Good leaders have a lot of ways to make changes: persuade, coerce, co-opt, negotiate, compromise, etc. Jesus was uniquely known for several radical change ideas, including “love your enemy.”
Greenleaf questions Jesus’ judgment of using coercion in this particular incident. But I think to question someone who is also willing in other cases to use a variety of methods, including probably the polar opposite of coercion---“love your enemy,” seems too harsh of Greenleaf. In other words, Jesus has a record of attempting to make change through various methods that fit the situation. These methods are typicall highly regarded by historians.
Suppose we had a Servant Leadership festival, and we had a couple of white supremacist groups that wanted to lecture on the servant leadership of American slave trade in the 1800s and another lecture to discuss why the “Trail of Tears”---the forced relocation with massive deaths of native Americans in the 1830s---showed great servant leadership to the emerging nation. Let’s say they wanted to talk before and after a representative from the Greenleaf Center.
Okay, yes, I’m exaggerating for emphasis! But, do we persuade or try to toss them out as not fitting with our message? If we toss them out on their ears, does that forever reflect on servant leadership?
I don’t think so, since servant leaders have a long history of using gentler methods to make change. And since we have a long history, possibly our judgment probably should be assumed to be well-reasoned until shown otherwise.
Chris,
I struggled with this post, but I think it is probably one of Greenleaf's most challenging writings. To me, this writing on coercion speaks loudly of how difficult the practice of servant leadership can be, even for someone who is often held up as the epitome of its practice. I think even more meaningful is how negative the consequences can be of practicing its negative, coercion. Would Christ have been crucified if he had used persuasion in the temple? Tough stuff.
In your example of the white supremest groups wanting to speak at a servant leadership event, I think there could be a benefit in allowing them to talk. Untill we set the example of listening, and maybe going to a deeper level of listening to understand where the white supremest attitudes come from, there will be no changing the behavior. Tossing them out on their ears would likely only give them more reason to dispute that their ways are not correct. Perhaps if we allowed them to stay, they might listen to the other speakers, and maybe a seed for servant leadership be planted. They may not change overnight, but out of the seed something more could grow. Perhaps some common understanding from both sides could occur. I don't think we would have to worry about the servant leaders becoming white supremests, but perhaps the white supermests might become servant leaders.
Greenleaf often writes about John Woolman, a Quaker who went door to door over a thirty-year period to talk with the Quakers who practiced slavery in order to persuade them on the immorality of their practice. It was through his patience and understanding with his fellow Quakers that slavery was abolished in that community by 1770, 100 years before the civil war. This would not have likely happened had he chosen to simply toss these slaveholders out on their ears. This I think is really tough stuff to practice, but I think it is what Jesus was getting at when he preached loving our enemies.
My thoughts for what they are worth. Thanks for yours.
Tom
Good stuff, Tom. Each technique to bring about change has a time and a place. The difficulty for a servant leader or any kind of leader is to know what to use, and when.
One of the classic servant leaders in all the texts is Harriet Tubman. By her service through the underground railroad she helped hundreds of fugitive slaves escape to freedom in Canada.
However certainly the Southerners who within the law at that time had slaves, she could be seen as a common lawbreaker or thief. But generally history is kind to her, and she's seen as a hero of great courage, helping to bring down what's now considered a horrid, inhuman practice.
In a similar way that we question coercion here with Jesus, can we question people who break the law in pursuit of what they believe to be justice? When do the ends justify the means?
One other stray thought on the moneychangers in the temple: I'm not a Christian, but I would think the text has to be interpreted in light of Christianity. One argument my Christian friends might make is that Jesus may have viewed the temple as His Father's house. Within our family's house, a family member may take actions that seem unreasonable if they were taken in a public location.
As always, thanks for your thoughts, Tom.
Seems a bit presumptuous to think that the world would have turned out better if Jesus would have done this or that.
So maybe if this was one direct causes of his crucification, wouldn't he then have been the true servant in this case. If he tries to persuade and avoids crucification the ultimate servant leadership act doesn't happen.
So maybe being a servant leader goes deeper than always trying to use persuasion.
Happy Rock,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Here are some more of mine for what they are worth.
Sure it is presumptive to question what might have happened if Jesus had acted differently. What I get out of Greenleaf's writing on the topic is how powerful the negative consequences of acting with coercion can be as compared to using persuasion.
I don't equate dieing a tortuous death with being a servant as defined by Greenleaf. There are a lot of religious uses of the term "servant leader" that do make that equation, but death does not mean that others highest priority needs are being met.
I also believe that the use of persuasion is probably the deepest form of servant leadership that exists (as Greenleaf defines it).
Tom
"but death does not mean that others highest priority needs are being met."
Tom, from a Christian perspective I have to disagree with you on that statement.
The essence of Christianity is to believe that Christ died for my transgressions so that I could have eternal life. To give up life so that another can have it, is to me the utmost service that a leader can provide. It is to put aside my needs for those of another.
Everything that I have read from Greenleaf has that essence woven throughout, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly!
As to Greenleaf's thoughts on Christ in the temple, I also believe that being a servant leader sometimes means that we do things that others may not like, but is never-the-less needed. I'll take another extreme example to make my point.
If I go into a burning building and encounter a group of people, do I persuade them to leave, or do I coerce them to leave or do I physically force them to leave? How do I best serve them?
Christ's actions were meant to teach. Often times the best teaching requires the use of different techniques, some that we that are being served might not agree with, but when we take the time to look deeper beyond our own emotion, we find that we are being served in the deepest manner that we can be served.
Bo,
Thanks for some more great comments. I really appreciate it when I get others inputs on the posts.
My christian perspective tends to focus on the human Jesus. Being a human myself, I have a hard time relating to the concepts of afterlife and Jesus as God. That's not to say that he is or is not God or that there is or is not an after life, but these are concepts a whole lot more complicated then what I am ready to take on. I like to focus on what can I take from his teaching and apply it to my everyday life, since that is really all I have any certainty on. Maybe that makes me a non-christian, but that's were I am at.
That being said, as a mere mortal, the way I see it, if our goal is to serve others, our death, will ultimately result in the end of our service to others. (There is however that aspect of death which is a letting go and letting those who have been served to take over and do the serving themselves, which I think is ultimately what servant leadership is all about.) There's not much I can do to help others, when I cease to function in the flesh (again not getting into what I can or cannot do in the afterlife). The utmost example of service to me comes from someone who lives their live to the fullest, keeps healthy, and alive, and then can really function to the utmost to serve others. A blanket believe (not that that is what you are implying) that giving up ones life is the ultimate example of service when taken to an extreme, results in acts like flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings.
And as far as getting people out of a burning building goes, trying to force them out if they don't want to go may result in not only their deaths, but the end of your service life as well. I don't think you can serve others, unless they are willing to be served. Forcing the issue is just that, forcing the issue, not providing true service.
Thanks again for the thoughts, and a few more of mine.
Tom
Thanks Tom and based on what I have read, the difference is our perspective, which is based on our beliefs.
I don't find it hard to believe in Christ as human and God, primarily because I chose to believe at an early age and have grown in my knowledge and the relationship that allows me to live this life to its fullest as well as my eternal.
I can't say that I would fly an airplane into a building as that would be murder and suicide. WOuld I step in front of a bullet for a stranger, I don't know. I'd like to believe that I would have enough love for the stranger that I would take the risk. The thing that I think would allow me to do that is to know that my sacrifice would not be in vain and that something wonderful and good would come from it (maybe another person would be introduced to the love of Christ). Regardless, I have enough faith to know that "something" good would come from that ultimate sacrifice.
An important aspect of my beliefs and subsequently my faith says that it is not up to me to make good use of a sacrifice such as that, I simply have to rest assured.
As to serving those that don't want to be served, in my opinion, the truest servant leader would still find a way to serve, maybe in a way that the served does not know.
Commenting by HaloScan
