Due to lay governance, pastors and parishioners in the United States perform numerous dual roles within predominantly white, Protestant congregations. Consequently, decision-making processes and performance evaluations can be ill-defined and contentious due to what I argue is a “failed field” of interaction between clergy and laity. In response, the formal education of clergy has moved beyond purely theological education in favor of practical skills such as counseling and business management. Evidence from this review of three literatures (nonprofit, religion, and management) suggests two antecedents to organizational conflict between pastors and parishioners: (1) the normalization of lay-governing boards and (2) challenges to clergy legitimacy. Lay governance is mediated positively with role ambiguity while clergy legitimacy is mediated positively with lay trust. To moderate the negative effects of conflict, these literatures describe at least two interventions: (1) interpersonal and (2) structural. This paper argues that structural interventions would provide greater role clarity; however, structural interventions may generate distrust from laity, making them more difficult to implement. Implications extend beyond congregations to include other organizations with “working board” structures or elected officials.
Stephen Hawkins (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: