ABSTRACT
We have identified the importance of Weber’s traditional authority-structure (Weber 1922) and Etzioni’s normative compliance structure to religious organizations and their governance (Etzioni 1980), and in this chapter we study the clergy, who, as we have already seen in our work on governance, exercise a variety of types of authority and possess roles in a variety of compliance structures. The clergy operate within the bureaucratic structures in the parish and in the denomination, and we shall return to these roles. The clergy sometimes possess charismatic authority: an issue which we shall barely touch as there is so little research literature on it, presumably because charismatic authority by its nature is difficult to define and categorize. One issue which we shall treat at some length is the question as to whether the clergy are a profession. But the most important difference between the clergy and other functionaries is that, at the same time as operating within bureaucratic structures and utilitarian compliance structures, they operate within a traditional authority-structure and within normative compliance structures. In relation to traditional authority, the clergy are an example of
‘objectivation’: they are authority-figures who put into practice the values of a religious tradition, so that they themselves become part of the plausibility structure (Berger 1977) not only within the congregation but also in the wider community, particularly in the context of such ‘occasional congregations’ as funeral and memorial services (Davies 2004), where the priest mediates a relationship between the individual and the wider community in much the same way as he or she mediates a relationship between the individual and the congregation. The clergy will thus often be granted high status in the organization (Kane 1967), relatively small changes in the priest’s behaviour can cause a considerable effect on the congregation (Ward 2004: 133), seniority will be an important influence on who is chosen to fill senior posts because in a normative organization long service implies commitment to the organization’s values and thus suitability for leadership positions (Peterson and Schoenheir 1978), and it will seem natural to the clergy to develop strategies to control the congregation’s direction because they feel their own authority to be of divine origin, and will not feel it a contradiction if the strategies they employ rely on bureaucratic structures and utilitarian compliance structures rather than on traditional authority structures and normative compliance structures (Falbo et al. 1987). Such tactics have, of course, caused questions to be asked about the roots of the clergy’s influence. Nelson and Maguire study rural congregations and find that they are largely made up of locally-oriented members, but that
their clergy are generally cosmopolitan in outlook (Nelson and Maguire 1980; cf. Clark 1971), meaning that the minister will generally be more liberal than their congregations, often better educated, and often better connected to resources and to where decisions are made, thus giving the minister power over the congregation: power which has little to do with traditional authority. Blizzard has also studied rural clergy and found that the congregation’s
conservative expectations can cause stress for the minister as he or she tries to take on new roles in relation to new situations (Blizzard 1967b). He also studies urban clergy and finds that emphases are changing: from preaching, scholarship and the administration of the sacraments, to counselling, social action, administration and recruitment. He again finds differences between ministers’ and congregations’ expectations (Blizzard 1967a). Butterworth finds similar changes and stresses amongst Imams (Butterworth 1969: 150ff), and Sharot (1973) finds similar conflicts amongst rabbis, who expect to be scholars and are expected to be pastors and administrators. He calls this a tendency to become ‘ministers’ rather than ‘rabbis’ (Sharot 1975; cf. Bulka 1986). (This chapter is able to consider religious traditions other than the Christian because there is research literature available on the clergy of a variety of traditions because sociologists have found them interesting.) To extend the same terminology to the Christian clergy would suggest that we should use ‘priest’ to refer to the religious functionary operating in traditional, normative, liturgical and scholarly mode, and ‘minister’ to refer to the functionary operating in bureaucratic, utilitarian and administrative mode. We shall not do this consistently, but shall leave a certain ambiguity in our use of terminology, because in the Christian tradition the pastoral role is an expectation shared by the priest and by the congregation and is an aspect of both the priestly and the ministerial roles – and I suspect that the same is in fact true of most rabbis, suggesting that Sharot’s distinction, based on older research, is a little clearer than it would be if based on more recent research. Warren identifies five models for Christian clergy: the representative, the pastor, the servant, the shepherd, and the teacher; and on the basis of interviews with 60 clergy finds that most identify with the representative and pastor models, that a few identify themselves with the servant and shepherd models, but that no one identifies themselves as a teacher (Warren 2002: 75). Whilst differences in expectations might sometimes cause stress, the clergy
have resources to draw on as they cope with the conflict, and particularly resources built up during their formation (usually at a theological college) during which they have internalized values from their denomination’s polity and theology (Shupe et al. 1973). But such resources are not always decisive in a contest with a laity which does not possess the resources to the same degree, because the clergy’s authority can be contested from within the tradition (Harris 1998a: 174; Cameron 2001), especially as congregation members might be more likely to appeal to traditional authority than would be the more
cosmopolitan minister, or they might be able to appeal both to charismatic and traditional authority at the same time (as has happened in the case of the charismatic movement in the mainstream denominations: an issue over which clergy and denominational structures have exerted no control, mainly because they couldn’t; Moore 1972). The Brahmin’s authority is supposed to be by birthright, but he can in fact only exercise authority by consent of the congregation (Hertel 1977), and similarly, except where the priestly role is guaranteed by ecclesiology (such as the priest’s prerogatives in relation to the sacraments), congregation members can contest any clerical action or idea and, if they are not heard, they can exercise the ultimate sanction and leave the congregation. Where the laity could contest a minister’s authority they often don’t because they are aware of the potential for divisive conflict and decide not to exercise the power they know they have (Homan 1982-83). (Sklare (1967) suggests that in orthodox synagogues there is little division of function between rabbi and laity, and there is much lay control, because the fundamental division is between male and female roles and thus all the men perceive themselves as sharing a set of religious duties.) There is some disagreement in the research literature as to whether clergy
and laity roles should be regarded as clearly distinguishable. Dempsey (1969) finds a lack of definition and thus conflict, especially over the organizational structure of the congregation, expectations of the minister, and theology, whereas Harrison (1967) believes roles to be clear-cut, particularly in relation to the minister’s involvement in a denominational bureaucracy, which enables the minister to dominate the laity – though because the laity are better involved in the secular environment the minister’s status in the congregation is not as high as it might otherwise be (Harrison 1967). The discrepancy of viewpoint is evidence of a complex situation. From the laity’s point of view, the clergy have some highly visible roles which only they can perform, and the clergy belong to both traditional and bureaucratic structures not available to the laity. (The traditional structure is particularly difficult for the laity to tackle because, even though it is available to them as it is to the clergy, its diffuse nature means that the minister, often with deeper experience of interpretational possibilities, is frequently better able to employ this type of authority.) Some of the congregation’s structures are bureaucratic and here the clergy’s power can be contested more easily and conflict can occur. From the minister’s point of view, the minister possesses roles which the laity do not, and the minister has a traditional authority which they do not; but the minister knows that in the end the congregation can leave next week: hence a perception of weakness in an unpredictable situation, and the resulting stress. It is thus in the minister’s interests to resist the bureaucratization of the congregation (Ingram 1980): hence the denomination’s and the minister’s resistance to elected church councils and their tendency to dominate them and/or subvert them when they do exist.
