Thank you for this - I am pondering these things a lot from a different theological and ecclesiological standpoint in my role as Chief Officer of the Unitarian church. I would love to compare notes!
Just read the abridged version of your Substack in this week’s Church Times, and want to say how very heartened I was by it; not just because so many of us who’ve been in parish ministry can see the problem of creeping managerialism in C of E structures but in presenting some thoughtful suggestions about, amongst other things, wider literacy of organisational theory. Paul Avis’ comment that the C of E is “managerial rather than relational” called to mind my days before ordination as a management consultant/trainer in the charity sector. Then, and this is over 25 years ago now, there was some excitement about the application of complexity theory in organisational thinking—as ventured by e.g. Regine & Lewin in their book, The Soul at Work: Unleashing the Power of Complexity Science for Business Success (retitled Weaving Complexity & Business: Engaging the Soul at Work for the paperback edition). They weren’t the first to write about this but it’s the one that I recall. What was striking about their approach, which cited a great many case studies, is that it was both organic and relational. Perhaps it’s old hat these days in management circles but it may offer something for the melting pot as you think further about shaping an organisational ecclesiology. I wish you well in that.
Hi Keith - I've submitted by DTh at Roehampton (supervised by Clare Watkins) and these issues overlap with the focus of my research too. So I'm really interested to read this and I hope to get time to read your whole thesis too. Thanks for your nuanced perspective which gives space for a more discerned application of management practices. Discernment was a strong theme in my thesis too - raising the question of how we make discernment practices part of the leadership and ministry of the church at every level.
Thanks Paul. I’d like to hear more about your thesis sometime. I suspect that for some what I’m talking about sounds a bit esoteric but I believe that it’s about how we do things, about the combination of spiritual practices with the basic need to manage our life together, and is therefore central to living out our faith as a church
Thank you Keith for a thoughtful piece. I often find myself in the first group you identify, but not in the second. In all of the various jobs I held in the church, some form of management was always necessary. I think what worries me most is the reliance on targets for growth without - it seems to me, admittedly now from the periphery - there being sufficient consideration as to whether there are sufficient resources for the task. I also think that what appears to be the denigration of the parish system is worrying.
I would be interested in being part of a Facebook group to continue this important conversation.
'lo there Keith. I think the Church (of England) sees itself as a superstructure, responsible for 'organising' a constituent membership. Whereas I think it ought to be characterised as a substructure existing as a repository of useful resources to be called on by the membership (the boots/feet on the ground or in the field) according to their local requirement. I might draw a parallel with a University Library. You probably wouldn't expect the University Library to dictate how the courses that will be using its books should be taught: designing the curriculum and drawing up the syllabus. And I know that these days they're called Learning Resources Centres but that just lends emphasis to my point (even if I'm missing yours). Cheers, Stephen
Thanks for commenting Stephen. The national church should be serving the local church, rather than vice versa - I think that’s what you’re saying. I’m sympathetic to that, though I think there is also a role guarding identity (which I don’t think it has done well) and of telling a story about where it is going, in a way that invites participation and feedback and is not prescriptive but inspiring (which it does very little of). There is also something important about representing faith in the national discussion. The role is to do those things that require and come with an overview, not to centralise decision-making.
I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond Keith. However, I am troubled by your willingness to condone the "national church" assuming the role of "representing faith in the national discussion". To my mind faith is represented in the national discussion to the extent that people of faith engage with it. So I would argue that the "national church" should be providing resources to facilitate local discussions amongst the faithful (more seminars than sermons) and encouraging engagement with local manifestations of any national debate. This would fit with your call for input that is "not prescriptive but inspiring".
I think I'd want to see both. The Church of England is not just a collection of local churches - it is not congregationalist. The role of episcopacy is to hold these local churches together. At the national level I think it is important that the national church contributes to national debates - sometimes speaking truth to power. That is not something that the parish church can do., though it can, as you say, contribute to local discussion.
You would find resonance in this piece by Martyn Percy on the 'barnaclization' of the church.
"Church bureaucracy – sometimes dubbed ecclesiocracy – has proliferated like Japanese Knotweed. Frontline ministry has been cut back, whilst diocesan centres have become overweight hubs consisting of advisors, enablers, directors, officers and consultants, overseen by quasi-CEOs supported by legions of support staff siloed into artificial workstreams who are meant to be delivering (note, all vaguely sketched) change, efficiency, vision, transformation, growth, development and more besides.
Yet the Church of England continues to decline, despite all the money being thrown at diocesan HQ’s and their ever-increasing staffing. Parishes and clergy look at the advertisements for some new ecclesiocracy or ‘essential’ support-bureaucratic posts to be filled with bewilderment, boredom and some degree of cynicism. The bishop and senior clergy are all surrounded and defended by concentric layers of ecclesial bureaucracy. Somewhere in this ever-growing hub, the church is completely lost."
Thank you for this - I am pondering these things a lot from a different theological and ecclesiological standpoint in my role as Chief Officer of the Unitarian church. I would love to compare notes!
Thanks Elizabeth. I'd be happy to chat sometime. Zoom perhaps?
Just read the abridged version of your Substack in this week’s Church Times, and want to say how very heartened I was by it; not just because so many of us who’ve been in parish ministry can see the problem of creeping managerialism in C of E structures but in presenting some thoughtful suggestions about, amongst other things, wider literacy of organisational theory. Paul Avis’ comment that the C of E is “managerial rather than relational” called to mind my days before ordination as a management consultant/trainer in the charity sector. Then, and this is over 25 years ago now, there was some excitement about the application of complexity theory in organisational thinking—as ventured by e.g. Regine & Lewin in their book, The Soul at Work: Unleashing the Power of Complexity Science for Business Success (retitled Weaving Complexity & Business: Engaging the Soul at Work for the paperback edition). They weren’t the first to write about this but it’s the one that I recall. What was striking about their approach, which cited a great many case studies, is that it was both organic and relational. Perhaps it’s old hat these days in management circles but it may offer something for the melting pot as you think further about shaping an organisational ecclesiology. I wish you well in that.
Hi Keith - I've submitted by DTh at Roehampton (supervised by Clare Watkins) and these issues overlap with the focus of my research too. So I'm really interested to read this and I hope to get time to read your whole thesis too. Thanks for your nuanced perspective which gives space for a more discerned application of management practices. Discernment was a strong theme in my thesis too - raising the question of how we make discernment practices part of the leadership and ministry of the church at every level.
Thanks Paul. I’d like to hear more about your thesis sometime. I suspect that for some what I’m talking about sounds a bit esoteric but I believe that it’s about how we do things, about the combination of spiritual practices with the basic need to manage our life together, and is therefore central to living out our faith as a church
I've got a viva in a few week's time. Hope to turn the thesis into a book eventually
Thank you Keith for a thoughtful piece. I often find myself in the first group you identify, but not in the second. In all of the various jobs I held in the church, some form of management was always necessary. I think what worries me most is the reliance on targets for growth without - it seems to me, admittedly now from the periphery - there being sufficient consideration as to whether there are sufficient resources for the task. I also think that what appears to be the denigration of the parish system is worrying.
I would be interested in being part of a Facebook group to continue this important conversation.
Thanks John - I’ll keep you posted.
'lo there Keith. I think the Church (of England) sees itself as a superstructure, responsible for 'organising' a constituent membership. Whereas I think it ought to be characterised as a substructure existing as a repository of useful resources to be called on by the membership (the boots/feet on the ground or in the field) according to their local requirement. I might draw a parallel with a University Library. You probably wouldn't expect the University Library to dictate how the courses that will be using its books should be taught: designing the curriculum and drawing up the syllabus. And I know that these days they're called Learning Resources Centres but that just lends emphasis to my point (even if I'm missing yours). Cheers, Stephen
Thanks for commenting Stephen. The national church should be serving the local church, rather than vice versa - I think that’s what you’re saying. I’m sympathetic to that, though I think there is also a role guarding identity (which I don’t think it has done well) and of telling a story about where it is going, in a way that invites participation and feedback and is not prescriptive but inspiring (which it does very little of). There is also something important about representing faith in the national discussion. The role is to do those things that require and come with an overview, not to centralise decision-making.
I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond Keith. However, I am troubled by your willingness to condone the "national church" assuming the role of "representing faith in the national discussion". To my mind faith is represented in the national discussion to the extent that people of faith engage with it. So I would argue that the "national church" should be providing resources to facilitate local discussions amongst the faithful (more seminars than sermons) and encouraging engagement with local manifestations of any national debate. This would fit with your call for input that is "not prescriptive but inspiring".
I think I'd want to see both. The Church of England is not just a collection of local churches - it is not congregationalist. The role of episcopacy is to hold these local churches together. At the national level I think it is important that the national church contributes to national debates - sometimes speaking truth to power. That is not something that the parish church can do., though it can, as you say, contribute to local discussion.
I have set up a Facebook Group to discuss questions of the church, management, change. You can find it here if you would like to join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1572096807390161/
Fraser, thank you for commenting but you have left me on tenterhooks!
You would find resonance in this piece by Martyn Percy on the 'barnaclization' of the church.
"Church bureaucracy – sometimes dubbed ecclesiocracy – has proliferated like Japanese Knotweed. Frontline ministry has been cut back, whilst diocesan centres have become overweight hubs consisting of advisors, enablers, directors, officers and consultants, overseen by quasi-CEOs supported by legions of support staff siloed into artificial workstreams who are meant to be delivering (note, all vaguely sketched) change, efficiency, vision, transformation, growth, development and more besides.
Yet the Church of England continues to decline, despite all the money being thrown at diocesan HQ’s and their ever-increasing staffing. Parishes and clergy look at the advertisements for some new ecclesiocracy or ‘essential’ support-bureaucratic posts to be filled with bewilderment, boredom and some degree of cynicism. The bishop and senior clergy are all surrounded and defended by concentric layers of ecclesial bureaucracy. Somewhere in this ever-growing hub, the church is completely lost."
https://meander.network/posts/barnaclization-in-the-church-of-england/