THE Church of England has become “managerial rather than relational, bureaucratic instead of organic, centralised in place of localised”. So said the Revd Dr Paul Avis in a swingeing article for the Church Times (Comment, 2 January). He characterised the C of E’s problems as the outcome of an essentially ethical failure: it has not pursued its calling with sufficient moral and spiritual seriousness and consistency.
I wish to take up the claim that the national Church has become inappropriately “managerialist” in its outlook and policy. The charge is frequently made but, perhaps, less frequently defined. I think that it takes two forms.
The first (and, I think, predominant) form is to say that the way in which the national Church works is characterised more by secular management styles and processes than by theological reflection or spiritual discernment. Those who take this view might see evidence of this in, for example, the focus on procedural reform; in changes to the ways in which resources are allocated, especially money; and in the promotion of a narrow focus on numerical growth with accompanying targets.
The second form of the charge goes further. It rejects, wholesale, the concept of management — or, at least, secular concepts of management. In this argument, advanced in recent times by John Milbank and Lyndon Shakespeare, management is seen as a reductionist concept that is simply incompatible with the Church’s understanding of itself as the body of Christ.
I agree that the issue of the Church and management raises some fundamental questions. Can we consider the Church as an organisation? My answer is that, as an embodied incarnational reality, it is always both divine gift and human society. Is secular management theory and practice useful and applicable in the Church? My answer is that it would be odd to exclude one area of the social sciences, when the Church engages rather less controversially with most of the rest, including many whose typical values it does not wholly or uncritically accept.
WHAT is it, then, about management in particular, that causes so much suspicion and dislike? The first answer is that, in the Church, it does indeed often seem the dominant partner, insufficiently guided by ecclesiology or spiritual practice.
But there is more to it than that. An interesting feature of the criticisms of both Professor Milbank and Dr Shakespeare is that neither refers to any actual management thinkers at all. The nature of organisation theory, of management thought and practice, is simply assumed. This is a critical omission; indeed, the failure to engage seriously with the concept is a feature of a great deal of the church discussion about management, and of both forms of anti-managerialism.
The debate nearly always assumes that management is a single thing, and that it is essentially functionalist and instrumentalist. This is management, it is argued, and it often is, in businesses especially.
But it is only one form of management, based on one strand in the very wide field that is organisation theory, which sees organisations in machine-like terms. The field is full of interesting alternative perspectives, however: those that emphasise human culture and human relations; those that are critical of the use of power in organisations; those that focus on sustaining the organisation in a changing environment; those that emphasise our situatedness, and hence the limitations of management control; and very many more.
I WANT to see the Church prioritise a sufficiently serious, theologically led account of what it means to be the Church in our place and time. Part of my criticism of the use of management concepts in the Church is that they do appear to be linked to a failure to do this.
But what is less often recognised is that the Church lacks a grasp of the breadth and possibilities found in organisation theory, and would do well to think more widely and deeply about it. The Church has to be managed; the question is not whether, but how, and by what principles.
It is not simply that church initiatives often lack an ecclesiological rationale: there is just as often a lack of organisational awareness as well. The bureaucratic centre talks to the traditionalist parishes in language that they do not understand. The national Church uses the bureaucratic tools at its disposal without thinking enough about whether they are the right tools for the job. (I know that many in the Church’s national institutions understand this challenge, but changing it is not easy, since organisations all have dynamics that are very hard to redirect — the C of E more than most.)
I have argued for some time that the Church of England should develop what Clare Watkins calls an “organisational ecclesiology”. The suggestion is that, by engaging with the field of organisation studies, we could develop our understanding of the Church as a concrete manifestation of the body of Christ, and increase our capacity to make good decisions for and about the Church, especially in this time of change. I would be delighted to hear from those who would like to be part of taking this on.
The Revd Dr Keith Elford is a management consultant, Vicar of West Byfleet and New Haw, and visiting scholar in leadership learning and consultancy at Sarum College, Salisbury.
A longer version of this article is published at keithelford.substack.com