On the Management of Churches

CameronCameron Shipmate
Do churches (and other organizations focussed on religious practice) need to be managed?

No-one wants safeguarding to be unprofessional, finances to be left to luck, people to be appointed without scrutiny or fairness, training to be haphazard, worship and the organization of volunteers to be chaotic …etc etc. All of those activities seem to need to be managed in some way to meet expectations - and managing those things doesn’t necessarily cut across (e.g.) pastoral decisions or choices about worship.

And yet the idea of management of and in churches is often bemoaned as ‘managerialism’ - which is when the organization becomes idelologically focussed on management, for the managers’ benefit. I don’t think that is normally the case in churches and similar organizations.

But if you think we don’t need management (people or maybe processes) in churches, what are the alternatives?
- A Barchester Towers model of patronage and the tyranny of taste, which seems undesirable.
- The Quaker model of consensus decision making, which seems admirable but I wonder if it still leaves some (legally required) officers managing day-to-day business?

Maybe there are other alternatives… or maybe we should admit that churches need managing?

«1

Comments

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Perhaps there are Pond Differences or denominational differences at play, but I find myself wondering exactly what is meant by managed/managing. I mean, I can think of very few churches that don’t have some type of what can be called management in place, though the word management might not be used. Those systems may or may not be adequate or fit for purpose, but they’re there.

    What would constitute managing churches that’s different from what’s already being done?


  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited May 2024
    Cameron wrote: »
    Do churches (and other organizations focussed on religious practice) need to be managed?

    Maybe there are other alternatives… or maybe we should admit that churches need managing?

    Management is just a function of organisational size, and to an extent different forms of management are adaptations to failure situations once an organization hits a particular size (this is nothing new, see Acts 6 or Exodus 18)

    So yeah, you can do without management, as long as your organisations are really small and do very little. Usually management becoming a law unto itself is a case of failure to adapt to a new situation, though in any institution of any reasonable size will also act to protect itself by virtue of the interplay between the interests of the individuals within it.

    Tangentially; a good book on the topic came out recently ("The Unaccountability Machine" by Dan Davies), while it uses the financial crisis as a case study, most of the book has applications elsewhere.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    In the military, we had the luxury of trained enlisted people to help with the management of the chapel. They were trained to follow a very detailed set of regulations.

    A number of the local churches in our area now contract their financial management to accounting firms. Certainly helps. Then, too, there are many software programs congregations can use to avoid mistakes in the accounting of funds.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    In the military, we had the luxury of trained enlisted people to help with the management of the chapel. They were trained to follow a very detailed set of regulations.

    A number of the local churches in our area now contract their financial management to accounting firms. Certainly helps. Then, too, there are many software programs congregations can use to avoid mistakes in the accounting of funds.

    Interesting examples. But:

    - Would non-military churches be governable purely by regulations? (I think the Kirk used to be - calling @North East Quine for historical insight.) Isn’t there still someone to say if the regulations have been followed, and what happens if they haven’t?
    - Financial software is not infallible, it seems… and so is some honest human judgement needed there too?
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    This is not about whether things need managing - it's about whether this the is nature and extent of what the church should be doing. While organisations are obsessed with their own preservation and avoiding being sued, nothing creative or useful can happen, because this produces a defensive mindset which tries to keep the outside world at bay. It also produces the mindset which wants to drag the world into church, rather than being ready to dissolve the church into the world. The kingdom of God requires the latter, rather than the former - big churches successful and having big numbers requires the former. Big churches = success, apparently.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps there are Pond Differences or denominational differences at play, but I find myself wondering exactly what is meant by managed/managing. I mean, I can think of very few churches that don’t have some type of what can be called management in place, though the word management might not be used. Those systems may or may not be adequate or fit for purpose, but they’re there.

    What would constitute managing churches that’s different from what’s already being done?

    I don’t think it would necessarily be different from what’s already done, but (some / many) people don’t like to think of churches as ‘managed’ and I find that interesting.

    (In passing, I note that the modern translations of the bible render the parable in Luke 16 as being concerned with managers rather than stewards)
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    This is not about whether things need managing - it's about whether this the is nature and extent of what the church should be doing. While organisations are obsessed with their own preservation and avoiding being sued, nothing creative or useful can happen, because this produces a defensive mindset which tries to keep the outside world at bay. It also produces the mindset which wants to drag the world into church, rather than being ready to dissolve the church into the world. The kingdom of God requires the latter, rather than the former - big churches successful and having big numbers requires the former. Big churches = success, apparently.

    I hear you, but to be fair the question in the OP is explicitly “do churches need to be managed”.

    What you are objecting to, I think, is a lack of prophetic action and visionary leadership in churches, which are different things from managing (and can exist whether management / managing is there or not). But I agree they are more important in relation to the values and mission we might hope to see. If that makes sense…?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Cameron wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps there are Pond Differences or denominational differences at play, but I find myself wondering exactly what is meant by managed/managing. I mean, I can think of very few churches that don’t have some type of what can be called management in place, though the word management might not be used. Those systems may or may not be adequate or fit for purpose, but they’re there.

    What would constitute managing churches that’s different from what’s already being done?

    I don’t think it would necessarily be different from what’s already done, but (some / many) people don’t like to think of churches as ‘managed’ and I find that interesting.
    I guess I haven’t encountered that sentiment. Interesting indeed.

  • I'm objecting to the OP because it creates a false and misleading dichotomy, and leads to people patronising those of us who think that churches do not exist to serve themselves. Prophesy and love are not secondary or voluntary. They are essential and mandatory. Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    After all, to link the two threads together, managerialists think it's a radical and meaningful move to rename churches. It's the most threadbare pseudo-radicalism, pseudo-prophesy, which is so often the last reflex of an institution drifting into obscurity via irrelevance.

    Of course, I am speaking against myself, being constitutionally entirely allergic to churches which try to be "relevant". But without being genuinely relevant, without having a real contribution to rebuilding the world after the reality of God's love, what the fuck is the point of the church?

    Oh yes, the maintenance of good policies.
  • I think there's a world of difference between "management" and "managerialism".
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.
    Why is management temporary?

    I’d say appropriate management is necessary to enable a church to carry out its mission. The mission is the important thing, and any form of management that thwarts or hinders that mission is inappropriate, but generally speaking some form of management is needed or the mission can’t happen, or can’t happen as effectively.


  • Management is temporary because the church itself is temporary. Only the Kingdom of God, with which the church is not identical, is permanent.

    And if managerialism were not rampant, we would not have a mediocre junior oil executive as the spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, or a manager of nurses as Bishop of London.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.
    Why is management temporary?

    I’d say appropriate management is necessary to enable a church to carry out its mission. The mission is the important thing, and any form of management that thwarts or hinders that mission is inappropriate, but generally speaking some form of management is needed or the mission can’t happen, or can’t happen as effectively.


    This! Management must always be in service of the mission. Thus, church bureaucracy (yes, it exists and is needed) must always be asking how it serves mission.
  • Absolutely.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Management is temporary because the church itself is temporary. Only the Kingdom of God, with which the church is not identical, is permanent.
    While I agree that the church and the Kingdom of God not identical, saying “management is temporary” in that context seems rather useless, as by that standard almost everything is temporary. But this side of the Second Coming, management is going to be needed if the church is going to even attempt to carry out its mission.

    And there can be management without managerialism.


  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And there can be management without managerialism.


    The primary and absolute condition for this is that the management is aware that it is temporary, and is not an end in itself. I see little evidence of this in the church, ironically because it is terrified of extinction. To me, it only gains the right to survive by embracing the reality of its eventual extinction.
  • This is not to say that the current situation I see in the Church of England feels anything other than impossible. Priests are filling too many gaps, managerial, societal and spiritual, and being stretched to and beyond the limit in the process. That can't continue, as far as I can see, without the whole enterprise both exploding and imploding when something really, really hideous, created by this situation, comes to light, and is found to be endemic.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And there can be management without managerialism.
    The primary and absolute condition for this is that the management is aware that it is temporary, and is not an end in itself. I see little evidence of this in the church . . . .
    While I see a fair deal of evidence for it. Perhaps consider the possibility that what you see isn’t all there is to see? Just as “church” and “Kingdom of God” are not identical, neither are “church” and “Church of England,” or any other denomination/tradition.


  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Of course the last point is true and I wouldn't ever say anything else. I just don't have first hand experience of other situations.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited May 2024
    This is not to say that the current situation I see in the Church of England feels anything other than impossible. Priests are filling too many gaps, managerial, societal and spiritual, and being stretched to and beyond the limit in the process.

    That points if anything to a lack of proper management, not its excess. I think traditional British management was not great, and has accreted some 'business speak' gloss, but in many ways remains the same as it always was. The CofE suffers because parts of the church structure operate this way, and the rest operates as a chumocracy.

    You can see evidence of the latter in the report following every recent scandal.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    This is not about whether things need managing - it's about whether this the is nature and extent of what the church should be doing. While organisations are obsessed with their own preservation and avoiding being sued, nothing creative or useful can happen, because this produces a defensive mindset which tries to keep the outside world at bay. It also produces the mindset which wants to drag the world into church, rather than being ready to dissolve the church into the world. The kingdom of God requires the latter, rather than the former - big churches successful and having big numbers requires the former. Big churches = success, apparently.

    Thank you @ThunderBunk, I love the phrase ‘dissolve the church into the world’.

    Ref management, I prefer the term ‘facilitation’. Yes, things need to be organised, to facilitate the aims and needs of the individual church community in accordance with God’s calling and guidance, and the example of Christ.

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.

    Management is necessary. Someone has to make sure that the fabric of the building is maintained, that any staff are paid, that the cleaner knows what to do, that there's a plan and a budget to refurbish the ancient heating system which we know will need to be replaced in the next couple of years, that a replacement organist will show up when the normal organist is sick or on holiday, and so on.

    But as I often tell managers at my place of work, the thing that they do is not the work of our organization: it's the necessary support tasks that enable the actual work to happen. Successful management means that the primary function of the organization continues without interruption.
  • I think churches need both shepherding (benign sense, please!) and stewarding, which is what I'd prefer to call the management side so as to remind the managers that what they're taking care of belongs to Someone Else who will expect an accounting.

    I've had experience of both kinds in church, and clearly you do need the bean-counters and legal people, very much so--but when they get put into roles that require a shepherd, the whole thing starts to stutter and choke like a car about to die. We had a fellow termed the "Mission Executive" who was excellent at figures, but utterly crap at how human beings worked, especially human beings from other cultures, and had a "one size fits all" idea of how new ethnic church plants ought to develop. To give you an example, he ordered my husband to cease as much pastoral work as he could (he was the only pastor to be had) and instead to somehow scrounge up a number of other leaders and hand off the pastoral work to them so that he himself could become a "rancher"--by which he meant, someone who manages several mission congregations from afar. And we were all to be off mission subsidy in three years.

    No doubt this is possible somewhere. But not with an almost unreached Asian people group made up of refugees on assembly work wages, at or below federal poverty line. Not if you mean to entrust pastoral leadership to people who are just now learning that there is one God and he actually cares about people...

    He finally left (after laying off all the missionary pastors below him) and took a job with a financial company. Good riddance.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Of course the last point is true and I wouldn't ever say anything else. I just don't have first hand experience of other situations.
    That’s certainly fair enough.

  • Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.

    Management is necessary. Someone has to make sure that the fabric of the building is maintained, that any staff are paid, that the cleaner knows what to do, that there's a plan and a budget to refurbish the ancient heating system which we know will need to be replaced in the next couple of years, that a replacement organist will show up when the normal organist is sick or on holiday, and so on.


    I would describe that as "administration", i.e. essential support work. "Management" is the "higher" (!!!) task of getting work done by delegating it to other people. That work includes both the primary activiy as well as support tasks of the organisation.
  • I agree with @Baptist Trainfan that 'managing' and 'managerialism' are entirely different.

    What falls into the latter category is the plethora of reports, vision statements and management-speak mumbo-jumbo that has become de rigeur in recent years.

    I used to have a boss whose conversation consisted almost entirely of management cliches and meaningless 'consultancy' phrases.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not against 'management consultancy' when it's done properly. I've seen good and bad examples.

    I was once involved in a well-meaning initiative to draw together a pool of lay-people with particular talents and expertise who could assist clergy in a particular diocese with issues like finance, personnel, buildings issues, conflict resolution and the like. It foundered before it even got off the ground. The clergy on the ground were up for it but the Bishops didn't 'get' it at all.

    Conversely, I've heard of other Dioceses where senior clergy acted like CEOs and kick-ass business tycoons simply because they'd watched a few videos, attended a few seminars and watched a few PowerPoint presentations.

    The same thing happened with FE College principals (collective noun, 'a lack of') and university vice-chancellors in the '90s.

    I've nothing against proper and professional management of finances, safeguarding, buildings maintenance and the legal side of things. What I object to are the more 'apparently 'visionary' targets and outcome setting initiatives that involve a lot of brou-ha-ha and don't actually achieve much on the ground.

    I don't envy anyone involved in restructuring or reconfiguring the way churches operate. I've been hearing only today about the obstacles and heart-ache involved in a review of a particular Methodist Circuit with possible church mergers and closures.

    That's tough and requires insightful management not clixhes and soundbites.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.

    Management is necessary. Someone has to make sure that the fabric of the building is maintained, that any staff are paid, that the cleaner knows what to do, that there's a plan and a budget to refurbish the ancient heating system which we know will need to be replaced in the next couple of years, that a replacement organist will show up when the normal organist is sick or on holiday, and so on.

    Wait... you mean there are churches where these things are managed rather than haphazardly happen because of casual conversations between members? Who knew?

    [seriously, our 3 years broken heating got replaced because I speculatively emailed a contractor, waved the quote at Session and got permission to get it done]
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Management is temporary and provisional, and should be minimal.

    Management is necessary. Someone has to make sure that the fabric of the building is maintained, that any staff are paid, that the cleaner knows what to do, that there's a plan and a budget to refurbish the ancient heating system which we know will need to be replaced in the next couple of years, that a replacement organist will show up when the normal organist is sick or on holiday, and so on.

    I would describe that as "administration", i.e. essential support work. "Management" is the "higher" (!!!) task of getting work done by delegating it to other people. That work includes both the primary activiy as well as support tasks of the organisation.
    Which brings us back to the question I asked upthread—what exactly is meant by management? I, for example, don’t see much difference in what @Leorning Cniht describes as management but you call administration, and what you in turn describe as management. In my experience, the two words would quite possibly be used more or less interchangeably, with a good helping of @Lamb Chopped’s “stewardship” thrown in for good measure, at least in church contexts.


  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    In my opinion the Priest should be the chair of a committee which should include a treasurer and a secretary. The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    I agree with @Baptist Trainfan that 'managing' and 'managerialism' are entirely different.

    What falls into the latter category is the plethora of reports, vision statements and management-speak mumbo-jumbo that has become de rigeur in recent years.

    The thing is everything you mention is a pathological example of something useful. Reports are useful to understand how the organisation is functioning, it's good for an institution to have a central and immediate purpose that everyone understands, some things need special vocabulary to explain. There is a lot of wisdom outside the church on how to successfully run organisations.
    Conversely, I've heard of other Dioceses where senior clergy acted like CEOs and kick-ass business tycoons simply because they'd watched a few videos, attended a few seminars and watched a few PowerPoint presentations.

    From observation there are both UK and US variants of this particular failure mode, and they look different, but if you've seen them a few times you start to notice the similarities (also given the well documented deficiencies of British management, the last place you want your Bishops to come from is British industry).
  • In the C of E, the priest does chair a *committee* which includes a treasurer and a secretary. It's called the Parochial Church Council, is made up of people elected by the congregation, and is a legal entity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochial_church_council
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    <snip>And if managerialism were not rampant, we would not have a mediocre junior oil executive as the spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, or a manager of nurses* as Bishop of London.
    I think you’re underrating the role of Group Treasurer for a major UK independent exploration and production company. But perhaps you’re right. We wouldn’t want a senior civil servant, new to faith who wasn't ordained priest and hadn’t studied theology, or a formerly down-on-his-luck clerical worker. You certainly wouldn’t want to start the whole thing off with a collaborating tax farmer, a possible terrorist, and a loud mouth fisherman.

    No what we want is someone with some decent understanding of history and theology, maybe to degree level. Someone who has experienced some difficulty in life, such as a broken home or personal bereavement, or even just depression. Someone whose spiritual life is nurtured from a breadth of tradition and who has served, say, ten years in parishes, including in areas of deprivation. Someone who doesn’t have any sense of entitlement about the role. Someone who has had a significant ministry of reconciliation, and perhaps some cathedral experience as well. Someone who has a vision for a church which can hold some kind of unity, even in the face of disagreement, which can be focussed on prayer, and can have a sense of the calling to share the gospel.

    I think it was Rowan Williams who said something to the effect of ‘the higher you get in the Church of England the less power you have’.

    But still, you can always be a lightning conductor.

    (*Apparently her MA in theology, her eleven years in parish ministry - three of them part time, her three years in cathedral ministry, her two years in episcopal ministry, and her involvement in theological education are all to be ignored, and her previous role in a full nursing career finishing as most senior advisor on nursing matters to the government is to be dismissed with the phrase ‘manager of nurses’ as though she were nothing more than a jumped up ward sister.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A few years ago, there was an up-and-coming evangelical church in the community. All of the sudden, the pastor divorced his wife, left with the female worship leader, and took $3mil of church funds with him. The congregation could do nothing about it, since the pastor signed the cheques. They had to sell their large building--it became the new city hall and ended up worshiping at an old hardware store.

    This is the reason why the minister should not be involved with the business management of the congregation, in my book.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    This is the reason why the minister should not be involved with the business management of the congregation, in my book.
    While the minister shouldn’t have authority/sole authority to sign checks*, I think “should not be involved” is probably taking it too far in the other direction. The minister should be involved enough to know what’s going on and to be able to provide input. How a church spends (or invests) its money and resources involves considerations of discipleship that the minister should definitely be involved in. But the minister shouldn’t have control over the business management of the congregation.


    * At our place, three people—the church treasurer and two officers of the corporation, none of whom are the ministers—have authority to sign checks. Checks over $5,000 (I think) require two signatures. We contract with a local financial services company that works only with churches and faith-based organization for bookkeeping and accounting.



  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    A few years ago, there was an up-and-coming evangelical church in the community. All of the sudden, the pastor divorced his wife, left with the female worship leader, and took $3mil of church funds with him. The congregation could do nothing about it, since the pastor signed the cheques. They had to sell their large building--it became the new city hall and ended up worshiping at an old hardware store.

    This is the reason why the minister should not be involved with the business management of the congregation, in my book.

    No, this is why you have multiple people authorize payments. No organization should have only one person signing cheques. Whoever the lone cheque-signer was could have done precisely what the minister did. Has nothing to do with the pastor's role per se.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”
    That's why they should be chair of the management committee

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”
    That's why they should be chair of the management committee
    That seems to assume a church has a “management committee.” Different denominations and churches have different structures.


  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”
    That's why they should be chair of the management committee
    That seems to assume a church has a “management committee.” Different denominations and churches have different structures.

    A management committee is what I would recommend
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    It’s interesting that there is (I guess naturally, given Ship membership) a lot of focus on the C of E so far, but what does management (or its alternative?) look like in other denominations?

    For example, does presbyterian organization avoid some of the concerns about individuals and/or does it come with other problems - like the need for individual intervention mentioned by @Arethosemyfeet ? (I am not sure I know how a Kirk Session works, so no criticism intended.)
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    <snip>And if managerialism were not rampant, we would not have a mediocre junior oil executive as the spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, or a manager of nurses* as Bishop of London.
    I think you’re underrating the role of Group Treasurer for a major UK independent exploration and production company. But perhaps you’re right. We wouldn’t want a senior civil servant, new to faith who wasn't ordained priest and hadn’t studied theology, or a formerly down-on-his-luck clerical worker. You certainly wouldn’t want to start the whole thing off with a collaborating tax farmer, a possible terrorist, and a loud mouth fisherman.

    No what we want is someone with some decent understanding of history and theology, maybe to degree level. Someone who has experienced some difficulty in life, such as a broken home or personal bereavement, or even just depression. Someone whose spiritual life is nurtured from a breadth of tradition and who has served, say, ten years in parishes, including in areas of deprivation. Someone who doesn’t have any sense of entitlement about the role. Someone who has had a significant ministry of reconciliation, and perhaps some cathedral experience as well. Someone who has a vision for a church which can hold some kind of unity, even in the face of disagreement, which can be focussed on prayer, and can have a sense of the calling to share the gospel.

    I think it was Rowan Williams who said something to the effect of ‘the higher you get in the Church of England the less power you have’.

    But still, you can always be a lightning conductor.

    (*Apparently her MA in theology, her eleven years in parish ministry - three of them part time, her three years in cathedral ministry, her two years in episcopal ministry, and her involvement in theological education are all to be ignored, and her previous role in a full nursing career finishing as most senior advisor on nursing matters to the government is to be dismissed with the phrase ‘manager of nurses’ as though she were nothing more than a jumped up ward sister.)

    That was a really interesting, scholarly and thoughtful post.

    But I was a bit confused since:

    (i) It seems to be advocate both for and against the ministry experience you might need to be a spiritual leader, so are you saying that we need to look at how the person has been ‘formed’ by their experience rather than what the experience looks like on paper? Or am I missing the point there?

    (ii) I wondered if you are separating management and leadership as different roles or gifts, or saying that church leaders will need to be managers too and so the kinds of management experience you highlight (perhaps especially in nursing, a profession with a core focus on care) are useful and helpful?

    (Although (i) might be a bit of a tangent)
  • Cameron wrote: »
    I wondered if you are separating management and leadership as different roles or gifts?
    Historically the Church of Scotland and its offshoots had Elders, responsible for spiritual oversight and strategic leadership, and the Board of Managers, responsible for the practicalities of running the church. Some larger Baptist churches have a similar structure, the thought being that this parallels the Apostles and "Deacons" of Acts 6.

    This can work well, provided one has enough people. However there must be an overlap between the two roles, and the concept can run foul of the Charity Commission who consider ipso facto "the people who run the church" as its Managing Trustees, whatever their totle.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    My point was simply that characterising someone by what they did in the eleven years before training for ministry rather than the twenty-three years after is not a good guide to who and what they are.

    The examples I chose were just two historical examples of people who had had other careers before ministry. On reflection I could have chosen an ex-soldier as well/ instead.

    I wasn’t making any point about what kind of ministry or pre-ministry experience is required, and yes, looking at how someone has been formed by all their experience is what we ought to be doing.

    I wasn’t at all focussed on people’s management experience.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Cameron wrote: »
    It’s interesting that there is (I guess naturally, given Ship membership) a lot of focus on the C of E so far, but what does management (or its alternative?) look like in other denominations?

    For example, does presbyterian organization avoid some of the concerns about individuals and/or does it come with other problems - like the need for individual intervention mentioned by @Arethosemyfeet ? (I am not sure I know how a Kirk Session works, so no criticism intended.)

    I don't think the eccentricities of my local Kirk are any sort of indictment of Kirk Sessions which, under the unitary constitution common now to most parishes, are not practically dissimilar to PCCs in terms of their dealing with the temporal affairs of the church.

    I am, however, reminded that in Episcopal churches the Bishops are in charge, in Baptist churches the congregation wields power, and in Presbyterian churches all authority rests in committees.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    edited May 2024
    I am an elder of the Church of Scotland and hence a member of the Kirk Session.

    My name was put forward as a potential elder, I confirmed I was willing to stand, and someone seconded the proposal. I was then ordained as an elder and signed the Westminster Confession. Eldership is for life, although elders do retire. In our church retired elders are referred to as Elders Emeritus, though this isn't a general term. At 60, I am one of the younger elders, although that partially reflects the fact that I'm still in the youngest third of the congregation on an average Sunday.

    The Kirk Session manages the church. It's chaired by the Session Clerk. Within the Session there are sub-committees (Property, Finance, Worship) which meet separately and report to Session. Committee reports are circulated ahead of Kirk Session meetings, so a report that three quotes have been received for a roof repair and the Property committee recommends one tends to be rubber stamped. Discussions as to upgrades or changes involve more discussion, sometimes a lot more discussion. The old favourite "Shall we replace the fixed pews with individual seating to create a more flexible space" has been floating around for years, if not decades. In fact, the last time it came up, I went through our Kirk Session records which date back to 1713 and wrote a short history of arguments over pews.* (The Pewnic Wars, as the NE Man called it.)

    I have a single elder responsibility - I am the elder who inspects every gravestone for which our church holds a maintenance legacy, and reports on their condition. I do this roughly every four years. I sign off my reports "Elder responsible for whitening our sepulchres" but this designation has yet to make it into the official minutes.

    I'm also on an ecumenical committee with members of other local churches, and report back to Session.

    I think Kirk Sessions work well. It's a lot of work for those on one of the busier committees (such as Worship) but at least the work is spread out over several people.

    *C18th arguments tended to be over inheritance of pews etc and rights to the more desirable pews (dasks). (Basically seating in our church in the C18th ran from rough benches, to pews, to dasks, which were more of a combined seat / desk)

  • BroJames wrote: »
    On reflection I could have chosen an ex-soldier as well/ instead.
    I thought you meant Robert Runcie!

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2024
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”
    That's why they should be chair of the management committee
    That seems to assume a church has a “management committee.” Different denominations and churches have different structures.

    A management committee is what I would recommend

    As I said before, the C of E's Parochial Church Council structure fulfils this recommendation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochial_church_council

    From that article:

    A parochial church council (PCC) is the executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the laity. It has its origins in the vestry committee, which looked after both religious and secular matters in a parish. It is a corporate charitable body.

    Legally the council is responsible for the financial affairs of the church parish and the maintenance of its assets, such as churches and church halls. It also assists the clergy in the management of church affairs in the parish, and promoting the mission of the church.


    My italics.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    I gather there’s now more than one way of doing these things in Canadian Anglicanism, but the structure I’m most familiar with is that legally the Corporation of an Anglican parish is the two church wardens (Rector’s Warden and People’s Warden). Other laity may be involved in governance (e.g., the Deputy Wardens) but are not legally part of Corporation strictly defined ( they may well be part of the group of people that meets as “Corporation”). Although legally the Incumbent and the Church Wardens have different responsibilities and authorities in practice they make decisions together on most matters, taking into account advice from others including the Advisory Board.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Priest should conentrate of scriptural matters
    I think, as @Cameron alludes to above with his reference to Luke 16, taking care of what God has entrusted to a church and helping to ensure a church fulfills its mission can definitely be “scriptural matters.”
    That's why they should be chair of the management committee
    That seems to assume a church has a “management committee.” Different denominations and churches have different structures.

    A management committee is what I would recommend

    As I said before, the C of E's Parochial Church Council structure fulfils this recommendation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochial_church_council

    From that article:

    A parochial church council (PCC) is the executive committee of a Church of England parish and consists of clergy and churchwardens of the parish, together with representatives of the laity. It has its origins in the vestry committee, which looked after both religious and secular matters in a parish. It is a corporate charitable body.

    Legally the council is responsible for the financial affairs of the church parish and the maintenance of its assets, such as churches and church halls. It also assists the clergy in the management of church affairs in the parish, and promoting the mission of the church.


    My italics.

    Yes. I was wondering what the difference was between Telford's 'management committee' and a parochial church council.

    @chrisstiles - yes, I agree that the ills I cite are wonky equivalents of things that can be done wisely and well.
Sign In or Register to comment.