Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: Darryl Jackson’s Challenge of ‘Servant Leaders’ Scholarship
Engaging the Bible in Mission
Theology Scholarship: Darryl Jackson’s Challenge of ‘Servant Leaders’
Scholarship
Darrell Jackson, Senior Lecturer in Missiology at Morling College, Sydney, Australia
(and former colleague of mine at the International Baptist Theological Seminary
in Prague), has published an article in line with my own thinking (albeit
independently) on the problems with the language of leadership and
servant-leadership that I would like to recommend. It is entitled, ‘For the Son of Man Did Not
Come to Lead, But to be Led: Matthew 20:20-28 and Royal Service.’[1] The article offers three points that I would
like to highlight.
First,
Jackson helps us to identify the origin of the ‘servant-leadership’ discussion
of Christian ministry. Robert Greenleaf
(1904-1990), a Quaker and a director of management research at AT&T who wrote
in the 1960s and 1970s, is apparently the source of the idea of ‘servant-leadership.’ Jackson says that Greenleaf’s ‘understanding
of servant leadership emerged intuitively whilst reading the novel Journey to the East by Hermann Hesse in
which the leadership of a mythical group of pilgrims is finally revealed to
have been in the hands of their servant, Leo. Hesse’s writings were heavily
inspired by Buddhism and Greenleaf’s Quaker beliefs readily accommodated
insights from Hesse.’
Jackson
continues,
The attraction of Greenleaf’s work
to practitioners and students of Christian leadership is obvious. He was
comfortable with the language of spirituality and faith (albeit in a Quaker
accent). Secondly, his attention to the servant nature of leadership resonates
with Old Testament passages that make reference to the servant nature of the
Messiah as well as to New Testament understandings of the person and ministry
of Jesus of Nazareth. Thirdly, he was encouraged and invited to address his
thinking directly to Christian organisations, including theological colleges
and seminaries.’
Eventually,
with Bishop Bennett Sims, Greenleaf established the Institute for Servant Leadership in North Carolina.
A
second contribution that Jackson makes is his examination of a number of
authors who have attempted to interpret Christian ministry in terms of servant
leadership. He examines how they differ
and how they attempt to use Scripture for their theories. Jackson helpfully points out the deficiencies
in their hermeneutics and exegesis.
Jackson’s
third contribution in his essay is a more focussed study of Mt. 20.20-28
(paralleled in Mk. 10.35-45). With
reference to Warren Carter’s Matthew and
Empire: Initial Explorations (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 2001), Jackson examines the meaning of Mt. 20.20-28 as a
critique of the power and authority witnessed in the Roman Empire. This is helpful, although Matthew also
articulates the problems of religious leadership in Israel (especially Mt. 23
and in the passion story). Moreover, John
the Baptist’s ministry involved a confrontation with Herod Antipas over divorce
and remarriage that ended in John’s death.
Yet Jackson is, in my view, correct in his conclusion that ‘Humility and
sacrificial service are not steps to greatness, they are greatness that is the hallmark of the Kingdom of God, of Jesus’
messianic rule.’ Again, Jackson says,
‘In referring to the Gentile rulers’ abuse of power (Mat 20:25), Jesus
re-conceives status in the messianic community or kingdom (20:21) as bonded
service (20:26).’ Jackson’s challenge of servant-leadership studies leads him
to suggest understanding ministry in terms of ‘servantship’.
[1] Darrell Jackson, 'For the Son of Man Did Not Come to Lead but to be Led: Matthew 20:20-28 and Royal Service,' in Servantship: Sixteen Servants on the Four Movements of Radical Servanship,' ed. Graham Hill (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013).
Comments