LOW IS HIGH



The Social Ladder
In the last chapter we viewed human interaction as a checkerboard. Actually the board isn't flat. We can think of the checkerboard standing on edge with the boxes or squares stacked upon each other like mailboxes in a post office lobby. In other words, some boxes are considerably higher than others in their importance and prestige. Another helpful symbol is a ladder. Sometimes we jokingly refer to the pecking order. In reality, it's no joke.

All of these word pictures accurately reflect the fact that society is not flat. People are not equal. We don't all live on the same social level. Some persons are much more important and distinguished than others. Stratification is the technical term for this social ranking process. It comes from geology where stratification refers to the various strata or layers of rock which are stacked up on each other. In this chapter we want to explore Christian perspectives on power and stratification.

Now some people are repulsed by the suggestion that we rank other persons on a ladder in our minds. They want to smile sweetly and think that, after all, everybody is equal. A little thinking should convince anyone that stratification is a very real and hard fact of social life. In all societies everywhere, people are ranked on various kinds of socially important ladders. A father with a son who graduates from law school bubbles over with pride when he talks with friends about his son's achievement. The same father is embarrassed to report that another one of his sons is a garbage collector. Social scientists discovered that on a scale of 1 to 90 a supreme court justice ranks number one and a shoe shiner falls -into the ninetieth rung in the minds of most people.'

Stratification doesn't apply only to occupations. Within a family, parents usually have more power and influence than their children. In a factory, the general manager is above the line foreman who is above the assembly worker. The chair- man of a committee has more prestige and power than rank and file members. Episcopalians are higher on the social prestige ladder of denominations than Pentecostals. Jews as an ethnic group wield much more political influence in American politics than Chicanos. The United States is near the top of the pile in terms of international power and influence. Nations, churches, ethnic groups, occupations, and persons are ranked and layered in our minds. Social pecking orders emerge universally in all societies. It's the nature of social man to assign unequal status to his fellow humans.

Social stratification is not just "out there" in the larger society in the form of social classes and occupational ladders. It stares most of us in the face at work each day. Increasing population density, technology, and occupational specialization contribute to the mushrooming of bureaucracies. Our modern life is more and more made up of many overlapping and complex organizations. The one thing that most large organizations have in common is a rigid ladder of social hierarchy. By nature, bureaucracies consist of specialists organized in a structure of clearly specified positions of authority. The army, of course, is the epitome of an autocratic hierarchy. The organization flow chart and managerial grid of hospitals and factories reminds us of the presence of hierarchy in our daily lives.

In colleges and universities the stacking and ranking of persons is especially obvious and rigid. At the top is the president or chancellor, followed by academic deans. Frequently there are division heads such as the chairman of the humanities. Then come departmental chairmen and three kinds of professors: full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. Next are instructors, paraprofessionals, secretaries, maintenance personnel, and housekeepers. Students come somewhere near the bottom-a bit above house- keepers.

Social scientists believe that stratification develops for a number of reasons.2 There are different jobs to do both in a society and in a department store. Persons with appropriate skills plug into the jobs that need to be done. In brief, a division of labor emerges. The various job functions need to be coordinated together. Some of the jobs are viewed by members of the society as more crucial than others. Performing surgery in a hospital is thought to be much more significant than sweeping the hospital floors. The more important jobs often require more training than the less significant ones. The financial rewards are much greater for the more highly valued roles which require longer training. The sizable prestige and paychecks attached to the top jobs entice individuals to push upward. Inequality sets in. Persons occupying the upper positions not only enjoy the applause and financial benefits of the top spots but they also control the rewards and obligations of those below them. Persons in positions of power are able to protect their own privilege and rewards and at the same time prevent others from sharing in the goodies. Although it is conceivable theoretically, it is indeed rare for power, prestige, and privilege to be equally distributed among the members of an organization.3

One of the unfortunate results of stratification is that persons are valued not as persons per se but as performers of
functions. Individuals performing important jobs like presidents, doctors, and managers are considered more valuable than those who work as shoe shiners, repairmen, and typists. In other words, people are not just people. Some are very valuable and others aren't worth much. The cold fact that underscores this truth is the weekly paycheck. Persons are paid according to their socially determined value. The paycheck is a weekly reminder of how much we are worth. Although it would be nice, it's very difficult in fact to sort out the difference between a person's "personal" worth and "financial" worth. We can tell persons that they are very important and valuable but when we turn around and pay them half as much as others, they know good and well that they're really only worth half as much as the others. The paycheck is an important determinant of our self-esteem and our perception of self-worth.

Our position on the societal ladder of stratification also makes an immense difference on our life chances. Being born into a Kennedy family or into a poor slum family makes a world of difference in whether or not we will experience mal- nutrition, infant mortality, college, prison, and mental illness. The quality of our medical care, education, work, and house are also dependent on where we happen to be born on the societal ladder.

Social Muscle
Power is a much used and abused term. It is thrown around so freely that its meaning is endangered. A few definitions may help to clean up fuzzy conceptions. In a broad sense, power is the ability to affect social life.4 It's the capacity to make things happen. In order to "make things hap- pen" we need resources such as knowledge, money, and position. The people who own and control the resources are the ones who make things happen. An important distinction can be made between individual and institutional power-in other words between John Doe's and General Motof"s ability to make things happen.
There are four major types of power based on the resources that an individual or organization has access to:
(1) Financial power emerges when an individual or organization controls economic resources. Money does speak. It makes things happen. It is one of the most important sources of power.
(2) Expert power is derived from knowledge or special information that one has. Doctors and lawyers exercise expert power over us because they control special knowledge in medicine and law.
(3) Organizational power results from a person's position within an organization. An executive vice- president has more power than a typist because of their different positions within the organizational flow chart.
(4) Personal power is based on an individual's appearance and personality traits. We are attracted to certain persons because of their pleasant interpersonal style and manner. They express a charismatic aura which appeals to us. Now if one individual or institution has access to all four types of power they are indeed very powerful. To be president, personable, wealthy, and smart is to be exceedingly powerful!
There are not only different types of power but also various ways of using power. These modes of expressing power range across a continuum from control to influence. On the control side of the continuum, the one wielding power can always determine the outcome of the power relationship in advance. In other words, the powerful person can force a subordinate to obey him. The force or coercion is real because the powerful actor controls the rewards and punishments which the weaker person receives. The boss can raise an employee's salary or fire him. In the extreme use of force the powerful person can make the underling obey because he controls the instruments of torture or death.

Influence is on the opposite side of the power expression continuum. In this situation the outcome of a power attempt can not be predetermined. Here persuasion and appeal are used to convince another person to do something. But the appealer can not force the other person to comply with his wishes. Influence can be very subtle. Advertising is one type of influence. When it manipulates symbols in a way that un- consciously makes someone buy a product, it moves toward the control end of the continuum. Asking a friend to go along swimming is an example of a pure influence attempt if the friend is certain that there will be no subtle punishment for refusing to go.

Another frequently used term related to power is authority. This refers to a person's or institution's right to use power. A policeman has power because he can make things happen. The presence of his car along the side of the road slows down traffic. But a policeman also has authority because he has a legal "right" to exercise power. Authority or the right to use power arises from three sources. Tradition establishes certain patterns of authority. A father or bishop has the right to exercise power because of customs and beliefs associated with his position. Authority also comes from legal understandings. The policeman or corporate officer can freely use power because of formal or legal agreements known to the members of the society or organization. Charismatic authority emerges when a person is believed to have very special personal or magical powers.

Power is not necessarily bad or evil. All of us exercise some of it every day. It is a natural part of social life but it can easily be abused. Christians need to grapple with questions of how power is used and disbursed. To what extent should it be centralized? What are proper and improper uses of it from a Christian perspective?

Before investigating Jesus' perspective on stratification and power we need to sharpen. three other terms. Power doesn't live alone. Privilege, prestige, and status accompany it. Status refers to one's position within a social structure in relation to other positions. The status of mother is" higher than the status of child in the family. The status of choir director is lower than the status of pastor in church life. Status refers to the relative ranking of positions on a ladder of stratification. Prestige is the amount of favorable evaluation received from others. A prestigious position or job is one that people look up to and respect. In other words, prestige refers to the desirability and acclaim which people place on a particular role. Finally, privilege refers to the goods, rights, and services which are granted to a person in a particular status.
Power, status, prestige, and privilege rise and fall together. The chief executive of a bank is obviously in a high status position-above all the other positions in the bank. He or she also has more power than any other employee. They can make things happen and the buck stops at their desk. It is also a prestigious position. It's an honor to be selected for it. Other employees dream about moving up to the job some day. Finally, the position carries a great deal of privilege with it such as a private washroom, travel allowance, company car, a large desk, and advance information on interest rate changes which assist in "playing the market" more profitably.

Joe Down and Doc Up
An illustration from the academic world sharpens the inequalities produced by social stratification. We'll compare Dr. Up, a full professor on a college campus and Joe Down, a janitor who cleans the floors and offices in the building where Dr. Up's office is located. Let's contrast the two persons on the four dimensions of status, power, privilege, and prestige. Joe and Doc are at the opposite ends of the status hierarchy on campus. Doc is near the top of the "professional" community. Joe is part of the lowly esteemed maintenance crew.
The status difference is present in their titles. Dr. Up is called "prof," "doctor," and sometimes just "Mr. Up" by a few disrespectful students. Dr. Up also has a nameplate bearing his name and title outside his office. Since Joe doesn't have a title he is simply called "Joe." Their clothing confirms their status difference. Joe wears old jeans, T-shirts, and tattered sneakers. Dr. Up wears a tie and coat, chews Certs, and keeps his hair well groomed.
Joe and Doc also part ways when it comes to power. Doc asks Joe to do work for him in the office like hanging pictures, rearranging furniture, and dusting cobwebs. If the air conditioner is turned up too high, Doc yells for Joe to turn it down. If Doc forgets the key to his door, he calls for Joe to open it with the master key. Joe even makes the coffee for Dr. Up and his colleagues. If Joe doesn't comply with Dr. Up's requests the doctor sends a memo to Joe's supervisor and bingo, that's the end of any raise for Joe. If things are too bad it could even be the end of Joe's job. In sharp contrast Joe really doesn't have any control power over Doc. He might ask Doc for a favor but he has no real power over Doc. He certainly can't reward or punish him. Doc knows the college president and dean personally and often asks them to make special exceptions for him. Joe's sure that the president doesn't even know his name and would never go out of his way for a request from "some old janitor."
In terms of prestige there's also a whopping difference. When Doc comes striding down the hall students reverently greet him with smiles and choruses of "Hello, Doc." They politely step out of his way if he's in a hurry. The president always shakes Doc's hand and smiles warmly. When students bring friends or parents on campus they generally bring them over to Doc's office for introductions. Doc is very pleased to tell others that he's a college prof, because he knows that it's a very respectable and esteemed job. When Joe comes down the hall, the most he gets is a nod or a "Hi, Joe," from professors who know him. He's not normally entitled to warm smiles from the president or introductions to parents. And he really doesn't like to tell people what he does-after all, it's the kind of thing that any old Tom, Dick, or Harry could do.

When it comes to privilege, things are really different. The salary is the most obvious advantage that Doc has. He makes nearly $25,000 a year for about eight months of work. Joe on the other hand gets one week of vacation, plus three personal days and makes around $12,000. Doc has firm control of his schedule. He arrives in the morning when he feels like it and leaves when he needs to. Everything's fine as long as he doesn't miss his twelve hours of classroom time each week. If something important turns up, Doc can even cancel his classes for that day with an "out of town" note. As long as he doesn't miss classes, Doc can take off for the dentist or for a snack with an out-of-state friend without telling anyone. He goes off campus for coffee breaks to a good shop downtown. Doc also has a desk and a private office all of his own which he can lock when he needs to tuck in his shirttail. Doc's fringe benefits are more lucrative than Joe's. His life and health insurance benefits are much higher since many of them are based on a percentage of his salary and matched halfway by the college.
For Joe things are quite different. There's a time clock to be punched morning and evening. Vacation days need to be scheduled at least two months in advance. Coffee breaks must be on campus since Joe must be ready to work at any moment. About the only privilege Joe has is the opportunity to read anyone's junk mail as he pours out the wastebaskets.
Mark Hatfield, U.S. Senator from Oregon, provides an excellent description of the prestige and privilege which accompanies the status of senator:
My every move through the Senate perpetuates this ego massage. When I leave my office to go to the Senate floor, an elevator comes immediately at senatorial command, reversing its direction if necessary and bypassing the floors of the other bewildered passengers aboard in order to get me to the base- ment. As I walk down the corridor, a policeman notices me coming and rings for a subway car to wait for my arrival and take me to the Capitol Building. The elevator operator, the Capitol policeman, and the subway drivers all deferentially greet me. On the subway car I may take the front seat, which is reserved for Senators who may ride there alone; tourists al- ready seated there are removed by a policeman unless I insist otherwise. At the Capitol another elevator marked FOR SENATORS ONLY takes me to the Senate floor. There at the raising of an eyebrow a page comes to give me a glass of water, deliver a message, or get whatever I need. Aides scurry about telling me when votes will Occur on which bills, although no one bothers me with all the details unless I ask."5

Says Who?
Stratification isn't unique to the modern world. The gospels are peppered with stratification language. Jesus Himself was very aware of the realities of social ranking. The angel told Mary that Jesus would be called the Son of the Most High and that the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Luke 1 :32, 35). Zechariah prophesied that his son John would be a prophet of the Most High (Luke 1:76). Jesus promised that we will be sons of the Most High if we love our enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return
(Luke 6:35). A demoniac called Jesus the Son of the "Most High God" (Mark 5:7). Most High is used as another name for God. This is a fascinating notion. God's on top of the highest ladder. No other persons or powers rank higher than God.
The term "authority" is frequently on the lips of Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' life begins by showing Him rejecting the "authority" and the "glory" of the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:6). Later in the same chapter, after Jesus expels a demon, the people are all amazed and say to one another,  "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out" (Luke 4:36). Jesus has chosen between two diametrically different types of authority. He turned His back on the legal right to rule by political authority. But He by no means rejected authority. His right to rule comes not from coercive political force but from the Most High. He doesn't command armies, but He does command demons. Although His authority doesn't come from white horses, great chariots, and military victories the people recognize it as a bona fide and genuine authority. "And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28, 29; Mark 1:22).
Ironically, Jesus comes to the people without the traditional legitimation needed to establish His authority. He doesn't have any political clout nor has He gone through the prescribed training to be ordained as a scribe. After another teaching session, "The Jews marveled at it, saying, 'How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?' " (John 7:15). Without a scribe's license He was not only teaching but teaching in a way that superseded the scribes. His words earned their own authority. The audience certified His authority, not a board of theological experts in Jerusalem.
The Jewish crowds weren't the only ones who ratified His authority. When the centurion approached Jesus to request healing for his servant, Jesus began walking toward his home. The centurion hedged, saying he wasn't worthy to have Jesus enter his house. "Only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it" (Matthew 8:8, 9). When Jesus heard this He marveled and healed the servant. Here was a powerful military man. He obeyed the orders of a regional commander. The soldiers and slaves under him jumped at his words.

why is Jesus so impressed when the officer  describes his powerful position? Is he threatening Jesus to heal his servant or else? far from it! what he really is doing is comparing Jesus' authority with his own. This Gentile centurion understands that Jesus, like himself, is also a man of authority. He perceives that Jesus has been  given the authority by someone above Him. And he also knows that Jesus can execute His power. This is a Gentile confession of faith, not military threat. He acknowledges that Jesus has the power to heal his servant even from a distance. Jesus marvels that this gentile has such a full understanding of Jesus' authority and power.

Another upside-down fact was that the religiously ignorant crowds and this Gentile understood the nature of Jesus' authority. But the religious authorities themselves were perplexed by His authority. One day the chief priests and elders interrupted His teaching and asked, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" (Matthew 21 :23 and Mark 11 :28). In other words, who said so? Who gave Him the right to teach? Who signed His ordination papers? Jesus answered by asking them a question. Where did John's baptism come from? The heavy- weights were in a jam. If they said John's authority came from heaven, then why had they refused to listen to John? If they said that his authority merely came from his personal powers of persuasion, the crowd would be angry because they thought John was a prophet. Jesus didn't answer their question because they couldn't answer His. In asking the question about the Baptist he parallels Himself with John. The questions and answers about the authority of John's ministry also fit His own ministry. The Pharisees earlier had said that Jesus' authority came from Beelzebub. Now the chief priests had two options. Either Jesus had the endorsement of the Most High or else He was a skillful crowd psychologist.

In John's Gospel Jesus answers the question of His au- thority.

I can do nothing on my own authority. . . I seek not my own
will but the will of him who sent me. John 5:30. The Father. . . has granted the Son. . . authority to execute
judgment. John 5:26, 27.
My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. John 7:16.
I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the
Father taught me. John 8:28. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. John 12:49.

Again and again Jesus emphatically underscores the source of His authority. It is not His own. He is a steward of the Father's authority. The Father has conferred on Him the power of attorney. He acts on behalf of the Father. The Father has given Him the "right" to speak about the kingdom. This is a most fundamental issue. The one who speaks on behalf of another points people to the other. The self-appointed spokesman who speaks on his own authority points others to himself. Jesus understood this well when he said, "He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory" (John 7:18). After Jesus healed the paralytic, the crowds "were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matthew 9:8). Jesus uses His authority in a way that clearly points to God. He is not a self-acclaimed puppet prophet who relishes the crowd's applause.
In summary a few things stand out in Jesus' understanding and use of authority.
(1) There is no question that He saw Himself as a steward of God's power. It was God who gave Him the right to speak.
(2) He was careful to use His authority in a way that didn't bring Himself personal prestige. His word and act always reflected the Father.
(3) He used His authority to serve and assist others. The needs of others were the recipients of his power.
(4) Although His preaching license wasn't certified through the proper channels, the crowds perceived the authenticity of His message and gave it grass roots accreditation.

Stop Climbing
Jesus sharply rebukes the ladder climbing Pharisees in all three synoptic Gospels. He pinpoints three tools of stratification which the religious leaders used to remind the people of their eminent rungs on the Jewish ladder. Their first instrument of prestige was ostentatious clothing. In the words of Jesus they made their robes long, their phylacteries broad, and added long fringes to their robes (Matthew 23:5; Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46). The extravagant clothing of the Pharisees reminded people that they occupied a superior rung in the Hebrew stratification system. They didn't think of themselves as regular people. They were important religious dignitaries who deserved the applause and respect of the common people. Their unnecessary and elaborate clothing only served to highlight their socio-religious position.

Second, the leaders understood that the architectural pattern of buildings also conforms to the shape of social stratification. In the synagogue a special place was provided for prominent people. The scribes sat on the seat of Moses at the front of the room facing the people. This way everyone could see them and admire their special seat. Jesus derides them for seeking out these prestigious seats in the house of worship (Matthew 23:6; Mark 12:39; Luke 20:46). Not only did they scramble for the upper rung seats in the synagogue, the same thing happened at feasts. They rushed for the distinguished positions on the right-hand side of the host. Jesus made it clear that such maneuvering for prestigious chairs in public meetings is not part of the kingdom way.

Third, language is another mechanism for maintaining set patterns of stratification. The scribes utilized its full potential. They insisted on being called rabbi (Matthew 23:8). Since a greeting represented a communication of peace, there were strict ceremonial rules governing to whom and how a greeting was given.6 Jesus perceived that titles are simply another reinforcement of social stratification. They continually call our attention to status differences. They perpetually remind us that everyone isn't equal after all. Jesus unequivocally wipes out titles. "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ" (Matthew 23:8-10). Tagging each other with titles has no place in the Upside-Down Kingdom. The instruments of stratification are more numerous than language, architecture, and dress. In His critique of the prestige hungry scribes and Pharisees Jesus categorically debunked the status-seeking which infiltrates all realms of social life.

Growing Down
The pecking order was not only a Pharisee problem. The disciples were snared by it also. As they walked along the way one day, the motley crew began arguing about which one of them was the greatest (Mark 9:33, 34). Peter felt he should be number one since he was the first to realize that Jesus was the Messiah. James and John thought they should be in on it be- cause they witnessed the transfiguration. In fact one day James and John were so uptight about it that they pulled Jesus aside and demanded, "Do for us whatever we ask of you" (Mark 10:35). They wanted to sit on the right-and left- hand side of Jesus in His Kingdom. They were eyeballing the best seats at the top of the ladder.

Matthew reports that their mother made the demand (Matthew 20:20, 21). In any event, we find the old autocratic spirit of "do this and do that" right smack in the middle of the disciple group. The bossing mentality is accompanied by the social comparison process which ranks people from greatest to least. Jesus rebuked their clamoring for status and power by taking a child in His arms. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me" (Mark 9:37).

A few days later as the disciples were screening incoming visitors, they pushed aside mothers with children who simply wanted to touch Jesus. He was indignant and furious when He saw this power play (Mark 10: 13, 14). As far as the disciples were concerned, these children were social nobodies. They didn't hold any prominent positions. They wouldn't be able to help advance the cause. There were certainly more important people that Jesus should spend His time with. These children were deflecting Jesus from His mission. The disciples still hadn't caught on to the upside-down logic. As far as Jesus was concerned the children were just as important as the adults. Jesus not only spent time with these small fry, He actually held them up as model kingdom citizens. "For to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it" (Mark 10: 14, 15).

In these two occasions, as the disciples competed for the number one position and as they pushed children away from a busy Jesus, He pointed to a child as the symbol of kingdom living. Normally we tell people to grow up and "act their age." Here Jesus tells us to grow down and regress to child- like behavior. Why is this? What is it about the nature of a child that's instructive for kingdom learners? Why does Jesus go to the very bottom of the ladder for His example? Why doesn't He select devout Simeon or some other saint for His lesson?
In virtually all societies children are at the bottom of the social status ladder. They have no power in the society. They are totally dependent on other members. They are an economic liability. Children do not make social distinctions among people. They don't place people into box'es. One child when asked what the president of the United States does quickly replied, "He goes to the bathroom." They don't play by the normal social rules. They are friendly to strangers. They learn racist and ethnic slurs from their parents. Color, nationality, title, and social position mean nothing to the very young child. They have no sense of bureaucratic structures and hierarchies. The infant has no possessions and is totally dependent on others for care and survival.
The use and manipulation of power is foreign to the baby, although its cry certainly does "make things happen" (Mommy comes running). This, however, is a response to biological needs. It is not the cunning power which ma- neuvers people and situations to its own advantage. The child learns the tactics and strategies of power broking as he grows up. A trusting confidence characterizes the manner of a child almost to the point of naivete even in the presence of danger. The child of the good mother trusts her completely.

Jesus calls kingdom citizens to babyhood in all these areas. Instead of pursuing the number one spot, He prods us to flatten our hierarchies and forget them as children do. And as infants we are to be blind to status differences, seeing all others as equally significant regardless of their social position and function. The disciple of Jesus relates to people as a child. In the child's eyes the garbage collector and president of the country are equals. As children of the kingdom we are to see people and structures on a flat perspective without ups and downs. Instead of hankering over power, the follower of Jesus lives powerlessly as a child. We also welcome interdependence. Rather than claiming self-sufficient independence, we acknowledge our need for community and dependence on others. And in childlike faith we call our heavenly Father, "Daddy." Even the Most High is not addressed with prestigious titles but with the intimate and warm word, "Daddy."

As children of the heavenly Father we are to live as children in social relationships, for the kingdom is made up of such spiritual infants.

Bottom Up
The disciples still didn't understand, even after Jesus taught them with the example of a child. In fact as they sit around the table during the last supper an argument about greatness breaks out. After all the teaching on babyhood and and in the middle of this sacred event they dispute again about who is the greatest. They are quite normal. They are preoccupied with their internal hierarchy. How do they stack up with each other? In response to their status bickering, Jesus tries again. He completely revamps the meaning of "greatness." "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:25-27). Matthew and Mark report Jesus saying that "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45).
Jesus has just turned our social worlds upside down. He has reversed our assumptions and expectations. He has utterly redefined greatness. This is no sweet proverb about social relationships. These words strike at the root problem of domination found in all social organizations. The sequence of thoughts that naturally flow together in our minds fit the following equation:

Greatness = Top, powerful, master, first, ruler, adult.

Jesus radically inverts the equation to read:

Greatness = Bottom, servant, slave, last, child, youngest.


There can be no misunderstanding here. Jesus totally inverts the conventional definition of greatness among the people of God. The pagans lord it over their subjects. They are the ones who develop hierarchies of power. "Not so among you," thunders Jesus. In the Upside-Down Kingdom greatness is not measured by how much power one has over others. Upside-down prestige isn't calculated by how high one is on the social ladder. In this inverted kingdom, great- ness is determined by one's willingness to serve-one's willingness to be a slave.
Then Jesus poses the profound question of who is greater, the chairman of Exxon who sits at the table in the executive dining hall or the waitress who serves him? The president of the country flying in the first-class section or the stewardess who serves him? The answer is obvious-of course the chairman of the board and president of the country are more important. There's no doubt about this. Waitresses are a dime a dozen. Any common person can be a waitress. The chairman of the board has years of special training and experience. Any nitwit can tell you that he's more important than a waitress. Not so, says Jesus. I am among you as a waiter. I am not here as a ruler or boss; I'm among you as a slave, a servant, a waiter. Instead of giving orders and directives down the hierarchy, I'm looking up the hierarchy asking what can I do for you. This is an utterly upside-down perspective. Instead of a "down from the top" posture, the Jesus way is "up from the bottom".

Servanthood sounds nice. But we must be careful not to throw it around glibly as "professional service," "human service," or "service is our first and las1 word." Such slogans and words are tossed around to create a pleasant service image. We need to distinguish between pseudo service and the way of Jesus. Much of modern service rhetoric falls short of the way of Jesus. Many times it does not truly seek to meet the needs of others but it used to manipulate persons into buying additional products or "services" which they really don't need. When this happens, the so-called servant is not a servant at all but an artful manipulator or adman using the language of service to his own ends. Many of the "professional service" people are quite high on the social status ladder and look at their clients from a top down perspective. They will "serve" their clients as long as it pays well for them both in dollars and prestige. But when the needs of their clients run counter to the "servant's" own financial and status interests, the "service" abruptly ends. Such self- serving "service" is not Christian service.

In sharp contrast, the servanthood of Jesus ended on the cross. He was willing to serve the needs of the sick on the Sabbath even when it meant jeopardizing His very life. He announced forgiveness of sins even when such blasphemous words were sure to trigger His death. The Jesus style of service brought neither personal financial gain nor social prestige. In fact, quite the opposite. His service was rewarded by outrage from the authorities and a violent death. For Jesus, serving did not mean catering to the well-to-do who could make substantial financial repayment. Rather, His instruction is to serve the "least of these," those at the very bottom-the least of the least who certainly will not be able to pay back. In fact, serving such social throw-outs will undoubtedly tarnish the "professional reputation" of the professional community. After all, only incompetent lawyers, doctors, and teachers will serve the stigmatized as a last resort if they can't develop a profitable practice among the respect- able. The disciples of Jesus give a cup of cold water in His name to the little ones who have no political clout or social prestige (Matthew 10:42).

We have heard Jesus redefine greatness. What does He really mean when He says the least among us is the greatest in the kingdom? He clearly understands that social greatness is highly correlated with access to power. Usually those who boss and lord it over others are seen as the great persons. The president, the chief executive officer, the head of the department, these persons who control power and manage people receive prestigious applause not necessarily by their subordinates but by society at large. Does Jesus intend to suggest that persons who are at the bottom of the typical social hierarchies-the janitors, females, weak, and stigmatized- are automatically at the top of the kingdom ladder? Is He calling for a complete inversion where the top rungers in this world exchange places with the bottom rungers in the kingdom of God and vice versa? I think not. Instead of turn- ing the hierarchy upside down and making a new one, Jesus is questioning the need for hierarchy and declaring it unconstitutional for His people. He also proposes new criteria for evaluating greatness.
Describing John the Baptist, Jesus says, "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he" (Luke 7:28). What does Jesus mean by these baffling words? He is comparing two orders of stratification. Among persons born in the flesh there is none greater than John. He is the greatest and last of the prophets. But in the kingdom order among those born of the Spirit, even the least is greater than John. If the least of the kingdom citizens is greater than John, the rest of them are obviously also greater. Jesus is not debunking John's significance. He is merely saying that everyone in the kingdom born of the Spirit is just as great as the greatest of the prophets. His eye twinkles as He says this. The point is that in the Upside-Down Kingdom everyone is the greatest! As Francis Schaeffer has said, there are no little people in this kingdom. Everyone is on the same level and everyone is a great person.

Jesus is actually poking fun and spoofing the language of "greatest and least." That kind of talk has no place in kingdom conversations. Kingdom people don't think in those terms. Rather than exchanging a new hierarchy for an old one, Jesus levels all hierarchies. He understands that all hierarchies soon begin to function as deities. Men bow down and worship them. They obey them. Paul Minear is correct when he says "that wherever a man or a group yields to any authority as ultimate-there a particular deity stands revealed."7 Jesus once and for all is disarming the authority of hierarchies to act like gods. He calls us to participate in a flat kingdom where everyone is the greatest. In this kingdom the values of service and compassion replace dominance and command. In this flat family, the greatest are those who teach and do the commandments of God (Matthew 5:19). They love God and others as much as themselves.

Looking Down
Arrogance is a corollary of power and prestige. Those who make it to the top sometimes pride themselves in "their great accomplishments." A "look at what I've done" attitude oozes from their interpersonal relationships. Jesus under- stands that such haughtiness is a by-product of the hierarchical ladder. He tells the story of a man at a feast who carefully checks out the prestige value of all the seats at the table. He picks a distinguished one to display his prominence. The seats fill up. A very eminent guest arrives a few minutes late after the top seats are all taken. The toastmaster unfortunately needs to ask the earlier guest to take a lowly seat far from the head table. It is better, Jesus says, to select the bottom seat unless the master of ceremonies motions you to another seat. Inversion visits again. "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 14:11). We find this same rule of thumb pronounced by Jesus after the parable of the breast- beating tax collector and haughty Pharisee (Luke 18: 14) and after he rebuked the Pharisees for their status-seeking with clothing and titles (Matthew 23: 12).

What is the meaning of the humble and exalted riddle? As parables go it is not intended merely to teach dining etiquette. Although the meaning may certainly affect dining protocol, it goes beyond that. The normal tendency is to chase after the positions of honor and prestige. We all enjoy the oh's and ah's of other people. We take it for granted that upward is better. Rather than endorsing such upward mobility, Jesus calls us to downward mobility-to the seats at the bottom. His disciples defer to others. They happily yield up the good seats. In fact, they are so busy waiting on tables that they don't have time to sit. Serving is their occupation, not seat picking. The adage that the exalted will be humbled and vice versa is not a tidbit of proverbial wisdom such as, "Pride cometh before a fall." Rather it suggests that those who exalt themselves over others have no place in the kingdom. Self-glorifying status hunters have no need for God and no place in His kingdom. Those who confess their sinful ladder climbing and go about serving others in quiet meek- ness are exalted in the Upside-Down Kingdom. Ego trips end at the kingdom's door. Kingdom people look down instead of up. They willingly move downward.

Contrary to kingdom thinking it is typical for people to look down the ladder and mutter, "If I did it they can do it too. If they'd just work a little and be responsible they could pull themselves up by their bootstraps, too."
Some proud top rungers tend to assume that their own hard work and motivation is the only reason they are at the top. This "if Abe did it I can" mentality naively assumes that anyone can make it to the White House if he tries hard
enough. There are at least seven factor£ which contribute to where we stand on the ladder of social stratification. (1) Personal motivation is certainly an important aspect. The amount of hard work and energy we exert minimizes or maximizes the influence of the other six factors.
(2) Biological givens also determine our place in life. Physical and intellectual abilities are for the most part inherited and beyond our personal contro1.The retarded child obviously does not choose to be stigmatized.
(3) Cultural values also condition our experience. In some cultures children are taught to work hard and to enjoy it. In others, hard work is not an important value. Top rungers who work hard dare not thank themselves if they happened to be born into a culture which taught them to enjoy hard work.
(4) Community assets also make a difference. The child born into an upper-class community with topnotch jobs, libraries, schools, and hospitals has over- whelming advantages over a child born into a community with deficient social institutions. No matter how hard he works, the average child in the poor high school may never get to college.
(5) The emotional security of the family makes a grave impact on the child's own emotional makeup. Children growing up in emotionally disturbed homes may have nagging insecurities the rest of their lives which hinder their best performance.
(6) Inheritance is a major factor determining a child's socioeconomic position in life. Inheriting the family business, fortune, or political name puts many people into powerful positions who never would have made it on their own.
(7) Chance also affects our niche in life. Some make it rich because real estate prices triple overnight. Others lose everything through a social or financial catastrophe.
The point of all of this is that it is arrogant for persons to assume that they "made it" just because they worked hard. The cult of haughty individualism takes personal credit for a person's social achievements. It should be obvious that we don't choose our mothers, communities, or cultures. Many factors shaping our place in life are simply beyond our control. This doesn't mean that we are only robots or puppets yanked up and down the ladder of stratification by mysterious forces. Personal motivation does make a difference in how we respond to the tugs of the six other factors. Hard work is an important factor in our place on the ladder. But contrary to the cult of individualism, it is not the only factor. It is only one of many. The tragedy of such individualism is that it breeds unfounded pride in one's "personal" achievements and bitter contempt for others who stand on lower rungs.
The Jesus people are moved to caring compassion when they look down the ladder, for they understand that it is only by the grace of God that they stand where they do. They also understand that most of those below them are not there be- cause of irresponsible laziness. They know that many of the lower ones stand where they do because of social, economic, and biological factors beyond their control. This realistic understanding of why people are at different places on the ladder wipes out any haughty individualism and propels the people of God toward downward mobility. This in no way derides the value of hard work and initiative but merely recognizes that it is one of many factors which place us on the social ladder. Thus the disciple humbles himself in the face of these realities and looks for a lower seat beside those who beg for care and compassion.

Jesus Power
Jesus is not a typical king who barks orders to his generals and threatens his subjects. He had no niche in the religious, economic, or political power structure of His day. As far as the formal organizational charts were concerned, He was powerless. Instead of pointing to warriors, generals, and kings as examples of power models he holds up the younger, the last, the least, the child, the servant, and the slave as ideal kingdom citizens. He describes Himself as gentle and lowly in heart and says that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matthew 11 :29, 30). His truth is revealed to babes rather than to wise eggheads (Matthew 11 :25). Should we conclude from all of this that Jesus carried no stick? Was he a flimsy, wishy-washy weakling?

The answer is a definite no. Although it is true that He had no formal positions of power, it is not true that He was powerless. In fact He was so powerful-He could make things happen so fast-that He was killed. His power threatened the religious and political structures so much that they couldn't stand to have Him around. He did not run from power. He exercised a great deal of power. If He had stayed in the desert and quietly taught His disciples in a serene hideaway He would have been no threat at all to the ruling religious and political powers.
The threat came from the fact that His very life and message eroded the base of the prevailing power structures. Social scientists have discovered that in virtually all forms of social organizations, from friendship groups to nations, a small self-perpetuating group grabs most of the power sooner or later. 8 This tendency for power to concentrate in the hands of a few persons is known as the law of oligarchy. Jesus boldly condemns oligarchy in social, economic, political, and religious spheres of life. Designating Himself as a waiter and criticizing the scribes' drive for prestige touches the social area. In earlier chapters we heard His hard words about economic stratification where the rich dominate the poor. The comment that His disciples should not be like the kings of the Gentiles who lord it over their subordinates strikes at oligarchy in the political sphere. Jesus' harsh words and acts against the oral law and the temple demonstrate His rejection of oligarchy in religious institutions.

The in breaking reign of God in the life of Jesus undercut the authority of all the other reigning power structures. His whole life directly challenged the legitimacy of the power structures of his day. 9 He was killed because the challenge was so relevant to the fundamental issue of domination in human organization. His power base was so strong, in fact, that the authorities had to be very careful how they dealt with Him. He not only had a small band of devoted followers but He allowed large masses to follow Him. His power over the masses was so strong that the authorities feared a revolution. They had to be very careful how they treated Jesus or they would have a revolt on their hands (Luke 22:2). Their night- time seizure of Jesus was under the cover of darkness to prevent a tumult.
Although Jesus had great power over the crowd, He did not exploit it. Perhaps one of the reasons that He kept His messianic identity a secret was to prevent the crowd from declaring Him king. The one time that He thought they might make Him king by force He ran to the hills to escape (John 6: 15). Furthermore, His power over the crowd was not man- dated because of His position in a formal social structure. They voluntarily chose to follow Him because of His genuine authority. His authority was authenticated by His willingness to reject status and power, and to serve.

In general terms we can say that Jesus exhibited both
expert and personal power. His knowledge of the law and His sharp and penetrating insights were the base of His expert power. He controlled the secrets of the kingdom. His personal power came not from physical charm but from His obvious care and compassion for all, including the sick and outcast. He had no financial power or organizational power. His expression of power was primarily through influence- never coercion and control. Hengel points out that the teaching style of Jesus, in particular His parables and sayings, was not that of an irrational demagogue. Even here, Jesus sought to gain the assent of men through rational influence, not through emotional manipulation.lo He had access to no soldiers or pay raises by which He could control the outcome of His influence attempts. He simply spoke the truth and allowed individuals to make free will decisions. He describes Himself as the Good Shepherd. He doesn't chase or drive His sheep. He calls them. Those that recognize His voice follow (John 10:4).
Alongside His powerful words stood mighty acts. His activity was powerful because it was relevant deviance. De- liberately breaking social norms-healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners, talking with women, affirming Gentiles and Samaritans, and cleaning the temple-all of these were powerful acts of deviance. They were not done just for the sake of creating trouble. Jesus didn't enjoy antagonizing people nor was He crazy. Here was a Man with the wisdom of a prophet who didn't hesitate to violate social custom when it obviously functioned to dominate and subordinate certain persons. The power of Jesus' acts was not found in coercive rewards or punishments which He parceled out but in the fact that He was willing to risk His very life for the sake of these injustices. He cared so much that He was willing to be vulnerable to the instruments of violence controlled by the authorities.
Another aspect of His upside-down power was His willingness to reject what was rightfully His. Instead of acting like a typical messiah-ruling, demanding, and dominating from the top-Jesus worked from the bottom up. Rather than demanding service, He served. He knelt down and washed the disciples' feet. He worked at the bottom as a servant, waiter, and janitor. He served the needs of the social outcasts scattered below the bottom rung-the lepers, blind, sick, and poor. Precisely because He willingly gave up what was rightfully His and went to the bottom, risking His life to save and heal others, He was taken up to the authorities at the top of the power structure. They punished His unorthodox power with their kind of power-violence.

Thus we cannot conclude that Jesus was powerless. He was extremely powerful. But it is clear that Jesus categorically rejects domination and hierarchy as acceptable forms of social governance. Three factors characterize His use of power:
(1) Influence, not control, is His primary expression of power. He beckons individuals to follow Him. His word and act create a crisis. We are forced to make a choice. But it is a voluntary decision.
(2) The focus of His power is on the needs of others. He mobilizes His resources to serve the needs of the hurting and stigmatized.
(3) The power is not used for self-gain or glory. He willingly suspends His own rights and serves at the bottom of the ladder. It does not fit typical social custom. He redefines "rights" and "expectations" and engages in social deviance for the sake of others.

From There to Here
I will summarize some of the basic issues and assumptions regarding a Christian perspective on power which emerges from our study before looking at details:
(I) Power should be used to help others become powerful. 11 This is the opposite of what normally happens. Power usually snowballs. Powerful persons and institutions tend to use their power to become more powerful at the expense of others. The exercise of power often perpetuates and increases power inequities. The end result is that the powerful become more powerful and the less powerful lose power. The upside-down perspective seeks to use power to equalize power.
(2) Power should be distributed as widely as possible among individuals and organizations. Power tends to concentrate in the hands of a few people. Those in the center of an organization have great clout while those on the sidelines usually have little say. There will always be power differentials. As Christians we should work to diffuse and decentralize power whenever possible.
(3) Hierarchy in social governance should be reduced to a minimum. Once again the tendency is to increase the rungs on the ladder. Ladders should be flattened out. As this happens coordination replaces domination. Flattening ladders is an- other way of diffusing power.
(4) Authority for Leadership should be freely given by the led. Leadership should not be imposed on a group by an outside agency. Nor should Leadership be self-appointed. Leadership is only worthy of allegiance when it is freely given by the led to the leader in response to the leader's servant posture.12
(5) The Christian perspective looks down the ladder. Our normal tendency is to scramble up ladders as fast as possible. The disciple of Jesus works to serve the powerless at the bottom. This may be in the form of personal ministry or through changing the structure of the ladder itself. The Christian is more concerned about the plight of those at the bottom than about advancing his own position on the ladder.

Unfortunately, the Christian church historically has been the perpetuator of some of the most rigid systems of hierarchy and stratification. In the context of church life, rigid chains of command and domination are often sanctified with pious language. It is difficult to peel away the religious jargon to see the utter incongruence between the sacred hierarchies and the way of Jesus. Let us be clear on one thing. This is not a call for anarchy, disorder, or confusion. The Spirit of God brings orderliness to the life of His people. This does not mean, however, that the church should blindly adopt secular bureaucratic procedures and structures. The form and shape of corporate life in the church patterned on the principles of Jesus will be radically different from the typical bureaucratic pattern.

Consensus will be used in decision-making to insure maximum participation and ownership by members. All members will have access to the decision-making process rather than a small group of elites. Servant leaders do not dictate the goals and strategies of the group. Instead they facilitate the fellowship in articulating and achieving its common goals. Rather than intimidating the led with "I think this and I think that," servant leaders ask, "Where do we want to go?" "What are we saying?" and "How do we feel about this?" The servant leader uses his power to help the believers discern the Spirit's will for the group. Size is the friend of bureaucracy and hierarchy. Decision-making involving all members is best facilitated in groups of less than 100 persons. Rather than snowballing bureaucratic structures as size in- creases, congregations can multiply into small units of less than 100 persons which permit fuller participation in charting the corporate life.
There will be a division of labor in church life. The Holy Spirit endows each person with unique gifts and abilities. These gifts will be used in various ways to build up and minister to the total body. Each contribution, each function whether it's preaching, washing windows, or setting up chairs will be equally esteemed. Each job is considered just as important as every other regardless of its place within the structure of the body. If persons are considered equal and the jobs are considered equivalent, it only follows that the same rate of pay will be given across the board when remuneration is necessary. To pay the minister and janitor on different scales declares that their functions and their persons are fundamentally unequal. To be sure, they are not identical. But they are of equal significance and prestige in the body of Christ and should be paid accordingly.
Titles also are foreign to the body of Christ. Doctor, Reverend, Mister, and Sister perpetuate status differences which are not in harmony with the way of Christ. The most respectful title we can use is a person's first name. Calling each other by titles pays tribute to the position, degree, or status rather than the person. Members of flat kingdoms call each other by the first name.

These are only a few of the particulars which flow from Jesus' view of power and stratification. They are relevant for local congregations of believers as well as denominational agencies such as publishing houses, mission boards, and school They also pave the way for a servant posture in the larger society. Christians involved in business, education, and public life will use their influence to nudge organizations and institutions in the flat direction. Two considerations govern how the Christian lives an Upside-Down Kingdom agenda in the larger society. The Christian in a "top" spot in management or professional life seeks to express power through servanthood rather than domination. One's own job should not be considered more significant than jobs at the bottom of the organizational chart. We should be willing to work at the "top" job for the same salary and privilege as those near the bottom if we truly believe that our work is no more important than theirs.

The bottom-up perspective does not mean that teachers will become janitors and lawyers will become shoe shiners. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a vocation which brings personal fulfillment and which meets legitimate needs of others. The critical question, however, is how one employs a particular vocation or interest. A medical doctor can practice in a plush suburban area with an excess of doctors and receive a lucrative income. Or he or she can defy the typical upward mobility patterns and practice in a poor community and receive a bare-bone salary. A truck driver can take a good paying cross-country run which tears his family apart or he can accept a local run which keeps the family intact and the salary down. Likewise, a businessman can expand a subsidiary into a community with a dependable labor supply which already has a low employment rate or he can place the new plant in an area which desperately needs new jobs. The disciple of Jesus must ask whether his gifts and training are being used to perpetuate inequality and self-advancement or whether they are truly being utilized to serve others who really hurt even though that may terminate an illustrious professional career.

Questions for Discussion

1. What stratification ladders or dimensions are important in your community? In your congregation?
2. What are some of the consequences of allowing pay-checks to determine the importance of persons?
3. Discuss the kinds of power which are prominent in the life of your congregation?
4. Are there any situations where it would be proper for a Christian to use "control"?
5. In what ways is Jesus' understanding of power and authority relevant to us today?
6. In what specific ways does your congregation embody flat kingdom ideals in contrast to other secular organizations?
7. How have the seven factors of stratification influenced your own position on the social status ladder?
8. Identify specific ways to work at the flat kingdom agenda in your work and community.