by Andre Zoolalian, Contributor
To conclude the Spring 2026 academic year colloquium series sponsored by the honors program, the AUHP hosted Professor of History, Dr. Molly Worthen, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She presented her lecture entitled “The Holy Ghost in American Politics: How to Make Sense of Charismatic Leaders, Then and Now,” based on her latest book, Spellbound.
Worthen examined historical charismatic movements and leaders, both in secular and religious spheres. Their underlying parallels, as well as their ramifications for the current polarized political landscape. As a professor, Worthen’s research foci are North American religious, political and intellectual history. As a former agnostic turned Christian, she also detailed how her research induced her to wrestle with religious and spiritual questions.
Worthen revealed that during early research for her book, she had associated charisma with charm but came to see how disparate they are. Charm, she said, is less commonly embodied by leaders compared to charisma. Charisma has a “polarizing effect on people,” with most people either loving or hating the charismatic figure, with neutral or mixed feelings scant.
Drawing from how the Apostle Paul defined and understood charisma, which comes from the Greek word for “favor,” “gift” or “grace,” she said that the general idea of Pauline charisma broadly speaks to spiritual gifts bestowed by God. From there, she propelled the lecture into the twentieth century, mentioning sociologist Max Weber, who she believes defined charisma secularly in a similar way to its religious definition.
In both the religious and secular sense, Worthen argued that whether one is attracted to a particular charismatic leader relies on if the leader is offering a compelling part of a story that they’re telling, with charisma centering on “the human desire to seek a place in a big, transcendent narrative that blends meaning to our lives … it gives us a sense of control over the chaos.”
In analyzing more contemporary history, Worthen cited polling showing the record-low confidence Americans have in institutions and experts associated with various institutions. She highlighted how this is important when discussing charisma, as experts can be categorized as a group of leaders with a low level of charisma. She highlighted how that distrust in institutions has given rise to alternative leaders and figures, both in political and religious contexts, drawing from historical examples like Angela Davis, who used her role at UCLA to highlight the failings of academia and experts on issues like the Vietnam War and civil rights. Another example was the Jesus Movement, which was composed of former hippies and disillusioned young people left dejected by established religious institutions and figures.
As trust in religious and secular institutions waned in the 70s and 80s, megachurches and the idea of the “guru” grew, which Worthen defined as “a charismatic religious leader who takes on a role of authority for people yearning for authenticity and to be seen, especially during periods of societal crises and anxieties.” In this vein, Worthen opined that the guru model took off in business, self-help and leadership studies and was also influential in the televangelism movement, which then translated to talk shows like Oprah, whose platform featured leaders and future politicians that may be categorized as charismatic, showing another intersection of secular and religious charisma.
Worthen noted that successful charismatic leaders leave a material legacy and are successful through their pragmatism. She noted the success of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal,” seeing him as a leader who could speak to the mood of his country in a guiding way. She defined him as a leader who combined “charismatic storytelling authority with institutional authority” who took a compromising approach to meet political and cultural moments during his presidency.
Toward the end of her lecture, Worthen once again invoked Pauline theology by encouraging the audience to ask, “What is the transcendent narrative the person is offering?” when assessing whether charismatic leaders will use people’s sentiment for pure and holy purposes.
