Public Service

I realised not too far back that I made a big mistake more than a decade ago. It's not easily recognisable as such, which perhaps explains why I made it and never felt I had made a mistake for so many years.

It is said that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it (or at least, some of its more horrible iterations). I have realised that those who know history might still not learn their lessons in time. (Think Trotsky and Stalin, and how old Stalin was obsessed with Trotsky all his life, even after getting him icepicked to death.)

My grandfather had five sons (four and one adopted). One died young, but the other four flourished. Three became civil servants, in two of the great areas of altruistic service: health and education. One took a more direct approach to service, and went into an area that all would recognize as God's work.

I look at my students, and I look at myself. And I see that if you begin with the premise that the chief end of man is to love God and serve Him forever, then your career must be the movement from one act of service to another. It is not a trajectory to be plotted by men, nor a plan of self-aggrandizement to be plotted by you; although you might not see either of these coming, they are common traps.

My grandfather died in harness, working to the last dregs of his full consciousness as a medical man and a churchman. His career was not one of endless promotions and what others might consider milestones, although his sons, in time, eventually were granted such honours.

It's not wealth or honour, but the life of service that is the key. My mistake was when I left the service of the larger community to become a servant to an institution that kept tempting me with promotions in exchange for integrity. Fortunately, God granted me amelioration through service that could make use of my gifts. I might have served better elsewhere, amongst the less affluent and those who needed more of my time.

But I am free now, and I will try to serve. For those of my students who might chance across this sad little post, I hope that you too will remember that the service comes first and the honours and stuff come later. If you hear your relatives tell you, "Look at Uncle So-and-So, he drives an Aston Martin Lagonda now!" and try to con you into adopting a career that allows for such a lifestyle, remember that you must first choose a career that will allow you to serve and change lives for the better.

The other trap is a more insidious one. It's the one where you label yourself 'Doctor' or 'Teacher' or 'Lawman' and feel good that you are serving God. Remember, you only serve God as much as you are serving others. It isn't given to you to rule over others or to be proud that you have the role you have. It is given to you to work out a life of service, regardless of the label hung around your neck. If people label you, you might reply, "And so I am," but you are also more than that.

We are all more than what labels convey. We are children of the Highest, born for service and for mutual survival against the might of the Enemy, the blandishment of the World, the weakness of the Flesh. And because we are more than what labels convey, words are not enough to say it all — but they will serve, and so must we.

Word of the Day: Devoir

This is a rare word in English. The idea of devoir stems from medieval French, in which it connotes a duty to be carried out as a token of respect, whether from a superior to an inferior or vice versa. Perhaps one of the more common contexts in which I have seen this word is the motto, "Simple dans ma vertu, forte dans mon devoir." It is the motto of several religious orders, and can be found emblazoned on the crests of many Catholic schools and convents.

The phrase is often translated, "Simple in virtue, steadfast in duty." This translation is pretty good, as such things go, but I think it sometimes hides three key elements. The first is that 'simple virtue' is not as simple as it seems; the 'simple' here means 'without artifice or complication'. Perhaps the best way to think of it is to read Ecclesiastes 7:29, which says as if in counterpoint, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

The second is that 'forte' does indeed imply a kind of staying power, but it also can imply dynamic strength. 'Forte' has been translated as 'strong' in many texts, and 'strong in my devotion' is as good a translation as any – which brings us to the third point, and back to devoir.

Devoir is that service which is owed for reasons of respect. It is as much the duty of the inferior to serve the superior as it is the reverse. What irks me a great deal is to see this balance destroyed by superiors who forget that 'administration' means 'service'. To speak of an 'administrative service' is to speak with redundancy, for what else should administrators do but serve? I can only say that if the Golden Rule is a statement of eternal justice (or even if it is merely one of ethical philosophy), then many who act as lords and masters have a lot of unpleasantness coming their way.

This is because those who fail in devoir will fall into calumny for their gross negligence. Best then, that we all learn to respect one another, with that sense of devotion that comes from every person's human duty. For the third point really is that the motto makes it personal: it is my virtue, it is my devoir — mine, yours, and that of every blessed one of us all.

Leadership

I think the greatest conundrum facing the modern Christian lies in this one word. Too often, we are bombarded by alternative meanings of the word 'leadership' that have nothing to do with any Christian model - meanings from the world of commerce, business, trade and economics; meanings from the world of politics, governance, administration and management; meanings from sociology, anthropology, psychology and zoology.

Let's cut to the chase. What is a Christian leader? There are many words translated thusly in the New Testament - words which would come across most directly as 'hegemon' (ruler), 'overseer', 'governor' or 'archon' (primus inter pares). None of these are used of Jesus, the 'author and finisher of our faith'.

There is no doubt that there are many appointed by God or by men to fulfil these roles, but there is equal certainty that the Messiah promised in Isaiah sometimes produced different images in the minds of men - images which some of us still retain falsely. In a few verses like Isaiah 55:4, the Messiah is seen as a leader and commander of his people. But even this is eclipsed by the many more verses which show him as a willing sacrifice, a scapegoat for the sins of his people.

So what is leadership? Leadership is a lesser role than that of servant. To be a servant is to serve without leadership in any sense but that your example makes others want to serve as well. To be a servant in such a way as to minister to others, to give of your self, to suffer and to take on burdens beyond the bearing of others, to forgive wrongs, to defy despair - these are the great things of the servant that a leader will never be able to touch.

But the church has need of leaders too, the people appointed as the outriders and guardians of the flock, to do the mundane chores of administration, seecurity, governance, finance and such like. It is telling that the gifts of the spirit separate leadership (governance) from apostleship, preaching, teaching and even encouragement. It is only the world that demands a leader should have all these things as well. No; a leader is a sergeant-at-arms, the political boss whose job it is to ensure turnout on the final day of voting, the person who runs the commissary and the refectory. He is no prophet, no preacher, no teacher - and conversely, a person with such a greater gift must consider seriously if he should be a administrator at all, unless that is his gift.

Administrative skill isn't everything. In a world of hierarchies and worldly powers, of thrones and dominations, of rulers (does anyone remember how God treated the Israelites who wanted a king?) and those who would lord it over others, it might seem to be a great thing; indeed, in some countries, the Administrative Service is the senior instrumentality of state.

But this is not the most excellent way. And so I must regretfully say that the idea of 'servant leadership' is (or has been transformed by human venality into) a bad modern idea which builds its ragged nest upon the true kingship of the greatest servant of all.