The Power of Religious Figures

When recently a denominational Bishop as the chairman of the governing body of a prestigious college, decided practically overnight the manner in which the college should be run and who should and should not be admitted it got me thinking about the power that religious leaders wield. It made me think and reflect a lot more on how religious leaders function and govern and how they ought to be chosen. It is surprising that in such a sensitive subject as this, where in even fully state funded institutions, like the IITs and IIMs, the government has been treading cautiously, a decision was made practically overnight with out any visible effort to build consensus or consult any one. Not so much the decision, but the manner it was arrived at too led to a volley of criticism that is hardly likely to add any allure to the name of the institution.

The position of religious leaders in a secular state is ambiguous. At one level, they are no more than private citizens; at another level , as the recent controversy surrounding the head of the Dera Saccha Sauda indicates, religious leaders have a lot of clout and influence … possibly in many instances they have more authority than political leaders. In most instances, the leaders are unelected. In case of the older institutions like the various mutts, the leadership is inherited but more common these days are the god men who seem to have sprung up and acquired a following almost overnight. Many of the religious heads in the country head huge empires worth cores, many of them by virtue of their office alone and not because of any management merit they might possess. Most religious leaders in India hold office at the tip of a very narrow support base and yet their decisions and actions be it Baba Ram Rahim Singh dressing up and aping Guru Gobind Singh or A Bishop suddenly dispensing wisdom on reservation and quotas.

Mahants and Bishops and Imams and the like may preside over the fortunes of prestigious institutions set up by religious trusts only because of the religious office they hold. In case of the educational institutions, the religious clergy may preside over the fortunes of institutions into which they might themselves be unfit to gain admission had they been in the positions of students in these institutions. The clergy preside over several institutions and their valuable properties and make key policy decisions, often without any demonstrable skills or training to do so Unelected leaders, be it in religion or politics are a bane. But typically political despots are more easily overthrown than religious leaders who wield a more mystic and other worldly grip on their followers.

The Christian reformation in Europe happened for similar reasons. In most situations, there is little that can be done. It is indeed a pity that Institutions and ashrams and establishments that most professionally managed set ups would hire experienced managers to run are managed by religious figure heads that may be well versed in rites and rituals but know little else. In India often , politics and religion seem to be the last refuge of the scoundrel and the ones who fit nowhere are the ones often the most blinded like in Hans Christian Anderson’s “ The Emperor’s new Clothes” be it cloaked in dummy robes of a Guru or a Bishop carrying a miter and cassock. However the role of church leaders and other religious figures is not ambiguous in the bible, even though a secular state may feel constrained in prescribing roles for the clergy. In biblical literature, the role of a leader Vis a Vis his flock is often likened to that of a shepherd and his sheep.

In Psalm 23, David is likening God to a shepherd. Indeed, he is saying that God is his shepherd. He also leads him beside the still waters. So, here the shepherd is supplying the basic needs of the sheep. Of all the images in the Bible, the story of the Good Shepherd is one of the most popular. In this story, Jesus draws a sharp distinction between his way of being a shepherd, and the way 'the hired help' exercises his responsibility. The Good Shepherd is constantly on the alert, but more than that, in the face of danger he is ready to give his life for the sake of the sheep. The hired hand has no real care for the sheep, and in the face of danger takes the easy way out, and the leaves the sheep in peril. Those who would follow the Good Shepherd are prepared to risk all, in order to fulfill their calling.

Throughout their history the people of Israel had been shepherded by various weak or faithless kings and religious leaders, and Jesus words would have struck a heavy chord in the leaders of his own day whom he openly challenged and criticized.It is rather hard for many people today to relate to the shepherd comparison, so what does the metaphor shepherd mean to us today? We hear a lot about the word servant leadership these days. This is more than just semantics, words have power. What we call each other says a great deal about how we view each other. Recognizing the things we do as ministries - however great or small-invites us to see them in a new way. When we begin to think about our lives in devotion to ministry, then we can begin to understand this shepherd Jesus who calls us to follow him.

We claim to be followers that means to follow is to know the Jesus who welcomed children, read in the synagogue, provided wine at a wedding, washed people’s feet, presided at table, told stories, cooked breakfast, practiced first aid and took advantage of numerous opportunities to do whatever would make someone feel a little better about life. That’s is the call we answer when we hear the shepherd calling us to green pastures, by still waters, restoring our souls, this is the life we are called to follow, ministry. Let is the kind of leader we need to be leading the sheep. And that is also the kind of shepherds we need to be if we happen to be leaders.