Messy, but I think I get it. I read the Baptist document as saying a wife should provide service (submit) to the servant leadership of her husband. So a wife should serve the servant leader? Greenleaf used “servant leader” in a way that initially seems a paradox, but with further analysis is a method of leadership. In a secular way, the Southern Baptists wording seems at first glance a linguistics mess: a paradox of a paradox---a servant leader’s servant.
At the same time, in a religious way, I think they’re being genuine and sincere. My take is that they see the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as a servant leader. In their religion, Christ served humanity, and of course leads their church as the Son of God. If a husband is to love his family the way Christ loved his church, then within THAT viewpoint, it makes sense to see the wife serving the husband or the servant leader.
Tom (if I haven’t totally confused you), I think it probably should be read as Baptists leadership speaking to the Baptist church, using Baptist lingo, almost. They’re using “servant leadership” in a religious context of their view of Christ. Here at this blog, I think you use it consistently in a secular context. In a secular view I agree it’s “patriarchy.” But, I think I see where the Southern Baptists are coming from within their worldview.
I think you’re making a broader point, which I would heartily agree, that people shouldn’t confuse “servant leadership” with “patriarchy” as Greenleaf envisioned it.
Chris,
No need to worry about confusing me, I was pretty much confused long before this. When I started trying to write this post, I was pretty confused about where I was going with it. For me, being theologically challenged, I don't see there being a difference between the secular and religious versions of servant leadership. There is a big difference though in how Religions often preach about servant leadership, but act far differently from it. As I see it, Jesus was a pretty good model for servant leadership, but even he was not perfect at it. Greenleaf in one of his writings talks about the story of Jesus knocking over the tables of the money changers in the temples and points out how this was a coercive act, and not an act of persuasion. For Greenleaf persuasion was a key to servant leadership. Might be a good topic for a post.
In the Southern Baptist example, I don't mean to pick on them. They are not all that much different from many religions in their views on the different roles for men and women. For an interesting take on this see the link below for some more thoughts on Jesus and the Southern Baptist views on the role of women.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2...god-want-
w.html
Thanks for the thoughts.
Yes, I see the examples you are raising are patriarchy, viewed secularly. If a husband calls all the shots, that seems to be standard top-down leadership.
I think when religious folks use servant leadership within a religious context, it gets difficult for me to comprehend it based on my understanding of Greenleaf's concepts. For example, a Christian viewpoint may see a Son of God as a servant leader. A god sets the rules on leading your life, with eternal punishment or reward for following those rules.
But Greenleaf to me emphasizes that a servant leader serves the individual more for that individual to find a fulfilling pathway to life. He doesn't say the servant leader will then punish or reward the individual based on the direction they take.
Patriarchy, in a religious or secular sense, seems to be a difficult relationship to develop any kind of true servant leadership.
"Patriarchy, in a religious or secular sense, seems to be a difficult relationship to develop any kind of true servant leadership."
Amen to that.
Tom
In a recent Bible Study on Ephesians this was a HOT topic with the ladies! But the book we were using used a nice analogy...the catcher on a baseball team "suggests" the next pitch to the pitcher, but he has the final say...without the catcher though there would be no "marriage"...someone has to make the call. Also most people pick just this verse to talk about as being patriarchal but read the entire context...the man has to earn this right from his wife by loving her as Christ loved the church...hard to take one line out of a whole story!
Wayne, re: "It's hard to take one line out of the whole story..." I agree with your thoughts on context, especially when it comes to Bible verses.
For example I was researching animal rights issues a few months back. Apparently there was a centuries-old argument against animal rights that since in Mark's Gospel Jesus runs a herd of pigs over a cliff to their deaths, then the rights of animals shouldn't have to matter to Christians.
Context matters much, as you say. It's unlikely that the context of Mark's story was meant to show Jesus didn't care about the plight of animals, so latter day Christians shouldn't either.
I think your analysis is good, that in this context a husband has to earn the right to be the family leader, and he should be listening to the suggestions of his family, especially his wife.
My question would still be whether this is actually "servant leadership" as opposed to a more classic top-down leadership style.
Possibly if there's a servant leader, it may be more of the wife's role here. Her support and love of the family, at first glance in more of a subservient role, can help lead the family through the difficulties that all families typically face.
Wayne,
Thanks for sharing your comments. I took a look at Ephesians 5:21-33. I am no expert on biblical interpretations, but my take on this is that it is not talking about servant leadership as Greenleaf would define it. There are clear cut differences between the mans role and the womans role in the marriage throughout this section. The man plays the role of Christ, and the woman plays the role of the church who obeys Christ. Servant leadership is not about obeying, it is about coming to terms with what someone is proposing and then accepting it on it's own terms, not because someone of authority tells you that is how it is. For me, if it was talking about servant leadership, then the man and womans roles would read the same.
I also don't think that the pitcher and catcher analogy is a good example of servant leadership. In this case it comes down to someone having to give in to the other ones decision. That is not how I understand Greenleaf's servant leadership. Sports, especially professional sports today, are not really about servant leadership. The people being served typically do not grow as persons, nor do they become freer, wiser, more autonomous, as Greenleaf's best test requires.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong with these leadership styles, I just don't believe they are good examples of servant leadership.
My thoughts for what they are worth.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Tom
Tom...Sorry if I misled you in my comments...I was NOT trying to use the analogy in regards to servant leadership but the concept of "patriarchal submission" that some believe in absolute terms that a woman must "submit" to the man...not true from my study of Ephesians...I was not referring to SL...Happy New Year!
Wayne,
No need to be sorry, sometimes I am just confused. Thanks for the clarification and and a happy new year to you also.
Tom
Excellent! Jesus emptied himself to serve the church (Kenosis). He completely emptied himself to become a servant. In order to become a true servant, one must give up completely their right to be served. Jesus showed this when he washed the disciples feet. A servant washing someone's feet was the lowest kind of servant that you could be (in Jesus' time). Servant leadership requires completely giving up your right to be served. This is not true of patriarchal marriages which is obviously suggested in the selection you cited. I applaud this awareness.
Kaleb,
Thanks for your thoughts on kenosis. An interesting, but confusing, concept. One that I should spend some more time trying to understand. Here is Wikipedia's take on it for anyone that's interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis.
It certainly seems that Greenleaf's discussion that I quoted in my Dec 30 post fits will with the concept of kenosis as I understand it.
Thanks for adding your comments. Readers thoughts always help me to take what I post to a deeper level, which I do appreciate.
Tom
I am a diligent student of Servant Leadership. I ran for office with that explicitly stated and was eelcted to one of the Vice Presidents of California NOW. Hearing Minister Huckabee use the wods, Servant Leadership - and (today on CNN) hearing David Bergan discuss the principles as if Huckabee is a true practitioner, flipped me out!
What do you make of Hillary Rodham's graduation speech quoted in the unabridged essay, Servant as Leader?
I was fortunate to speak with Don Frick recently and he told me that Mr. Greenleaf did not meet her, only read her speech.
My respect for Servant Leadership really does not include watching a canditate for president mess with it. I would LOVE to see one practice it.
Amen!
Zoe,
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts on Hillary's quotation by Greenleaf. I had forgotten about that, until I looked it up in the biography after reading your comment. I really enjoyed Don Frick's biography of Greenleaf, it really peaked my interest in the guy and his writings. When I get some time might have to devote a blog on the topic of Hillary and the quote. Greenleaf has written some on the challange of being a servant-leader in government and I think that unfortunately too often politics as it currently exists can make it almost impossible to practice servant leadership and "succeed" as a politician. Being a non-cable person, don't watch CNN and couldn't find any info on the Huckabee discussion on the web. Would be interested though to hear more about it. Thanks again for the thoughts.
Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
