Oh yes- Schleiermacher, just for interest, was a theologian of the early nineteenth century who emphasised the inward feelings.

Michael, there is nothing wrong with aiming to be competent in our administration and business etc.

The $150 million question is where are we subverting the gospel to this kind of thinking?

We don't want to commodify the gospel - but is that really the only way to view applying insights of management?

Why not rather say it wisdom? So the Word itself will tell you to go and learn about how to do ministry from hard working farmers...

Are the proceedings of that conference published?

Was it David Wells (amongst others) who identified the tendency of evangelicals towards managerial or therapeutic ministry models?

Is that the same kind of thing, Michael?

Managerialism is the the evil not management or good and prudent administration. It is the "-ism" that makes all the difference.
The example of the selfproclaimed 'expert' church listeming to the 'experts' at McKinsey and Co. rather than God is so ironic. The Mckinsey Way rather than God's way. And I can just see 400 beancounters slashing themselves attempting to get the attention of the Management gods (in the gospel story the beancounter was the bad goy...Sorry beancounters - I have done a few financial accounting subjects at GSB sydney uni.)
The trade of management and administration needs to be our (local church's, denomination's, MTS's -where I work)servant and the almighty God our master.Not our clever strategy for growth derived from the latest marketing and management fads.
Michael I like how you throw out these granades....

The proceedings of the conference were published in Studies for Christian Ethics . You maybe able to download PDFs from that site.

Hans' clarification is useful. The target is not careful management, but managerialISM, as he says. But still- even careful management philosophies are embedded in an ideology of managerialism, in which the needs of the target audience become paramount and the church makes the gospel into a unit it needs to sell.

The proceedings of the conference were published in Studies for Christian Ethics . You maybe able to download PDFs from that site.

If you pay!!??? Is there anyway of reading the document without?

You could pay. Or you could come to Moore College library. Or, if you are very nice to me... and you know or can guess my email address...

I'll be nice AND I'll guess your email address.

Michael, thank you for a very timely comment. On another topic you and I were discussing the question of what we do in church and why. Without re-opening the debate on that forum, I think that 'managerialism' will often seriously erode biblical principles in what we do in church. Evangelism also can suffer.

Not long ago, someone told me that he thought any evangelism that dealt with sin and judgment was unhelpful, for it failed to deal with people where they are at. He wanted evangelists to offer 'honey' to attract them.

So then, the gospel itself can be redefined if it becomes in our minds 'a unit... to sell.'

Gospel as a unit to sell ...

I've long wanted to do an evangelistic talk/series with the title 'The customer is always wrong'. Would that sell, Philip?

Thanks Philip.

I am not against 'contextualisation', mind you!

Partly, I wrote my doctoral thesis about martyrdom because I wanted to show that Christianity was actually a bit of a hard sell. Far from making your life better, it may get you killed!

Measuring outcome. You mean like: Our mission is to...10% in 10 years etc etc

Ouch! Well, what do you think? Has the ideology of managerialism infected our local church culture?

Don't really know what managerialism actually is. But if it's the ideology that 'emphases on outcomes, meeting felt needs, efficiency and benchmarking' then I'd say yes and no.
Part of me wish we would spend more time and brainpower on (the right) measurements. Because ministry and ministers lack accountability. Part of me want to shout Amen to the the whole idea of the hearing and obeying church.

Accountability ain't the same as Key Performance Indicators, though, is it?

Is it an ideology, this managerialism? I think it is in that it is an all encompassing philosophy of life itself. It is highly utilitarian of course - with its emphasis on the measurable and the calculable.

Intersting - using an ideology (utilitarianism) to define another ideology (managerialism). One a subset of another??
From the stuff that I've read, I agree with Hans that managerialism is bigger than good management, e.g. Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline) gets quite spooky (or 'spiritual').

I've long wanted to do an evangelistic talk/series with the title 'The customer is always wrong'. Would that sell, Philip?

I love the title! Give it a go!

Yes, Michael, I agree that contextualisation is important.

I'd love to read your thesis, and I think you have a point about the 'hard sell' of Christianity.

It is interesting to note that at the time the Diocesan mission was launched in synod, there was considerable debate about having a mission goal involving the famous 10% in 10 years.

My own view is that such goals can be the fruit of managerialism, but I don't think they have to be. If setting a goal like this forces us to recognise our complete dependence on God, and the need to seek first his kingdom, and to ensure our priorities match those given to us by the risen Lord, then that's all for good.

On the other hand, if the goal causes us to become overly concerned with numbers and results, then we will have forgotten that our task is to be faithful- we don't convert people.

BTW management as far as I can tell does not just focus on 'outcomes, meeting felt needs, efficiency and benchmarking'. If anything that would be criticised for being too middle-management or operational. Language such as vision and hope, character, value and trust, relationahip and community has been used used in management literature since the 1970s. So managerialism is more than just bean counting.

On further reflections, some of these management types would even go so far as to say that companies and firms ought not to be just places where people work and produce but rather places where meaning is to be found, and through while society is transformed. Try to find the source.

From Wannenwetsch's published article:

‘Stefan, suchst du
nach Sinn? Kirche macht Sinn!’ (‘Stefan, are you searching for meaning? The
Church makes sense, the Church creates meaning!’) Thus was the message
on oversized posters on the walls of the city’s tube and public places by
which the Lutheran diocese of Munich started a recruitment campaign
for new church members around the turn of the millennium. The insight
that was – rather predictably – gained in the consulting process with
McKinsey was that, given the undisputable excellence of the Church’s
product – the gospel – , the market opportunity would be excellent if they
only professionalized their approach to the market. Understand the need
and respond to it! This assumption rested, of course, on the uncontested
presupposition that the Church’s prime mission was to cater for the
‘religious needs’ of the people.

That's really interesting. The thing that struck (disturb?) me is the ecclesiology 'Church creates meaning!'
This reminds me of Jackson Carroll (Duke Divinity School).
Caroll incidentally wrote a book called 'God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations' (Eerdmans, 2006), which seeks to measure/assess effectiveness of ministry using statistics.

To quote from one reviewer of Carroll's book:

'As the acids of postmodernism ate away at the foundations of so much philosophy, sociology, and historiography, many social scientists sought refuge (certitude) in the tools of the so-called hard sciences. The sea change was marked when a number of rational choice theorists, like University of Rochester political scientist William Riker or his student Kenneth Shepsle, now at Harvard with Putnam, were elected to the National Academy of Science. It’s been said that when the generation of disciples who followed Riker began to fill top universities, the American Political Science Review began to look like a physics journal, filled with pages of calculus equations, charts, and regression analyses.

Behind this love affair with numbers and equations are behaviorist assumptions that go back in time further still. Statistical and rational choice analyses represent the most evolved stage of a brand of social science that tries to explain, measure, and predict human behavior according to rational considerations, much like the bio-chemical diagnoses of today’s lab-coated psychiatrists represent the most evolved and quantifiable stage of a way of thinking begun by the bespectacled Sigmund Freud, serenely leaning forward in his chair and asking patients about their dreams.

I wonder whether this might describe the Christian church's preoccupation with the tools of managerialism.

...much like the bio-chemical diagnoses of today’s lab-coated psychiatrists represent the most evolved and quantifiable stage of a way of thinking begun by the bespectacled Sigmund Freud

While I have a lot of respect for Freud's neurological and psychoanalytic work, Emil Kraepelin seems more seminal to organic psychiatry.

I guess we do want to run our organisations with some degree of answerability to the aims of the organisations out of a concern for mutual trust.

I would like to suggest a voluntary self-imposed ban on the use of the word 'professional' in anything related to church/ministry/evangelism. We ought not be interested in 'professionalism'. The church most certainly isn't 'professional' (nor amateur either). It can be and ought to be glorifying to God, but it shouldn't describe itself as professional!

Michael, I both agree and disagree with you

Yes, we are in danger of being syncretistic - adopting the idols of the age by giving primacy to the ethical value of 'effectiveness' (or utility) in a way that does not reflect Scriptural values. The process in the social sciences is neatly explained in the quote Brian Tung posted from Carroll's book.

But no - I think you are giving the word 'professional' far too much weight given its meaning in the colloquial language. The problem in Syd Ang circles is not merely that we have professionalised ministry. But that we don't have a deep enough theology of lay volunteerism. Some of our problems grow out of the fact that laity approach church voluntary jobs with the thought that 'this is just church' and thus don't apply the same rigours they would in their work life. We need to be giving our best to the Lord, not just the chaff-ends of our life and our expertise.

I am not sure we are in disagreement, JH. That is, I would argue that the notion of 'professionalism' is potentially corrupting of both lay and 'clerical' approaches to church life and mission.

We tend to be more given to English-style 'amateurism'. That is, to run chaotic and clumsy services/meetings that are almost deliberately unpolished.

The opposite vice is American professionalism, where everything is TV slick.

Neither are what church is actually about, which is serving God in ways that edify each other and glorify him...

My argument is that 'professionalism' = 'managerialism'

'professional' (in common usage) = just means doing your best.

As we agree (I think), there is nothing wrong with me (as a media professional) saying I am going to be 'professional' in the way that I put together the flyer for my church's mission week.

I know that is the common parlance, but I don't want you to be professional when you put together the flyer!

Won't professionalism creep in under the use of the word 'professional' to indicate 'giving your utmost in service of God'? Hasn't it already?

or for you does 'TV slick' = any kind of professionalism in advertising & promotion?

Michael in your mind what is the difference between being 'expert' in a task and being 'professional'.

Clearly I can't de-learn good design and communication techniques when I'm serving in a ministry context.

Hmmm... for what it's worth, as a television producer I'm wondering at the negative connotation associated with the 'TV slick' reference.

The ultimate goal in television is to provide a presentation where all of the elements are geared towards keeping the viewer focused on the central topic - whatever that topic might be.

Anything that doesn't contribute to that topic is eliminated. It's a guiding principle that should influence everything from items included in the program rundown, right down to the length of time devoted to particular shots.

Now I'm certainly not advocating 'form over content' but from the pews I've sat in, more than a few services - many more sermons - could benefit from a bit of 'TV slick'.

Of course not. You are missing my point, I think... (I don't like 'expert' langauage either, and I am gonna do a piece soon called 'Against the Tyranny of Experts'!)

When you design the flyer, do it to your utmost for the glory of God, using all the techniques and skills you have. Turn them into spiritual gifts. 'Professional' to me describes a whole approach which misses the point of Christian service and infects us with a terrible disease.

Here's an analogy: when your mum (or dad) cooks a special dinner for your birthday, does she not do her utmost using all the gifts and skills she has? Even if it isn't 'professional', isn't home cooking almost always better because it is done with care as an act of service? Why do shops now advertise things as 'home-cooked'?

Service in the church is like home-cooking, isn't it?

I hope Mark that what you are REALLY saying is that the sermons and services could honour God more.

Nothing annoys me more than week after week hearing sound glitches, sloppy or inaudible music and mumbled Bible readings. But this isn't a matter of a lack of professionalism, or slickness. People should take these things seriously as a matter of honouring God!!! Isn't that a completely different approach, even if the results might look similar?

Ok - thanks for the clarification.

Its the cold clinical nature of the 'professional' that you are objecting to.

Thats a great point actually. In hospitality there is a big (ontological) difference between 'do-it-yourself' in godly service & supplying mass-produced catering.

So its better to delegate the design of the flyer to the uni student (who may do a slightly worse job) than to pay the design business up the street to do a more 'professional' job.

ie Christian service needs to be the primary objective and value.

well, glorifying God does...

I don't know why we want to appear 'professional' to outsiders. They are inundated with advertising, and they know that most of it is inauthentic.

So - ban the word 'professional' in Christian circles I say!

I'm still not 100% of the way with you Michael (there are forms of advertising that are so skilled in their communication that they are successful at mimicing authenticity)
...but I guess 'what is good communication?' is a tangent to your main point so I'll let it go.

Hi Michael,

I think what I'm really saying is that good form honours God as much as good content. To borrow your cooking analogy, it is the cleanliness of the plate on which mum's meal is served... but enough cooking analogies :)

It seems to me that Jesus' communications were more than just good content, or even good desire. His 'craft' in delivering them was as inspired as His message. At least that's what I read him telling his critics:

"For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it." (John 12:49)

And boy am I ready for a hiding from the professional theologians out there... ;)

Yeah, sure. You won't get anying cavilling from me here. But what a travesty it would be to call Jesus 'professional!'

As I said, I hate the ethos of amatuerism (as we currently understand the word) just as much. The lack of attention to presentation is a disgrace. But not because it is not 'professional' enough.

'Professional theologian'? Now that's an oxymoron!

I can live with the home cooked meal with sauce dripped around on the plate (sloppy by restaurant standards) and I can live with a lack of attention to detail in a church if love is obvious.

...though I would say that love will in the end result in attention to detail... won't it? Ongoing sloppiness isn't reflective of love in the end.

I would suggest faithful service is the appropriate way to think about what we do in church to the glory of God. Sloppiness is not faithful service, but a 'professional job' conveys nothing of the reality that believers, constrained by the love of God, seek to serve his Son to his glory, and so seek to serve faithfully.

Yes I think love will drive attention to detail but it will influence the choice of details. Hence getting the meal to everyone hot and at the same time overrides the need for the cook to look good in that area of presentation.

We will try to do everything well but love will drive us to value particular details over others when the crunch comes.

Perhaps it comes down to: what is loving to do in the light of the gifts God has given to each gathering.

If I were to apply managerialism to our discussion on professionalism for a moment...
The church growth types would say that there are different kinds of churches (roughly corresponding with size). Larger churches are characterised by formality, professionalism etc. The ministers spend much more time on preparing sermons, making their programs 'slick' and working 'on' the church. While smaller churches (few to 70 people) are normally characterised by informality etc. They tend to be much more ad hoc - not just on Sundays but the way decisions are made etc. The ministers (by necessity) tend to spend less time on preparation. He works 'for' the church. He is more like parent figure than a 'professional' clergy.
Some argue that there is no optimal size for a church. A small church can be just as effective (yes, effectiveness!!!) in evangelism and nurture as a large church.
That is, using managerial crteria and methods might in fact lead you away from professionalism.

Well possibly.

You could argue, along the lines of my friend Steve Timmis, that a large church necessarily becomes everything church isn't supposed to be for precisely this reason. So, there is an optimal size, being the size at which that family-style of relating is replaced with a more professional and managerial style.

Just to pick up your last comment - I don't think these would be managerial criteria and methods - they would be theological decisons. And I repent of the word 'optimal' and urge you to do the same!! :-)

Family-style relating can be experienced in a large church and I would suggest that it had a lot to do with 'good' management.

I am not opposed to good management. Never said I was.

The problem is that many Christians doing things around church as volunteers and as paid workers have done a poor job. The fliers look terrible. The financial records are sloppy and unclear/ The Morning tea has yucky coffee and the building looks unkempt and unloved. I agree with Michael... we want more than professionalism, but I think churches need to lift their game in the way they deliver. Communication skills, presentation, music, care... all of this will be sharpened- because we are absolutely convinced that we are serving The Father- not because we want to win over competitors customers.

I am sorry if I implied that - I wasn't thinking you were.
I was responding more to the comment '..a large church necessarily becomes everything church isn't supposed to be..'

Just to clarify - not endorsing 'optimal' or managerialism or church growth or.... But seeking to demonstrate (in a clumsy way) that professionalism might not be the same as managerialism. Just doing a lot of fence sitting as a spectator.
I also don't think that managerialism is the same as good management. And yes, I agree with you Michael that the decision when framed in that way is theological one. Timmis' ecclesiology focus is on community. The one that I have been taught emphasizes the Word. I wonder if this would make a difference.

A case study.

I have embarked on a project to create the church website. It's meant to launch in less than 2 weeks before we start the official door-knocking and outreaching activities. More features will be added over time.

Being an engineer, I created a project plan using Ms Project, listed the tasks and milestones, and assigned people. I drove my ministers nuts asking for details of church services/meetings for the webpages.

Am I being (too) professional? :)

No, the example misses the point. I think the word 'professional' drives (or could be driving) a whole attitude to service in God's church that is destructive of the very nature of our relationships. Do as best you can at the website to the glory of God, just as you describe. But I hope you aren't 'professional' about it!

What of professors, then? Or should they aim for donnishness instead?

Michael
Just to help some of us see what you are getting at could you give examples of what 'professional' would look like in the case of the website creation.

Well... partly the role of modern day academics is a legacy of a Christian sense of setting apart some people from the world for the purpose of service and the pursuit of knowledge.

We ought to set aside the things of the church from the economy of exchange that is so pervasive. And resist it at all costs (scuse the pun)!

It isn't about what it would look like. It is about who it is for - who it honours and who it serves. I am happy that my own church's website, for example, is as polished and functional as possible, and that it serves the people of God graciously. It is primarily a use of spiritual gifts, not an exercise of expertise or professional capacity - though it may be these things. The outcome is, in a way, irrevelevant. But I suspect actually that aiming to be 'professional' and not 'God-honouring' will indeed produce different outcomes, though the quality may be the same.

From my understanding, the line between being professional and being responsible is not on the website but rather on the way the project is managed. Being professional we would show off our managerial skills that we can deliver despite an aggressive timeline, we have to organise tasks (while others are ad-hoc), we have an exquisite management skills, we ... etc. The glory then goes to we/me.

Am I getting "warmer"? :)

Sounds right to me!

So if the outcome is irrelevant, does this mean it's near impossible for an outsider to diagnose managerialism, because it is about the inner motives?

Not quite. I think the difference of approach will make a visible difference, though it might be subtle. The outsider may not discern this from the product itself, but she/he will from the human relationships that cluster around the activity in question.