I attended only one paper at the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics Annual Conference, that by my own supervisor. The theme of the conference was 'The Ideology of Managerialism in church, politics and society'.
Bernd Wannenwetsch's paper was titled: 'The Birth of Economisation of the Church: Out of the Spirit of Protestant Inwardness'.
His very strong thesis was that the churches were succombing to the temptation of managerialism with its emphases on outcomes, meeting felt needs, efficiency and benchmarking. He cited the case of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) who had hired the management consultants McKinsey to advise them and to help them with recruitment. This was, as Wannenwetsch saw it, the church selling out the church by commodifying the gospel.
When the gospel is tailored to meet the needs of the supposed target audience, then we lose the Reformation emphasis on the externality of the word. The church has its identity as a listenting/hearing church in response to the gospel. It is a creature of the Word. It does not have the gospel as a possession to offer in order to meet people's spiritual needs.
He sourced this turn back to Schleiermacher's Romantic era inwardness: that the logos is found inside every person 'always already', and only needs the church to connect with it in some way contrasts with the Lutheran teaching that the gospel comes to us from outside of us. We have shifted from a doctrine of the Word to a doctrine of Faith. Now, human needs and not the gospel are seen as inexhuastible. The church becomes not the hearing and obedient church, but rather the spiritually expert church.
The great biblical passage that he reminded us of was the challenge between the prophets of Baal and Elijah on Mount Carmel. The sheer dynamism of the power of Yhwh contrast with the ineptitude of Baal. Elijah does not need to imprecate Yhwh, but rather to wait on him.
As Wannenwetsch said: 'The gospel has not come to meet our needs but to transform our needs into something worth having'.
SO: the spirit of managerialism is... a demonic spirit!
9 comments:
Yeah.
Managerialism gives me the pip.
Hey I see word verification is back. oh ye of little faith.
Glad to hear that BW makes the point about the external nature of the word in relation to the church. This (it seems to me) is the problem with the ecclesiology of Yoder and Hauerwas et. al.
YES Marty, well spotted... it is exactly what happens when the church is presented as its own foundation.
BW's friend Reinhard Hutter says pretty much the same thing in his 'Suffering Divine Things' a great read if you can find it.
Word v. is back 'cause I had some pretty gross spam the other day.
Well Gordo: BW would not like the church doing its evangelism through advertising ... and he is against strategy on principle. He said 'tactics' are fine. But strategy is of the devil. Good Lutheran stuff.
Ah! warms the heart.
I attended a church in Canada whilst visiting friends. Whilst we were there, the pastor presented the Business Plan of his church and corresponding KPIs.
His line of reasoning seemed to be "get with the programme! If businesses run their organisations like this, why shouldn't we?" At the time I struggled to come up with a concrete answer - vague ideas floated in my mind about the sharp contrast between the commercial world's love of well-padded resumes and depersonalised centralisation in the name of efficiency - as against my experience of the personal nature of church, the harsh reality of the pain we experience and the Bible's very raw and authentic way of addressing that...vague ideas along that theme.
I like your spin on this- I am won over by your argument on an abstract level - but as I come to earth I struggle to apply it....
What about my Presbyterian Church management committee? ;) Surely we need a degree of accountability for our church finances, and for those we uphold as leaders in our churches. But should we take a broader view of those we hire in our churches? Are they paid for a specific role - or merely freed up to be Christians? (Or perhaps a spectrum on which you can choose your position).
The only trap I find myself falling into is - is this an excuse to vent my emotions of experiences of being overmanaged? Is this line of reason an all too convenient way of 'sticking it to the man'? Shouldn't we love to serve, and love to be good stewards of all we have been given, in both money and time?
More than once in the last year I've heard of churches that have sold out on answers for life and gone to secular psychology, or experiential fulfilment, instead of choosing the less distracting, option of what the bible has to say about it. (I'm not saying that these don't have their place - but I have no doubt they can both be a path to the denial of God's sovereignty in our lives.) Perhaps managerialism is a third category here - another end in itself for a church instead of God's end and God's beginning.
Now please excuse me - I have to go and review this month's church budget.
He said 'tactics' are fine. But strategy is of the devil.
That's pretty funny. All i have to do is say "No, it's not strategy, it's tactics" and I've sanctified my methods. Sweet.
You should see the 12 page full colour brochure we've prepared for mission - it looks *sensational*...
Thinking some more about this. "Strategy" is the plan to win the overall theatre of war. "Tactics" are the plans to win a particular battle in that theatre.
From that perspective, I would have thought that strategy was fine, but tactics were potentially of the devil. That is, one could argue that the tactics are always "preach the word", but the strategy shows us how and where we preach the word.
So the strategy might be "plant new churches". The tactics at each particular church plant are "preach the word".
Getting back to the broader point, I wouldn't want to see "management" become a dirty word in Christian circles. A certain degree of management/administration is required in any church. At what point this becomes "managerialism" is pretty subjective. Doubtless we believe that everyone who has gone a little further than ourselves has gone too far.
What about marketing? The essence of marketing is "communicating a message". We have a message, we want to communicate it. So why do we fear marketing?
Yes, people worry about compromising the message in order to make it more palatable. But this is *always* a temptation for preachers. You can avoid "management" and "marketing" all you want, and you will still be subject to this temptation.
Post a Comment