Edward C. Zaragoza. No Longer Servants, But Friends: A Theology of Ordained Ministry. Abingdon, 1999.
It almost always works out that way. Just when you thought you had a handle on it, somebody changes the rules, or at least the context. I had been in seminary only a few weeks when I figured out the codeword that made everything work. Whenever asked to describe what the pastor’s role was, the answer was “enabler.” The pastor was to enable the laity to fulfill their roles. It was not until later, until after exposure to some of the concepts of AA, that I realized that “enabler” carried some negative connotations. Unfortunately, those connotations to the concept of ministry as enabler are applicable.
Professor Zaragoza challenges the idea of servant leadership. Locating its origins in the business world, Zaragoza counters with a critique from liberation theology that sees servant leadership as another form of control. He suggests that a better paradigm can be found in Jesus’ assertion, “I call you no longer servants, but friends” and reminds ministers that although we are called to be servants of Christ, we are not Christ. The paradigm of friendship eliminates both the doormat theology of popularly construed servant theology as well as the servant leadership control model of the business world. Friends are able to offer their gifts and graces to friends in novel ways and through invitations to “come and see.” Zaragoza only suggests, allowing the reader to continue the dialogue.
A Southern Theology
Zaragoza calls for a contextual (liberation) theology, one through the eyes of our experience over against the dominant culture. I wonder what a truly Southern theology looks like? Some of the features of the Southern ethos, its paternalism and extreme patriotism and nationalism are increasingly at odds with the growing urbanism and cosmopolitanism. How do these equate with roots in the land when we are becoming more and more uprooted? Somehow I am reminded of the myths of the yeoman farmer culture vis a vis the myth of antebellum planter society. Which was the true Old South or are both true in a land where during a single lifetime a woman could help clear the land and fight off the Indians and also live to become the grand dame presiding over a bevy of antebellum belles a la Scarlett O’Hara. Of course, Granny dipped snuff and would not have recognized the stereotypical southern belle. There were many Souths and still are. Each comes equipped with its own mythologies and manners. As it confronts the perceived dominant culture, it adapts and changes those mythologies in order to deal with the new realities. Yet, some things remain frightenly consistent. A Marxist methodology would no doubt expose the changing yet constant face of the South’s xenophobia, racism, and resistance to change.
How does the typical middle class Southerner who works 9 to 5 at a urban/suburban job in order to have a small farm, garden, a few cows, or to aspire to quiet country life perceive his/her life theologically? What do they think they need to be delivered from; who are their enemies? How does fundamentalism in religion and neo-conservatism in politics address these perceived needs or do they only give them lip service, as so many previous Southern formulations have done?
Oh, what fun! Let the hunt begin!
A Community of Equals
The idea of the church as friends, a community of equals empowered by the mutuality of its love, is subversive of all hierarchies (husband/wife, slave/master) including those of the church itself.
In analyzing the church as a hierarchy of power, one would note the capability for oppression inherent in a system where one side is bound by vows of obedience (surrender?) while the hierarchy is maintains political and economic control. If this control is also demanded unquestioningly, then that obedience belongs only to God. It is ironic that the earliest church made its first placement decision by agreeing to basic requirements among candidates and then casting lots. Leaves a lot up to chance, or to God.
On the same basis, one could analyze our Methodist system which at worst is authoritarian and at best, utilitarian. In spite of our best political considerations, in what ways does this system promote the inequality of clergy and laity? Some would say one side is definitely winning; others, the other.
Ordination arises out of community as the community sets aside individuals for specific (a better word than special although it is that also) work – Word, Sacrament, Order, and Service. I believe the list was shorter back when I was ordained. But is the ordained primarily a servant of the community or of God in the community? When you consider this the picture of friends walking together is very attractive.
Sacrifices of the servant/slave are not necessarily those that she might choose. This is complicated by the sacrifices that any system will demand for the sake of the system in order to make the system either functional or comfortable (or profitable?) At this point, where is the question of accountability? Probably pointed in the wrong direction.
4/27/05