7

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH:

WHAT THE APOSTLE PAUL HAS TO SAY TO MAX WEBER
ROB MUTHIAH
Abstract: In the fall of my freshman year at a
Christian liberal arts college, I was sitting in the
Student Union with a dorm mate, Doug, talking
about matters of faith. As we talked, Doug asked
me if I was charismatic. I paused, and then
hesitantly said that maybe I was a little bit. Only
later did I come to realize that we had been
talking about two very different concepts.
Doug was asking if I did things like speak in
tongues and raise my hands in the air during
worship services. I was completely unfamiliar with
that meaning of the word, and I thought he was
referring to a leadership or personality trait. These
are two unrelated understandings of charismaticor
are they?
In order to explore that question, this paper
will begin by looking at how charisma is viewed in
the NT. Where did the idea come from? What is its
range of meanings? After these questions are
addressed, the focus will be turned to the use of
charisma in terms of specific grace gifts given by
the Holy Spirit. From an examination of scripture,
a set of characteristics that the charismata have in
common will be set forth.
This examination will provide a basis then to
look critically at how the Apostle Pauls
understanding of charisma contrasts with Max
Webers understanding of charisma. This analysis
raises questions about the use of charisma in
Christian leadership, an issue which is taken up in
Rob Muthiah is associate professor of practical theology and director
of field education at Haggard Graduate School of Theology, Azusa
Pacific University, Azusa, California.

MUTHIAH

the final section. Criteria which emerge from the

nature of the charismata in the NT will be offered
as a means of evaluating a Christian leaders use of
a personality trait or attribute called charisma.1
The Meaning of Charisma in Scripture
What is the background of the word charisma as used
in the NT? The Apostle Paul is the first person to
extensively use and develop the meaning of charisma.
Although the word was already in existence prior to Paul,
its use was extremely rare; Paul uses the word more than
all previous known usages combinedhe uses it
sixteen times.
The word is found three times in obscure OT
manuscripts. Two of these are deuterocanonical variant
readings of the LXX (Ecclus. 7:33; 38:30).2 In these two
instances, the term does not involve God, as it always
does in Pauls usage.3 A third usage of charisma is found
in Theodotions translation of Psalm 31:22.4 No other
usages are found in the biblical material prior to Paul. In
the classical Greek literature the word does not appear at
all, and in Greek literature from Pauls era, all uses appear
to post-date Paul.5 In the NT, we find one usage outside
of the Pauline corpus, in 1 Peter 4:10, which was written
later than Pauls letters. This verse is brief and does not
develop the idea beyond Paul. So most of our
understanding of the biblical meanings of charisma must
come from Paul himself. Paul essentially invented the
idea of charisma.
Charisma as used in the NT is often Anglicized as charism, but in this paper
the transliteration charisma shall be used in order to keep at the fore the issue
of how the NT usage relates to Webers usage of charisma. Charismata is the
transliterated plural form of charisma.
2James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic
Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 206.
3 Siegfried Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology of Charismata (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 2.
4 Schatzmann, 3.
5 Schatzmann, 3.
1

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

For Paul, charisma always carries with it a definite

connection to its root, charis (grace), and in fact Paul
sometimes uses the term as a synonym for charis (Rom.
5:15-16). The general meaning of charisma is a gift of
grace from God. Sometimes the gift is understood
broadly to mean the expansive grace of God given to us
(2 Cor. 9:15), though often it is given more specific
nuances. Charisma can also be connected to a state of
existence: the gift of eternal life (Rom. 6:23). Charisma
can refer to the gift of special election or privileges
granted to the people of Israel (Rom. 11:29), and it can
be a general gift of mutual edification (Rom. 1:11).
Finally, charisma is used to refer to the specific gifts
given to believers for meeting the needs of the
community (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:4-31, Eph. 4:7-12).6
These are often referred to as spiritual gifts. We will
focus now on how charisma is used in this last sense.
Trinitarian Structure of Charisma in the New Testament
Referenced to God the Father
For Paul, charismata must above all else be
understood in relation to the Fathers grace (e.g., 1 Cor.
7:7, 12:6).7 They are gifts that flow from the Fathers
grace and they are gifts that carry the Fathers grace
into the life of the community. Charisma always carries

6 Paul also uses several other words which mean gift. In Rom. 5:15-17, where
he twice uses charisma, he also twice uses dorea to mean gift. The words are
used synonymously. In Eph. 4:8 the word doma is used for gift, probably
reflecting the LXX version of the psalm being quoted. Again, the meaning is
synonymous with charisma. See Robert J. Banks, Paul's Idea of Community: The
Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans, 1988), 94. Pneumatikos is another word used by Paul in a way that
overlaps with charisma. While it is most often used adjectively to mean
spiritual, Paul occasionally uses it to mean spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12:1; 14:1, 37).
The reason Paul at times uses pneumatikos is significant and shall be
discussed below.
7 In the passages where he deals with charisma, Paul does not use Father
language specifically, but it is evident that Paul is referring to the first person
of the Trinity because he will also speak of the Spirit and/or of Jesus in ways
that point to a differentiation (e.g., Rom. 5:15,16; 1 Cor. 12:4-6).

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

10

MUTHIAH

with it this stated or implied link to the first person of

the Trinity.
Christological
Christ himself is present in the charismata. The
charismata together form the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:
27; cf. Rom. 12:4, 5), and in every part of his body Christ
is present and acting.8 The Christological nature of the
charismata is also seen in their form of expression.
Christ is praised and acknowledged as Lord when the gift
being exercised comes from God rather than from pagan
idols (1 Cor. 12:1-3). Christ is present in, acts through,
and is the ultimate focus of the charismata. Charisma
is Christological.
Pneumatological
The charismata are also pneumatological. The Spirit is
the mediator of Christs presence in the charismata.
While some passages on charisma make no explicit
connection between charisma and the Spirit (Rom. 12,
Eph. 4; 1 Peter 4), the pneumatological nature of
charisma is clearly set forth in 1 Cor. 12-14, which Fee
claims is the largest section of Spirit material in the
Pauline letters.9 Here the gifts are tied directly to the
Spirit. In fact, Paul begins by using a synonym which
emphasizes the connection of the gifts to the Spirit:
pneumatikon (spiritual gifts in v. 1). Fee argues that Paul
switches between pneumatikon and charismata depending
on whether Paul wants to emphasize that the gift comes
from the Spirit or to emphasize the manifestations of
Gods grace.10

8 Ksemann affirms the Christological nature of the charismata when he

declares that Christ is present in his gifts and in the ministries attesting those
gifts and made possible by those gifts. Quoted in Miroslav Volf, After Our
Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans, 1998), 228.
9 Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 146.
10 Fee, 153.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

11

While Paul connects the gifts to the Holy Spirit, he

also distinguishes what he means from other popular
conceptions of spiritual gifts. Banks points out that
pneumatikon was a common Greek word and was used
often in relation to Hellenistic religions where there was
great interest in spiritual gifts of ecstatic utterances and
healings.11 Paul himself uses the word in several other
places (e.g., Rom. 1:11, 1 Cor. 14:1, 37). But Pauls intent
in 1 Cor. 12:1 seems to be to pick up a word in common
usage and then to take its meaning in a different
direction. He begins his extended treatment of gifts in 1
Cor. 12 by saying now concerning pneumatikon and thus
begins with a term with which the Corinthians would
have been familiar. But then Paul offers a critique of
pneumatikon as practiced by pagans. The pagans use of
gifts leads them to idols and their gifts of utterance curse
Jesus (v. 2, 3a) rather than praise Jesus (v. 3b). To
heighten the contrast between those gifts and the gifts
given by the Spirit to believers, Paul switches now (v. 4)
to the use of charismata, a word which, as we have seen,
was rare and so allowed Paul to define its content
without having to concern himself at every turn with the
meanings that could carry forward if he used pneumatikon
(though, as noted above, he is not completely averse to
using pneumatikon as a synonym for charismata). Thus, not
only did Paul connect charisma to the Spirit; he also redefined the Corinthian understanding of spiritual gifts
over and against the way pneumatikon were popularly
understood.
In 1 Cor. 12 the Spirit is described as the giver of the
charismata (v. 11) and the charismata are manifestations
of the Spirit (v. 7). The Spirit freely distributes charismata
when and where the Spirit so chooses (v. 11). While the
distribution of charismata has an interactional aspect to it
as seen by the fact that we are instructed to strive for
them (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1), the weight must still fall on the
fact that the Spirit is the one who distributes these gifts.
No person or church can decide which gifts the Spirit
11

Banks, 106.
Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

12

MUTHIAH

will bestow upon whom. Nor can any person or church

decide when the Spirit will bestow a charisma. In Volfs
view, this clearly reveals that the church lives from a
dynamic not deriving from itself.It is not the church
that organizes its life, but rather the Holy Spirit.12
The pneumatological nature of charismata is also
evidenced in their diachronic plurality, a phrase Volf
uses to mean that various charismata can replace one
another over time. Volf claims, over the history of the
congregation and of its individual members, the
charismata with which these members serve in the
congregation canchange.13 The idea that ones
charismata can change emerges from 1 Cor. 12:31 and 1
Cor. 14:1, both of which indicate that we can receive
charismata we do not yet have.14 A person might be given
the charisma of hospitality, and then, a few years down
the road, as the Spirit sees fit, this charisma might be
replaced with the charisma of teaching. The fluidity of
the Spirits work in relation to charismata is described by
Kng in this way: although each member of the
community, in all places and at all times, will receive his
own special call [equated with charisma], there is no way
of knowing in advance what ministries of God in the
freedom of his grace will see fit to call upon in specific
places at specific times.15 The Spirit who freely grants
charismata is free to do so when, where, and in any order
or combination as the Spirit sees fit.
Charisma is pneumatological; through the Spirit,
Christ is present in the charismata, and by the Spirit the
work of Christ is carried out through them.
Volf, 232.
Volf, 233.
14 Romans 11:29 at first glance might seem to contradict this idea with the
statement that the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. However,
the gifts referred to in this passage are not the charismata of the Spirit
distributed to various individuals, but the charismata of the covenants which
God made with the people of Israel. While the covenantal type of charisma is
irrevocable, irrevocability as such is nowhere applied to the specific
charismata given to individuals for building up the community.
15 Hans Kng, The Church (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1976), 504.
12
13

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

13

Characteristics of Charisma in the New Testament

Universal
The charismata are universally distributed by the
Spirit to all believers. There is no such thing as a
Christian who has not been gifted by the Spirit (though
not all believers choose to exercise their gifts). While the
Spirit never grants less than one gift to a believer (1 Cor.
12:7, 11b; Eph. 4:7; 1 Peter 4:10), the Spirit may grant
more than one gift at a time to a person, something Volf
refers to as the synchronic plurality of the charismata.16
At the same time, while a person might have more than
one gift, no person has all the gifts. As Volf puts it, such a
situation would lead to the hypertrophy of this one
member of the body of Christ and to a fateful atrophy of
all other members.17 Charismata are distributed to all the
people of God and so all the people of God have things
to contribute to the body.18
Diverse
The charismata are diverse. Paul seeks to emphasize
this diversity to the Corinthian church, whose
understanding of the gifts had narrowed to a focus on the
charisma of tongues (1 Cor. 12-14). Paul wants them to
see that the charismata are much more diverse than this.
He states that there are varieties of gifts (1 Cor. 12:4)
and then continues to pile up synonymous phrases by
stating that there are varieties of services (v.5) and
varieties of activities (v.6). He wants to lift up clearly
the beautiful diversity of gifts bestowed by the Spirit. The

Volf, 233.
Volf, 230.
18 This was a significant emphasis of Vatican II, as seen in the following
representative statement: From the reception of these charisms, even the
most ordinary ones, there arises for each of the faithful the right and duty of
exercising them in the Church and in the world for the good of men and the
development of the Church. Austin Flannery, ed., "Apostolicam
Actuositatem," in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents
(Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1996), 3.
16
17

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

14

MUTHIAH

several lists of gifts also point to this diversity, as the

charismata listed are of a wide assortment.
The diversity of charismata likely goes even beyond
what is listed in these passages because these lists were
not intended to be exhaustive. Paul seems to have
tailored his lists to the contexts he was addressing.19 He
did not set out to provide a systematic treatment or
cataloging of the charismata. In support of this claim is
the fact that no two of these lists are identical.
Wonderful variety exists among the charismata; this
variety means that the people of the church are called to
differentiated activities. Because of their differing
charismata, the members of the church are not identical
in their functions; rather, their giftings and their
correlated functions are diverse.
United
While Paul wants to emphasize the diversity of gifts,
he does so while also showing how they are united. The
diversity of the charismata does not result in
disconnectedness or individualism. The charismata all tie
to the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4), the same Lord (v. 5),
and the same God (v. 6). The trinitarian language here
hints at how the diversity of the charismata exists
simultaneously with their unity in ways that
correspond to the simultaneous diversity and unity within
the Godhead.
The unity of the diverse gifts is further developed by
Paul through his use of the body metaphor. All the
diverse parts are united because they are all part of one
body, the body of Christ. He points to the diversity by
saying, the body does not consist of one member but of
many (1 Cor. 12:14), and then he ties this diversity into a
unity by saying: there are many members, yet one body
(v. 20; cf. vv. 26, 27). The unity in diversity is highlighted
in v. 27 where Paul writes, now you are the body of
Christ [unity] and individually [diversity] members of
it [unity].
19

Banks, 95; Dunn, 256; Fee, 886.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

15

Communal
Paul shows the communal nature of the charismata by
using the body metaphor to describe how believers
should relate (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-27). Each
charisma serves the community in a unique way and
therefore is needed by the other charismata or body
parts. Ears, eyes, hands, and feet all have different
characteristics, abilities, and purposes while at the same
time they rely on each other to function well. They are
interdependent. They require a communal context in
order to function properly.
An attempt to use a charisma independently from the
others with which a community has been gifted is a
failure to live into the NT vision of the body of Christ. It
is not just a matter of what a person does with her gifts
individually, but what she does with her gifts in relation
to the giftings of others in the community. They should
function interdependently. Because no one person has all
the gifts, the full expression of the charismata requires
the mutual activity of the entire community. Volf notes
that the church is not a club of universally gifted and for
that reason self-sufficient charismatics, but rather a
community of men and women whom the Spirit of God
has endowed in a certain way for service to each other
and to the world in anticipation of Gods new creation. 20
The use of a charisma can be evaluated in part by the
extent to which it functions interdependently with, rather
than independently from, other charismata.
Not only is the way they function communal, but also
their purpose is communal. The charismata are to be used
for the purpose of building up the community. Paul
points out that they are given for the common good (1
Cor. 12:7), or to put it another way, for building up the
body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). They are to be used for the
benefit of the community rather than for personal
benefit. They have an outward orientation to them.
Extending this building language, a number of
theologians have described charismata as the building
20

Volf, 231.
Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

16

MUTHIAH

blocks of the community. This is true in that the

charismata are an organizing principle of community. The
use of a building block metaphor calls for qualification,
though, for this reason: building blocks exist before the
building itself exists. It is my view, however, that
charismata and the community emerge together. Moltmann
refers to this as a genetic connection by which he
means that the two grow up concurrently; they exist
simultaneously.21 Charismata do not precede community,
nor does community precede the charismata. These gifts
are not what they are prior to their connection to
community and the community does not exist prior to
these gifts. Moltmann states, It is not the facticity that
decides what a charism is; it is the modality.22 They are
not charismata until they are put in use for the benefit of
the community. A leader or anyone else who tries to use
a charisma in a way that precedes or supersedes
community has turned it into something else.
Paul speaks of one small exception to this norm of
communal orientation when he talks about speaking in
tongues. Paul is most interested that this charisma of
ecstatic utterance be used in the context of community in
tandem with the charisma of interpretation so that the
whole community might be edified. If the charisma of
interpretation is not present, then the charisma of
tongues does not build up the community (1 Cor. 14:2,
28-29). Paul notes, though, that if the charisma of
interpretation is not present, the charisma of tongues may
still be exercised as long as it is done in private (14:28).
Such a use can have value for the individuals
communion with God, but Paul is much more interested
in how it can be used for the communitys communion
with God.

21 Jrgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to

Messianic Ecclesiology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 305.
22 Moltmann, 297.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

17

Equal Value
Whether there is a hierarchy among the charismata or
an equality to their value has been a subject of great
debate. Without entering fully into this debate, several
reasons for viewing the charismata as of equal value shall
be set forth here. The Corinthian church was valuing
some gifts (speaking in tongues) over others and Paul was
intent on challenging this elevation of one gift over the
others. The thrust of Pauls argument in 1 Cor. 12-14 is
to warn against trying to establish a hierarchy among the
charismata. As John Howard Yoder states, this warning
is not marginal; it is the point of the passage.Pauls
whole concern is that it be recognized that all these many
gifts have the same source, and that all are (each in its
place) of the same value.23
Pauls numbering of some of the gifts in 1 Cor. 12:28
and his exhortation to strive for the greater gifts (1
Cor. 12:31) have commonly been taken to mean that a
hierarchy of gifts exists. This interpretation must be
challenged, though. For one, it does not fit with the
emphasis of the whole section, which is on the diversity
of the gifts, rather than on a ranking of some over others.
The idea of a hierarchy of gifts is also challenged by the
fact that in 1 Cor. 12, as Fee notes, Paul fails to include
five of the nine items from the first list in the second
one, and of the four he does include, the first three are in
reverse order.24 Thus Paul couldnt have meant his lists
to be a prioritizing of the gifts.25
If the charismata are not hierarchical, how should we
understand Pauls exhortation to strive for the greater
gifts (1 Cor. 12:31)? Fee argues that, based on the
context in Corinth Paul is addressing, the greater gifts
should be understood as those which more directly
benefit others before self, in contrast with the unJohn Howard Yoder, The Fullness of Christ: Paul's Vision of Universal Ministry
(Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1987), 10.
24 Fee, 195.
25 A more complete set of arguments for a non-hierarchical view of the
charismata may be found in Fee, 195-197.
23

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

18

MUTHIAH

interpreted gift of tongues which primarily benefits the

individual.26 Paul states that one who prophesies is
greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone
interprets, so that the church may be built up (1 Cor.
14:5). And if no one is available to interpret, then those
with the charisma of tongues should be silent and reserve
its use for their own personal worship of God (1 Cor.
14:27-28). So in this exceptional sense there is a ranking:
a charisma, when used for personal benefit only (a valid
use according to Paul), is of less value to the community
than the others. We must keep in mind, though, that
Pauls dominant view is that all the charismata are
intended for the good of the whole community (1 Cor.
12:7). Equality of value must not be taken to mean that
all the gifts function in the same way. The uniqueness or
distinctiveness of each charisma is maintained. That they
are of equal value does not mean they can be swapped
out for one another as one nail from a bin could be
swapped out for any other nail in the bin. Functional
differentiation remains.
The equal value of the various charismata means that
those with one particular charisma may not use it as a
basis for ruling over or claiming privilege over others.
Moltmann argues that where this aspect of Pauls vision
is lost, hierarchy and passivity set in. 27 In relation to
leadership, the equality of value among the charismata
does not call for the elimination of leadership in a
community, but rather it calls for a mode of leadership
which does not elevate the leader over others and which
is exercised interdependently with the other charismata.
Eschatological
The prophets promised that the Spirit would be
poured out in the last days (e.g., Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28) and
in the book of Acts the outpouring of the Spirit is taken
as a sign of the final in-breaking of Gods kingdom
(Acts 2:1-21). The charismata are manifestations of
26
27

Fee, 196.
Moltmann, 299.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

19

this eschatological outpouring of the Spirit. They are

evidence that this outpouring is happening, and they
are the modalities by which the eschatological
community emerges.28
Bounded by Love
In the midst of his extended discussion of the
charismata (1 Cor. 12-14), Paul inserts a whole chapter
on love (1 Cor. 13). Love here is not seen as one of the
charismata, but rather, as something that must
accompany all charismatic expressions. The charismata,
when rightly used, are to serve as the means by which
love is enacted. The charisma of speaking in tongues has
no value if it is not done in love (v. 1). Prophetic
utterance likewise has no value if it is not done in love (v.
2a). The same is true for the gifts of wisdom, miraculous
deeds, and generosity (vv. 2b, 3). All uses of charismata
are ethically shaped by the description here of love:
Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or
boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own
way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in
wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things,
believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things
(vv. 4-7). Again, as stated above, it is the modality, not
the facticity, that decides what a charisma is; and that
modality must be characterized by love.
Charisma and Natural Abilities
A question that many have wrestled with is the
relationship between charismata and natural abilities. Are
they the same? Do they overlap? Are they completely
different? While we can make some theological headway
in answering these questions, we must note that Paul
does not address the relation of charismata and natural
abilitiesit is not a question he seems to be interested in.
James Dunn claims the two are completely different
categoriescharismata must not be confused with
28

Moltmann, 294; Volf, 235.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

20

MUTHIAH

human talent or natural ability.29 Others, such as Ren

Laurentin, have argued for the complete naturalness of
the charismatathey are in fact exactly identical with
natural abilities.30
A third perspective is that the two often overlap but
are not identical. Natural talents, like charismata, are
given graciously by God, as is the whole created order.
Natural talents can rightly be understood as charismata
when they are used in ways that express Gods grace. A
charism expresses Gods grace when it is used nonpossessively (which at least implicitly acknowledges it as a
gift) and at the same time conveys or imparts Gods grace
to others. Natural talents remain natural talents even
when they do not recall or manifest Gods grace, but then
they no longer qualify as charismata. This view, which I
take to be the strongest of the range of perspectives,
honors the connection between the charismata and Gods
grace and also works in conjunction with the assertion
above that the lists of charismata are not exhaustive.
Gifts and abilities not mentioned by Paul may be
identified and properly understood as charismata when
the recipients use their gifts, talents, or abilities in ways
that link to Gods grace. Moltmann makes a similar claim
when he says, In principle every human potentiality and
capacity can become charismatic through a persons call,
if only they are used in Christ.31
Having developed a theological understanding of
charismata, we are now ready to look at how Pauls
charisma compares to Webers charisma.
Paul versus Max
As did Paul, Max Weber picked up a term that was
not in common use at the time and gave it a unique
meaning. By the time Weber wrote in the early twentieth
century, charisma was hardly used in theological
Dunn, 255.
Cited in Schatzmann, 73. In this section (pp. 73-77), Schatzmann provides
a useful overview of a range of positions on this issue.
31 Moltmann, 297.
29
30

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

21

discourse and was not used at all in the social sciences

or in popular culture.32 Webers writings changed
this dramatically.
Weber was conscious of the religious connection as
he developed his idea of charisma. He knew he was
drawing on Pauline language and he appropriated
religious phrases to describe charisma. For example, he
claimed that charisma constitutes a call in the most
emphatic sense of the word, a mission or a spiritual
duty.33 Yet what Weber meant by charisma has almost
no overlap with scriptural uses of charisma, just as the
word mouse when applied to a little rodent has almost no
overlap of meaning with the word mouse when applied to
a piece of computer hardware.
Central to Webers understanding of charisma is that
it is a form of authority.34 In fact, he uses the phrase
charismatic authority interchangeably with charisma.
We have here a dramatic difference from the way
charisma is used in scripture. Nowhere in scripture are
the charismata directly linked to authority. Paul never ties
his own authority to the idea of charisma and Paul never
grants authority to others based solely on their
charismata. In Pauls vision, authority is not absent;
rather, it is widely distributed. To the extent that
authority emerges from the charismata, it is shared by all,
since charismata are granted to all. In describing Pauls
perspective, Schatzmann puts it this way:
none of the charismata were particularly
authority-oriented. It seems to be part of the
significance of the Pauline metaphor of the body
that charismatic functioning of the community of
faith meant the equalization of concern and respect
for the differing exercises of gifts. Authority was

32 John Potts, A History of Charisma (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009),

107.
33 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A. M.
Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Free Press 1947), 362.
34 Potts, 106.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

22

MUTHIAH

not eliminated thereby, but its focus shifted from

the few to the whole.35
Along the same lines, Moltmann points out that when
Paul talks about the charismata, Paul avoids all the
words expressing conditions of rule. He does not talk
about holy rule (hierarchy) but chooses the expression
diakonia.36 So whereas for Weber authority is central to an
understanding of charisma, authority is not at all central
to Pauls discussion of charisma.
Authority and charisma can be paired within a Pauline
understanding, but in a constrained way. The nature of
the charismata requires that authority be exercised in a
mutual and non-dominating way. With the communal
dimension of the charismata referred to earlier in mind,
Schatzmann states that clearly there is no room for
authoritarianism or manipulation where charismata and
authority are submitted to community.37 Pauline
charisma has nothing to do with control and domination.
Weber, however, talks about charisma specifically in terms
of domination. He sees charisma as one of the three
types of legitimate domination.38 The ways Paul and
Weber relate their words to authority differ sharply. Paul
links charisma to non-domination while Weber links it
directly to domination. A second major contrast between
Paul and Weber has to do with the way in which gifts are
connected to a source. For Paul, the charismata are
always tied to God as their source. Weber also speaks of
charisma as having divine origin,39 but this divine origin is
not at all significant in the development of Webers
conception. Rather than being considered in terms of its
source, Weber sees charisma as having value because it is
35 Schatzmann, 96. For fuller treatment, see Schatzmanns chapter entitled
Charismata as Expression of Authority, 94-100.
36 Moltmann, 295.
37 Schatzmann, 99.
38 His other two types of legitimate domination are legal authority (based on
rationality) and traditional authority. Max Weber, Economy and Society: An
Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, trans.
Ephraim Fischoff et al. (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 215-254.
39 Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 359.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

23

validated by its subjects. He states, It is recognition on

the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for
the validity of charisma.40 The charismata used within
the body of believers are also validated by the
community, but this is in a secondary sense; their primary
validation is based on their issuing source: God. In light
of the manner in which the charismata are used and the
fruit produced by the charismata, the community
confirms that God is the source of the charismata. Paul
and Weber differ at another related point as well: to the
extent that charisma in a Pauline sense is validated by the
community, it is a mutual form of validation, not a oneway validation by those under (followers) of those over
(leaders), as Weber sets it up.
A third contrast is seen in relation to who has these
gifts. As we have seen, Paul describes charismata as
distributed to all within the social entity which is the
body of Christ. The charismata are not reserved for a
select few. Weber, though, sees charisma as something
which in fact only a few have, and by virtue of having
charisma these few are set apart from ordinary men.41
Weber in no way sees charisma as something which
all have.
This point ties to a fourth contrast. Pauls focus is on
the social body. He understands charisma in terms of a
communal blessing. For Paul, charisma is not a
possession to be used for self-advancement or selfglorification. It is to be used for the good of the
community. From a Pauline perspective, we cannot
properly talk about personal charisma in the sense of it
belonging to an individual. For Weber, the focus is more
individualistic. He is certainly interested in broader social
constructs, but Webers conception of charisma gives
primary attention to the power of the charismatically
endowed individual.42

Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 359.

Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 358.
42 Potts, 107.
40
41

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

24

MUTHIAH

A fifth contrast is seen when we note that Pauls

category of charisma is broad and includes gifts often
considered supernatural as well as those often considered
ordinary (he himself seems uninterested in dividing the
charismata into these categories). For example, he refers
to the charisma of prophetic utterance in the same
sentence where he refers to the charisma of being
generous (Rom. 12:6-8). Weber conceives of charisma as
always being extraordinary or supernatural. By definition,
it is not of the everyday or the mundane. He states,
Charismatic authority isspecifically outside the realm
of everyday routine and the profane sphere.43 This aligns
with his notion that charisma is not commonly
possessedonly a few have this supernatural gift.
A sixth point of contrast: for Paul, ethical content is
essential in defining the charismata. They are to be used
for building up the community and they are always to be
normed by love. These two characteristics are essential to
a proper understanding of charismata. Webers charisma
lacks such ethical content. Charisma can be used for
good or for evil. Weber comes close to giving it ethical
content when he states that it is the duty of the possessor
of charisma to use it,44 but he does not continue on to
develop the acceptable means by which this duty may be
carried out or the acceptable ends upon which this duty
might ethically be focused. In fact, he states, How the
quality in question would be ultimately judged from any
ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is
naturally entirely indifferent for the purposes of
definition.45 This is a stark difference from the idea Paul
develops. The notion of considering charisma in a way
detached from the way it is exercised is completely
foreign to Paul. With Pauls theology in mind, Moltmann
notes, It is not the gift itself that is important, but its

Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 361.

Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 359.
45 Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 359.
43
44

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

MUTHIAH

25

use.46 A Pauline understanding of charisma must always

include ethical content.
These contrasts confirm that while Weber picks up a
word used by Paul, the meaning Weber gives to the word
is drastically different from what Paul meant. The two
uses are often confused and conflated because of the
name they have in common. But though their name is the
same, the two concepts are radically different.
Nonetheless, the two can be put in positive relationship,
which we shall see as we conclude.
Charisma and the Church Today
Within the church today, what are we to make of
these two very different ideas, the Pauline idea of
charisma and the idea of charisma which descends to us
from Weber?47 Can charisma, as a personality trait of an
individual, be constructively used by leaders in the church
today? Yes. Not only can charisma be used, it can even
qualify as a charisma in the Pauline sense if its use falls
within the characteristics of the charismata set forth
above. The following norms, derived from the
characteristics of the Pauline charismata, provide a means
for evaluating the appropriateness of using charisma in
Christian leadership. The ways in which Christian leaders
use their charisma must meet all these norming criteria:
1. The trinitarian norm:
Does a leader exercise his/her charisma in
relation to Gods grace?
Does a leaders use of charisma build up the body
of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:7) and glorify rather than
curse Jesus (1 Cor. 12:3)?
Moltmann, 297.
Although the meanings descended from Weber might not be recognizable
to Weber himself, many of the contrasts with charisma as set forth above
remain the same. A good treatment of the shifts in meaning since Weber can
be found in the sections entitled Charisma after Weber and Criticisms
and modifications of Weberian charisma in Potts, 126-136. It is beyond the
scope of this paper to develop a definition of charisma in terms of a
leadership trait, to contend for whether it is innate or developed, or to
explore the arguments about whether or not it even exists.
46
47

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010

26

MUTHIAH

Does a leader use his/her charisma in ways that

reflect its nature as a gift from the Spirit?
2. The communal norm:
Does a leaders use of charisma build up
individuals within the community and the
community as a whole?
Is a leaders use of charisma intended to bring
unity rather than division in the community?
Is a leaders charisma used interdependently with
the gifts of others?
Is a leaders charisma used in a way that honors
other gifts equally, rather than in a dominating
way?
3. The love norm:
Is a leaders use of charisma marked by the
characteristics of Christian love, e.g., as described
in 1 Cor. 11-14?
When a leaders charisma meets these criteria, it is a
grace gift from God to a community as embodied in
and exercised by that leader. When a leaders charisma
is used in ways that meet these norming criteria, then it
can properly be understood in terms of Pauls
conception of charisma. In the end, while Pauls idea
of charisma and Webers idea of charisma are of two
different natures, Weberian charisma can be used
within the framework of Pauline charisma for the glory
of God and the benefit of the community.

Journal of Religious Leadership, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 2010