132 Patricia M. Y. Chang
authority to examine and ordain clergy, while others require approval by a regional
body, and others require that clergy be approved by a national board. In some denomi-
nations, wages and benefits are supervised by the national denomination, and in others
clergy wages and benefits are negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the pastor and
the local church. Thus, one cannot speak of the occupational rights and privileges of
clergy as a profession that transcends the rights and privileges granted by a particular
organization. Some denominations contribute to a retirement plan and provide orga-
nizational health benefits, while in other denominations, clergy are expected to make
their own arrangements.
Further reflecting this organizational autonomy, denominations in America do not
even share a common set of labels for describing their religious workers. Although the
generic term “clergy” is often used, each organization makes its own traditional distinc-
tions resulting in a confusing proliferation of titles including minister, reverend, priest,
deacon, rector, vicar, superintendent, bishop, pastor, presbyter, monsignor, brother, sis-
ter, father, curate, and so on. It is difficult to imagine any other occupation in which
the definition of one’s job is so dependent on the particular organization one works for
(Chang 2001).
The authority of organizational labels, definitions, and understandings over
interorganizational meaning systems and the lack of shared occupational, professional,
or cultural understandings in key areas of religious activity illustrate the cultural de-
centralization of the religion sector and the weakness of so-called institutionalizing
processes. In highly institutionalized sectors, occupational categories are standardized
and, by extension, so are the skills, rights, and privileges that are associated with those
categories. Skills are transferable from one organization to the next. Certain employee
rights such as protection from sexual discrimination, unjust termination, and health
benefits are widely recognized from organization to organization. A computer program-
mer’s skills are recognized to be legitimate regardless of what company he or she works
for. This is not the case for religious workers, whose relevance is limited within defined
organizational boundaries.
Another reflection of the weakness of institutionalizing processes characterizing
the religious sector is illustrated in the variety of labels used to designate local wor-
shipping communities. Although the term congregation has become widespread in the
general literature, many faith traditions resist the historical and cultural values associ-
ated with this term. Alternative terms include association, temple, synagogue, ashram,
class, group, fellowship, or church. Supralocal terms include synod, presbytery, dio-
cese, parish, district, church, denomination, or association. These terms have different
meanings in each denominational tradition and like the other differences noted above,
persist as a way of marking cultural boundaries and differentiating themselves from
others within the diverse traditions of American religion.
Unsurprisingly, generalists in American religion have often found the semiotic and
semantic schemas by which religious groups define such common properties as mem-
bers, clergy, and worshipping units to be awkward impediments to the understanding
of general trends, such as shifts in church growth. More often than not these anoma-
lies are considered to be irksome and embarrassing. However, it is important to see that
these differences are important boundary markers of group identity in an institutional
field where organizations in fact are very similar in terms of their history, background,
and theological authority. The authority of most American Protestant denominations