Managerialism

No-one likes it - but what is it?

The Church of England is frequently criticised for excessive reliance upon the language and practices of management. But rather than simply reject it, we need a richer understanding of how and what it can contribute to the church.

The Church of England has become ‘managerial rather than relational, bureaucratic instead of organic, centralised in place of localised’. So says Paul Avis in his recent swingeing article for the Church Times.[1] Avis characterises the Church of England’s problems as the outcome of an essentially ethical failure. It has not pursued its calling with sufficient moral and spiritual seriousness and consistency. It is a powerful argument: I will likely come back to this piece in future blogs and look forward to reading the book on which it is based.[2]

Today though I wish to take up the claim that the national Church of England has become inappropriately ‘managerialist’ in its outlook and policy. The charge is frequently made but perhaps less frequently defined. I think it takes two forms. The first (and, I think, the predominant form) is saying that the way 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 this evidenced in, for example, the focus on procedural reform; in changes to the way resources are allocated, especially money; in centralisation; and in the promotion of a narrow focus on numerical growth with accompanying targets. These policies are pursued with little by way of visible ecclesiological thought or rationale. I think this gap is more recognised than it was but I am not convinced it has been filled. The approach has consequences beyond the impact of specific measures. When the national church pursues such a limited agenda without a clear ecclesiological narrative about its priorities it feeds anxiety about the loss of Anglican identity at the parish level.

The second form of the charge of managerialism shares many of the concerns of the first but goes further. This form is characterised by a wholesale rejection of the concept of management, or at least, of secular concepts of management. In this argument, advanced in recent times by John Milbank and Lyndon Shakespeare,[3] the activity is roundly rejected as instrumentalist, based on a mechanical concept of human relations. It is simply incompatible with the church’s conception of itself as the Body of Christ.

I agree that the question 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. I would argue, however, that as in all engagements with secular thought, it is theology and ecclesiology and their associated spiritual practices that should frame the engagement, not vice versa. (I don’t have time and space to pursue the ecclesiological and interdisciplinary arguments of principle further here but I have addressed them much more fully in my doctoral thesis.)[4]

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. I am rather inclined to agree with Paul Avis that this does constitute a kind of moral failure, or, at least, a lack of confidence in the nature of our calling and the nature of the church.

But there is more to it than that. An interesting feature of the critiques of both Milbank and Shakespeare is that neither cite 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 we are disparaging 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. We might add that it takes it for granted that it is modernist in its philosophy; hierarchical in its form; and instrumental in its dealings. From a theological point of view it is typically reductionist in its view of human society. This is how both Milbank and Shakespeare see it. For them and many others, this is management and, of course, it often is, in businesses especially. But, in fact, it is one form of management based on one strand in the very wide field that is organisation theory, the form that sees organisations in machine-like terms. But the field is full of interesting alternative perspectives; those that emphasise human culture and human relations; those that critique 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.[5]

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 critique 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, I suggest: the question is not whether but how and by what principles. It is not just 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 they do not understand. The national church uses the bureaucratic tools readily at its disposal without thinking enough about whether they are the right tools for the job. (I know by the way, that there are many in the church’s national institutions who recognise all this, work to change it, and more power to their elbows. I am also aware that this is no straightforward task as organisations all have dynamics that are very hard to re-direct and the Church of England 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 see it as a form of practical theology. Over the last eighteen months Nick Shepherd and I have gathered a group of those interested in such a venture and begun an exploration which has consisted of considering some of the in principle questions and hearing from exponents of different organisational approaches, attempting to make sense of them in the church’s actual situation. I would very much like to extend this conversation. My first suggestion is that I would be delighted to host guest blogs on this platform on this broad theme, or to post links to such blogs. My second is that I am considering setting up a Facebook group to allow for more immediate conversation and signposting. What do you think? Feedback invited and welcomed.

---

[1] Avis, Paul. ‘Ailing and failing: the Church of England has lost its way’. Church Times 2 January 2026. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/2-january/comment/opinion/ailing-and-failing-the-church-of-england-has-lost-its-way.

[2] Avis, Paul. Shaping a Church of Ethical Integrity: Groundwork of a Church rebuilt. SCM Press, February 2026.

[3] Milbank, John. “Stale Expressions: The Management-Shaped Church.” Studies in Christian Ethics 21, no. 1 (2008): 117-128. Shakespeare, Lyndon. Being the Body of Christ in the Age of Management. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016.

[4] Elford, Keith. Being and Becoming Church: ecclesiological and organisational perspectives on Renewal and Reform in the contemporary Church of England. PhD thesis, University of Roehampton, 2022. It can be downloaded here: https://elfordconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Being-and-Becoming-Church-Elford-PhD-Thesis-Sept-2022-FINAL-2.pdf

[5] See, notably, Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization. Updated ed. London: Sage, 2006. This is the classic account but there are others.