Success

We have a hard time correctly evaluating "harm" and, as such, have a hard time using it as a determining basis for "moral." In the same way, we have a hard time correctly defining "success" and, as such, keep aiming at a "success" that isn't actual success.

Many define "success" in a church in terms of numbers, programs, butts in the seats. If you have lots of those, it's "successful." If the numbers are declining, it's not. Many define "success" in sharing the Gospel with others in terms of conversions. If you give the Gospel and they turn, you succeeded. If they don't, you failed. Many (most?) of us determine the success of prayer in the obtaining of the answer we sought. God did what we asked and that was a successful prayer. God did not do what we asked and it was a failure. I submit that these kinds of measures are not valid or biblical. They are standard metrics from the world's perceptions, but we are not of this world, are we?

What does "success" look like in a biblical worldview? Let's look at an example from Jesus's teaching. Matthew 25 includes the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30) (where "talents" is a reference to money of the time, not our "natural aptitude" concept). (Some calculate a talent to be 20 years' wages for the common worker. Some put it between $1,000 and $30,000 in today's terms.) In this famous parable, a master gives three servants varying amounts of this money. One gets 5, a second 2, and a third 1. The first two invested and got a return on investment equal to their principal. The third panicked, buried it, and returned the principal. The first two were commended: "Well done, good and faithful servant." (Matt 25:21, 23) The third was punished. What did the master classify as "well done"? What was "success" in this story? "You have been faithful over a little." (Matt 25:21, 23) I submit that this constitutes biblical "success."

Conversely, what is not success? Well, lots of things, sure, but we can all agree that "suffering" is not success ... right? Except that Scripture teaches that one expected outcome of doing good would be suffering (1 Peter 3:14). In fact, Peter says, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17) "If that is God's will" says "and it is." So he says, "Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19) Our human version of "success" does not include "suffering for doing good." God's does.

We are not held to account for those who accept our message. We are not being evaluated on our good delivery, our wise words, our numbers of converts, our notches on our spiritual guns. We are not counting success in terms of numbers of people in our churches or programs or converts. We are held accountable for being faithful to the task given. Biblical success is not outcome-based; it is input-based. Have I done what I was told to do? Not, "Did it work out like it should?"

The truth is, we often don't know what "work like it should" actually is. Take, for instance, Joseph's getting sold into slavery. Did that "work like it should"? In the end, yes, but no one at the time thought, "Good plan." Because we don't know the the inscrutable mind of the Master. So Paul sowed and Apollos watered and God gave growth (1 Cor 3:6). Which one failed? Which one succeeded? If "success" is measured in numbers, Paul and Apollos failed. Fortunately, it's not. If you want success, stop aiming at worldly standards and outcome-based measurements. Do what you should do. That is what earns a "Well done, good and faithful servant" from God.