Preparing Leaders to Think Theologically

By Jay Marshall

In an increasingly diverse world, how can theological education prepare leaders to work spiritually and practically with people from different backgrounds and different faiths?

Theological education forms how one views God, self, others, and the world. Even more, it shapes how one understands the interactions between each of these participants within life’s sandbox. I think that may be the most powerful contribution theological education makes to the preparation of leaders. Skills are important, but framing how we perceive, critique, and reflect, informs one’s decisions and consequently, one’s actions.

At least four questions underlie this one about a leader’s work with diversity, and the answers given to the four will greatly determine how the one may be answered. Those four are: What is the purpose of theological education? What is a leader’s work? How does leadership intersect with spirituality and practicality? How do we conceive of relationships with the “other?”

There is no one, universal answer to the question of how to offer theological education. Some programs exist to promote the doctrine of a particular denomination. Others wrestle with theological questions with an academic thrust apart from connection to a living faith tradition. Of course, there are a myriad of positions between those two poles. Two key elements of theological education at ESR are rooted firmly within our accreditation standards: spiritual formation of the student, and development of an awareness of context. As those two intertwine, theological education invests much energy into helping students come to know themselves and to become clear on their place and stance within the culture. One facet of the process involves introducing students to people, classmates, readings, and practices that have or represent different points of view than that of the students. A valuable outcome of engaging with different viewpoints is, in addition to learning about a different tradition, we come to know ourselves more truly. As those knowledge bases are honed alongside one’s understanding of God, theological education ultimately helps those it forms to live with integrity of conviction.

Conviction, though, can be an unstable element in the equation. Perhaps it is usually or even always an unstable element. Conviction drives the one convicted. This can create volatility—not necessarily a bad thing, though when it seeks to convince by domination or suppression, conviction may cross the line of acceptable behavior if being respectful of divergent points of view is to be valued. While the expression of conviction can create tension, coming to the point of knowing one’s own convictions is a useful, even essential, process as part of theological education.  I am of the opinion that the better we understand our own reasons for being persons of faith and the truths we hold, the less troubled we are by lack of uniformity in the beliefs of others (unless we stake out an exclusivist position in which only one way, and of course by “one” we mean “our” way is holy enough gain Divine acceptance). When we can finally sit with the unanswerable questions without fear, fight, or flight, our need for neatly gift-wrapped answers decreases, as does the unease created when others’ beliefs do not match our own. Having reached a place of internal knowing, we can articulate our point of view while allowing space for others to do the same. This is a position of confidence and strength, but appropriately humble as well; even as we know why we think as we do and are convinced of the truth, we are deeply aware of the limits of our knowledge. Pride and arrogance simply aren’t options.

This leads us directly to the second question: “What is the leader’s work?” Simply stated, it is to live with integrity of conviction, according to the gifts given and the calls to ministry received. Good theological education accompanies students’ quests to discern those gifts and hear those calls. Particularly when those gifts take one outside of traditional ministry contexts where the work has a specific “religious” nature, the intersection of leadership with spirituality can become more complex. In conversations with students in classes on leadership, one hurdle to always be crossed is broadening the view of faith within leadership as something other than religious jargon or pietistic expressions that sometimes seem disingenuous. It is a conversation that typically moves the participants to consider issues of authority, communication, relationships, and values. Once those are considered as integral to formation and expression of faith--as lived spirituality--then spirituality and practicality are virtually inseparable. A leader’s work in the world is always, on the most basic level, an expression of his or her spirituality.

This connects with the fourth question: How do we conceive of relationships with the “other?” By other, I mean those of different faith backgrounds and faiths. The answer to this question connects tightly with the nature of the theological education one receives. Theological education, remember, considers spiritual formation of the student to be an essential part of the educational process. The assumptions held and transmitted by the educators will be extremely influential in shaping the minds, hearts, and ministries of its graduates. If the curriculum is rooted in an exclusivist point of view, it is entirely conceivable that theological education may not prepare persons to work with diverse backgrounds and faiths at all (allowing, of course, that in these contexts students might take a contrarian position and move to a dissenting position).

Exclusivist perspectives might refuse to work with those of differing points of view. Or, they may work with them; having in mind that the ultimate goal is to convert the other to their point of view (conviction running rampant!). A more inclusive outcome, and preferable given my own set of convictions, is that the theologically formed leader who offers her or his ministry with some degree of confidence and conviction is able to engage in God’s work alongside whomever is encountered along the way. With clarity of belief and truthfulness, with awareness of those points on the horizon where clouds of unknowing are most dense, well-formed leaders are capable of making their contribution alongside a variety of partners. They find common ground, staring simply with their humanity and their sharing of space in God’s creation. From there, in most cases, respectful conversation will divulge shared values that provide a place to stand in unity without compromising integrity. Except in the most extreme circumstances, that is usually sufficient to allow good, faithful, collaborative work to unfold without threatening diversity or undermining particularity.

Jay Marshall is Dean of Earlham School of Religion and a native of North Carolina. Before beginning his service at ESR, he was a pastor in Western Yearly Meeting.

What does "leadership" mean to you?

I sometimes joke that God called me to be a pastor to a group that can’t make its peace with pastoral ministry, to be an Old Testament scholar among a people that is ambivalent about the Bible, and to be a leader within a group that really doesn’t want to be led. One has to be willing to “swim upstream” to find joy in those types of calling. Still, I’ve gladly said “yes” to each of these opportunities and relish the challenges they bring.
The latter call, that of leadership, is very much on my mind these days. From personal, institutional, and communal perspectives, it begs for attention. While it is true that leadership can be a troubling concept for Friends, I have come to believe that we should move beyond our old hesitations. We would benefit from fussing less about the things that can go wrong, instead investing time reflecting upon the topic and developing an understanding of leadership that can function well in our context.
At its most basic level, I have come to hold that leadership is stepping forward in answer to the leading of the Spirit, offering the gifts and skills with which one has been equipped.  For that to be a legitimate understanding of leadership, it must grow out of one’s ongoing dialogue with God. This means leadership is very much integrated with one’s spirituality, even though most theories of leadership leave no room for spirituality. It also means many of us, perhaps all of us, have moments of moving into and out of leadership roles when, for some duration of time, we have the right offerings to meet the needs of the moment.  From this perspective, leading is a form of faithfulness shared by virtually everyone.
Having said this, I would distance myself from the position of “everyone is a leader” which at some point devolves to mean, “no one is a leader.” I am willing to say that while all people have opportunities to lead, and all leadership is valuable, not all leadership is equal and some is more permanent than others. That statement may not gain wide acceptance among Friends. However, I believe that spiritual equality before God does not translate into positional equality within an organization or topical equality on every subject to be discussed or decided. There are topics I know little or nothing about, and even if a Quaker context means I can contribute to the discussion, and even though it is possible God may speak through me, I do not enter some discussions expecting to carry any weight.
Leadership as a response to call differs from leadership as raw talent in at least two crucial ways: first, its authority is rooted in God’s calling and equipping, not in charisma or skill; and second, it asks early and often, “for what purpose am I leading?” This question helps the leader to remember that the purpose for leading has God’s call and the community’s well being in mind. It is less about imposing one’s own vision on the group or satisfying ego, and more a matter of helping the group discern and respond to its own call as defined by its mission. With that said, leadership is offered in the hope that it contributes to God’s work, as well as to the life and health of the group receiving the leadership.
Leadership almost always presents an opportunity to influence the group that receives it. I could have easily said “an opportunity to serve the group.” There is a service capacity to good leadership, but I am careful about the use of “servant” with regard to leadership among Friends. Friends employ the term often, usually without having ever read Greenleaf’s work on servant leadership. I believe Friends in general have not yet matured enough in our thinking about leadership to use the term “servant” without qualification.
I am aware that the idea of one person influencing another makes some Friends uneasy, but the idea that all influence is bad or that we can live a life not influenced by others is indefensible. At the core are worries about power and authority that seem to be embedded in Quaker DNA. If Friends are to make progress thinking about how leadership can flourish among us, we are going to have to speak the truth to ourselves about terms like those. It is not that Friends do not have authorities and powers among us. Rather, our tendency is to camouflage them, or perhaps simply fail to recognize them because they we are so immersed in our own assumptions.
I know that I am going to be influenced by others, and many times will even be unaware of those influences. Given that, I’d prefer to be influenced by those who lead with clear objectives and right motives.
Jay Marshall is Dean of Earlham School of Religion and a native of North Carolina. Before beginning his service at ESR, he was a pastor in Western Yearly Meeting.