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.
7 comments:
I have to run and do some stuff, but I will write more on this: I've been thinking a lot about Charlemagne as well. Read Luxexorient's blog Faith and Empire, particularly for his Caesar post--I wonder what you will think. It was nice talking to you, by the way. I will add to this discussion; by the way, do you know Epic and Empire by Peter Quint?
In a way, Arthur lost through his loyalty to sovereignty (sp) by putting his kingdom before the needs of his wife. Lancelot also failed to be a Tristan because he was ultimately unfaithful to his ruler, even when he was at first commanded to do so (if that myth is true). Sometimes a leader cannot be everything to the people he most loves, but he can command the loyalty of those he serves. That may be one reason why Paul thought marriage was a bad idea; it interfered with Christian leadership in his opinion.
My husband talks of leadership a lot, partly because he was a drill sergeant and also because of his interest in war and political science. As you can imagine, he has nothing but the most withering contempt for our President, yet he prays for him. I have noted throughout our marriage that his preoccupation with sovereignty has often led to alientation rather than bonding between us--not because he bosses me around, but but he grows very cold when he feels that he is in charge of something. I often wonder if that is what Guenivere felt and it made her turn to Lancelot, along with the despair of many miscarriages. A great leader is not a perfect human being, and charisma can be a terrible enemy, especially if it can get people as putty in your hand. Arthur was not like that, but these people exist, particularly in the Christian faith of all denominations from pastor to unfaithful spouse--this can lead to the breakup of the church, the family and the other spouse's belief in revenge. We are imperfect folk; even Dr. King, a man I truly admire, had trouble with his own family. What of the weak minded person who fashions himself a leader, but has proven himself (I use male voice because it seems to be the pronoun you encourage)to be weak when power through manipulation or sheer charm leads him into the wrong path. That person is a follower, and there is nothing wrong with that once his delusions of leadership cease. That is a problem (I'm drifting a bit here, but you did introduce the topic) of men as heads of household. A lot of men can't handle it, and when there is a power vacuum, someone else will step in: a domineering wife, a misuesed faith in a stagnent religion or even outsiders who have no place in the relationship (in-laws, friends). I've seen it. This can be transferred to many political leaders whose police enforcers or whips really become the leaders. A Charlemagne, an Arthur, a Henry II is rare, just like a good marriage.
Wow. Thanks for the comment. Let me think this one through before responding. You raised some great points. I've seen a lot of people who were great leaders, great at work, but horrible with their kids and spouses and alienated their families. I saw grown adults who were like, "Yeah, Dad's got 6-10 books on the shelf with his name on it, but I hate him."
Saw Life as a House over the weekend. It's a great movie that explores the absent parent/child relationship in some neat ways.
Ok, you keep thinking and I'm waiting for the response. By the way, that movie is one of my favorites. It made me cry.
I think of my pastor who has 4 kids and is about to have his fifth. He is a great pastor, and what I like best about him is that he admits that he can be a lousy parent: he lacks patience, he has anger, he feels like his kids are an iron chain around his waist. I even saw him get upset at one of his sons, so I knew he wasn't saying it for our benefit to prove how human he was. Now some churches might think he was awful, but the man grew in my eyes because he was honest about his shortcomings. He is also a great preacher and a wonderful guy to talk to.
Hi Fatty,
Thanks for posting. What does serving from below mean? I'm interested, but would like to know more.
Okay, you should be back soon. So I want a post! I missed your cyberspace self.
Where is this new blog entry? I want to read the wisdom of Cliff. By the way, just got a new computer--details later.
Post a Comment