The Rise of Managerial Ecclesiology: A Critique
A Friendly Response to B.A. Castle
In an interesting recent article, B.A. Castle argues that a sort of managerial revolution is occurring in the contemporary church, adopting a modified version of the theory presented in James Burnham’s book The Managerial Revolution.
Writing in 1941, Burnham argued that production is literally impossible without the technical expertise of managers and predicted that ownership would inevitably reflect their position of supreme importance in modern capitalist production. Managers would become the dominant ruling class in society, controlling the instruments of production, and that a capitalist society would be replaced by a managerial one.
Castle considers that a similar sort of analysis, with the parts suitably exchanged, applies in the contemporary church. Thus, the institution is the visible church; the “product” of the church is saints; the “owners” are the officers of the church; the benefits that accrue are honor, salary, and a certain lifestyle; and the managers are “any persons or entities brought into the church to take over any or all of the functions of prophet, priest, or king in the work of the shepherd”.
Castle argues that we are witnessing a managerial revolution in the church; not one of technical skill, but rather empathy, which has been elevated beyond its proper scope. In order to properly shepherd the flock, it is thought that empathy is the one core skill necessary.
I consider that Castle has put his finger on something – a managerial revolution is indeed overtaking the church. However, I think he misdiagnoses the nature of that phenomenon.
In my opinion, the ecclesial “revolution” is best understood as following two trajectories. The first relates to the impact of civil law on the church. The second centers around the internal governance of the church. Both converge on a bureaucratization of the visible church.
Consider each trajectory in turn. The first is the impact of civil law on the church. In jurisdictions I am familiar with, there is an increasing regulation of aspects of the life of the church (and the lives of individuals) by civil law. These regulations range from the benign, or relatively benign, to those which are more difficult to characterize as benign. No doubt other countries could tell a similar story.
Four examples will serve to illustrate the point. In Australia, where I live, the last decade or so has witnessed the introduction a national charities regulator which requires all charities to be registered and make disclosure of financial information. There is increasing regulation relating to child safety, which is a complex web of criminal law, legislation, common law and bureaucratic standards. We have a labyrinthine taxation system which accords beneficial treatment to charities, including churches. There are also occupational health and safety laws which require employers to ensure safe environments.
Many more examples could be cited. But they should serve to illustrate that complex systems of law exist which regulate the life of the visible church, and this all but mandates that churches need permanent paid staff whose role is to advise the church in navigating their complexities.
The second trajectory relates to the internal governance of the church. The contemporary church is witnessing an increasingly bureaucratic approach to the regulation of the life of the church. This is reflected in bloated and prescriptive church codes.
Compare the following. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in the United States enacted in 1879 was 86 pages. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, as at 2023, runs to 413 pages.
One reason for this code bloat is the internalization of civil law by the church. I have already noted that there are more and more civil laws being enacted which regulate the life of the church. One unfortunate tendency is to replicate and enact these laws within church codes themselves, as a means of ensuring uniformity throughout a denomination.
A second reason is the loss of any sense of natural law. Presbyterians believe that the fundamental principles of church government are set out in Scripture, but that the Bible does not exhaustively prescribe every detail of church life. Those details need to be determined by human decision, and this often takes the form of a code book or book of order.
The traditional conception of Presbyterian ecclesiology, as reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith, was that there are principles of the “light of nature” which “are always to be observed” in worship and church government (1.6). In other words, natural law provides a series of principles which mediate between the foundational principles of Scripture, and the detailed minutiae of church life.
This understanding of natural law has now largely been forgotten. In the absence of an understanding of natural law, an increasingly detailed and prescriptive regulation of church life has replaced this void.
This ironically parallels what is occurring in the realm of civil law. In the West there has been a loss of shared belief in objective moral standards, which results in the need to enact ever more detailed and prescriptive laws regulating ever more aspects of society. If governments cannot rely on a virtuous people to do the right thing, they must impose ever more detailed and prescriptive regulations.
I thus agree with Castle that there is a managerial revolution occurring within the church, but would diagnose its nature very differently. In my opinion, the managerial revolution is not the adoption of empathy, but the gradual legalization and bureaucratization of the church, through civil law and church law.
The consequences are profound. One is that the issues faced by the church are routinely framed, not in biblical terms, but in legal terms. Even well-meaning regulations (such as child safety and occupational health and safety laws) require an administrative response. The visible church is being subtly and not so subtly shaped into an institutional and bureaucratic mold.
The volume and complexity of regulations is too much for both the laity and the pastorate to comprehend. That inevitably falls on the paid bureaucrats and administrators who advise and implement civil and church law. In short, the visible church is run by what Burnham would describe as “managers”.
There are no quick fixes for such a predicament. One urgent need is to recover a doctrine of natural law, including within the church. A second core priority is to recover the true principles of Presbyterian ecclesiology, with its robust sense of institutional autonomy and spiritual nature of church power.
Image Credit: Unsplash