c. 1999 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. He lives in Durham, N.C.)

UNDATED _ Scenes from the small power struggles that fill our lives: My bank’s end-of-month line is long. A middle-aged man walks past the line to the receptionist. He says he is in a hurry, his time is valuable. The receptionist points to the line. He wheedles. She holds firm. Finally, he grumps and joins the queue.

My wife and I discuss a plan for Chinese takeout. Get whatever you want, she says. But I know it isn’t that simple. Our 7-year-old son only likes sweet-and-sour chicken. For the second dish, she suggests some possibilities. I know that my choice lies on that list of possibilities. And why not? If she has a preference, why not honor it?

At the Chinese restaurant I find a woman working the counter and issuing orders, and three men cooking the food. One man eyes her with disdain. Another ignores her. But she is the one who knows English. I try to imagine the compromises with deeply felt principles about male-female power that entry into the American economy has forced them to make.

Then comes a news report that Campus Crusade for Christ leaders have decreed:”A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the leadership of Christ.”The movement’s founder says”homes are disintegrating by the millions because they do not follow a biblical pattern.” Politicians think they control the strings of power. But in my experience, it is small power-scenes like these that determine the shape and quality of our lives. Who is in charge? Who makes the next decision? Whose needs take priority? In the competition for limited resources _ money, attention, space _ who gets their way?

Is there, in fact, a”biblical pattern”that should guide us?

Some look for the winning snippet. Paul’s well-worn words about husbands and wives continue to be quoted, even though their full context and content are rarely honored, the rest of what Paul said about marriage (don’t do it) is ignored, and Jesus’ quite different attitudes are dismissed as inconvenient.

Some take more time with their concordances and create a tightly woven fabric of Bible verses, followed by a triumphant”So there!”The powerful tend to find verses justifying their continued hold on power. Wannabes locate verses affirming the necessity of change. Each calls its efforts”theology.” Then comes a truly inconvenient story like the feeding of the 5,000, a scene far more complex than repeated re-enactments in Sunday liturgy might suggest.

The disciples have a plan _ send the people away _ but Jesus dismisses it. Instead, he looks up to heaven, takes what little food they have, and asks God to turn it into more. Jesus orders the disciples to distribute the resulting abundance, and they do so.

Where’s the power here? The traditional answer is that Jesus has the power, and everyone submits to him. But Jesus himself is submitting to the power of God. No less, he also is submitting to the power of human neediness.

The locus of power, in fact, is the people’s hunger. It is their neediness that draws Jesus out of solitude and into their midst. It is their neediness that stirs his compassion. It is their neediness that turns a healing mission into a mass banquet. It is their neediness that sets the disciples to work.

If there is any biblical pattern, it is that God responds to human needs.

Worldly power orders people to stand in line _ first class here, tourist class there. Godly power feeds those who wait. Worldly power says men rule, or women rule, or whoever has a lawyer rules, or whoever complains loudest rules. Godly power looks for needs to fill. Worldly power argues, compels, votes, litigates. Godly power listens. Worldly power makes plans. Godly power abandons plans.

The realities of power are rarely communicated by organizational charts, hierarchical or otherwise. The biblical pattern doesn’t suggest any particular allocation of decision-making power, but rather a complex, muddy, swirling and often maddening process of listening, submitting, risking, praying, acting, repenting, changing, groping and, ultimately, losing and dying.

DEA END EHRICH