![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This research investigates espoused expectations for effective ministers, focusing on minister knowledge and preparation. Mixed-method research allowed respondents to answer open ended questions and describe required minister knowledge, belief, action, representation, and training. Respondents overwhelmingly expect ministers to know the Bible, which significantly outpaces any other response including knowing God or pastoral skill. These responses were coded into thirty categories that were compared across occupation (minister, professor, other) and church role (minister, leader, member). The responses of professors in the academy and ministers and leaders in the church reveal differences in expected education (professors desire more education) and in what is valued (professors expect knowledge of church history and pastoral skill). Respondents’ low minimum training expectations for ministers combined with their high expectation of scripture knowledge may indicate potential confusion related to minister function and authority. The sample represents Protestant, congregational, non-denominational Christians from the United States (n=466).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Brady Bryce’s academic work teaching Practical Theology is informed by his ministry as Senior Minister of First Christian Church Albuquerque. He taught Practical Theology for twelve years at Abilene Christian University where he also served as the Director of Contextual Educationin the Graduate School of Theology until 2019. Students commend his teaching in practical theology, ministry, and spiritual formation. He earned a Doctorate in Ministry with emphasis in Spiritual Formation from Fuller Theological Seminary (2008). His undergraduate studies in Preaching and Biblical Texts led to graduate work (M. Div.) in Congregational Leadership and Spiritual Formation at ACU. He authored articles on practical theology and the book Echoing the Story: Living the Art of Listening (Wipf & Stock, 2010).
Notes
1 This snowball research effort was sent to one independent, antonymous tradition (Churches of Christ) and expanded out to related denominations. Similar denominations might include independent Baptist traditions, Bible or Community Churches, Evangelical Free Churches.
2 See: Auburn Theological Seminary’s 2016 study focused on practice as formation in a longitudinal study with ten seminaries and fifty ministers or their 2017 study of online education or the most recent 2018 study on Field Education as a prime place of formation.
3 Lave and Wenger (Citation1991, 33).
4 Schreiter (Citation2015, 66–67).
5 Ibid., 32, 52.
6 St. Gregory the Great (Citation2007, 31).
7 Ibid., 207.
8 Cameron et al. (Citation2016, 53–56, 146-148).
9 Clare Watkins stated her resistance to the use of the shorthand abbreviation TAR (an abbreviation even used in her book) for the Theological Action Research approach as well as her hesitancy that this “four voice” approach be considered a grid or system for theology. (Saturday, 19 November 2017, Boston, Annual American Academy of Religion Conference “Ecclesial Practices Group and Practical Theology Group: Action Research as Social and Ecclesial Transformation.”) While I share her resistance to easy categorization, the terms “espoused” and “operant” do provide a helpful distinction between belief and action, or theory and practice. While outside the scope of this paper, I would suggest that even normative sources (creeds, tradition, or scripture) may be understood as attempts to bring together experience and tradition or align intentions and actions.
10 Parratt (Citation2015, 17).
11 Ibid., 98.
12 For example, see Cahalan and Mikoski (Citation2014, 2–7).
13 All respondents completed an Informed Consent to participate in this survey, following the standards of the Institutional Review Board.
14 Analysis of survey responses to the major categories of expectations of minister practice, belief, and representation will be published in future articles. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, upon reasonable request.
15 Abilene Christian, Pepperdine, Lipscomb, Harding, Oklahoma Christian, Lubbock Christian, Freed Hardeman, Faulkner, Heritage Christian, Austin Graduate Seminary, and Southwest Christian.
16 Between 500 and 600 people were sent a direct email requesting participation.
17 The percentage difference between those who selected minister for occupation (48.9) and role (48.5) is attributed to respondents who may identify professionally as ministers but not currently function in that role in church.
18 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing frequency of identification of minimum minister training based upon occupation. Significant deviation occurs between how each role (minister or professor) identified minimum training (χ2(5) = 13.930a p< .05) with .016 asymptotic significance.
19 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing frequency of identification of minimum minister training based upon occupation. Significant deviation occurs between how each role (minister, professor, or other) identified minimum training (χ2(10) = 28.638a p< .05) with .001 asymptotic significance.
20 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing frequency of identification of maximum minister training based upon occupation. Significant deviation occurs between how each role (minister or professor) identified maximum training (χ2(6) = 12.182a p< .05) with .058 asymptotic significance.
21 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing the frequency of identification of maximum minister training based upon occupation. Significant deviation occurs between how each occupation (professor, minister, and other) identified maximum training (χ2(12) = 31.351a p< .05) with .002 asymptotic significance.
22 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing the frequency of identification of maximum minister training based upon role. Significant deviation occurs between how each role (minister, member, leader) identified maximum training (χ2 (12) = 21.436a p< .05) with .044 asymptotic significance.
23 In the coding process, respondent’s terminology seemed to reveal a distinction between human interpersonal ability and specifically pastoral skill. Interpersonal coded responses include: interpersonal interaction, people skills, social skills, human dynamics, networking, tact, taking criticism, and an understanding psychology. (See next footnote)
24 Pastoral coded responses include: counseling, listening, compassion, weddings, and funerals. When the pastoral and interpersonal are combined and duplicates eliminated, the frequency of response represent 47.7% of respondents. This solidifies it as the second most frequent response, yet still remains some twenty percent behind Bible knowledge.
25 Vocational identity codes responses related to: self, vocation, humility, authenticity, boundaries, knowing limits, rest/Sabbath, and care for family.
26 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing the frequency of respondents’ identification of what a minister should know. Significant deviation between minister and professor’s identification of scripture (χ2 (2) = 9.596a p< .05) with .008 asymptotic significance.
27 Significant deviation occurs between minister and professor’s expectation that a minister should know God (χ2(2) = 6.226a p< .05) with .044 asymptotic significance.
28 A chi-square goodness of fit was calculated comparing the frequency of responses among church roles (minister, member, leader). No significant deviation was found among the groups (χ2(2) = 3.250a p< .05) with .197 asymptotic significance.
29 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing the frequency of respondents’ identification of what a minister should know. No significant deviation was discovered between the ministers and professors mentioning the expectation of interpersonal skill (χ2(2) = 3.864a p> .05) with .145 asymptotic significance.
30 A chi-square goodness of fit test was calculated comparing the frequency of identification of what a minister should know based upon role. Significant deviation occurs between how each role (minister, member, leader) identified categories of God and/or Jesus (χ2(2) = 6.467a p< .05) with .039 asymptotic significance.
31 Birkett (Citation2019, 402–414).
32 Dowson and McInerney (Citation2015, 403–421).
33 Reite and Mogstad (Citation2014, 123–138).
34 The categories of belief, practice, and representation will be explored in a separate future analysis.
35 Wong et al. ( Citation2 Citation019, 424–423).
36 Scharen and Campbell-Reed (Citation2016).
37 Miller and Scharen (Citation2017).
38 Scharen and Miller (Citation2018).
39 As an aside, would knowledge of the Bible be the default answer for Christians at other points in history? For example, if one could survey people in different time periods (pre-Reformation, first century, around the councils) about expectations for minister knowledge, how might their answers differ from this study (especially in the 1500 years prior to scripture as a printed and bound book)?