Last weekend I went to a going away party an hour away for a friend who's going to spend six months in Africa for an internship. On the trip I went with two people I'd never met before; one was a guy from Kenya.
On the way home we started talking about the politics of Kenya, Uganda, and Swaziland, and he ran down the list of past presidents since Kenyan independence. "This guy was a good leader, this one was not," my friend Jonathan said.
"So what makes a good leader?" I asked.
He decided that a good leader is someone who listens to the needs of a variety of groups (there are 40 different representative cultures in Kenya) and not just his own group earns the respect of the people. He (or she) does not take bribes or give in to corruption, and does not build for himself large palaces or drive expensive cars while the rest of the country is starving. A good leader is a servant of the people, and gets things done that are tangible (whether these are improved roads or new businesses).
One of the ideas that Stephen Lawhead talks about in his Celtic and Arthurian trilogies is the idea of sovereignty, that the king serves the land and serves the people. There is a relationship between the two, and a good leader understands this. The people give the king/queen the authority to rule, but in his (or her) rule, they have the responsibility to protect and give back to the people.
As Enemy pointed out, Arthur was this kind of king. I also saw the movie Tristan and Isolde a week ago, but before that also read the book (a few years ago). The tension of sovereignty comes under question here too. Tristan wins Isolde, and is in love with her, but is loyal to his king, who marries her. Herein lies the conflict: should one be loyal to their feelings and love, or loyal to their king? King Mark isn't a bad guy. He loves Tristan. He loves Isolde. Tristan loves them both, and so does Isolde. The problem isn't one of loving one and hating another, but loving both but having to choose. These become some of the hardest choices of all.
But back to Celtic Britain, to Arthur, and to the idea of sovereignty. This is one of the Celtic ideas I've come to love. When a sovereign remembers this relationship between the land, the people, and the kingship and is a self sacrificing servant of the people who thinks of their welfare over his own, then things go well. But when a sovereign forgets this, and sees the people as there to serve him or her, and a birthright rather than a mandate, then the land, the people, and the kingship begin to sicken.
Does this sovereignty exist in other relationships? In marriage, in family, in business? I think so. Is the "leadership" given to a man in marriage the role of servant leadership? To think of his wife's and children's needs over his own, to work to protect and shelter them, to ensure that home is a haven, a safe and comfortable place, and to sacrifice himself through loving them? I think this is what is intended. In homes where the man lords authority over his wife and kids, intimidates them, abuses them physically, sexually, or emotionally, something sickens, the mandate is broken, and everyone suffers.
I'd like to think through this idea more of sovereignty. Thanks again, Enemy, for some great thoughts, and am hoping to hear others sound off.
