A while back I received a document sent to me from my aunt. It was a very short handwritten letter from the district registrar in the Land Registry Office in Nelson, B.C. It was originally sent to my great – grandfather regarding property he owned. The district registrar who had written the letter had facilitated something or other for great – grandpa Charlie and was reporting on that service. As I look at the handwritten letter, what strikes me is its salutation. It is worded, “I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant.” This is followed with the man’s personal signature and nothing else, no officious title or anything like that. The document is dated Oct. 1, 1919.
I have received letters from all kinds of civil servants over the years. None of them have ever ended that way. Usually I am lucky to get a “yours sincerely.” And of course the signature, which is quite often computer rendered, is overshadowed by the person’s title which is long and often sounds like they are an executive vice president even when they are an office clerk. And the body of the letter is seldom reporting on a service preformed for me but more often than not it is threatening a service that will be performed on me if I don’t get off the pot and bend over backwards to satisfy something or other the bureaucrat thinks I need to do to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy. The body of the letter and its salutation is most often authoritative in tone and more than just a tad threatening. There is no doubt the servant is serving the bureaucracy and not little old me.
What has happened to the institution of government and its civil servants in just four generations?
When did it become unfashionable, or worse, not required, for civil servants to serve the needs of the constituents of society rather than primarily serving the needs of the institution of government?
As I ruminate over this question I can’t help but think about other institutions, too. There are many one could mention but since this is a church magazine, let’s look at the church. Our Presbyterian Church is definitely an institution and its bureaucracy, made up of a hierarchy of church courts with their attendant committees, agencies and offices, is quite immense. Recently, in fact at the last two General Assemblies, there was a thrust to encourage—no, that’s putting it way too soft—to legislate the church institution and the people who work within its bureaucracy to serve the local congregation and its missions in fulfilling the work of Christ. Whatever else this means, I take it to mean that all people who work within the church’s bureaucracy shift their efforts from administration for the sake of the institution to service for the sake of the people and congregations in doing the mission of Christ.
Not to put too sharp a point on it, it requires a major shift to a servant model of leadership. This does not require another institutional reorganization, of which we have had several over the past three decades in the PCC, but the much more difficult attitudinal shift in the people who work within the church’s bureaucracy at all levels from national to local. What does this look like?
I am not one noted for hanging out at General Assemblies, but I did once, several years ago. The moderator at that particular assembly had the usual task of refereeing a great controversy over something or other that I completely forget now. But I will never forget this: An elderly woman had something to say on the subject, was very emotional and was having a great deal of difficulty wading her way through the usual dog – collared hubris that was knee deep in the place. When she did finally get to use the microphone she began to break down with frustration, nervousness and passion. She was completely unable to speak.
Suddenly it was as though there were only her and the moderator of the assembly in the room. I still don’t know how the moderator managed it but in about one sentence he instantly changed the tenor in the room so that the woman knew, and every person in the room knew, too, that he was there to serve her, to encourage and equip and allow her to freely speak. It was amazing; it was Christ like. I was shocked to witness it in this context.
To me, that’s what it looks like. It is in fact servant leadership. Howard Young writing in Enrichment Journal succinctly describes it: “Unselfish servant leadership refuses to rest on the inherent power of a position and desires to empower and release others for ministry. Servant leadership focuses on the needs and growth of those being led, not the needs of those who are leading.”
What could it look like for us? There are a thousand possible examples that come to my mind that could apply to the Presbyterian Church’s bureaucracy. Randomly chosen, here are just a few possible and theoretical examples that may already be happening.
It could look like a person in the Committee on Education and Reception going the extra mile to serve people who feel a call to serve Christ in ordered ministry instead of merely policing them by maintaining the rules of the General Assembly. Instead of, “you must do this,” or “you don’t qualify because of that” it could become “how can we help you fulfill your call?”
It could look like a person in the Life and Mission Agency who responds to a shrinking rural church that is having trouble with finances by offering to help in raising the funds, or perhaps even better, help by way of linking the congregation with a more prosperous church looking to support a mission directly rather than through Presbyterians Sharing, which they are already fully subscribed to.
It could look like a presbytery clerk who challenges the Book of Forms and the court rather than merely enforcing the rules, where there is good reason, so that a ministry or mission or person receives real help to fulfill their mandate for Christ. (I actually saw this in a rather neat way just a while back and it nearly blew my mind).
What the last two General Assemblies were wrestling with, I believe, is our church’s penchant for seeking institutional health through structural reorganization and an increasingly top – down leadership approach. What was being looked for instead was servant leadership at all levels of the church through an attitudinal shift towards the example of Christ (John 13:12 – 17). What was expected was that persons in authority or persons working for committees and agencies of authority, from the local pastor on up through all the institutional structures, seek the mind of Christ to become servants of the servants of God (Philippians 2:5 – 8). I think this requires a radical shift. I wonder, are we really up for the change?
