5.1 Introduction
5.1.4 Religious Professionals
course of their training, clergy, especially in mainline denominations, are increasingly reporting feeling that they are simply there to serve their congregants with the
understanding that if those service expectations are not met efficiently then there will be repercussions (Marty 1988). These pressures lead invariably to the creation of
standardized routines and procedures in order to conform to these expectations.
This institutionalization of organizational procedures is precisely what the Emerging Churches in this study work to avoid. In what follows I describe how these churches manage to attract and keep the specialized knowledge and skills provided by professionals while simultaneously avoiding the routinization of organizational procedures that is an unavoidable characteristic of professionals in mainstream or dominant organizations. First, though, it is important to spend some time reviewing the status of the clergy as a profession in the sociological sense.
found that the clergy met the necessary criteria for professionals while others, Wilson (1965), Towler (1970), Towler and Coxon (1979), Gannon (1971), argued that they fell well short of the definition of a professional (Bryman 1985). Jarvis (1975) stakes out a clear middle ground in this debate claiming that the clergy constitute a semi-profession.
These conflicts were never fully resolved as the research about the professions moved away from classification and toward an investigation of the dynamics of social control within organizations as discussed above.
While the academic debate about the designation of clergy as professionals might not have yielded a clear-cut answer, it indicates something far more important about the field as a whole. The specific nature of the discussions shows that the clergy are difficult to pin down precisely because they occupy a position which is constantly in flux as they try to manage the demands of an occupation which at once highly institutionalized and highly technical. Benedetto, writing about clergy members’ own sense of occupational meaning, remarks that in the literature about the clergy and occupations there is a long history of role conflict based upon “the mystery of divinity and the efficiency of the manager” (Benedetto 2006:2). What Benedetto is pointing out here is the tension
between the institutional and technical roles of the religious professional. This position is supported most by the studies by Blizzard (1956, 1959), later updated by Brunette-Hill and Finke (1999) and Marty (1988) who each wrote extensively about this role strain among clergy members.
Christopherson (1994) argues that one way the modern clergy help to resolve this tension (of working in a technical and institutional field) is by constructing a frame of calling. He claims that the call “takes on a renewed significance because it can provide a
kind of moral compass to guide the ‘called’ through the changing landscape of modern society. It provides a means of dealing with the ambiguity of modern life” and can be “a source of identity, of authority and purpose independent of the technical, competence- based standards of competing professions” (Christopherson 1994:222). This claim is most interesting when coupled with Christopherson’s other key insight that “the
‘genuineness’ of the call” has gradually become institutionalized by seminaries and individual denominations as a necessary requirement for both admittance into training and acceptance to official positions within the church (Christopherson 1994:221). The institutionalization of this frame of calling ensures that the field of religion will always be somewhat immune from demands for oversight by non-professionals. Even as churches increasingly place a premium on rapid growth and quantifiable results, the role of the clergy remains somewhat unthreatened from outside influences or external oversight (Larson 1977). The “call” serves to mask a lack of technical credentials that would otherwise be demanded of anyone running an organization of the importance and size of a typical congregation.
Thus, the degree of institutionalization of the religious call is important. In other fields where the call has not been as strong, technical demands have been able to overrun the institutional desires of the professionals. While a sense of call does exist in other fields, it is a central feature of the identity of the religious professional (Christopherson 1994). Religious professionals have also not been subject to the degree of pressure for efficiency that other professionals have had to endure, especially lately. This strong sense of calling has a profound effect on the organizations which employ these
professionals. Clergy fill unique roles where they must lead the very people who have
the ability to control their future. It is through reference to the call that the religious professional is able to attain some measure of freedom and authority within a
congregation. Ideally, the assurance of call means that the religious professional will act in a selfless manner, serving the community rather than attempting to gain personal power and prestige. Pastors are thus free to set agendas and goals and implement procedures and organizational processes, but only within these highly institutionalized boundaries that are established and maintained in the process of professionalization.
Scholars have long noted the ability of the seminary to provide crucial
professionalization and training that prepares clergy to defend the unique institutional nature of their profession against intrusions from pressures to be more technically focused (Blanchard 1981; Carroll 1981; Hammond and Mitchell 1965)29. The official training that occurs in the seminary helps the future pastor to conduct him/herself in such a way that is consistent with the expectations of both the employer (i.e., congregation) and the professional group (Carroll 1971). While congregations place ever increasing bureaucratic and organizational demands on the pastor, the pastor’s training reflects a strong commitment to the institutional nature of the position. In seminaries much more time and energy is devoted to non-quantifiable activities (sermon preparation, counseling, performance of rituals and ceremonies, etc.) than to technical skills (budgets, long-term financial planning, building construction and maintenance, etc.) (Marty 1988).
This conflict of interests has resulted most notably in the shifting of the residence of the theologian. Where once congregational pastors were expected to be theologians,
29 Ironically, as Hammond and Mitchell (1965) note, seminaries are often used as a place to incorporate people who do lack either technical or professional abilities. Thus, it can be argued that the institutionalization of future clergy members is being conducted, at least in part, by people who were not properly institutionalized.
those duties and positions have migrated to the university as denominational
administrative tasks claim more and more of the pastor’s time and energy (Marty 1988).
The client-like relationship between a minister and his/her congregation means that less and less emphasis is placed on activities which do not directly benefit the congregation (Jarvis 1976). While seminary curricula have changed to reflect this demand, they have not capitulated wholly to the demands of the congregation (Fichter 1961; Marty 1988).
Fichter (1961) writes about the process of professionalization that “as the period of preparation becomes more expensive, elaborate and lengthy, the commitment to the profession takes a stronger hold on the individual” (Fichter 1961:185). It should come as no surprise then, that to become a religious professional in the mainline denominations requires years of study and apprenticeship signifying a relatively strong commitment to the profession.
Fichter is writing specifically about religious professionals who are further
conditioned against defection by the nature of the credential as lifelong. Once a person is ordained, it is for life regardless of whether the person takes up a new vocation.
Ordination comes from God and thus once conferred, supercedes personal actions with the exception of extreme ethical violations. The ordination thus serves a similar roll as the call in legitimating the “pastor.” While the call serves to legitimate individual pastors and guard them against charges of inadequacy, the ordination serves to legitimate the existence of the position and title of pastor. Where one is subjective and informal, the other is objective and formal.
This commitment to the pastoral profession manifests itself in a number of ways, most visibly with issues of power. Training to be a minister still reflects the notion that
the power to determine the goals of a congregation and, to an even greater extent, the power to determine the method for reaching those goals lays with a trained and
credentialed professional as long as he/she remains in the employ of the congregation. It is important to note here that it is not the individual priest who has these powers, but rather the organizational position of the priest which has the power. As I have discussed above, the process of professionalization for clergy results in professionals with a strong commitment to upholding the dominant professional norms. Indeed Martin Marty (Marty 1988:88) goes so far as to quote J. Roge who claims that the priest is “the most
institutionalized man of our time” because of his/her commitment to the profession that is developed primarily in his/her official training.