Max Weber and the Nature of Authority
Celebrity Pastors and Presidential Candidates
In church yesterday, the pastor preached on Acts 1: 21-26 — about the selection of someone to take Judas’s slot among the disciples. After pondering why they couldn’t have just gone with eleven and how weird it is to be selected by lots, he focused on the two finalists.
On the one hand, there was Joseph who was also known as Barsabbas but went by Justus. The other was Matthias. We don’t know anything more about either of them and they don’t show up anywhere else in scripture. But one will be an Apostle and the other a solid follower of The Way. The lots are drawn and Matthias gets the nod.1
The point of his sermon (or what I took from it) was that we are all more like Justus (Barsabbas/Joseph) than we are like the new Apostle Matthias. The pastor discussed the nature of The Call as a contrast to the simple discipleship (we assume) of the other path.
I texted the pastor that his contrast made me think about those “special ministers” who see themselves as better or more integral to the life of ministry and how that relates to the various crises we read in the news dealing with sexual abuse, spiritual abuse, financial avarice, or an elevation of that minister’s perceived/self proclaimed gifting. In contrast, we have the everyday, normal people who are simply following Jesus. Maybe if we were less focused on the former, I wrote, it would empower the latter to call out bad behavior when they see it rather keeping the minister on some special plane of spirituality.2
The more I thought about it, the more I returned to the ideas of Max Weber. Weber was a German sociologist considered one of the Big Three figures in early sociology alongside Durkheim and Marx.
It’s been four years since I last taught sociological theory, so I went back to my notes to review. Weber argued that the key to exercising power and leadership depended upon legitimate authority. The source of that legitimacy is complicated, but he lumped it into three categories3: charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational-legal authority.
Charismatic Authority rests upon unique characteristics of the leader. Personality, speaking ability, sense of compassion, willingness to make a new path are all components. Because these characteristics are uncommon, by definition, people become willing to follow. And having lots of followers enhances the mystique of the charismatic leader and enhances his (almost always his) authority.
I’ve written before about three books that have explored the nature of these abuses of charismatic authority and the problems it has created in the church. I highly recommend Katelyn Beaty’s Celebrities for Jesus, Jennifer McKinney’s Making Christianity Manly Again (about Driscoll and Mars Hill), and Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer’s A Church Called Tov.
Traditional authority in Weber’s view depended upon some form of inheritance. Kings are a good example and so are tribal chiefs. The authority is given because the pedigree is correct. It doesn’t matter what the leader’s personality is like, just that they belong to the right family or tribal group.
We see this in churches as well. Sometimes The Call placed upon a young person is more about the wishes of the parent or group than what they can do.4 One of the many shocking things about the Robert Morris5 scandal (he’s the one who sexually abused a 12 year old while in his 20s) is the way he was elevated at a young age to be the protege of James Robison, a key conservative evangelical figure. If, Weber would argue, he was connected to Robison it would be as good as if he were Robison’s son. It takes a lot to break that mold (but child sexual assault did the trick).
Rational-legal authority is at first glance perhaps harder to translate to the church world. It depends on knowing how systems work, being able to build coalitions, and get stuff done. On the other hand, it’s probably what most pastors do. Preach a sermon or two each week, lead small groups, provide counseling, navigate denominational politics, and keep the lights on. They have some level of expertise based on their schooling. Sure, they need a minimum of speaking ability and relationality but it can be in the middling range and they can be successful. I don’t have any data on this, but I would imagine that ministers relying on rational-legal authority are less likely to have major crises (or they move before it explodes).
As I did this thinking about pastors, I realized that Weber’s analysis of authority tells us a lot about our current political moment.6 President Biden “had a bad night”, he said. But in his best days, he was never a great speaker. Biden is described as likable and compassionate, but not as charismatic. His debate performance demonstrated that.
Biden’s response is that “he knows how to get things done” and rightly notes his significant accomplishments over the last 3 1/2 years. That’s clearly a reliance on rational-legal authority. The problem is that the concerns about his age and stamina raise questions about whether that reservoir is sufficient for the future.
Biden also relies heavily on traditional authority. The time he spent in the Senate, the Vice Presidency, and the Presidency means that he was granted legitimacy by the non-crazy members of Capital Hill. You may have seen the clips of Lyndsey Graham saying that “you won’t find a finer man”. The attacks from the more crazy members work to attack this traditional authority by claiming that he is a doddering fool being played by others or is a socialist mastermind and therefore a break with tradition.
In the media age, some measure of charismatic authority is assumed. It’s as if the public (or at least the media and those who pay attention) want to see someone who can extemporaneously “Wow The Crowd”. We had twelve years of Obama and Trump which heightened the expectations above what they had been back in the quieter days of a Bush-Kerry race (boring!). One can have a bad debate on substance but you can’t look like you’re having a bad debate.
Which brings me to Trump. Clearly, those who go to his rallies or follow them online, see him as a figure high in charismatic authority. That’s why they buy the flags and the shirts and the hats and revel in what he’s saying even if it’s about boat batteries, sharks, or Hannibal Lecter.
Trump doesn’t rely on traditional authority at all. Not only did he break with past political practice, he has broken any connection to the Republican party of 2012. It’s as if time started over when he came down that escalator in 2015. Of course, he’ll now joke about the political futures of Don Jr. or Baron (never Eric). He might be serious in a tribal way, but he’s following his own path.
He doesn’t rely on rational-legal authority for the most part. If anything, Project 2025 (which he certainly knows about regardless of what he claims) is a recognition that rational-legal systems stand in his way. The solution, therefore, is to demolish the existing system and populate it with loyalists who will focus on his charismatic authority.
It seems to me that charismatic authority is the most tenuous of the three forms of authority (don’t know if Weber would agree or not). Because it is so dependent upon the character of the leader, maintaining the image is difficult. Sometimes outside events (like criminal convictions or adjudication for sexual assault or financial fraud) can weaken the sense of charisma.
Social psychology tells us that when confidence in a speaker’s authority is damaged, it can fall apart all together. That’s the point of critiques of Trump’s debate performance. It wasn’t the lies and exaggerations that was the problem. It was that what he was saying (30% inflation, 10 million crossing the border) was so unhinged that it diminished confidence in anything he might say (except for those with the flags and hats).
So, as we sit here in July of 2024, we have an incumbent who has relied almost exclusively on rational-legal authority while there are doubts about whether he can still make all that work in the later stages of a second term. And we have a challenger who relies on a shrinking sense of charismatic authority while threatening to undo existing rational-legal processes.
No wonder 70% of the population say that they’d prefer a different pair of candidates.7 But this is where we are and unless something dramatic happens, where we will remain through the fall.
I suggested after the service that they were squeamish about having to list all three of the other guy’s names every time they introduced him.
My friend Dan Silliman from Christianity Today shared this story in Charisma magazine describing how the Apostolic Council of Prophet Elders is calling out pastors involved in the latest scandals and saying that more house-cleaning is coming.
Weber operated with what he called Ideal Types. In other words he could analyze the “pure” form of each type of authority even if they weren’t as clear-cut in real life.
Not always, however, as the Robert Schuller ministries learned.
He was a member of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Group.
This could probably be a post of its own but given the fluid nature of our political moment, I didn’t want to wait for Wednesday.
I didn’t write about the other candidates. RFK is clearly relying on tradition and has no charismatic authority. Cornell West has charisma of a sort but struggles with the rational-legal authority he would need to pursue his policy objectives.