What option do we have? Silence or arrogance

In 1993, a female friend shared the experience she had earlier that day in her third-year university class.  The discussion was between a couple of middle-aged male and female students.  The conversation evolved from generalities to particularities and got very personal and heated.  They were discussing the tension between the law and the human rights and should the law be interpreted and evaluated regularly to ensure that it recognises and thus remains impartial to every member of the society.  Interestingly, the males argued that interpretation and evaluation of the law will make it ineffective and irrelevant while females held their ground and spoke with great passion and clarity about the importance for the law to reflect societal and cultural evolution. 

During lunch in the common room, a male student, from another year, chastised the female students as they had argued with the men.  He talked about their voice and demeanour while completely absolving the men from their discriminatory statements and attitude towards women, children and visible minorities.  The advocate wanted the women to apologise to the men for their arrogance and attitude towards men.  The disgusting aspect, according to my friend, was women were expected to apologise and to take the responsibility for invoking the racist, misogynist and discriminatory attitude of these men.  In other words, she continued, her existence, attitude, intelligence or mere presence, as a woman, invokes misogyny and her silence and unconditional agreement are the only acceptable and respectful behaviours.     

Unfortunately, women, indigenous people of Canada, people living with disabilities, person of colour (visible minority), and members of LGBTQ community can relate to this incident because of their own experience of subjugation and discrimination. 

I am certain that if asked male students will vehemently argue that they are not racist, sexist or misogynist and they believe in equal rights for every person in the world. Sadly, they are, in my opinion, absolutely right because of the societal and cultural expectations and norms.  Our society has concentrated not only the power in white men but has also defined and normalised our attitudes towards everyone who is not a white man.  This attitude is so ingrained in us that we do not even realise it.  How many times have you crossed the road when you saw an indigenous or a man of colour walking towards you at night or have been surprised and commented on your safety when you saw that it is a female pilot flying the aircraft or a female surgeon operating on you or your loved one?  Finally, Archbishop Linda Nicholls shattered the glass ceiling when she became the first female bishop to be elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

I face prejudice and racism on a regular basis because of my heritage. I have been asked if I am loyal to Canada.   I have been questioned about my attitude towards Christians and if it is ok to be wished Merry Christmas (as it was assumed, I might be Muslim).   I have been asked if I am a wife beater and have consistently been subjected to extra scrutiny at the airport.  In the church world, a cleric told me in 2012, after my impassioned speech to the synod of the diocese to accept the motion  to offer blessing to married same sex couple, that she was nervous when I walked to the microphone as I am a logical and persuasive speaker and debater and I would convince the synod to defeat the motion.  But to her surprise, I spoke for the motion.  The most frequent comment I hear, from white middle-aged men, is that I am arrogant as I speak with passion and forthrightly and it makes them uncomfortable and that they feel slighted and insulted by me.  In every incident, the speaker has assured me that they are not racist and they are not suppressing my voice.  In fact, they have argued, that they are doing this for my benefit.  When asked, if they have spoken to other equally arrogant (white men) the answer is, ‘you know it’s them, they do not intend any harm and you should accept them’.  So, I am arrogant for speaking passionately and unless I quieten down, cool down or be silent I can expect to be shunned or shuffled to the side-line where I will hopefully remain silent.  When I am asked to the table, I now question the motive.  Is my input really wanted or does it make the table look more diverse?

Is arrogance an asset or liability?  Apparently, it is both depending on the ethnic origin and the gender of the speaker.  And it will remain this way until we challenge the psyche of our culture and start seeing and accepting people for who they are instead of their gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.  Until that day, what option do I have?  I am torn between the choice to be silent or to be deemed arrogant, forthright and passionate.

                                                                                                                   

Uniformity or Unity in Diversity?

‘Cultivating and nurturing a culture of inclusion’, has been the vision and mission, of the parish where I am serving, for the past three years.  We arrived at this statement during the interim period and through deliberate and focussed discussions, dialogues and assessment of the congregation, neighbourhood and the city.  I am delighted and humbled to note that we have taken concrete steps to realise this vision in our own time and through our own efforts.

While we have made significant progress through the re-configuration of the sanctuary and  to being open to learn about human sexuality and mental health issues, we must not stop or believe that we have arrived, rather we should remember and live out the words of a traveler on a snowy evening, ‘I have miles to go before I sleep, I have miles to go before I rest’.  This simple yet profound line by Robert Frost reminds us that our journey with God and his people is without end and whenever we think we have arrived – God shows us yet another way to reach out to the world and (in our case) continue to cultivate a culture of inclusion.

As you know, our business meetings, at the parish, diocesan level and beyond, make decisions by following a rule of simple majority voting on a resolution.  In some cases, like financial reports etc., that is the only way to move forward and to give legitimacy to the reports.  However, when it comes to the doctrinal or missional issues and plans, I believe simple majority does move us forward but either leave or suppress the voices, conviction and faith of those who voted against it.  As a result, dissenting voices (both who won and who lost a resolution) can suppress, ridicule and trounce upon the theology and the faith of the other in order to either malign or convert to their way of thinking.  This was and continues to be the case in an ongoing debate and saga with regards to the equal marriage.

This desire to convert and to malign the other and to walk away from dialogue and conversation, in my opinion, is a symptom of a much larger problem with our understanding of ‘unity’ of the body of Christ.  Unfortunately, ‘uniformity’ has been equated with and presented as the fundamental principle and foundation of ‘unity’.  Uniformity at all cost has hurt the church more than we would like to know and acknowledge.

The church has never spoken with a uniformed voice.  The Acts of the Apostles highlights the way early church resolved the issues and disagreements among the apostles and the disciples.  They resolved it by speaking out and in some cases poaching members from the other groups but never losing sight of their purpose and mission in the world.  And their purpose and mission in the world was to preach the Gospel and to live out the commandment of Jesus to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked and to visit the sick and the prisoners.  In other words, diverse voices and opinions found common ground and vision to be the church in a hurting and unsettled world.

‘Inclusion’ means that we will include everyone regardless of our differences and agreements with them and will equip them to serve God and his people to the best of their abilities.  It also implies that our unity is in our diversity.  It also demands listening ears and discerning hearts so we can learn and sojourn with one another regardless of our theological positions

Servant Leader and Leadership

Servant leader and leadership has become a catch phrase to define leadership of a priest and a bishop.  I learned this phrase and model in the first year of my theological education and since then have come across this model or vision many a times in different context and places.

Since 1991, I have been reflecting on this image.  During that time, I have questioned the absurdity of this phrase; servant and leader in a same sentence is contradictory to say the least in a society and culture which craves power and authority through nefarious and legal ways.  However, to a religious and spiritual mind, it presents itself as a way to live and to exercise our authority and leadership.

Prophet Nehemiah through his life, witness and ministry provides us with enormous insight into servant leadership.  Nehemiah was a devout and righteous man who wept bitterly at the state of the holy city of Jerusalem.  Instead of letting emotions and sadness cripple him, Nehemiah used his influence in the court of King Artaxerxes to facilitate return of the exiles and the building of the walls of Jerusalem.  He was able to achieve this because he was a cupbearer to the king (Nehemiah 1:11b).  Being a cupbearer to the king was indeed a position of influence and depicted trust of the king in Nehemiah.  Cupbearers not only served wine but were also privy to the most intimate conversations and thoughts of the king.  Moreover, king trusted them to serve the best wine and to make sure nothing untoward will happen to the king and his family.  Certainly, Nehemiah was a trusted confidante and servant of a king.

Naaman was a commander of the Syrian army (2 Kings 5).  He had fought and won many battles for the king.  In spite of all battlefield success and prestige, Naaman, because of leprosy, was staring at a lonely, painful and miserable end to his life.  His story, however, has a fairy tale ending as he was cured of leprosy and was made whole by Prophet Elisha.  Now, his curing and healing happened because of his wife’s Jewish servant girl.  This unnamed servant girl looked at the affliction of Naaman and effect leprosy had on his family.  Instead of rejoicing at the misery of her mistress; she had compassion on her and told her about Prophet Elisha.  Servant Girl lived out the expectation and trust of this family and offered them the best gift she could give to them in spite of her own condition and without any expectation.

Jesus saw servant and servanthood as the basis of leadership, authority and greatness (Matthew 23:11).  Jesus after washing his disciples’ feet at the last supper, instructed them to do the same for one another (John 13:14-17).  By doing so Jesus presented humility as one of the foundational principle for servanthood and greatness. 

‘Authority lies in the Jurisdiction’ and ‘Church is synodically governed and episcopally led’ are two of the guiding principles (modus operandi) of Anglicanism.  Both principles (in my opinion) are inter-dependent on one another as they relate to the leadership and authority of diocesan bishop and synod.  ‘Authority lies in the Jurisdiction’ simply defined means that diocesan boundary is a jurisdiction and authority to define ministry and mission, for the diocese, lies within it.  This authority is exercised by the synod under the leadership of the diocesan bishop as synod presents its decisions to the bishop for his/her consent.  By doing so, bishop is acknowledged as the leader of the diocese.  The precepts of episcopal leadership and pastoral responsibility are succinctly defined and highlighted in the Examination of the bishop-elect (BAS Pg 636-637).

The life and witness of Nehemiah and the servant girl along with the teachings of Jesus present a way for a bishop to exercise his/her authority and leadership in the diocese.  It should be noted that leaders are called to lead through humility and servanthood and should be willing to serve through their leadership, directives, guidance and witness.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s fictional character Aragorn (Lord of the Rings) embodied and personified servant leader and leadership.  Aragorn, although an heir to the throne of king, made it his mission to earn the trust of the hobbits, elves, wizards and human beings of the middle earth.  Aragorn earned the trust and the respect by exhibiting through words and actions; his genuine care for his friends and subjects.  Many a times, Aragorn put his own life and well-being in danger to protect and serve others.  By bowing down to lowly four hobbits at the time of his coronation, Aragorn openly admitted and acknowledged the absolute courage and contribution of the hobbits to overcome evil and to defeat Saruman and Sauron and thus shared the victory, honour and adulations with the hobbits.

Episcopal office affords great responsibility and opportunity for to create servant leadership by:  First, engendering and earning trust of clerics and laity (both churched and unchurched).  Second, showing genuine care, concern and earnest desire to support others, regardless of their relationship or lack thereof with the diocese and the bishop.  Third, placing the welfare of others, before his/her own welfare, and nurturing ministry and leadership of others. Fourth acknowledging talents and gifts of others and affording them an opportunity to exercise those gifts and talents.

It should be noted and upheld that cultivation and nurturing of Servant leadership is a responsibility of everyone in ministry.  Bishop at the time of induction/celebration of new ministry of a rector or incumbent, entrusts his/her charge (parish) to the care and leadership of the appointed rector/incumbent.  By doing so, bishop calls and invites a priest to care for the parish and to be a servant-leader in the parish to the best of his/her abilities.

Master said, ‘whosoever wants to be the greatest must be the servant of all’.  Servanthood is not a choice; it is an expectation and commandment of the Master.

** Note:  This essay was written at the request of the present Diocesan Bishop