Changing Shapes and Constellations of Religious Leadership: Organizational Adaptation to New Realities

• In Event: The Future of Religious Leadership in Turbulent Postmodernity

Short Description

Institutional religion has faced dramatic declines in Western societies. Increasing social pressure and political scrutiny, as well as changing roles of religious tradition and belief, continually create new challenges for religious leadership. How have religious leaders and their communities adapted to respond to these new realities?

Detailed Abstract

Although religious leadership may appear to resist change because of social and cultural pressures, it has actually continually adapted across the centuries. Several historical studies have traced its development from the pastor’s civic function in a public church (16-18th centuries), to being educators good citizenship (early 19th century) and participating in the cultural elite (late 19th century), to the loss of public influence (early 20th century) and a refocusing in various directions (Post World War II) (Holifield, 2007; Billings, 2010).

The research group aimed to describe the more recent developments. The following description extends beyond the Netherlands and Belgium, encompassing many Western contexts. The classical model of religious leadership focused on the ‘care of souls’ within the prescribed tradition. However, with the opening up of traditional social structures and the rising impact of technology, change was inevitable. Participating in the societal drive for increasing professionalism (Freidson, 1999), religious leaders initially looked towards models of psychotherapy to professionalize their soul care. Christian psychotherapy was developed, and training for religious leadership included lengthy internships in clinical (psychiatric) settings (Boisen, 1955). This turned many religious leaders into professional pastoral counselors during the 1960-70’s. The religious leader (often the pastor or minister) was distinct as professional from other religious workers and volunteers, which was also marked by increasing use of supervision and coaching (Leach & Paterson, 2010). These religious leaders also suffered from the typical pressures of professionals, as evidenced by increasing rates of emotional exhaustion and burnout (Brouwer, 1995).

However, the mainline church decline that had started in the 1960’s, required increasing attention from religious leaders, shifting their task towards organizational leadership in the 1980-90’s. Organizational growth models were implemented, with new vision and mission statements, new scales or inventories to measure church health, and appropriate management and media techniques to secure growth. An array of conferences and literature ‘mined’ the literature of organizational leadership for use in church practice (Malphurs, 2005).

At the turn of the millennium, classic professionalization changed to hybrid professionalization (Noordegraaf, 2007). Professionals lost much of their autonomy and privilege, now subject to the growing powers of management and increasing customer demand. In religious contexts, this meant more power to the membership and governing boards, and less influence for the religious professional and the religious tradition they represented. A variety of new shapes and constellations of religious leadership developed.

Some leaders focused on the need to reach new target groups for renewed vitality of religious communities. Forms of entrepreneurial leadership became part of the leadership repertoire, focusing on innovation and meeting ‘customer’ demand (Volland, 2015). For those still connected to (traditional) religious communities, this was often labeled as ‘missional leadership,’ with the idea of extending the mission of the church to new locations and peoples (Branson, 2014). Others offered religious services to a wider public, turning themselves into a religious self-employed entrepreneur.

Others focused on guiding existing religious communities through times of increasing religious uncertainty and turbulence. With the traditional identity of the faith community of lesser significance, the ability of the religious leader to enable adherents to make spiritual sense of life and religion becomes primary. The religious leader adopts the shape of an interpretive or sensemaking spiritual guide (Cormode, 2006).

Yet others have portrayed religious leaders as shapers of culture (Carroll, 2006), as entrepreneurs of socio-religious identity (Zscheile, 2012; Barentsen, 2015), while increasing attention is paid to the public and civic dimension of religious leadership (Barentsen, 2016).

Besides these different shapes or roles of religious leaders, the constellation of religious leadership is changing. The full-time (almost tenured) professional religious leader is making room for the part-time religious leader who serves in several religious communities or organizations. In these contexts, the educated religious leader serves side by side with a variety of volunteers that now share in the traditional tasks of religious leadership (Vermeulen, 1998). Religious leaders pool their resources to offer interim leadership or coaching and training services (Brouwer, 2013). Often, part-time religious leaders become bivocational, which is a significant trend in the future of religious leadership (Brenneman, 2007).

Indeed, the shapes and constellations of religious leadership have significantly increased. The diversity within religious leadership is not, of course, a new phenomenon (Callahan, 2013), but in previous generations with fewer means of communication and cultural exchange, this was less evident that in the 21st century. This poses great challenges for institutions that educate religious leaders.

Participant

• Jack Barentsen, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven