house rentals to market levels and forced people to live in garages and caravans.
Like Tony Ryall who pushed for the privatisation of water and led the electricity “reforms” which saw the price of electricity sky rocket.
Like pro-nuclear Lockwood Smith who privatised Contact Energy.
They have never repented of these policies or promised they will never do so again.
It is not judging a man and his government to expect that they’ll probably bash the poor again as they bashed the poor last time; it’s just being rational and learning from history.
God Bless
Chris,
note that #30 was in response to Gianna’s post at #27, and to the question, “Why is it bad if Key wanted to be PM from age eleven?” Unless you’re implying that John Key had in mind since age eleven to be a PM primarily in order to “bash the poor,” (which is quite a thing to suppose for a school-age child) I don’t see how this relates.