How pastors learn the politics of ministry practice

Religious Education, Fall 2002 by Burns, Robert W, Cervero, Ronald M

Abstract

Politics are a daily reality in the ministry. In order to identify how pastors develop their political knowledge, eleven pastors were interviewed using a qualitative form of the critical incidents technique. Analysis of the interviews revealed that formal education was seen as helpful, but limited in practical application for daily ministry. Four ways of learning through practice were identified: reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, mentors and models, and negative experiences. The developmental nature of learning was recognized in that pastors learn over the entire course of their ministry and every new experience provides an opportunity for growth.

Politics is a dirty word in the church. Bridston (1969) says popular religious piety relegates politics to the sphere of the secular. And Ingram (1980, 1981) suggests that, since harmony is a high value in most churches, political activity is kept behind closed doors. Regardless of the reason, in church life, politics is considered intrinsically bad (Bridston 1969). At the same time, ministry practice nearly always involves working with people. People, in turn, have interests that lead them to act in certain ways when confronted with situations where they must make a judgment about what to do or say (Guthrie and Cervero 2000). The ministry, then, involves negotiating with others, choosing among conflicting wants and interests, developing trust, locating support and opposition, being sensitive to timing, and knowing the informal and formal organizational ropes. In short, the ministry involves politics.

The political reality of ministry practice is confirmed by the research on pastoral skills, competencies, and work activities. This literature implicitly reflects that the church is a political institution and pastors are political actors (Blizzard 1985; Heinrichs 1993; Kuhne 1991; Kuhne and Donaldson 1995; Nauss 1989, 1990, 1994; Schuller, Strommen, and Brekke 1980; Thompson 1995). For example, in an intensive study of the work activity of five protestant clergy, Kuhne (1991) discovered that "the work activity characteristics revealed a strong managerial dimension requiring significant amounts of time in the pastors' weekly schedules" (161).

A number of authors have examined broader issues of church politics (Bridston 1969; Jinkins and Jinkins 1991), especially as it has to do with the topic of power and authority (Bartholomew 1981; Carroll 1981; Cohn 1993; Falbo, New, and Gaines 1987; Fewster 1987; Gula 1996; Hammond, Salinas, and Sloane 1978; Harrison 1959; Jun and Armstrong 1997; Koeller 1997; Lynch 1988; Peluso 1991; Sherrill 1991; Siebel 1988; Wood 1970, 1981). But these studies tend to overlook the professional understanding of ministry politics rooted in practice in favor of procedural and theoretical elements of knowledge (Cervero 1988; Kuhne 1991; Schon 1983, 1987)). A few works recognize political activity in ministry practice (Ingram 1980, 1981; Lebacqz 1985; Oswald 1981; Purvis 1993; Stortz 1993; Toth 1999). However, none of these works probe how pastors have learned about political activity. In order to achieve informed practice in ministry, it is important to identify pastors' political knowledge and how they have developed this knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand how pastors have learned the politics of ministry practice.

THEORIES ON LEARNING IN THE PROFESSIONS

A primary goal for professions is to maintain an informed practice (Cervero 1988, 1992; Jarvis 1983). Since political activity is normative in the ministry, to achieve the goal of an informed practice it is necessary to understand how pastors have acquired their knowledge about politics in daily practice. Schon (1983, 1987, 1989) argues that the prevailing theory of professional knowledge separates knowing from doing and research from practice. This theory, which he calls Technical Rationality, assumes that "professional activity consists of instrumental problem-solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique" (1983, 21). Hough (1984) and Murphy (1985) use Schon's theory, critiquing the preprofessional theological training of pastors as technical rationality. In so doing, these authors join a sustained chorus of practitioners and educators who have discussed the perceived gap between the more formal training of theological seminaries and the demands of daily practice (Dreyer 1996; Farley 1983; Ferris 1990; Plueddeman 1989b).

One might expect this gap to be filled by continuing education after seminary. However, continuing pastoral education has focused primarily on updating technical knowledge and discussing special issues of practice (Brewer 1991; Combermere 1990; Crowner 2000; Wilson 1985; Wingeier 2000). It reflects the professionalization of ministry practice, as a whole, which, Carroll (1985) states, is dominated by technical rationality. There is a significant need for continuing pastoral education, as in all continuing education, to be informed by and directly linked to the context of professional practice (Roberts 2000).