Genderstanding Leadership

Chapter 3 TAKING CHARGE: Leading with Consequences Vashti. One name. One word. One woman. A name whispered in Christian circles by women who are frustrated with masculinist ideologies that hinder their progress, participation and purpose. In the history of human-kind, is there any woman who commands such tacit respect through her total disgrace? A woman whose name stirs up courage and empathy although she had been banished? Vashti’s victory lives on in the hushed halls of religious structures and in the dogged determination of women with the courage to stand up for what is right, even in the face of impending doom. The key words are dignity; self-confidence; self-responsibility; and personal authority. Not one, but seven chamberlains had come to escort the beautiful Queen Vashti so that her husband King Ahasuerus could show her off in front of his drunken friends. He was a powerful King, celebrating with his equally powerful princes and friends. The laws of the land prohibited a woman from being seen by men, but the laws of the kingdom also demanded blind obedience to the King. Under the powerful and deceptive guidance of alcohol, King Ahasuerus commanded, not only that his Queen appear in the company of men, but that she appear unveiled. Some extreme interpretations claim that the king actually ordered Vashti to appear in the nude to display her exquisite beauty. Queen Vashti, however, was not buying into his royal idiocy. She sent back an incredibly bold response that she was not going to appear before the King and his friends. To disobey the powerful king was a crime in itself. But to disobey him and to challenge his rule in front of his friends was suicidal. The fact that she was his Queen was even more shocking because of the message it sent…a message that did not go unnoticed by the King’s friends. According to the story, it was the King’s friends and hangers-on who insisted that the he deal strenuously with Queen Vashti, because of the example she would become for the rest of the kingdom. (Esther 1:16-17) There is no indication that Vashti was a known rabble-rouser; had a history of embarrassing her husband, the King, or was power-struck and had intended to overthrow King Ahasuerus. She appears to have been a dignified woman, minding her own business, hosting her own feast in the palace, as her status of Queen required. Her bold actions, however, permit a peep into the character of this great woman that may well have been the main attraction to the King. Moreover, Vashti was an astute woman who knew her place as both woman and Queen. She understood her environment and her position within that milieu. In the midst of overwhelming, intimidating power, she recognized and drew upon the only real power she had, the power to define herself and to protect that definition of self. It is a recognition of one’s value and sense of self that guides personal choices. It is an understanding of self that guides the leadership from the inside of which leadership guru John Maxwell speaks (1999). It is captured in the popular adage: “If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.” Or, “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will lead you there.” Vashti’s principled stance is the kind of leadership that is required in this post-modern, anything goes, phase of humanity that violates the sensibilities of decent folk and challenges us all to declare who we are as practicing Christians. It is the kind of leadership in which we in the Pew -- women and men -- must be involved, if we are to be counted in the battle for social justice and the continuing struggle to ensure our own spiritual survival. Social activists call it transformational leadership. It is, too, a leadership that is inextricably linked to an understanding of power and the importance of its strategic use, concepts with which most women are usually uncomfortable. In a brilliant study of how women use power in their everyday lives, Darlington and Mulvaney (2003) outline four aspects of power. Traditional Power, with which women quickly identify, but describe as one of dominance and control. Yet, women were more comfortable and indeed practiced power styles that put greater focus on “respect, equality and mutuality,” that they indeed employed in their families and communities. These power styles they labeled: Empowerment; Personal Authority and Reciprocal Empowerment. While the writers astutely propose Reciprocal Empowerment as a concept that is more likely to bring about more harmonious and successful family and work arrangements, it is the concept of Personal Authority that demands a closer look for the purpose of this discussion. Personal Authority, as distinct from the power to control or dominate others, is the power to be self-directed and self-propelled, to take hold of the power to define, determine and control one’s own life. This is a major challenge in the midst of a world that subjects us to peer pressure and to lives that are shaped by modern ways of thinking. According to Darlington and Mulvaney, “the attributes associated with Personal Authority include self-determination, knowledge, action, choice and independence (2003: 14). It is no accident, then, that this kind of personal power is usually associated with men. While it is considered normal behavior for men, it may be interpreted as too self-serving and self-preoccupied and exercising too much self-control, when found in women. Still, it is the knowledge, intention and ability of women to take ourselves, our ideas and our contributions seriously that raise our stakes in the game, and provide the value that we must give to ourselves and to other women, if we are to bring some balance of sense and sensibility to the Christian Church. Moreover, coupled with the strategy of Empowerment and its focus on helping others to find their own source of skill and power, Personal Authority embodies the strategic action required for any serious, deep-rooted, structural change. The challenge, however, is to get to the place of a Vashti-inspired understanding of ourselves, to develop our Personal Authority, our internal power, the environment in which we are operating, and the guts to accept the often high cost and consequences of our actions. Vashti’s cost was banishment from the kingdom. Indeed a high price, but who is to tell whether the King would have blamed her for acceding to his wishes when he became sober, had she done so, and in his embarrassment, made her the victim of more deadly circumstances? There is a personal responsibility which we all have to fulfill. Women, especially, in a world that is only just beginning to accept the link between gender inequality, poverty and violence, and, if one is honest, the perceived connections to interpretations of religious teachings that subordinate women, bear a responsibility to ourselves to lead from the Pew, as we guide those in the Pulpit. *** *** ***