A friendly response to Ben Saunders
In a fraternal response to my article, “Burnham Among the Churches,” Ben Saunders has offered an alternative analysis of the managerial revolution that is overtaking the contemporary churches of the West. Writing from Australia, Saunders’ perspective comes from the farthest flung outpost of Western Civilization.
We are agreed that a managerial revolution is taking place in the church. I may go so far as to say that we are both agreed that this represents a fundamental change in the nature of the church as such and that recognizing this change is the first step in combating it.
Saunders notes that the “revolution” is following two trajectories. First is the impact of civil law upon the church as evidenced by the increased regulation from national bureaucracies upon the church in Australia. This increased regulation is tied to the tax code, the weapon of choice in the modern liberal democracy. Remember Al Capone? In Australia, this necessitates the employment of a permanent staff to navigate this “labyrinthine taxation system” and complex systems of law.
The second is the increasingly bloated and prescriptive code books of the church. This is evidenced by the PCA’s BCO which, in 2023, runs to 413 pages.
Let us consider each trajectory in turn. The impact of civil law upon the church, as described by Saunders, is jurisdictionally determined. In the States, this was most clearly seen during the coronavirus outbreak and response. A feature of life in America, which is far different from the rest of the former British Empire, is the tradition of resistance to state overreach. It is in our blood and our Bill of Rights. The other factor to consider here is the two-tiered system of government we have in the States. There is the Federal Government which issues high level regulations and laws. Then there are the State Governments which the Federal Government needs to enforce their regulations. Without the cooperation of the State Governments, Federal regulations would mean nothing. As I understand it, this is far different from the way things are in Australia and Canada.
During the coronavirus response you saw this American tradition play out. In Virginia, where I was ministering at the time, the governor issued very restrictive executive orders directly affecting churches. The rationale for this was an exaggerated form of empathy. We were told that abiding by the executive orders issued by then Governor Northam was the way to “Love our Neighbor.” On the Eastern Shore of Virginia a minister was arrested for holding services during the coronavirus outbreak. In South Carolina, however, the executive orders that were issued explicitly exempted the church from their scope.
All this is to say that, while in Australia broad scope government regulations may be impacting the church, in America the tradition of resistance to tyranny is still alive and offers good protections where there is a will to follow the lead of our forefathers.
The increasing size and scope of church code books (BCOs, policies, etc.) is well taken. Saunders rightly locates this tendency in neglect of natural law and its place in governing the church and the state. This is where our agreement is deeper than our disagreement on this question.
When I say that empathy is the filling the place of technical skill in the life of the church, I am employing Burnham’s analysis metaphorically. In Burnham’s analysis, he highlights technical skill as the virtue the managers brought to the companies. This virtue is what made them valuable at first. This was also what ultimately led to their takeover of the institutions of capitalism. Technical skill was the occasion for the managers to begin their takeover. Mutatis mutandis, in the church the production of saints is the actual concrete work she does. The managerial revolution in the church is happening through the occasion of empathy being valued as the key skill in ministering to sinners being transformed into saints.
It seems to me that Saunders is correct when he describes the observed phenomenon of increased bureaucratic codes regulating the church. This, however, is not what I am highlighting. I am trying to understand the essence, the ethos of this revolution. I want to identify the internal thought patterns and motivations for churches to go down this road. And I think I have.
When empathy is valued as the primary skill in the work of the church, the other necessary skills will be devalued. Knowledge of the Scriptures, discernment between good an evil, willpower to suffer for righteousness’ sake, love for God above and before any other subordinate loves, all these are being devalued before our very eyes. Why? As Protestants, why would we do this? My thesis is because we are shifting from valuing those things the Scriptures commend in ministers to those things the world commends in therapists, i.e empathy.
It seems, then, that we agree more than we disagree on this question.
Image Credit: Unsplash
I don’t think empathy is a feature of managerialism. Managers will fake empathy by letting you talk, pretending to listen, and plotting revenge at a later date either through layoffs or administrative action against you. We see this in the church also – if you bring an issue to them, either personal or with the church, they let you speak your mind then hold it as a card to use against you at a later date. The reason they do this is anything coming from the bottom-up is viewed as opposition to their agenda. They’re used to governing from the top-down which usually means handing-down decision summaries of the corporate board or, in the case of the church, the session. The decision summaries are usually devoid of information to persuade the laity. They’re more like, “This is what we’ve decided and obviously it’s best for you (us).”
I’m discussing corporate managerialism and church managerialism interchangeably because church officers are, in my experience, often taken from corporate middle management. These men are good at reading through regulations like a 400-page BCO and this technical ability becomes their preferred technique for rule – using regulations. An example is separating a guy administratively from the ministry instead of prosecuting him in a fair trial after he’s made his case. You have to know the ins and outs of the BCO, church courts, and likely opinions of advisory committees (technical knowledge) use this technique.
Managerialism depends on consensus. In the absence of CEOs, managerial officers tend to cover down on the opinions of Top Men – boisterous seminary profs with platforms or book authors or big podcasters. Top Men with these platforms are good at manufacturing the consensus essential for managerialism to function. Managerial officers also tend to follow the government because it manufactures consensus and they have no theory of resistance in obedience to our Lord. They might object to this point, but their objections have been disproven by their handling of COVID where they exposed themselves as vainly credulous to government which manufactured the consensus to COVIDianism.
To the extent that managerialism has crept into the rule of the church, again, look no further than COVID. Some officers might have wanted to resist, many did, but mostly the church response followed that of the government, especially at the state level. Churches that resisted publicly were subjected to a government media storm. Top Men in seminaries and Big Eva organs often piled on, as was the case with MacArthur. Lesser officers kept quiet.
I think the way forward is for managerial officers (not all are managerial) to realize that they have the wrong understanding of shepherding the church. They need to trash the corporate biz lit and try to understand true leadership generally then church leadership specifically. Many need to repent, e.g.
https://www.amazon.com/Coronavirus-Leadership-Christian-Church-Sacred/dp/1716529638
I thoroughly enjoyed this article, Sir.
Thank you for your thoughtful and gracious engagement with my friendly critique. Some very good points in this article. I look forward to seeing you flesh out your analysis of empathy and the church!