Mark 10:35-45 (NRSV)
35 James and John,
the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you
to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What is it you
want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right
hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do
not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” 39 They replied, “We are
able.” Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with
the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my
right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it
has been prepared.”
41 When the ten
heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42 So Jesus called them
and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize
as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them.
43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you
must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave
of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give
his life a ransom for many.”
Year B
October 16-22
October 11, 2015
Title: Leading and
Serving
Cross~Wind
Going deeper [The part in bold is what emphasized as I read the scripture.]
Mark 10:35-40 is a story about Jesus
involving a request from James and John.
Scholars give a great deal of attention to
the place of the twelve disciples in Mark. They consider the significance of
various dimensions of their story, including their response to Jesus, their
mission , their lack of understanding and finally their betrayal, flight and
denial. Yet, we may find one key to understanding the significance of the disciples
in one of the teachings of Jesus, concerning the parable of the sower. Mary Ann
Tolbert of Vanderbilt University suggests that the disciples are clear
illustrations of the seed sown on “rocky ground” (Mark 4:5-6). The parable of
the Sower tells the story of the failures and success of a sower scattering
seed on four different types of ground: on the path, on rocky ground, among
thorns and into good soil (4:3-9). Jesus later interprets these soils as
representing four different types of hearers of the word (4:14-20). Tolbert
links the twelve disciples with the rocky ground, since they have accepted the
word immediately, with great joy, but then have stumbled away when persecutions
arise on account of the word (4:16-17). She goes so far as to suggest that
Simon’s new name, Peter — from the Greek Petro
is not a sign of a firm foundation for the church, but is instead a subtle dig
at a hardhearted disciple. In Mark, Simon is called “rock” for the first time
in chapter 3, and then in the very next chapter Jesus introduces the “rocky
ground” in which the seed begins to grow and then fails during persecutions.[1]
The link between the
disciples and the rocky ground of the parable becomes stronger as the gospel
story continues. The twelve repeatedly fail to comprehend the words of Jesus
and emulate his actions as they demonstrate a lack of understanding after the
feeding of the four thousand (8:21), as they challenge Jesus’ teachings about
his suffering and death (8:32-33), and as they seek glory instead of suffering
(10:35-45). This last “rocky ground response” is here, and it contains the
failure of James and John to comprehend that both Jesus and his disciples are
challenged to walk the path of sacrificial service.
This story follows on the heels of Jesus’
third passion prediction (10:32-34), as Jesus and the disciples are about to
embark on their journey toward Jerusalem. Not even the clarity of Jesus’
message can break through the disciples’ rock-hard hearts and heads, however,
as Mark 10:35-45 gives us another example of the disciples’ denseness. Their
desire for authority, fame and glory makes it especially hard for them to hear
Jesus’ message of suffering, rejection and death. If ever there were showcase
examples of selective hearing, James and John's response to Jesus' revelation
in 10:33‑34 takes the prize. In Mark 8-10, the gospel writer has Jesus and
his disciples play out a similar exchange three separate times. In 8:31, 9:30-32, and 10:33-34, Jesus
articulates clear predictions of his approaching rejection, his debasement and
death, and his resurrection from the dead.
Each of these passion predictions are then followed by some of the most
ignorant, wrong-headed comments made anywhere by the disciples. In 8:32-33 Peter rebukes Jesus; in 9:33-34 all
the disciples start clamoring about who is the greatest; and in 10:35-41 James
and John start queuing up for good seats in the hereafter. In each case, Jesus responds to his
disciples’ confused comments by discussing the true essence of missionary discipleship
and explaining how it differences from all the disciples’ expectations. In 8:34-38 Jesus counsels taking up the
cross; in 9:35-37 selflessness and acceptance are touted; and finally in
10:42-45 Jesus explicitly identifies service to others as the key to genuine
discipleship.
Mark 10:35-45 (NRSV)
35
James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him,
“Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” [That
they wanted to be first, after they have been just been told that in God’s
kingdom the last are first, underscores just how uncomprehending they were. How
can we comprehend the fact that such self‑serving bickering follows Jesus’ one
precision prediction of the Jerusalem horror? It is possible only by focusing
on the opening and closing words of Jesus' teaching. After Jesus begins by
declaring, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem," he immediately
identifies himself as the "Son of Man." The messianic title, coupled
with the theological significance of the "Son of Man" entering
Jerusalem, sounded the bell in the disciples' minds for all sorts of glorious
rings. Refusing to deal with the core content of Jesus' statements, James and
John quite clearly hear only the final message he relays ("after three
days he will rise again"). Only this image of a risen, powerful, ruling
messianic Son of Man are Jesus' disciples able to envision. In short, despite Jesus' graphic details of an immediate future filled with
condemnation, rejection, mocking, spitting, flogging and execution, James and
John approach Jesus with a foolish and self‑serving question.] 36
And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” [James
and John approach Jesus with a request, a pitiful response to Jesus’
description of what awaits him in Jerusalem. “We want you to do for us whatever
we ask of you.” At best, these disciples
might be credited with echoing the final scene between Elijah and Elisha in 2
Kings 2:9 — there the soon-to-depart Elijah instructs his apprentice Elisha to
“Tell me what I may do for you, before I am taken from you.” Yet even if that
exchange is the inspiration behind James and John’s request, they overstep
their bounds by initiating the asking (See Ecclesiasticus 7:4 or Wisdom 5:5). Despite their misplaced boldness and presumptive
rudeness, Jesus deals patiently with James and John. In a pathetic attempt
at cleverness, these two disciples first try to charm a promise out of Jesus
before revealing what is at issue. Jesus, of course, refuses to give blind
assurances and forces them to articulate their desires plainly. Jesus mimics
back to them without any hesitation, “What is it you want me to do for
you?” As if he were their servant!
Their eagerness to have Jesus save them the best seats in the house
suggests that James and John expected this eschatological moment to arrive very
shortly after they finally entered Jerusalem. Even when the brothers’ brazen, selfish wish
is fully explained, Jesus does not chastise them about the content of their
request. He sees it simply as a demonstration of their hardheaded
incomprehension.]37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit,
one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”[They ask Jesus to grant them positions of honor to his right and left,
may refer to the Messianic feast or to thrones in the kingdom. They failed to understand the teaching about
Messianic suffering. Thus, rather like a couple of 4‑year‑olds
trying to obtain permission to do something they know isn't quite right, the
two first seek a carte blanche approval from Jesus. Rather like any good
parent, Jesus refuses to give blanket approval and demands details. James and John's request for preferred
seating may reflect either the messianic or the apocalyptic notions prevalent
in first‑century Judaism. They perceive Jesus as Messiah. Their squabbling
over most honored seating may refer to the heavenly messianic banquet.
Alternatively, the disciples' reference to Jesus’ being "in your
glory" could also refer to the best seats in the house at the time of the Parousia, when the ruling Son of Man
will judge all creation. In either case, James and John are concerned with
securing a place with priority status when Jesus has risen and assumed his
glory. Believing themselves to be disciples of the one who was about to reclaim
David's throne, James and John continue their mother's concern that they stand
beside Jesus in a specially chosen and designated relationship. Jesus' sharp retort reveals the ignorance and
arrogance of these two disciples ‑‑ they "do not know" what they are
asking!] 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are
you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I
am baptized with?” 39 They replied, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them,
“The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am
baptized, you will be baptized;[Pannenberg says that we cannot
merely see here an obscure allusion to the approaching path of suffering for
Jesus. We must relate them to his understanding of the baptism he received from
John. Jesus linked his baptism by John
to the expectation of approaching martyrdom. Only after passing through
this baptism can he kindle fire on the earth. This will eventually lead to the
teaching of Paul that baptism involves participation in the death and
resurrection of Jesus. The idea of a baptism of blood rests on transferring the
baptism of John for repentance to martyrdom. Jesus was already seeing the
approaching martyrdom of himself and his disciples in the context of the water
baptism he had received form John. If so, then we can understand that along with the idea of a baptism of blood for
martyrs, water baptism as adopted by early Christianity had a new meaning that
it appropriated from Jesus. Yet, only from the standpoint of the Easter
event did the death of Jesus represent a saving event. Only then could
fellowship with the death of Jesus as a martyr that is grounded in the act of
baptism count as a pledge of future salvation for the baptized and the hope of
participation in the life of the risen Lord.[2] Jesus does not necessarily
prophecy martyrdom. Yet, for some scholars, Christian theological meaning
colors Jesus’ question about his cup and baptism, from the post-Easter
perspective of Mark. The question refers
to his impending death. Mark also knew that Herod Agrippa in Acts
12 had martyred James. Jesus’ reply invites them to consider whether they can
face the cost of sharing in Jesus’ messianic suffering. The saying means more than martyrdom. Rather, the cup and baptism refer to the
great tribulation that James and John would endure. One might sense here the brash confidence of
the disciples. Obviously, neither James
nor John has a clue about the nature of this cup and this baptism in which
Jesus asks them to participate. When
Jesus quizzes James and John about the depth of their commitment, he turns
their attention away from the reward they are seeking and focuses it back upon
the path leading to Jerusalem. Asking if they can share in both his cup and his
baptism, Jesus throws up a roadblock on what James and John perceive as an
unmarred road to glory. The cup and baptism represent the suffering that Jesus
and his obedient followers will have to endure. James and John misunderstand
their calling and their destiny when they quickly assert that they, too, share
these symbols of commitment with Jesus. They refuse to acknowledge the truth
about the impending trip to Jerusalem, and envision instead an easy go-ahead
journey, free from barricades and potholes. The story of Jesus’ passion is the
starkly lit symbol of the cost discipleship entails — a painful red light on
the road to Jesus’ glorification.
Most
historical‑critical exegesis analyzes these images in strict accordance with
their pre‑Christian understandings.
"The
cup" has a long tradition in Hebrew Scripture as the cup filled with
divine wrath and judgment from which disobedient humanity must imbibe. The
prophets often employed the image of "the cup" to threaten God's
vengeance on leaders and peoples who opposed the ways of God. For Jesus, then,
to drink of "the cup" is his voluntary swallowing of God's judgment
for our sake. Jesus drinks the cup that was intended for us.
The reference to baptism here,
again interpreted in pre‑Christian terms, parallels that of the cup. Instead of
a Hebrew image, however, Jesus' words most likely recall the rites practiced by
John the Baptist ‑‑ a "baptism of repentance." As a symbol of
repentance, baptism becomes linked, like the cup, to the divine judgment that
awaits human sinfulness. By participating in a repentant act of baptism, Jesus
again took upon himself the judgment humanity deserved. James' and John's
unhesitating willingness to share in Jesus' "cup" and
"baptism" reveals how little they understood the personal cost that
lies behind these channels to the divine. To remain true to the setting of this
text, we must remind ourselves that the "cup" and "baptism"
held different meanings for the disciples than they would later for the
communities of post‑Resurrection Christians. For the church, the cup and baptism
clearly spoke about two channels of individual and communal participation in
the sufferings, even the "dying" of Christ. By the second century,
baptism became the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice offered by Christian
martyrs. Nevertheless, for James and John, these symbols were more generally
suggestive of the suffering and persecution they could expect to encounter as
disciples of Jesus and the gospel.] 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my
left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
[The idea that Jesus does not assign positions in the kingdom would
hardly be something the early church would create. Jesus welcomes his ignorant
disciples’ communion in his sacrifice — but then reveals to James and John that
what they seek is not his to give. Jesus
refuses to condemn the self-centered nature of James and John’s request. He
does not berate them for their status-seeking. Instead, he suggests that the
path that leads to such exalted positions is one they may not have considered
closely enough. The reason he gives for denying their wish is surprising.
Jesus’ vision is limited — as a man he cannot see the whole picture of God’s
plan for salvation. Note that the passion described in verse 34 does not
mention how he will die, only that he will be killed. Jesus thus assures James
and John that they may freely choose to participate in his suffering (the cup
and his baptism) with the assurance of a place in glory, but like him they must
demonstrate obedience to suffering based on faith, not definite knowledge.
Jesus refuses to discuss further any future heavenly seating arrangements. He
reminds them that God alone holds the authority to make such assignments. By
refusing to usurp any divine prerogative, Jesus demonstrates his own obedience
to God, thus opening the door to yet another conversation about the proper
roles and attitudes of true believers. All the disciples evidently need to hear
this discussion repeatedly. James and John's request angers the other
disciples, evidencing their fear that the two had somehow beaten them to the
punch and gained some heavenly advantage over them.]
Mark 10:41-45 is a collection of sayings on
leadership with service. At about the moment an outbreak of self‑serving
ambition and rivalry seems to tear apart the twelve, Jesus repeats the theme of
servanthood he had tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to introduce in 9:35. Jesus responds to his disciples’ confused
comments by discussing the true essence of missionary discipleship and
explaining how it differences from all the disciples’ expectations. Jesus
explicitly identifies service to others as the key to genuine discipleship.
41 When the ten heard this, they began to be
angry with James and John. [The
dialogue expands to include all the disciples. The “indignation” of the other
disciples at James and John’s request is not elaborated upon. The reader’s
discretion and generosity of spirit lead us to surmise whether the other 10 are
indignant at the foolish, self-serving, unperceiving nature of the brothers’
request, or indignant that James and John have gotten their names in first on
the list for the coveted position at Jesus’ right and left hands.] 42 So
Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those
whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are
tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become
great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among
you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to
serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” [Turning
to all of his disciples, Jesus now
elaborates more fully on what following him requires of them. Sharing in
the two symbols of the cup and baptism does not mean riding on the coattails of
Jesus’ impending glorification. Instead, verses 43-45 reveal that being a true disciple means a life (and
death) committed to humility and service. Jesus’ message to his disciples is
that even as he came to serve, so much more should they be servants for the
sake of others and of the gospel. The tack Jesus now takes seems almost
like an attempt to "shame" his followers into a better understanding
of their discipleship. You are acting like Gentiles, Jesus admonishes. Jesus
appeals to his followers to sense the essence of their uniqueness by
contrasting them with Gentiles. Gentile
rulers, or great ones, are described as tyrants. The disciples of Jesus who wish to be great
must consign themselves to being servants.
The very highest status, in fact, will be according one who becomes
slave of all. It is the Son of Man, not Gentile rulers, which the disciples are to
emulate — living to serve not to be served. The "Gentiles" that would
most naturally spring to the disciples' minds would be the petty tyrants and
bullies they knew so well and despised so deeply from Roman political life
(such as Tiberias and Herod Philip).]
In
contrast to mimicking these Gentiles, Jesus
offers his disciples a new way, a cross channel, if you will, to true
discipleship. Standing common understanding on its head, Jesus declares that it
is only in service that one may become great. The more lowly and servantlike
the service, the greater the genuine stature of the disciple. Barth discusses this idea in the context of
the order of the community, in which its character is that of a law of service.
The law of service must always be law within an order of ministry. Privilege,
claim, and dignity exit under the duty, obligation, and burden of service. In
closing, Jesus reminds his disciples that the Son of Man himself offers the
greatest example of this paradoxical relationship between servanthood and
greatness.[3]
The
Son of Man willingly becomes a slave, even to death, in order to serve, indeed
to save, the world. In cross channels to
the world, the channel of the cross leads heavenward. It is only after
Jesus’ death and resurrection that these followers fully grasp this message,
and shift from being rocky-ground
disciples to examples of the “good soil” in which the word can grow and bear
incredible fruit (4:8).
In
verse 45, the Son of Man has come to give his life a ransom for man. The
structure is synonymous parallelism. “Ransom”
means deliverance by purchase. It
describes an act of redemption. “For
many” refers to receiving a benefit that they cannot effect. Pannenberg points out that “many” in
Christian tradition focused on a universal understanding, rather than limiting
it to expiation for the Jewish people.[4] Many
view the phrase as Pauline, but Taylor rejects this. Mann says that the effect of Jesus’ life of
service and giving of himself goes beyond example. A single, all-embracing figure in whom all
the themes of sin, repentance, redemption, and vindication come together. It is not Pauline because here the vision is
for the covenant people, not universal. Note link of lutron with Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53.
Pannenberg relates this statement to the notion of the death of Jesus
“for us” and “for our sins.” The motif of expiation seems present. The image of
ransom is that Jesus Christ paid by his death for us.[5]
Not “sin offering” but God acting to deliver from slavery and bring to freedom. Thus, the text is not a proof text for
substitutionary theory of atonement. Barth says one who gives his life a ransom
for many acts in the place and as the representative of many, paying on their
account but without their cooperation what they cannot pay for themselves.[6]
Pannenberg notes that Jesus may have reckoned with the possibility of an
approaching violent death, even if this does not mean that he willed or
provoked this violent death. He views it as quite another matter as to whether
Jesus proclaimed his death a ransom for many or as an expiatory death. If Jesus
actually said that his death had an expiatory function, one would expect the
meaning of his death would have been decided authoritatively and unequivocally.[7]
Barth has an important discussion of Jesus
as the man for others. Jesus lets his life be for those in infinite peril. He
makes the deliverance of humanity his exclusive task. His encouragement for his
followers to be servant of all arises from the man who is the chief servant.[8]
Introduction
Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical
humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change. --Frank Lloyd
Wright.
Talent is God-given.
Be humble.
Fame is man-given. Be grateful.
Conceit is self-given. Be careful.
--Legendary UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden.
Fame is man-given. Be grateful.
Conceit is self-given. Be careful.
--Legendary UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden.
Two quotations:
"I want
everyone to bear witness, I am the greatest! I'm the greatest thing that ever
lived. I don't have a mark on my face, and I upset Sonny Liston, and I just
turned twenty-two years old. I must be the greatest. I showed the world. I talk
to God everyday. I know the real God. I shook up the world; I'm the king of the
world. You must listen to me. I am the greatest! I can't be beat!"
"Wouldn't it be
a beautiful world if just 10 percent of the people who believe in the power of
love would compete with one another to see who could do the most good for the
most people?"
The two statements could hardly be more different. Yet, ironically, the
same person who spoke them both: the legendary boxer, Muhammad Ali.
The first is Ali's boyish bluster from 1964, just after he defeated
Sonny Liston for the first time. The second is something he wrote in his
autobiography, The Soul of a Butterfly, in 2004.
Forty years separate the two quotations. Forty years of living. A lot
can change in half a lifetime.
Another quotation by Ali explains it: "The man who views the world
at 50 the same as he did at 20 has just wasted the last 30 years of his
life." Afflicted by Parkinson's disease since 1984 -- a condition likely
brought on by the pummeling his body received in the ring -- Ali has been busy,
until this year, as a global good-will ambassador, peace activist and advocate
for the developing world. By one estimate, he has provided over 232 million
meals to feed the hungry. He remains one of the most easily-recognized
celebrities on the planet.
When I saw him early in his career, I must confess that I liked him. I
do not know why. The bragging and cockiness that made him hated I found a way
to excuse. Of course, I was in my early teens at the time. His career in boxing
was the only time in my life I had any interest in boxing. He seemed
unbeatable. Of course, when he was beat, I kept thinking during the boxing match
that he would pull it out in the end. I guess I bought into the illusion he had
created.
To his credit, Ali's idea of greatness appears to have changed over
time.
Maybe we can expand the conversation on greatness.
History is full of men and women who are described as "the
Great," although they all had their weaknesses and blind spots. Alexander
the Great was the Macedonian king and general who took control of the vast
Persian Empire in the 4th century B.C. Tutored by Aristotle, he went on to
achieve an undefeated record in military battles. Yet, Alexander was not
invincible -- he was probably brought down by a lowly mosquito. Evidence
suggests that he died of malaria at age 32.
How about Catherine the Great? She was the empress who ruled
Russia from 1762 to 1796. Her greatness arose from her desire to modernize and
expand Russia's holdings, as well as her creation of the country's first school
for girls. Nevertheless, Catherine was not as powerful as she thought. Her rise
to domination came only after her lover led a coup to depose her husband.
Another mighty ruler was Ramses the Great, Egyptian pharaoh from
1279 to 1213 B.C., who built cities, temples and monuments. The Bible does not
portray him as so righteous, however. He was likely the pharaoh who enslaved
the Israelites and caused Moses to lead the exodus out of Egypt.
History teaches that greatness is often linked to a life of illusion,
one that causes people to believe that they are more invincible, powerful and
righteous than they really are. Alexander was vulnerable to a mosquito,
Catherine owed her power to a coup, and Ramses was unrighteous. All were
"the Great," but not the greatest.
Back in 2012, Homiletics Magazine humorously stated that the only one
who avoids this trap is The Great Gazoo, Fred Flintstone's floating
green alien buddy. Remember him? He created a doomsday device and made items
appear out of thin air. He may not have lived a life of illusion, but he was
an illusion -- a cartoon character voiced by the great comic actor Harvey
Korman.
Whom would you add to the list of people in our culture who might
consider themselves “great?” The problem with looking at yourself as “great” is
that you live with an illusion. One illusion is concerns your view of you! You
are vulnerable and weak in ways you might not want to admit. You may also not
realize what true greatness is.
Application
Jesus is saying that learning to
serve is the true sign of greatness. You are part of a mission and vision far
larger than and that will outlast you. You serve that vision.
What do servant-leaders look like?
They are people who embrace
both the concept of serving others and serving.
Men of Integrity magazine in March-April 2003 quoted Albert Sweitzer as
saying, “Life becomes harder for us when we live for others, but it also
becomes richer and happier.” In a spiritual community, no leader gets
privilege. With the possible exception of pastors at church potlucks, no leader
gets an easy pass; no leader cuts the line; no leader gets in first or takes
the best seat. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be a servant to all
the rest.
One
of the great things about Lincoln was his attitude. And one of the great stories indicating such
comes out of a visit Lincoln and his associates paid to General McClellan on
November 13, 1861 in order to discuss strategy.
The President waited patiently for some time for the general to return
from a reception. When the general
arrived home, he was told the President was waiting to see him, but he walked
down the hall and up the stairs to his bedroom.
Again they told him that the President was waiting to see him. But the response was that the general had
gone to bed and couldn't be disturbed.
Lincoln never spoke of the incident, though others found out about
it. Lincoln thought McClellan was the
only leader who could truly take charge of the army. Lincoln's friends couldn't understand how he
could return in the light of McClellan's previous rudeness. In fact, McClellan was arrogant and snubbed
the Republicans in government in favor of the Democrats. Yet, Lincoln's
response? "Why, I would be willing
to hold McClellan's horse, if only he would give victory to our army."
Although he helped for a time, McClellan was one of those who gave a good first
impression, but did not follow through. Finally, on November 5, 1862, Lincoln
removed him from his position. They would face off against each other again –
in the 1864 election, in which Lincoln easily defeated him.
What are servant leaders like?
They are people who understand the
importance of awareness, listening, empathy and building community.
They understand that it is not about them, and it is not really about
you. Rather, it is about the mission.
William Cohen, who wrote The Stuff
of Heroes: The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership, said
My
research debunks the myth that many people seem to have ... that you become a
leader by fighting your way to the top. Rather, you become a leader by helping
others to the top. Helping your employees is as important, and many times more
so, than trying to get the most work out of them.[9]
They are people who do not run away
from their calling.
Abraham Maslow coined the phrase “the Jonah Complex” to describe the
person who is clearly called but refuses to answer the call. Jesus knew that
James and John, far from being obedient to their calling, were in fact
circumventing it.
Robert Greenleaf (1904-1990),
considered the grandfather of new paradigm thinking and the man who coined the
phrase “servant leadership” in a small essay in 1970, continued to teach even
in his death. On his tombstone are the words: “Potentially a good plumber
ruined by a sophisticated education.” If you are called to serve by plumbing,
then plumb.
Our Think Orange emphasis this month is on Individuality, which for them means discovering whom you were meant to be so that you can make a difference.
Our Think Orange emphasis this month is on Individuality, which for them means discovering whom you were meant to be so that you can make a difference.
They are people who understand what
it means to be last.
If that means that someone else was empowered to be first, they have
their reward.
They are people who do not use
people to get the work done, but use work to help people grow. Some of
us need to take the risk of mentoring others.
Evangelism and
Serving
Being a servant is not easy, but it
is necessary — it is essential. Look at me, says Jesus, I did not come to lead,
I came to serve. I serve God. I serve you by ransoming my life for your sake. I
am your best example, and my secret is service.
After
all of these years, Christ remains our example. In church. At home. In life. We
are challenged to lead by learning to serve, through Christ.
[1] (Mary Ann Tolbert, “How the gospel of Mark
builds character,” Interpretation, October 1993, 352-353.)
[2]
Systematic Theology Volume 3, 280-3.
[3]
Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.4] 690-1.
[4]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 424-5.
[5]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 418.
[6]
Church Dogmaitcs IV.1 [59.2] 230.
[7]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 416-7.
[8]
Church Dogmatics III.2 [45.1] 214-5.
[9]
—William Cohen, The stuff of heroes: The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership,
quoted on the Trinity Western University Web site,
twu.ca/Leadership/sl_quotes.asp.
No comments:
Post a Comment