No longer am I one of those people who sips their frappucinomochathanksalatte and proudly pulls her Bible from her purse and reads for all to see my noble act.
But here I am, drinking a cup of sugar with some coffee and consciously grabbing my Bible from my bag.
If you're a loyal OWR reader, you know I can't stand the writer Paul. Too gregarious, too overly zealous, and he makes a lot of us look beyond lazy (as I sit here on my Macbook typing my complaints, wearing my North Face jacket to hide from the incessant AC.. instead of running naked through the humid streets of Asia yelling and blowing a shofar...).
And so when I read his comment in his letter to some foreigners saying, "I have learned to be content whatever my circumstance..." I want to scream, beat my chest with my fists, and throw my flaming hot cup o joe in his face.
Think about it. This guy has just set an impossible standard in the realm of Christianity. So now, when I want to complain about something, I hear, "Well you know, Paul learnt to be happy no matter what, so we've gotta do the same dear". efffff youuu.
But in all seriousness, it worries me when a Christian (or anyone) plasters on their smile when their best friend has just been diagnosed terminally ill, and then says something like, "Well, God just wants us to learn to be content regardless, because, you know Christ has overcome the grave..."
I totally disagree with that statement-psychologically, in case you wondered. But really, this is similar to what I've heard before. I decided to check out the Greek version of the letter and its contents, to see if I could get some better concept of what Paul really wanted to say.
- sufficient for one's self, strong enough or processing enough to need no aid or support
- independent of external circumstances
- contented with one's lot, with one's means, though the slenderest
I like option #2. And it works within the context. I don't think the word "content" has the same weight today as it did when the Bible was translated. Nowadays, to be content suggests happiness. But I don't buy that Paul was happy with his circumstances (people hated his guts and were out to kill him).
So is it possible to be independent of external circumstances? Well, I don't think it's impossible. It may be somewhere close to that, though. An incredibly hard, hard thing to grasp. But Paul said he was independently ok without money, without food (relatively speaking), and without comfort. And by 'ok', I think that it means he wasn't thrilled to be hungry and poor and sleeping outside (although he knew how to make tents).
but. That's not all. He was independently ok with prosperity, with plenty of food, and with a warm bed.
Of course. He had all he needed. Who wouldn't be ok? But...look around at middle to upper class America. We have all we need. Are we happy? Are we satisfied? Unfortunately, my heart breaks most when I look at them (us).
And I don't think this means we need to just let everything go and be ok in whatever circumstances. I have talked to homeless men and women. I have spoken with millionaires and everyone in-between. Income may separate us, but we all have this inner existentialist who pays no regard to our socio-status. He is dying to know what we're here for, if our actions and words really matter, if we're worth this, if there is hope or if we're just another domino about to fall.
Some of us run to avoid him and these tough questions at all cost. Some of us buy more toys to satiate him for but a moment. And when he starts up again, we find something new or someone else to crowd him out.
I'm one of these people. I have a lot of questions to run from, to quiet.
But what if Paul isn't saying he knows how to smile and wear his happy voice appropriately. What if he's saying..."Yes, I've recognized my questions. They follow me whether in want or in plenty. External circumstances don't change this. But I've learned that this is ok. It doesn't change who I am or who Providence is."