Work / Time

In several of my circles, "spiritual leadership" is the hot phrase. Its meaning is similar to the "leadership" buzzword so popular today, except applied to spiritual matters. I made the mistake of using the phrase the other day to a friend, who promptly asked me "So what is spiritual leadership?" And I had the privilege of sitting there with a blank expression while I tried to sort out what the phrase meant. Eventually, I'm sure my musings will wander to the dangerous turf of male-female relationships, and I'll get ample opportunity to irritate both my liberal and conservative readership.

But for tonight, I'm thinking about the fundamental aspect of leadership: Leadership is the exercise or restraint of power. Here's some power most of us have - and restrain - on a daily basis:
- Make a stranger cry by telling her she's fat.
- Ruin a boss' day and walk out on the job.
- Ruin a random stranger's day by smashing their windshield with a sledgehammer.
- Ruin someone's life by driving your car into theirs at high speed. (Even driving large vans at low speeds can be mildly traumatic.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we don't exercise these powers. But I tend to forget what power is mine. One quality I often appreciate about my liberal friends is that they are (generally) more sensitive to the collective power and wrongs of the society, and individual contribution toward those wrongs. They look at the societal treatment of women, the poor, or the environment, and can clearly see the significant abuses of power happening.

My impression is that as Americans, we are a bit uncomfortable with spirituality involving power management. We're not comfortable with power differentials within society: We're mostly trained to be individuals, and to be in control of our own life. We're a democracy, not a kingdom. We don't have nobles or serfs. We don't need to be apprentices to learn a trade. In fact, my generation is one of the first to be able to acquire knowledge without the assistance of someone older. Even our lawsuit minded-approach to problems revolves around the premise: I have the right and power to get my way.

Very few aspects of American life require us to put our wellbeing in someone else's hands. Graduate students may come close with their advisors: Until your advisor is satisfied with your research, one is (mostly) stuck. The army is another such aspect. But by and large, our lives maintain the appearance of being independent of others.

At its heart, though, I think spiritual leadership is about power: What power do I choose to give up to God? What power do I choose to give to others? What power do I choose not to use? What power do I choose to use? Peter writes this:

Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older.

Wow. It is constructive (for me) to look at the context to figure out what Peter means by "in the same way". It is not a very American idea today. American tends to portray its olders as being a bit old-fashioned, a bit out of touch, a bit conservative. And American encourages young men to blaze their own trail and to live their own dream. I wonder how many young men have sat down with their pastor, looked him in the eye, and asked "How can I make you successful?" And how many of those men have then been willing to be faithful to making that pastor succeed?

(As a side note, I find this concept of men being under authority is very relevant to the male-female gender role discussion. The fact that many men choose to ignore it is another topic all together...)