•  
•  

Leadership in Crisis: Religious Authority in Uncertain Times

Introduction - Leadership in Crisis: Religious Authority in Uncertain Times

When I first conceived of a special issue of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Leadership Studies focused on religious authority in times of uncertainty, I wondered how other scholars would answer my call. After all, religion functions in different—sometimes contradictory—ways depending on the discipline. Moreover, contemporary global shifts in demographically fueled religious growth, enduring multinational faith-based conflicts, and increasing overlap between the political right and religious conservatism have indeed resulted in uncertain times for many. Yet the current moment is far from exceptional, as the authors included here reveal. Throughout history and across the world, formal institutions, informal communities, individual people, and more have embraced, resisted, and contested religious authority, broadly defined. Specific examples of these moments comprise the pieces that follow. Organized from the present to the past, the five articles in this special issue collectively interrogate the promise—and peril—of religious authority in times of crisis. We start with Robert Donmoyer and Fred Galloway’s study of one Catholic diocese’s recent initiative to promote dialogue across differences. The synodality process the diocese implemented adapted a version of talking circles prevalent in many North American Indigenous communities and was studied by researchers as it unfolded. As such, the authors’ findings offer a productive assessment of the limits and possibilities of small-scale conversations prompted by potentially divisive questions, especially within hierarchical organizations. In an increasingly polarized world, one diocese’s interpretation of Pope Francis’s call for “mutual listening” perhaps suggests a reasonable, if imperfect, path forward. Building on the challenges faced by the Catholic Church in recent years, John D. Rudnick, Srećko Koralija, and Raymond N. Enzweiler interrogate various leadership models to consider how centralized authority functioned during two periods of financial crisis within the Church. Importantly, they contextualize this centralized authority as sacramental as well as administrative, explaining how the sudden dismissal of Auditor General Libero Milone and the Vatican’s London real estate investment scandal expose not only shortcomings of the Catholic Church’s financial governance systems, but larger issues regarding the Church’s ability to respond when crises occur. Kimberly Kennedy’s piece centers post-apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland to examine how religious leaders help guide reconciliation and reshape collective identity in post-conflict societies. In the South African case, the original justification of apartheid using a theological framework required many religious leaders to both acknowledge their own role in perpetuating a discriminatory regime while guiding their communities through moral injury and sacred loss. The Troubles in Northern Ireland, although not an explicitly religious conflict, underscore a more fragmentary approach to discord rooted in community allegiance, cautious inaction, and the localized preservation of trust. Emphasizing the possibilities and limitations of religious authority in post-conflict societies ultimately reveals that moral clarity, communal identity, and social trust are key for effective leadership. Continuing the theme of localized conflict, Lauren Henley unpacks the criminalization of Black male preachers in the American South following a series of ax murders in the early twentieth century. That the crimes themselves were imagined to be religiously motivated contributed to a narrowing acceptability of appropriate expressions of faith. In time, the arrests of various clergymen simultaneously revealed the influence of Black religious leaders within their communities while labeling their faith practices as deviant and possibly murderous. Eventually, the implicit empowerment of these men led to accusations that they were cult leaders, suggesting a more nefarious understanding of the authority they maintained over their followers. Stepping back to Shakespeare’s England, Kristin Bezio makes the case for evidence of the playwright’s cautious religious toleration in the 1603/1604 Measure for Measure. Contextualizing the play’s subtle advocacy of tolerance within anti-Catholic and anti-Puritan England exposes the power of cultural works to shape public discourse, even into the present. That Shakespeare’s play ends with multiple possible interpretations further evinces its utility for contemporary society’s myriad uncertainties. Written more than 400 years ago, Shakespeare’s promotion of religious tolerance allows us to come full circle to Donmoyer and Galloway’s piece on the power of listening. Combined, the breadth of these articles confirms that crisis, as much as leadership, is a unifying human experience. From conflicts within established religious organizations to crimes against humanity committed in the name of faith, what people believe—and what people with power can convince (or compel) others to believe—transcends denominational, ideological, and secular lines. These works thus all take seriously how studying religious authority in times of crisis can help us understand our collective past, present, and future.