SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP, Exercises of Religion

Download SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP and more Exercises Religion in PDF only on Docsity! DUANE M. COVRIG, JANET LEDESMA, AND GARY GIFFORD SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP: WHAT DO YOU PRACTICE? WHAT SHOULD YOU PRACTICE? Spirituality is back in the scholarship of leadership in secular journals and books. Christians will find that they have some language in com- mon with this scholarship. They will share the belief expressed about the importance of spirituality in work and leadership. They will also find new terms and new turns and twists on old phrases that will challenge them and even raise deep concerns. Roof (1994) noted that we have “creation spirituality, Eucharistic spirituality, Native American spiritual- ity, Eastern spiritualities, Twelve-step spiritualities, feminist spirituality, earth-based spirituality, eco-feminist spirituality, Goddess spirituality, and men’s spirituality, as well as what would be considered traditional Judeo-Christian spiritualities” (p. 243). Sorting through what is meant by spiritual leadership has become more complex in our increasingly plu- ralistic society. What Are the Definitions of and Differences Between Spiritual and Religious? Part of teasing out the difference between spiritual and religious lead- ership is clarifying the terms “spiritual” and “religious.” Pielstick (2005) sees “spiritual” as a power, a “synchronicity” and “the energy and the influence derived from living in sync with a higher purpose, often based on a worldview of an ultimate transcendent (nonmaterial) reality” (p. Duane M. Covrig, Ph.D., is Professor of Leadership and Ethics at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Janet Ledesma, Ph.D., is the Educational Leadership Coordinator and Associate Professor in the Educational Leadership Department at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Gary Gifford, M.Div., Ed.D., is a retired pastor who has also worked as a school administrator, teacher and recruiter. 157). It can be like an inner path that gives direction to the self, “a sense of meaning and wholeness . . . interconnectedness, self-transcendence, and/or a transcendent worldview” (p. 159). Using Wilber’s (1984) catego- rization of spiritual development, Pielstick (2005) suggests that individu- als and groups can have a progressive experience as they move to more complex spiritual experiences. The order is viewed as Magical (seeing spiritual phenomena as a result of the magical powers or beings) and Mythical (supernatural explanations held in stories of gods or goddesses who act on the human experience and give blessing or cursing and teachings) at the more primitive end, and Logical (spiritual ideas and experiences explained by reason and logic) and Systemical (where spiri- tuality draws on networks of relationships and imagines interrelated- ness and wholeness as its manifestations) in the more pragmatic levels of spiritual engagement. They seem to favor Transpersonal (where spiri- tuality is crafted through transcendent and cosmic communication) or Mystical (a coming to the view of a unitary experience of all things). Religion seems more associated with a belief in a deity and the resources, traditions, customs, and practices that come as a result of that belief. It is a “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power . . . especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice” (“Religion,” 2011). Religion typically is a socially shared experience where members of a group affiliate around similar spiritual experiences and beliefs. They also practice social control with each other, challeng- ing and encouraging each other in those shared spiritual pursuits. Here the group’s beliefs are important and reiterated, and a check on group faithfulness to those beliefs is part of the religious experience. Given these definitions and understandings, “spiritual” is viewed as more personal and individual and the private right of one’s own think- ing and action toward a personal worldview. It may or may not have a god or gods and may or may not foster a desire to convert others to that spiritual view. However, “religion” and the “religious” have a stronger social manifestation of shared spiritual thinking. Religion exerts more social control, socializing new members to its orthodoxy—either in belief or in practice. As was noted earlier, Wilber (1984) and Pielstick (2005) view spiritual- ity and religion as overlapping but with an evolutionary view of belief in non-material (i.e., spiritual) processes. They perceive Christians as oper- ating in a more primitive spirituality. Pielstick noted that “conservative and fundamentalist Christians sometimes balk at this [evolutionary] model as much of [their] theology best fits the mythical category” (p. THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP PAGE 105 C O V R I G , L E D E S M A A N D G I F F O R D gion,’ which is associated with the official, the external, and the institu- tional, often picking up negative connotations of the hierarchical and patriarchal along the way” (p. 181). Most of us would want to embrace the mantle of spiritual leader but not the negative leadership roles of “external” and “institutional” with its connotation of top-down control. We may be less interested in the challenge associated with religious leadership because of the growing ambivalence toward authority. While we embrace the rebirth of focus on the need for spiritual lead- ership, we believe that the subtle negativity attributed to religious lead- ership is a manifestation of a detrimental move away from the value of authority, hierarchy, and social institutional expectations. Structure, hierarchy, and formal authority need not be associated with evil. In fact, some sociologists view the demise of religion and its authoritative struc- ture, and the loss of family structure, as creating detrimental social impact on people and their social growth. This is especially true of children. In the insightful report published by The Commission on Children at Risk (2003), which is a jointly sponsored initiative of the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) and the Institute for American Values, increased emotional, psychological, and even medical problems are associated with the lack of community structures that give authority directly to individuals. We believe that official, external, insti- tutional, hierarchical and familiar authority can be a very important contribution from leadership to their communities. Swidler (2002) argues that the growth of a strong individualistic approach to life and living, a “me-ism,” has worked to erode social insti- tutions commonly viewed as preserving the individuals participating in those social institutions. Two examples are marriage and family. We are concerned that the penchant of secular researchers who support focus on research about spiritual leadership may continue to distance their work and support for religious leadership and miss a major part of how spiritual leadership operates in religious societies and groups. Oddly, they may be unwittingly adding even more work to de-institutionalize the very structures that support human well-being in many spiritual and religious communities. Beyond these scholarly arguments supporting religious leadership, three simple observations can be made concerning the characteristic qualities of religious leadership: it is official, institutional, and hierar- chical. PAGE 108 Vol. 7, No. 1 SPRING 2013 S P I R I T U A L O R R E L I G I O U S L E A D E R S H I P ? Official Being official is not a negative characteristic. For example, Apple or Samsung products are highly desired by many. Those individuals want official products, not “fake” ones. Institutional Institutional can be viewed negatively by some who don’t appreciate how social institutional processes improve relationships. The simple handshake, for example, is one of the most pervasive social institutions. It is a shared experience that billions have been socialized to use as a wonderful shared way to greet each other. The same can be said of social institutions like marriage, family, and work environments. Hierarchical Hierarchy may have crippling influence in some environments. However, if hierarchy is guided by a desire to better serve those “under” one’s care, hierarchy is really about responsibility and care for the other. In the spirit of service, the “greater” serves and blesses in the order of God’s creation. It is the shepherd who is pained by the loss of the sheep—often more than the hireling—such that those with greater responsibility and higher in the hierarchy may share the greater challenge and joy of sacrificial care and responsiveness. It is precisely the twist given by those who promote spirituality in such a way as to cast darkness on religion or show its negative function, that most disturbs us with the current focus on spiritual leadership. We believe both forms of leadership are essential. Institutions can become oppressive to human wellbeing. They need continual examination and revival. However, to believe that individualistic spiritual leadership is automatically good and would create safe environments for others neg- lects the truth that the self is often worse than the institution it’s trying to correct. Why not see both spiritual and religious leadership as essen- tial to the wellbeing of groups? How Do We Embrace Both Spiritual and Religious Leadership? Our appreciation of religious leadership is balanced by a caution against the tendencies of religious leaders to control and even oppress those with varying views. Christians have a long history of both resisting and welcoming pluralistic views of spirituality. The strong church-state monopolies that dominated Christian medieval Europe show us that THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP PAGE 109 C O V R I G , L E D E S M A A N D G I F F O R D religion can do harm. So can religious leadership. We don’t want to go back to that oppressive time. However, we also don’t want the “me-ism” of an individualistic spirituality that is devoid of social institutional practices that neglect the community. We don’t need spiritual hegemo- ny. We also don’t want to see spirituality devoid of its social mooring in religious sacred text and practices. To find a balanced approach, we find useful practices in the history of religious liberty championed in the American experience. This liberty supports civil rights for individuals who want to practice their own spiri- tuality while allowing religions to promote and even proselytize individ- uals. As Miller (2012) has convincingly shown, the deep roots of the scriptural beliefs of early American Christians like Roger Williams and William Penn supported allowing individuals to have a private right of judgment in issues of spirituality. This means that individuals have the freedom to create the spiritual beliefs and practices they believe keep them faithful to their god or religion or ultimate worldview. The same constitutional support for this also brought freedom for reli- gious expression and activity. Herein lies the deep challenge of fostering both forms of leadership, and of finding our own spiritual voice and giv- ing others space and time to find theirs (Covey, 2006). Religious liberty not only allows conflicting judgments but actually encourages them. The successful spiritual leader can tap into his or her spirituality and encourage others to grow their own spiritual experiences. A leader’s spirituality and understandings can also be challenged by passages and interpretations gathered from Scripture or from other authoritative refer- ences valued by the group or community in which the leader leads. Where Do We Go From Here: Religiosity or Spirituality? In this dialogue we have defined, contrasted, and explored the rela- tionship between spiritual and religious leadership. We embrace this new focus on the spirituality in leadership when it is grounded on scrip- tural principles. We raised concerns about the practice of some to sug- gest a wholesale rejection of religious leadership. We believe some char- acteristics in religious leadership, when aligned with Scripture, provide helpful beliefs, practices, and traditions that support and nurture the well-being of individuals and groups. Spirituality in leadership is a crucial focus for scholars and practitioners of leadership. We conclude with a look at two secular academic authorities: Ann Swidler (2002) and Jonathan Haidt (2012). They both have helped us PAGE 110 Vol. 7, No. 1 SPRING 2013 S P I R I T U A L O R R E L I G I O U S L E A D E R S H I P ?