We all ought to serve one another through love. In other words, all humans ought to be servants. Yet, some must lead the way, for it is an unavoidable truth that without a common goal society as we know it would not last very long. But if all ought to serve, how is it possible for some to lead? The answer has been sought in the concept of a servant-leader.
The original idea of a servant-leader, created by Robert K. Greenleaf, was a brilliant concept which affirmed the need of genuine servanthood in all realms of life, even in leadership.[1] The servant-leader was to be first of all a servant, who was intimately concerned with the welfare of those whom he or she was leading, and only secondarily a leader. But alas, when the church got hold of the concept in an effort to polish its tarnished image, the servant-leader was to be first of all a leader and only secondarily a servant, for the Christian servant-leader was seen as serving when leading instead of leading when serving. And that was the beginning of the end for the transformation of Christian leadership, for instead of motivating people to become genuine servants, people became motivated to find a servant whom they could lead. Come to think of it, we should not use the word “people” for the Christian servant-leadership is reserved exclusively to men. Women have never been encouraged to become servant-leaders; instead they have been expected to remain servants, for the leaders of the servants need servants to lead.
The theological namesake of Greenleaf’s bold and demanding vision follows the same logic as Dr. Eggenrichs’s treatment of Dr. Gottman’s groundbreaking research on why marriages succeed or fail.[2] Although Dr. Gottman concluded that men and women need love and respect equally, Eggenrichs depicts men as needing, and deserving, unconditional respect from women while women need love from men.[3] As a result, in the complementarian world all men are considered servant-leaders who are to be respected, whereas all women are servants who are to be loved. Neither Gottman nor Greenleaf envisioned a society in which women and men are gender segregated into such categories, but then again, neither did they feel an overwhelming need to maintain the old status quo. Instead, Greenleaf recognized that the desire among those whose leadership skills were inadequate was to preserve the system which insured their power instead of seeking and embracing change.[4] Change is precisely what is needed if people are to become genuine servants, led by genuine servant-leaders. Greenleaf envisioned a society in which the best possible candidates would serve as leaders to ensure the most efficient use of common resources.
Traditionally the church has considered the man the best possible candidate for leadership, the woman having been disqualified from such a position firstly due to Eve’s sin, and later by her assumed subjection to the man as a created order. The facts are however not flattering for the man’s ability to govern, as much of church history is a rather sordid tale of bloodshed and corruption. Neither is the church doing all that well in the twenty-first century and the lack of leadership is often blamed for its sorry state. But what if the problem is not the lack of leadership per se but the lack of female leadership? Cannot be, says the complementarian, for God does not call women into ecclesiastical leadership. But wait, replies the egalitarian, women are responding to such a call, wherefore God must be calling them. Because of the latter argument it has been suggested that the modern secular society has infiltrated the church and liberalized it to such an extent that people no longer recognize biblical truth. The proponents of the suggestion point to the marriage of Rome and the church as the prime example of such infiltration. But what if the church never divorced Rome despite all the reformations and attempts to return to the original model? What if the church is still modeling the ideal Roman society in which male authority and female submission are considered absolutely essential for the preservation of good order? If this is the case, egalitarians are correct and the change that is sought is a return to the original model of the early church.
The first Christians believed in the natural equality of all humans as imaging God and being sharers of one blood. This belief was in total opposition to the Aristotelian concept of the natural inferiority of slaves and women which was the foundation of the rule of the freeborn males in the Athenian polis. As Romans conquered Greece, they adopted Solon’s laws and Greek philosophy but modified them to appeal to their more disciplined and austere outlook on life. Although Roman women were not isolated quite as strictly, they paid for the little freedom they had gained through strict chastity by being blamed for every misstep and moral failure - even if the guilty party was the man.[5] Hence, as soon as Romans became theologians, they viewed Eve as solely guilty for the fall of humankind and as a fitting punishment she was subjected to the man, who was to rule over her as her lord. However, although the sole guilt of Eve became an accepted part of traditional theology, several hundred years passed until women were permanently removed from leadership, for it wasn’t until the Latin crusaders resurrected Aristotle’s philosophy by bringing it back to Europe from their tour to the Orient that the woman, who had been considered the man’s equal from creation, became inferior by God’s original design. Through a fusion of Aristotelian logic and theology, the woman was believed to have been created without the man’s reason, which provided the reason needed to exclude women from all ecclesiastical leadership.[6]
Seven hundred years after Thomas Aquinas argued for the woman’s subjection as a created order due to his synthesis of Aristotle’s philosophy and medieval theology, complementarists still claim it to be God’s original design for all humankind. But because not every man is designed to lead, the woman must acknowledge his sometimes inadequate leadership with a “joyful submission,” i.e. no complaining about his shortcomings is allowed. The same is true of all the mediocre preachers who keep their jobs only because the flock is warned not to criticize God’s spokesman, regardless of what he says or does. Such nonsensical attitudes would not be necessary if only those who were truly called and qualified were appointed into leadership - including women. Although it may make eminent sense for society and church to appoint someone to leadership due to human weakness and tendency to discord, the same does not apply to marriage. For where two have come together to make a unity of one flesh, there is also a bond that is stronger and more enduring than that which exists between citizens and congregants. The biblical model of marriage is a partnership sustained though love, such as exists between Christ and the church, not that which exists between a governor and subject, which is impersonal and ever-changing. Jesus called us his friends, and the need for leadership in marriage is the same as it is in friendship: it does not exist, for love and respect causes the two to seek a solution which is satisfactory to both parties and that is what leadership is ultimately about.
[1] Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership, A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate power & Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1977
[2] John Gottman with Nan Silver, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail… And How You Can Make Yours Last, A Fireside Book, New York, 1994, 67
[3] Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, Love and Respect, Integrity Publishers, Brentwood, Tennessee, 2004, 48
[4] Greenleaf, 29
[5] Edith Hamilton, The Roman Way, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1964, 149-150
[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First part, Question 92
No comments:
Post a Comment