There are very few occasions when, within the interactions of human relations, an element of a leadership-type power is not at work. To put it simply ‘leadership is exercised whenever anyone influences another person’.[1] Throughout history there are innumerable accounts of positive and negative interactions, both on a local and global scale and on an individual and corporate basis. If people were stopped on the streets of England and asked the question, Can you tell me examples of charismatic leaders in history?, probable answers might be Jesus, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Jeanne d’Arc, amongst others. (Obviously, this is a slight generalization and subjective understanding of the historical stereotypical ‘leaders’.) The question might be answered differently depending on where it was asked and to whom it was asked-taking into account diverse appreciations of leadership and history across geographical planes, age groups, ethnicities, sub-cultural groupings etc-however it is true, I believe, to suggest that the question would be answered by a high percentage of respondents. On the other hand, if we were to ask, What style of leadership do you agree with the most?, the answers would probably be more varied and broader, based more on personal experience of and response to a leadership style. This would make it harder to quantify in terms of making generalizations, finding patterns and would possibly have a much lower response ratio.
A charismatic leader has authority because they have charisma and they sustain their authority ‘by proving his [or her] strength in life. [For example] If he [or she] wants to be a prophet, he must perform miracles’.[2] These charismatic leaders arise at a time of urgency, crisis and ‘psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, political distress’[3]and their charismatic qualities, as hero or heroine, lead an excited (due to the timing of their distress or crisis) mass of followers. In time though, Weber suggests that what can occur is the routinization of charisma. This is where, either through subsequent successors or a movement becoming institutionalized, there is ‘no renewal of charisma, no new outbreak of sanctity, occurs, [and] it will dull and deaden the love that brought the community into being’.[4]
The charismatic leader is not tied to an institution or a legal or rationalistic framework, in a similar way to the difference between a prophet and a priest, and subsequently ‘is always a radical who challenges established practice by going to “the root of the matter”‘.[5] Any branch of society that remains unquestionable or unaccountable is in danger of travelling down a path towards an abuse of power, ending, potentially, in a dictatorship. Alternatively, we can have ‘the “depersonalization” of charisma…through institutionalization’,[6] and the gift of grace, of charisma, loses its revolutionary purpose in bringing about change and heads towards becoming bureaucratic and ineffectual. This highlights the need for leaders who are prepared to re-ignite the original vision of a movement or to be prepared to set out, if appropriate, in a new direction if an institution is unprepared to change.
Wilson writes about the limitation to corporate growth directly related to the limitation and inability of management: he then compares ‘the failure of religious movements to limitations of…leadership’,[7] because they are unable to grow beyond the ability of their leader. Charismatic authority provides a leadership which can exceed limitations as it is extra-capable and creates an environment where extra-growth is more possible than normal. Hybels suggests that these limitations are broken when a visionary (charismatic) leader emerges with a directive style of leadership.[8]
A leader with charisma approaches finances with an attitude that is the antithesis to a Western consumerist culture (a culture, which evades most spheres of public and private life). Charismatic leaders, as demonstrated in the life of St Francis of Assisi, reject a dependence on financial structures in which to develop a movement. They, disarmingly for many, are motivated not by ‘private gain for its holders’[9] and do not have their primary goal to maintain an institution or empire but rather ‘a charismatic aristocracy…[of] disciples…bound together by their common allegiance to the charismatic leader and…mission’.[10] This has echoes of the mandate given to the apostles by Jesus to carry out the mission of God without the security of possessions or material methods (Mk 6.7-12). This style of leadership is risky, unknown and pioneering. Such language is widely used now by scholars examining the need for pioneer leaders and emerging church expressions prepared to engage in distinctly un-bureaucratic and de-institutionalized approach to leadership.[11]
The established denominations and churches with institutional heritages must remain open to internal critique of how they are engaging with the calling of God and whether the gifts of God given for this task have become routinized to such a degree that they have become ineffectual. This probing and questioning must be on both a personal (individual and collective) and institutional basis; to check whether the structures are preventing and domesticating the life of the Spirit of God.
A key area that has emerged from this research is the need for wholesome and effective teaching and training in the area of leadership and authority. Neither is to be left to novices, but rather approached humbly and carefully as a father holding his child for the first time. This is highlighted in the work of both Avis[12] and Czovek[13] as crucial to future theological training: ‘the church cannot afford to ignore the training of charismatic leaders’[14] and an examination of different leadership models. The language of leadership contains a multitude of styles, such as adaptive leadership (Hirsch), therapeutic leadership (Avis), and courageous leadership (Hybels). Christian leadership needs a holistic framework including elements of a directive nature, as well as implementation of vision and a mission from God. It is imperative that such learning occurs within a structure which allows for accountability and progress by looking at the examples of failed leaderships in order to produce a mature, vulnerable and yet courageous approach to charismatic leadership.
A third and final reflection for the future is the need to approach the question of succession with appropriate teaching. Within the Christian Church, there are myriad styles of leadership, but important to them all is the vocation of making the Gospel fresh and contextually meaningful to each generation. From this, the focus of any leadership should be to point disciples to the ultimate authority, God. It is the role of a particular leader to attempt to journey with the people of God, helping them to move forward with an eschatological hope. Lessons can and must, be learnt from previous leaders and leaderships, but must not take the place of a current leader or take the place of the character of Jesus’ authoritative style.
[1] Lawrence 2004, 23.
[2] Gerth and Mills 1991, 249.
[3] Gerth and Mills 1991, 245.
[4] Stark 1969, 79.
[5] Bendix 1960, 300.
[6] Bendix 1960, 310.
[7] Wilson 1990, 231.
[8] Hybels 2002, 141-142.
[9] Gerth and Mills 1991, 247.
[10] Bendix 1960, 302.
[11] Examples of emergent thinkers are Alan Hirsch, Eddie Gibbs and Jonny Baker.
[12] Avis 1992, 107 pp.
[13] Czovek 2006, 227 pp.
[14] Czovek 2006, 227.
