Session Type: Paper Presentations Accepted by MIG(s): Scholarship Time Allotted: 90 Leadership within Religious Communities: What is Distinctive and What is Common? Description: Although there are resonances between and among political, business, and religious leadership, various components—e.g., leader and follower roles and interaction, motivation, communication, and vision—take on distinctive meanings in religious contexts. Further, other components—e.g., ritual and community-building—while also prominent in other contexts, are critical in religious leadership. Abstract: The pre-twentieth-century, or “classic,” texts that enjoy central place within Leadership Studies focus on political and civic contexts (Wren, Hicks, & Price 2003, Vol. 1). The twentieth century, with the rise of attention to scientific approaches to management, produced a rich literature on leadership within business contexts and, later, on non-profit organizations (Wren, Hicks, and Price 2003, Vol. 2). Congregations and wider religious bodies are one form of non-profit organization, but even within that latter field, religious leadership is an under-studied phenomenon. To be sure, faith communities have long offered teachings about effective leadership—including treatments of the topic within sacred texts (Couto, 2004). Yet, the systematic analysis of effective, goal-oriented leadership within religious contexts can be furthered by the application, or translation, of insights from political and business leadership (along with other forms of non-profit leadership). Central issues in leadership—e.g., leader and follower roles and interaction, motivation, communication, and vision—deserve further systemic analysis in religious contexts. The paper argues that although there are resonances between and among political, business, and religious leadership, these various components take on distinctive meanings in religious contexts. Further, the paper suggests that certain components of leadership—e.g., ritual and community-building—while also prominent in political and business contexts, are particularly vital for the dynamics of leadership in religious contexts.
What makes a community religious? Is it belief in a higher being or higher power? Scholars have shown ways in which political bodies, and businesses, too, also have ultimate values that are served (Hicks 2003). Is it that leaders have strong emotional or spiritual influence over followers? Max Weber was the first of many to show how charisma crosses from religious spheres into others. Is it because religious leaders and followers are motivated not by self-interest, but instead by other-regarding interest? Surely this is too simplistic a bifurcation of human motivations—there are, instead, mixed human motives in each sphere of activity. Is it because the types of leadership differ by sphere—perhaps religious communities are led by transformational leadership whereas the norm of political and business leadership is transactional leadership. Again, while the relative center of gravity may be different across the spheres, both transforming and transactional leadership are part of leadership within all of them.
Further, the paper expands the analysis of how certain categories of religious studies inform the understanding of leadership. Early social scientists of religion, including Weber and Durkheim, examined the role, for instance, of prophet and priest as offices of leadership, in addition to providing seminal analyses of concepts that have become key in the study of leadership, including symbol, narrative, and ritual. The paper includes, then, with a discussion of the ways in which the study of religion can help inform understandings of leadership in political and business contexts as well as in religious communities.
In closing, the paper delineates the ways in which religious leadership is both distinctive from and similar too leadership in both political and business contexts. The particularly central components of religious leadership are identified. And, finally, the differences of leadership approach within religious contexts are also acknowledged. Seen as a whole, the paper provides conceptual distinctions for deepening the analysis of religious leadership, as it is both similar to and distinct from other forms of leading.
Douglas Hicks, Jepson School of Leadership Studies; University of Richmond
Bio: Douglas A. Hicks is professor of leadership studies and religion at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond. Hicks is author of four books and editor of other volumes on leadership, ethics, and religion in public life.
Reframing Max Weber’s Theory of Religious Leadership for the 21st Century Description: This presentation reframes Max Weber’s theory of religious leadership for the 21st century, building on the proposals of John McClymond and demonstrates that religious leaders lead by reaffirmation, radicalization, ritualization and responsiveness. Abstract: It is surprising, that with the relative increase in scholarly focus on the phenomenon of leadership, to see how the leadership scholars in modernity have largely ignored the topic of religious leadership (McClymond, 2001). There has been little advance in theoretical perspectives in the processes of religious leadership in the twentieth century beyond the pioneering sociological studies of Joachim Wach (1944) and Max Weber (1968). But, the turn of the century and the accompanied turn to spirituality have produced a focused return to the scholarly study of religious leadership (Freedman, D. N. & McClymond, M. J., 2001) and in particular a renewed focus on Christian Leadership (Ayers, 2006; Bekker, 2008; Kretzschmar, 2007; Whittington, et al., 2005). McClymond (2001), building on the pioneering theories of Weber (1968) and a comparative study (Freedman & McClymond, 2001) of the leadership of five religious leaders (Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus and Mohammad) proposes four dominant themes of religious leadership: (a) reaffirmation, (b) radicalization, (c) ritualization, and (d) responsiveness. This presentation reframes Weber’s theory of religious leadership for the 21st century, building on the proposals of McClymond (2001) and demonstrates that religious leaders lead by reaffirming older religious traditions, radicalizing certain truths of these traditions in both their teachings and leadership behaviors, codifying their “radical” truths in rituals and codes of ethics, and finally lead by responding to the needs of their followers and changes in their context in order to ensure the survival of both the religious traditions and the communities that have gathered around them.
References:
Ayers, M. (2006). Towards a theology of leadership. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 1(1), 1-27.
Bekker, C. J. (2008). Leading with your head bowed down: Lessons in leadership humility from St. Benedict of Nursia. Inner Resources for Leaders, 1(3), 1-10.
Freedman, D.N. & McClymond, M. J. (2001). The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus and Muhammad as Religious Founders. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Kretzschmar, L. (2007). The formation of moral leaders in South Africa: A Christian-ethical analysis of some essential elements. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 128, 18-36.
McClymond, M. J. (2001). Prophet or Loss? Reassessing Max Weber’s Theory of Religious Leadership, in Freedman, D.N. & McClymond, M. J. The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus and Muhammad as Religious Founders. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wach, J. (1944). Types of Religious Authority. Sociology of Religion, p. 341.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. Roth, G. & Wittich, C. Vols. 3. New York: Bedminster Press.
Whittington, J.L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy leadership: The leadership wisdom of the apostle Paul. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 749-770.
Corné Bekker, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University
Bio: Dr. Corné Bekker joined Regent University in 2005. He previously served as the associate dean for academics of Rhema Bible College in Johannesburg, South Africa and now as an associate professor for the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Dr. Bekker teaches in the doctoral programs of the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship and is actively involved in research on the use of biblical hermeneutics and spirituality to explore leadership. He is the editor of the Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership (JBPL) and the co-editor of Inner Resources for Leaders (IRL). Dr. Bekker is an ordained minister and has traveled in Africa, Europe, the East and North America to present at churches, ministries, seminars and academic conferences on the subject of Christian spirituality and leadership formation. He has been an invited speaker to universities, seminari es and Bible colleges in the U.S. and abroad. He served in South Africa on the board of the South African Council for Theological Education, was nominated to the Standards Generating Body for Theology and Ministry of the South African Qualifications Authority and served on the Consultative Forum of the South African Council of Churches. Dr. Bekker resides in Virginia Beach, Virginia with his wife and son.
The Future of Leadership: Insights and Ideas from the writings of Pope Benedict XVI Description: This presentation will explore the insights and ideas on the future of leadership from the writings of Pope Benedict XVI. Abstract: Pope Benedict XVI is arguably the most recognized international leader and spokesman for a future that sees positive change. His prodigious writing has continued after election as pope. Focusing on his three most recognized letters to Christians, world leaders, and men and women of good will, we can identify three references points for the future of leadership: the essence of leadership is love (‘Deus Caritas Est’); the importance of hope for the future of leadership (‘Spe Salvi’); progress and leadership through the holistic development of the human person (‘Caritatis in Veritate’).
The world is not lacking visions and models of leadership. Whether we speak of servant leadership, toxic leadership, collective leadership, or transformational leadership, there are always other schools and ideas brought to the discussion. While each of these models has its strengths and objective good points, they generally lack a solid foundation. Why is this important? In the midst of what Pope Benedict calls “the tyranny of relativism”, there is often no measuring stick to say a leaders should do this or that; it is considered good leadership if it satisfies the majority and if public opinion is high. In his letter ‘Deus Caritas Est’, Pope Benedict argues that men and women do not flourish, are not fulfilled, and cannot be happy if they do not fulfill their mission to love. Love as self-sacrifice for the eternal good of others is the height of human nature and the vocation to which each is called. Without love, leadership will always fall short of its potential and will continue lacking a solid foundation to judge the quality of decisions we make as well as to train future leaders.
Leadership is often associated with the future and the future with progress. It is worthless to talk about change and progress if we do not know where we are going and where we should finish. ‘Change for the sake of change’ is a dangerous game that can quickly destroy the good of individuals and society at the whim of a few individuals who claim a better tomorrow. In ‘Spe Salvi’, Pope Benedict highlights first the need for leaders to be beacons of hope for building a better tomorrow. He also stresses that this hope cannot be centered on a limited conception of progress and development. The idea of progress as limited to improved technology, material abundance, and scientific advancement falls far short of our dignity and calling as human beings. True progress and hope must be to grow simultaneously in our moral/ethical dimension as well as those aforementioned. Many of our contemporary problems are due to the one-sided hope propagated by leaders who ignore the critical importance of progress as moral persons.
Nathaniel Haslam LC, Universita Europea di Roma
Return to complete program |
