Greenleaf writes: …the church is important: to help the fruits of contemplation…become an animating force that sustains legions of persons as servants as they wield their influence on governments, businesses, schools, hospitals, families, communities, and in the church itself. Thus I see churches as (potentially) formative institutions that nurture spirituality in those they reach and, in so doing nurture themselves so as to sustain themselves as models that encourage other institutions to be optimally serving to (and therefore caring for) all persons whose lives they influence. The two roles, nurture of spirituality in individuals and model for others as a serving institution, are closely linked. In my view, any institution that carries these two roles is a church – regardless of its theological position or lack thereof.
Greenleaf is clear: ‘contemplation’ is not enough; contemplation must bear ‘fruit.’ The ‘fruit’ helps nurture and sustain those who partake. The ‘fruit’ sustains those who seek to be ‘servants;’ the fruit is the ‘animating force’ – the force that sustains (often referred to as the ‘spirit’ that animates and sustains (which loops us back to Greenleaf’s original concept of the ‘spirit-leader’).
Greenleaf continues to be clear: servants ‘wield their influence’ everywhere. The concept of ‘influence’ is a crucial one. Servants do not coerce, or manipulate or use their power unethically or immorally. They seek to influence (Greenleaf also uses the term’ persuade’ in his writings and he equates ‘persuasion’ with ‘influence’ – I believe that these are two different concepts: Persuasion uses logic and reasoning in order to help one discern and ‘buy-into’ the ‘way’; Influence uses inquiry and the emerging insights of the other in order for the other to discern and ‘emotionally-own’ his/her ‘way’).
Greenleaf expands the definition of ‘Church.’ He begins with a definition that complements our general understanding of ‘Church’: A church is ‘potentially’ a ‘formative institution’ that (1) ‘nurtures spirituality’ in those they ‘reach’ (the concept ‘reach’ is crucial for as we know, a Church does not ‘reach’ all who are part of or are exposed to it). (2) ‘Spirituality’ involves the animating force that nurtures and sustains – the ‘spirit;’ the concept ‘Spirituality’ is also defined by each religious tradition. (3) This spirit-nurturing of others also nurtures the Church and its members and helps sustain the Church and its members as they seek to influence other people and other institutions. How often do ‘Churches’ only influence those within their own ‘circle’? Too often, I think.
Greenleaf provides us another way by expanding the definition of Church: ‘any institution that carries the two roles he delineates’ is a Church. The two roles: ‘Nurture of Spiritualty in Individuals’ (‘Spirituality’ as the animating force that nurtures and sustains) and, being a ‘Model for others as a Serving Institution’ (see Greenleaf’s ‘Best Test’ and ‘Credo’ for an understanding of the implications for an institution to be a ‘Serving Institution’). I have known for-profit, not-for-profit, public and private organizations that have lived into and out of Greenleaf’s definition of ‘Church.’ I have also known families, and teams, and departments and divisions in large multi-national organizations that live into and out of his definition.
Servant As Leader 