Where the Winding Path Meets the Street: Religious Discretion in Public Administration, Part II

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Shernica L. Ferguson
June 30, 2025

In Part I, we explored the transformation of religion from primarily economic influence to direct political power as illuminated by Max Weber. Part II now takes us to the crucial intersection where this religious-political transformation meets the practical reality: the daily decisions of street-level bureaucrats. These public servants, as demonstrated using Michael Lipsky’s framework from Street-Level Bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1978), wield significant discretionary authority that influences the practical interpretation of church-state separation. This analysis, building on decades of scholarship in street-level bureaucracy (Brodkin, 2012; Zang, 2016), extends Lipsky’s framework into uncharted territory, exploring how religious considerations fundamentally alter street-level discretion and create new administrative challenges across the American administrative state.

The Theology of Administrative Discretion
Lipsky (1978) demonstrated that street-level bureaucrats possess discretion because, as noted by Zang (2016), “human judgment is in the nature of service work that machines could not replace.” When religious considerations enter policy implementation, this discretionary space transforms from routine service decisions into constitutional interpretation, where administrators must balance competing claims and make choices that effectively define the boundaries of religious liberty in practice.

As Lipsky (1978) acknowledged, while “neutrality and impartiality in following policies and procedures is what is expected,” workers cannot remain completely separate from “personal feelings or views,” a reality that Tummers and Bekkers (2013) further explored. This intensifies dramatically in religious contexts. Street-level bureaucrats’ own theological beliefs inevitably shape and influence their policy interpretations; their faith frameworks function like political ideologies guiding how they understand and implement policy decisions. Since policy is “an abstraction until it is realized when delivered to citizens and street-level policy realizations define policy” (Lipsky, 1978), frontline administrators effectively shape public policy through their theologically influenced daily practices.

When theological discretion operates within government settings, it necessarily becomes a matter of constitutional discretion, further influencing unprecedented challenges for public servants. Unlike traditional street-level decisions that primarily affect service delivery, religious accommodation decisions carry constitutional implications that accumulate over time. The cumulative effect of these decisions often diverges from formal legal doctrine. While courts establish broad constitutional principles, street-level bureaucrats determine their practical application in thousands of daily interactions, creating an “administrative constitution.” Is this the lived reality of church-state relations as experienced by citizens, which may differ significantly from the theoretical separation envisioned by constitutional scholars? These are the implications we must take into consideration.

Administrative Practice Through Pluralism
Part I concluded that the winding path requires leadership to speak meaningfully across divides without reducing complex theological traditions to mere political talking points. It demands recognition that both religious and secular Americans must have a voice in shaping everyday life while ensuring that fundamental rights remain protected. Part II reveals that this path is forged not only by political leaders but also by thousands of street-level bureaucrats who translate these aspirations into workable administrative practices.

Their success or failure in navigating religious diversity while upholding constitutional boundaries will largely determine whether the United States can sustain democratic pluralism in an era of religious and political polarization. This challenge is complicated by what Billingsley (2025) describes as theodicy in public administration—how “religious-influenced” persons understand administrative actions through their theological worldview and make sense of secular authority within their faith framework. The administrative dimension requires not just political wisdom but operational craftsmanship, particularly at the “street-level” level. It is the patient work of public servants who build bridges across religious divides, one policy implementation, crisis response or accommodation decision at a time.

The winding path toward democratic pluralism is reflected in the daily work of public administration. By strengthening the capacity of street-level bureaucrats to navigate religious diversity with both constitutional fidelity and cultural sensitivity, we can transform abstract ideals of religious freedom into lived democratic practice. The future of America depends on how effectively we prepare public servants for administration using their discretion and “sacred responsibility” (Billingsley, 2025).

---

Author: Shernica L. Ferguson is an accomplished doctoral candidate and evaluator at Jackson State University’s Urban Research Center, specializing in program evaluation, policy research, and culturally responsive methodologies. A COMPA Best Paper Award recipient and a published author, she leverages extensive cross-sector experience in healthcare, nonprofit, and government organizations.

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...