Section 1 Introduction

All we have gained then by our unbelief

Is a life of doubt diversified by faith

For one of faith diversified by doubt.

We called the chess-board white -- we call it black.

From Robert Browning: Bishop Blougram’s Apology

This paper is proposing to explore narrative as a tool to examine the beliefs and practices of Christian organizations, as they impinge on accounting and accountability. This will be done by examining the role of the narrative, both within the accounting and accountability literature and within the theological traditions of the Christian heritage. It will be argued that the Christian theological traditions provide a rich narrative that have informed the mythos, logos and praxis of individual Christians’ beliefs and practices. A key element of the theological narrative is the relationship that exists between Christianity and secular culture. The narration of this relationship, it will be argued is essential to understanding the relationship between the finite and infinite, reason and revelation, the techniques of accounting and Christian beliefs and practices.

H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture will be developed, to demonstrate that the relationship between Christianity and secular culture have never yielded a single answer, or been successfully reduced to a universal constant. Socio-historical insight gained from the typology and the role of narrative in dealing with the finite and infinite will then be used to examine the sacred and secular divide as used in the accounting and accountability literature. A task that is both relevant and critical for the accounting and accountability literature to undertake, due to the wide potential use and ramifications of the divide.

Section 2 Narrative - The Setting

The use of the narrative within certain social disciplines such as educational and medical sociology is relatively well established. (Mishler, 1986; Polkinghorne, 1988) Narrative within the accounting and accountability literature is less established, although it exists widely although not always self-consciously within accounting history (Funnell, 1998; Napier, 2001),[1] along with some examples from the case study genre. (Boland, 1996; Sinclair, 1995) It is still generally accepted however that as a method of research output, the narrative is still seeking general acceptance within the accounting and accountability literature. Llewellyn’s (1999) seminal article provides a theoretical link between narrative, qualitative methods and methodology. It is argued that within accounting and management research narrative can make stronger research claims than calculative research, by revealing humans as strategic beings both at an individual and organizational level. Llewellyn’s (1999) notion that narrative has pre-eminence over calculative research has revolutionary implications, if more widely accepted as a means of output, within the accounting and accountability literature. That is because the acceptance of narrative output requires an acceptance of qualitative methodology, whereas its use as an input method does not.

Hermeneutics is a well-developed tool within theological traditions and while narrative as a methodological device is just emerging within the accounting and accountability literature; there are rich traditions within theology that could be used as exemplars. The relationship between Christianity and secular culture is an enduring problem of layered complexity that go to the heart and essence of our civilization. The use of narration accepts the reality of the knot, which an enduring problem creates, with the hermeneutical circle continually concluding one story and beginning another. (Kvale, 1996; Polkinghorne, 1988) It is recognized within the accounting and accountability literature that narrative stories borrow heavily from history and literature, while the theological connections and traditions have largely been ignored. Funnell (1998) makes passing reference to the importance of narrative to the world’s great religions and civilization, however does not develop it further.

Narrative typically involves multiple plots and is context dependent (Polkinghorne, 1988) and is well positioned to reflect the complex relationship between Christianity and secular culture, which refutes all attempts to develop a universal sociological constant. (Milbank, 1990; Niebuhr, 1952) The theological narrative that has grabbled with this problem for centuries, is a rich, and time-tested source of wisdom in dealing with potential conflict between the spiritual and secular forces at work, within all organizations (Porth, 1999), but would appear to be essential when dealing with organizations that have religious beliefs and practices, as their raison d’etre. Narrative has also been seen as being a particularly useful output device when dealing with the symbolism inherent within accounting and accountability. (Jonsson, 1997; Llewellyn, 1999; Polkinghorne, 1988) Beliefs and practices within religious organizations have been shown to have a central role when examining accounting and accountability, and are clearly strongly based upon symbolism. (Abdul-Rahman, 1998; Booth, 1993; Booth, 1995; Laughlin, 1988; Laughlin, 1990; Lightbody 2000) Thus there is additional support for a narrative approach when examining accounting and accountability within religious organizations.

The hermeneutic circle of the narrative accepts that research is looked to, for continual and deepened meaning, rather than a logico-scientific certainty, each narration forming a Gestalt, with the implication that every understanding is a better understanding. (Kvale, 1996) The chosen method of output when the research relates to religious belief is incapable of being seen as a closed system of predetermined rules, as its goal is verisimilitude. It follows that when dealing with religious belief and practice particular positions cannot be refuted, but rather out-narrated, the acceptance of the better story. [2] If it is accepted that religious beliefs and practices cannot be refuted but rather out-narrated, accounting and accountability research into the practices of such organizations have little choice, but to come to terms with the theological hermeneutic and narrative traditions, of those beliefs and practices.

To achieve a successful narrative the reader has to be taken inside the hermeneutic circle. (Polkinghorne, 1988) Narrative is able to do so because it is pervaded with an awareness of the centrality of time, allowing it to move beyond the individual experience of history to create a communal history. Narrative is thus not just a communication between contemporaries, but also a link between predecessors and successors. This is supportive of the role that theology plays within the Christian traditions and how those traditions relate to secular culture. A primary role of theology is to narrate again and again, the Christian mythos, logos and praxis that constantly restores the freshness and originality of the counter-ontology and kingdom, of the Christian story. Accounting and accountability research that seek to link beliefs and practices with the techniques of accounting, must seek out such narration as the source of those beliefs and practices, whilst being aware that it is also subject both to development and change. Narration enables both the individual and communal (institutional) view to be woven into a story that has both layered views and multiple plots. Christian faith is very much determined at the individual level, and its organizational heart, the church, is made up of a mosaic of individual faith.

Attempts to provide a universal social constant[3] in regard to the impact of beliefs and practices, on accounting and accountability techniques within Christian organizations ignores the importance and role of each individual’s faith within such organizations. The use of narrative as a means of research output, within the accounting and accountability literature cannot ignore the importance of the individual, when studying Christian organizations. Such an output must confront the theologically informed narrative of the Christian mythos, logos and praxis, which forms the basis of an individual’s beliefs and practices. As such it must understand that the church, and other Christian organizations, are a communal outcome of millions of individuals’ faith, throughout history and into the future, who have, and will respond to the theologically informed Christian narrative. The Christian church (organizations) is thus primarily an ethical grouping of believers rather than a religion (Niebuhr, 1952) and as such must attend to, two ethical responsibilities. These responsibilities being the relationship of the Church to God, and to society, these responsibilities cannot be confused or separated neither can they be compromised; they must be maintained in unity, with a sense of responsibility to both God and neighbor. (Niebuhr, 1946) That is not to say that Christian organizations have always been successful in achieving this unity, indeed the complexity of the relationship between Christianity and secular culture represents an important stream of theological narration. A narration that has developed and adjusted the Christian mythos, logos and praxis to a range of changing circumstances, which have impinged on both Christianity and secular culture, and the relationship between them.

The link between the embryonic understanding of the use of narration within the accounting and accountability literature, both from a theoretical and practical perspective, has opened the door generally to a theological perspective. In particular, it suggests that if the centrality of beliefs and practices of Christian organizations are considered essential to understanding how the techniques of accounting are used, (Abdul-Rahman, 1998; Booth, 1993; Booth, 1995; Laughlin, 1988; Laughlin, 1990; Lightbody, 2000) that understanding can only be accomplished via a narrative process, informed and connected to the rich heritage of the theological narrative.

3 Theological Narrative – Its Role

Narrative has and continues to play an important role within theological discourse and the relationship that exists between Christianity and secular culture. Despite scientific suspicions in regard to religion, religions are normally more realistic about ‘... the inexplicable character of cultural existence than science normally dares to be.’ (Milbank, 1990, p136) Christianity is to a large degree comfortable with the post-modernist challenge to positivisms’ view that there can be a clear distinction between finite and pretended transcendent (infinite) knowledge. Theological thinking has always had to contend with the tension that exists between reason and revelation, along with the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. An whilst theology will always be a mixture of reason and faith, acceptance of its tenants will always be a matter of faith. It is both, the reliance on, and role of faith that allows the hermeneutic and narrative traditions to come to the fore when dealing with Christian organizations.

If one accepts the peculiarity and specificity of religious practice and logic and the impossibility of any serious attempt at either scientific explanation or humanist interpretation, narrative offers a way forward. For such a view suggests that human interaction in all of its variety, particularly in terms of religion, can only be narrated. Theology thus becomes another socio-historical gaze (amongst others) able to provide a narrative, in regard to Christianity, by defining finitude in terms of its infinite source, as a matter of faith. It in particular provides a voice for those who see themselves as inhabitants of the altera civitas, for such individuals, theology stands as the queen of the social sciences, telling again and again, the Christian mythos, pronouncing the Christian logos, and calling for Christian praxis. (Milbank, 1990) Accounting and accountability research into the inhabitants and organizations of the altera civitas need to be aware of that theology. Not as something that can by the use of a crude positivism, be reduced to a universal social constant that shows Christianity and secular culture in antipathy, but rather how Christianity and secular culture have woven themselves together in a Gordian knot that arguably underpins Western Civilization.

Theology by offering another socio-historical gaze has a right to offer a narrative based on, a counter-history, and counter-ontology, (Milbank, 1990) and on the relationship between finite and infinite knowledge. Just as secular viewpoints also have that right. Regardless of any particular point of view, the relationship between finite and infinite knowledge will always be a matter of interpretation and rest upon a mythos. It is just that within theology, mythos, is more clearly and openly a matter of faith and in that sense often more realistic about the inexplicability of culture, and its resultant history than much of social science. The role of mythos, in the relationship between the finite and the infinite, allows the possibility of an infinite number of historical texts, which means that a particular position in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture cannot be refuted but only out-narrated. The role of narration and history thus looms large in the use of theology as a socio-historical lens.

While the socio-historical gaze informed by theology must take account of the suspicions of sociology, and the desire to generate universal social constants, it can evade those suspicions and the key to that evasion is history. As written history produces exceptions to the supposed universal rule and lived history always permits us to enact the different. (Milbank, 1990) The historical evidence suggests that as more texts become available, the universal social object is unable to be supported, and thus disappears. It is to be anticipated that the study of accounting and accountability within Christian organizations, will also, be unable to reduce to a universal social object, the tension between Christianity and secular culture. This is in part due to the variety of ways, theological narratives in terms of the Christian mythos, logos and praxis, have responded to the unity that should exist between Christian organizations’ responsibility to God, and secular culture. There is no single Christian answer to such an enduring problem (Niebuhr, 1952), which is what could already have been anticipated from beliefs and practices that rest upon the narrative, and hermeneutic traditions.

If the engagement of accounting and accountability research, with the theological narrative is to be beyond the superficial, the research response should be in a form that enhances that engagement. Such a response would broadly be in line with the hermeneutic and narrative traditions that have, presently do, and will continue to feed the theological traditions, providing as they do, the rich and mixed Christian response to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. Indeed, it is possible if the research response is in an appropriate form that it could be taken up by the theological narrative, and used to restore the freshness and originality of the counter-ontology and history of the Christian traditions. In a similar vein of enrichment, the accounting and accountability literature could also benefit from such rich and time-tested sources of wisdom, which have arisen from the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. Particularly, if the theologically inspired socio-historical gaze is extended beyond the confines of religious organizations, to other organizations, that may require a counter-mythology to be invoked, to oppose the power based nihilism that is so apparent in many of our social arrangements.

Traditions informed by a theological narrative have supplied via Christian beliefs and practices a range of pioneering organizational activities and social reform movements. [4] This involvement can in part be linked to such theologically pregnant terms as, vocation, covenant and stewardship. These terms are connected [5] and have been taken up by our civilization in various ways, and as such have flowed into the accounting and accountability literature. When studying accounting and accountability as a situated practice within religious organizations, the theologically informed socio-historical gaze, is a lens that is essential to both enrich and enhance the textual narrative of that engagement. Vocation and stewardship provide strong symbolic motifs within religious organizations, and can be linked to religious belief and practice based upon the enduring problem that exists between Christianity, and secular culture. It also offers a range of alternative narratives to deepen our understanding of accounting techniques within religious organizations. Booth’s (1995) assessment that Church accountants considered accounting as a sacredised ‘tool for mission’, has new possibilities if the universal social constant of his theoretical lens is not applicable.

There is a growing genre of secular management literature[6] dealing with the role of spirituality and religion in the workplace. This literature suggests that theology and philosophy are rich and time-tested sources of wisdom in the study of organizations (Porth, 1999), and that discussions in regard to their use should become part of organizational studies. While some of this literature is thin in terms of both theory and empirical evidence it does suggest that a theologically inspired socio-historical gaze can extend beyond the confines of religious organizations. Milbank (1990) observes that from a theological perspective, the most valid social sciences are concerned with power and dealing with new politics, political economy and organizational theory. As part of the recognition of the importance of power in the social sciences, noveaux philosophers realize that to oppose the nihilism of Nietzsche and his supporters they need to invoke a counter-mythology. Milbank (1990) suggests that Christian theology and Greek Stoicism[7] provide such a counter-mythology, whose potential should be explored. Theology thus clearly has claims to be included within the socio-historical narratives of the accounting and accountability literature.

Section 4 Christianity and Civilization – The Gordian knot

Having established the importance that narration plays within theological traditions, and how those traditions can and should be linked to accounting and accountability research, this section of the paper proposes to develop in more detail, the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. This development will be based upon the work of H. Richard Niebuhr (1952), who has proposed five typical Christian responses to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. These responses have run in parallel and depended on each other throughout history.

It will be argued that these five responses can help enrich the socio-historical gaze of the accounting and accountability literature. It will do so in a number of ways. Firstly, it will demonstrate that the relationship between Christianity and secular culture is an ongoing, and enduring problem, having never yielded a single answer. This should caution those within the accounting and accountability research community, who are searching for, and promoting a universally derived social constant to explain the relationship between the finite and infinite. Secondly, it encourages a soundly based narrative position of accounting research into Christian organizations, giving due emphasis to the centrality of beliefs and practices. This is due to the fact that H. Richard Niebuhr (1952) acknowledges explicitly the infinite dialogue between the five positions of his typology, while suggesting that they offer the advantage of calling attention to the continuity, and significance of the great motifs that appear, and reappear in the context of Christianity and culture. Thirdly, for those researchers who wish to link beliefs and practices of Christian organizations with accounting techniques, it will provide a soundly based theologically framework upon which to base that link.[8] Finally, although it is beyond the scope of an individual paper to deal with all of the nuances of H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology, it draws direct attention to its existence, and potential uses within accounting and accountability research.

H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) five typologies in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture are listed below, and are followed up with a brief summary of each position: -

1. Christ against Culture;

2. Christ of Culture;

3. Christ and Culture, the Synthesists;

4. Christ and Culture, the Dualists;

5. Christ the Transformer of Culture, the Conversionists.

1. Christ against Culture – This is broadly a sectarian position where individuals seek separation between Christ and the world. This position is reflected in the monastic tendencies that have appeared within both the Protestant and Catholic traditions. H. Richard Niebuhr (1952), suggests that the Mennonite sect represents this position most purely.

2. Christ of Culture – This is a position of Christians who see themselves as cultural Zeitgeists.[9] These Christians see no tension at all between Christianity and secular culture and is best represented by Gnostic[10] thinking, which diminishes the role of the church, and treats Christianity as a mystery cult, or a form of social engineering.

3. Christ and Culture, the Synthesists – This broadly represents the Catholic position in terms of the relationship between Christ and Culture. The synthesists reject the ‘either-or’ position of dealing with Christ and culture, and embrace a ‘both-and’ position. It flows from a theology that emphasizes Jesus’ nature as both God and man, one person with two natures, that are neither to be confused nor separated. St Thomas Aquinas is representative of this view. The ‘both-and’ position, can be illustrated by Thomas’s view that life lived among possessions by which one is not possessed, and life without possessions is not identical, although it is not in disagreement.

4. Christ and Culture in Paradox, the Dualists – Theologically this position places emphasis on the tension between God and us. Luther is an appropriate representative of this position. While some have argued that Luther divided the relationship between Christ and culture into compartments, H Richard Niebuhr (1952) contends that Luther is distinguishing rather than dividing. Luther understood the paradox of his thinking, he considered that although Christ and culture are closely interrelated and constantly interact, confusing them would corrupt them both. Luther’s dualist position can be illustrated by how he developed his notion of vocation. (Holl, 1958) Luther, considered that a vocation linked to ordinary activities was a superior way of serving God than monasticism. In terms of developing this (at the time radical) view of vocation Luther’s paradox of distinction was crucial, as it suggested that technique and spirit interpenetrate. Luther considered that both Christ and culture were necessary for developing a vocation. Reason and culture have an important role to play in developing the techniques of vocation, as the Christian traditions do not supply these. However, the concept of service inherent within vocation, cannot be supplied from secular culture, but requires spiritual guidance from the Christian traditions.

5. Christ the Transformer of Culture, the Conversionists – The theological traditions emphasized by the conversionists, are the creative potential within man, and the view that history is a story of God’s encounters with man, while simultaneously not ignoring the radical distinction between God and man’s work. Augustine and Calvin in a general sense are representative of those traditions. Both promoted a positive and hopeful attitude towards secular culture, and how the techniques of that culture could serve the necessary arrangements between man and man. They also considered that those techniques could provide a means whereby one’s faith could be expressed via the secular culture, in the form of stewardship.

As already suggested the typologies of H Richard Niebuhr (1952) should warn accounting researchers as to the difficulty, of promoting a universally derived social constant in the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. This particularly applies if the research proposes to explain and seek a relationship between the finitude of accounting techniques, with the transcendent view of Christian beliefs and practices, in their many forms. One of the theological tensions, which H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) uses to create his typology is the emphasis that the different typologies place upon revelation and reason. The different emphases on the finite (reason) and infinite (revelation) amongst the five positions of H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology, would alone create an argument for the role of narration in research that links the techniques of accounting with belief and practices. However the problem is far more complex than just the five positions.

H Richard Niebuhr, (1952) argues that each of the motifs unique emphasis is actually dependent upon, and acts as a counter-weight to at least one, and often all of the other positions’ emphases, in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. Thus sectarianism is dependent upon a Christianity that is considered by its adherents, to be too close to secular culture. Cultural Christianity on the other hand has drawn contempt from all of the other positions for promoting or concealing Gnostics heretics within their ranks, although they have contributed to all of the other traditions, by balancing the notion that Christianity has no role to play in peoples’ secular life. The Dualist position on vocation was a reaction to the Synthesist view on an institutionalized Christian life. Dualists however needed to be reminded of the importance of civil virtues, and social institutions, as emphasized by the Synthesists as a number of Dualists were prone to antinomianism.[11] H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology reinforces the notion of a Gordian knot when considering the finite and infinite, within the Christian and secular culture traditions. It is not just simply narrating one view, but recognizing that the narration is occurring in the context of an ongoing narrative relationship between each position of the typology.

The challenge, for accounting and accountability research that seeks to link the beliefs and practices of Christian organizations and individuals, with accounting techniques is to recognize that the inhabitants of the altera civitas, draw on a wide range of distinct but interdependent theological narratives. The relationship of finite (secular) reasoning from which accounting flows, with infinite revelation for those inhabitants cannot be reduced to universal social principles. Rather the relationship between Christianity and secular culture will continue to evolve, as the complex heritage that makes up the theological narrative, continues to explore the relationship between Christianity and secular culture.

The many strands of the theological narration as typified by H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typologies, have largely helped form the relationship between Christianity and secular culture. The complexity of that relationship is often misunderstood or left unexplored in the accounting and accountability literature. Arguably this is the case in Booth’s (1995) analysis of the outcomes of historical studies into religious organizations within the accounting and accountability literature. (Faircloth, 1988; Flesher, 1979; Fuglister, 1991; Kresier, 1986; Swanson, 1988) These studies appear to support a heavy engagement in business as a virtuous activity, and a fairly high degree of familiarity with the techniques and accountability functions of accounting. Booth (1995) dismisses this on the basis that these studies maybe atypical of religious organizations in general. The purpose of this paper is not to discuss the veracity of Booth’s (1995) assertion, but rather to reflect on that assertion in the light of H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology, and any contribution that it could make.

The historical studies are all concerned with religious organizations, which have theological traditions that are part of the Christ against Culture position, and are strongly sectarian. They are thus atypical in a theological sense from the main traditions of Christian orthodoxy [Positions 3 to 5]. Whether their attitude to business and accounting is atypical remains an empirical question of research. However, what is of interest from H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology is how it could be used to help narrate how sectarian views that clearly wish to separate the finite (reason) from the infinite (revelation), appear in the historical research to have made strong use of accounting techniques. One possible response based upon H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) framework is that despite the radical nature of the sectarian culture, such radical Christianity cannot exist without the counter-weight of other types of Christianity. As is true of every position. Other Christian positions were making use of, and contributing to secular culture, and (although it may not be admitted) the sectarians also used some of those links in their own communal and individual arrangements. This was particularly evident in the governance of the withdrawn communities, and also in the regulation of their conduct towards the world.

No doubt they were also influenced by the mainstream theological position, in relation to doctrines associated with vocation, covenant and stewardship. Adapting and changing it so it could contribute to their own ethical communal association (church), based on a theological narrative that emphasized their particular mythos, logos and praxis. Booth’s (1995) view, that historical research that shows that sectarian organizations engage in business as a virtuous activity being atypical of Christianity in general, becomes highly problematic when H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) counter-weight view of the theological narrative is considered. Furthermore those who would agree with Booth’s (1995) assessment, would also need to explain, why groups that are most sectarian and radical in their views in terms of Christ and Culture, have come to see the finite world of business as a virtuous activity. Such an explanation, must move beyond the rather obvious and often superficially made point that sectarians turned to business because they were denied access to other means of economic activity. While this may have been the case, most sects as Troeltsch (1960) points out quickly give up their overt hostility to the world, albeit for a variety of reasons. In part, this would require an adjustment in their theological narrative in regard to Christianity and secular culture. In can thus be argued that H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology, based on multiple strands of theological narratives associated with Christianity and secular culture, draws into question assertions made in the accounting and accountability literature while offering new insight and possibilities of furthering that research.

The conclusion that can be drawn from examining H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) five typologies is that there are no definitive Christian answers to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture, despite the temptation to present one. As Milbank (1990) argues only a narrative text approach to this enduring problem is possible. It presents as a complex knot of resistance, a resistance we cannot register, or move to a more precise position via further explanation. Rather by narration we register the resistance in a number of ways, untie it here and there, but infuriatingly complicate it elsewhere, as it is a knot that cannot be undone. In such a circumstance a narration informed by the typologies as developed by H Richard Niebuhr (1952) can contribute to a theological informed socio-historical gaze on the accounting and accountability literature, although it is done in the knowledge that ‘decisive causes’ and ‘ultimate meaning’ must be banished. As H Richard Niebuhr (1952) suggests the enduring problem of Christianity and secular culture accepted on the basis of faith has introduced into the moral history of Western culture, what he terms the ‘great surd”, a counter ontology and history, that a power we call fate and chance is utterly faithful, trustworthy and loyal. Despite the frustration, it is suggested that theology’s rich and time-tested sources of wisdom do offer an alternative source of texts to enrich the accounting and accountability literatures’ current view of the role of accounting techniques within religious organizations, offering a new gaze into the relationship between the finite and infinite.

Section 5 The Sacred\Secular Divide – Is this the sword to cut the knot?

This paper has argued that the relationship between Christianity and secular culture is a Gordian knot, based on multiple but interdependent theological narratives that emphasize different aspects of that relationship, it suggests that separation cannot occur. This view, can be compared and contrasted with the use of the sacred and secular divide within the accounting and accountability literature, a lens derived from sociology. It is thus appropriate to review the role of the sacred and secular divide within the accounting and accountability literature, and consider how the theologically narrative could offer a challenge to the divide, both theoretically and empirically.

6 The Divide -the Background

The majority of accounting research literature dealing with churches is historically based. (Faircloth, 1988; Flesher, 1979; Fuglister, 1991; Kresier, 1986; Swanson, 1988) A small but growing body of literature considers that these historical studies are limited, as they do not consider accounting as a situated practice. (Abdul-Rahman, 1998; Booth, 1993 Booth, 1995; Laughlin, 1988; Laughlin, 1990; Lightbody, 2000) Laughlin (1988) introduced the sacred and secular divide into the accounting and accountability literature, which has subsequently been developed and applied primarily by Booth. (1993) (1995)[12]

The sacred and secular divide as presented in the literature rests on the sociological theories of Durkheim and Eliade. (Laughlin, 1988) Since Laughlin’s seminal study,[13] [14]the ‘sacred and secular’ divide has become a sine qua non reference point for accounting research into religious organizations, as a situated practice. Essential to research as a situated practice, within religious organizations is the centrality and special nature of belief systems, which is seen as a key explanatory factor. (Booth, 1993) Laughlin (1988) and Booth, (1993) (1995) argue that belief systems as articulated via the sacred and secular divide provide the main source of resistance to the use of accounting techniques within such organizations. The divide, based upon Durkheim and Eliade’s sociological theories is considered to be a ubiquitous and pervasive quality of all religious organizations. Laughlin (1988, p26) states,

“All that is being observed and presented is a similarity in the underlying dynamics implicit in all religious organizations.”

The theoretical basis of the divide is considered to be the central dynamics of all religious organizations throughout time (Laughlin, 1988), although the research that has used the lens has done so primarily within Christian organizations. The central dynamic being the belief systems, which is considered to be the sacred aspect of the divide (Booth, 1995), which in turn is defined by the secular (profane). A central theme of the literature is that the resourcing of religious organizations is a secular activity, requiring the use of rational control systems, including accounting. It is argued that at the fault line between the sacred and secular divide there would be resistance between the sacred (dominant), non-calculable control problems and the secular (secondary) control problems. (Booth, 1993; Booth, 1995; Laughlin, 1988) The divide and resistance to the divide being overlaid particularly in the Western context by an acceptance that society has been secularized. (Laughlin, 1988) The consequences of this are that religious organizations have been increasingly influenced by this secularization process, and have been subjected to its inherent rationalization.

While the divide is seen as the central dynamic of religious organizations it is acknowledged that there are differences between the different ‘gods’ involved, (Laughlin, 1988) and that resistance based on the divide is situationally specific. The penetration of secular accounting practices within religious organizations will vary based upon the beliefs and circumstances of that organization. (Booth, 1993) While the use of the divide may vary, the literature suggests that all religious organizations must face the secular task of resourcing their sacred activities. (Booth, 1995) (Laughlin, 1988) While there is a connection between the two spheres the need to resource the sacred is the primary reason why there is interaction between both sectors of the divide. (Booth, 1995; Laughlin, 1988) The accounting research literature argues that the way that accounting techniques are shared across the divide is via a ‘sacredizing’ of the secular solutions, (Booth, 1993; Booth, 1995; Laughlin 1988) so that the whole profane resource process is sanctified, and the secular role of accounting is left with no meaningful role.[15]

The literature draws from the divide two important research considerations, the first, relates to the role of occupational groups within religious organizations, and the second, relates to the consequences of this research for the study of organizations in general. Booth’s study (1995) focused on the relationship between the clergy and accountants in the context of the divide. Using the lens of the divide he concluded that while both occupational groups accepted the divide, accountants’ acceptance was in a weaker form. Accountants argued that accounting techniques offered a ‘tool for mission’, and was not inconsistent or in conflict with the organizations’ sacred end. [16] The clergy on the other hand saw a much more limited role for accounting.

The second consequence of the divide, although not empirically followed up in the literature, demonstrates its potentially pervading reach within organizational studies. Based on Durkheim and Eliade’s thinking, Laughlin (1988) argues that despite the process of secularization, and the decline in support for traditional religious organizations, the divide continues in a range of organizational settings using quasi-religious behavior. Indeed the rejection of the Church by necessity creates new sacred points such as the home, family and careers that require the support of profane resources. The new priests who define the sacred roles that are required include, amongst others, academics. The divide thus offers insight into all organizational forms as it forms the basis of our whole social arrangements. Research at the extreme end of the continuum within traditional religious organizations, thus offers insight into all organizations, and can help in unearthing the sacred beliefs and practices inherent within all social arrangements. Although this pervasiveness has been relatively unexplored in the literature, it clearly has wide potential use and ramifications.

It is argued in this paper that prior to that potential use, alternative views need to be considered.[17] It will be argued in this paper that theological insights have a legitimate role to play, as part of that alternative.

7 The Divide - Just another twist in the knot.

The basic premise is that the divide explains all religious behavior; it is a ubiquitous sociological tool that provides a universal explanation of the relationship between religion and society. A view endorsed by Laughlin (1988) when the idea was introduced into the accounting and accountability literature. The claims in regard to the universality of the divide, and the reduction of religious belief and practices to the social can be directly traced to Durkheim. Durkheim (1899, p98) states,

“It continues to be the case that the idea of the sacred is of social origin and can be explained only in sociological terms.”

Durkheim (1912) considers that society has religious origins, and that both religion and social science are pursuing the same end in relation to understanding and regulating society, albeit that social science is the far superior means of achieving those ends due to its rationality. (Durkheim, 1899) Durkheim (1912) considered that social science would gradually and increasingly replace religion’s social role. Whilst religion may continue to evolve, it can only do so by recognizing its own marginality within the social whole.

Milbank (1990) develops a range of criticism for Durkheim’s position based on a theological perspective, many of which are too complicated to develop in this paper. However Milbank’s (1990) essential argument is relatively simple in its conception. It is that Durkheim based on a crude positivism has been able to instill a view that sociological critique, can round upon society as a finite object and give an exhaustive inventory, valid for all time, of the essential categories of social existence. In so doing religion is also finitized and humanized, via its role in creating society and by passing on its mantle in an inevitable and evolutionary manner to the social sciences. This process underlies the essence of the sacred and secular divide as argued in the literature. For although the role of the sacred is assured,[18] religion (sacred) is now both a protected and policed human sphere within sociology, being relocated to the margin, beyond theoretical knowledge or imaginative representation but whose presence can be acknowledged. The illusion is created that society is a social fact, which is contrasted with religion, which is subordinated to the social fact. While this position gained wide currency within sociology, it has not been without its detractors, including a number of Durkheim contemporaries who were highly skeptical of his claims and the lack of empirical evidence for many of his statements. (van Gennep, 1913; Goldenweiser, 1915; Richard 1923)

Milbank (1990), then employs post-modern insight to challenge Durkheim’s positivistic position in regard to the role and value of social science, as a vantage point, in dealing with distinctions between the finite and infinite. The argument being that once local and particular experiences make our general social categories endlessly revisable, Durkheim’s position collapses. While modern positivism and master trends as expressed in Durkheim’s social science seek to define religion as a social fact, a more radical positivism has come to recognize the peculiarity and specificity, of religious practice and logic. The consequences of which result in the impossibility of any serious attempt at either scientific explanation, or humanist interpretation, of the religious experience.

Durkheim’s position and that of the divide in general, which has sought universal explanation and understanding in terms of religion, has in many respects been revealed as a counter religion itself. Social sciences in most areas of endeavor have discovered the illusionary nature of claims to be able to account for the way that things really are. Yet as Martin (1969) has argued, in the area of religion, social science continues to cling to the master trends and historicism of the 19th century. While the accounting and accountability literature uses sociological work to support the divide via the secularization thesis, (Berger, 1963; Wallis, 1984; Wilson 1961; Wilson 1969) more recent sociological work suggesting a more holistic picture, has yet to enter the accounting and accountability literature. (Bellah et al, 1996) The need to take a more holistic approach is further supported, by a growing genre of secular management literature,[19] dealing with the role of spirituality and religion in the workplace. This literature would suggest that religion has not been confined as suggested by Durkheim’s universal explanation, but remains a vigorous counter-ontology to the power structures in our society.

Milbank, (1990) argues that the theological and secular position will always be a matter of interpretation, and rest upon a mythos, when it comes to examining the relationship between the finite and finite. Theology by offering an alternative socio-historical gaze has a right to offer a different narrative based on a counter-history and counter ontology. Efforts to confine religion by universal rules from social science will always be evaded, and the key to that evasion is history. Written history which produces exceptions to the supposed universal rule and lived history, which always permits us to enact the different. For instance early Christians have been variously described in a sociological sense as contributors to a variety of sociological master trends. Engel’s saw Christianity as the religion of the oppressed lower orders, Nietzsche argued that they came from the powerless and excluded, while Weber argued that it was the salvation religion of the urban middle classes. Milbank (1990) makes the point that the historical evidence does not support any of these claims, nor a claim that class was irrelevant but rather reinforces the complexity of the picture. Although Milbank (1990) does make the point that Weber’s was nearer to the mark than the others. History however has shown that even though Weber may have been nearer the mark, his valiant attempt to apply a universal sociological principle via ascetic Protestantism to the rise of capitalism, has been defeated by a much more complex historical picture. The evidence of history thus has come to deny the Protestant Ethic the status of a universal master trend. (Becker, 1997; Hudson, 1988; Samuelson, 1963) History has instead shown that the relationship between Christianity and economic action reflects a whole range of forces, including the different theological strands of Niebuhr’s (1952) framework and the importance of individuals’ faith. (Hudson, 1988)

Section 8 The Conclusion - The knot, here to stay but with much to offer

It is thus argued that the sacred and secular divide will not succeed within the accounting and accountability literature of reducing the relationship between Christianity and secular culture to a universal principle, as the relationship between the finite and infinite is not capable of being dealt with in such a manner. Evidence for this is already available within the accounting and accountability literature. The universality of the divide is incapable of dealing adequately with the exceptions of written history, as revealed in the Historical Studies within that literature. (Faircloth, 1988; Flesher, 1979; Fuglister, 1991; Kresier, 1986; Swanson, 1988) As Jacobs et al (Jacobs, 2001) argues a convincing case is not made by the proponents of the divide, in regard to the evidence of those historical studies, particularly, as to why the sacred values are not threatened by the secular aspects of accounting. Indeed these historical studies would suggest a good deal of affinity between the sacred and secular, the finite and infinite. It is also suggested that lived history (situated practice), will continue to show exceptions to the universality of the divide as more research comes forward, as lived history (situated practice) will constantly allow each individual’s faith to enact the different. The universal social objective of the divide, unable to be supported, will thus disappear.

It is suggested that one way forward would be to examine and narrate the evidence of the relationship between the finite and infinite in the light of Niebuhr’s (1952) theologically informed framework albeit that it requires the acceptance of theology’s counter-ontology and history. Such a theologically informed socio-historical gaze has an acceptance that the knot between the finite and infinite will always remain infuriatingly complicated and tied. Narration because of its acceptance of such a knot provides the opportunity to explore Christian beliefs and actions that have generated a range of pioneering organizational activities and social reform movements. It also allows the accounting and accountability literature to reconnect with theologically pregnant terms such as vocation, covenant and stewardship. In terms of studying accounting and accountability as a situated practice within religious organizations the theologically informed socio-historical gaze is a lens that is essential to both enrich and enhance the textual narrative of that engagement. Vocation and stewardship provide strong symbolic motifs within religious organizations and can be linked to religious belief and practice based upon H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) typology in a variety of ways. It also offers a range of alternative narratives to Booth’s (1995) understanding of accounting within religious organizations as a sacredised ‘tool for mission’, based upon the universal principles of the divide.

As argued there is a growing genre of secular management literature[20] dealing with the role of spirituality and religion in the workplace. Theology and philosophy are shown to be rich and time-tested sources of wisdom in the study of organizations (Porth, 1999) and can justifiably stake a claim to become part of organizational studies. This paper contributes to that literature, providing theoretical and empirical evidence that a theologically inspired socio-historical gaze can contribute to religious organizations, and beyond. As part of the recognition of the importance of power in the social sciences, noveaux philosophers realize that they need to invoke a counter-mythology. Christian theology (along with Greek Stoicism) provides such a counter-mythology, whose potential should be explored. As Napier (2001) argues, historical narrative within the accounting and accountability literature offers a way to provide for both an informed optimism, and informed pessimism, rather than leaving the arena entirely to the morally evasive ironists of social science. The theological narrative has well-established credentials with its theologically informed socio-historical gaze offering hope in this instance to believer, and non-believer alike. The theological narrative by providing a complex but multifaceted view of the human condition is able to help meet Napier’s (2001) demand. As it has been engaged in providing a prophetic voice of both pessimistic truth, along with optimistic hope throughout the history of Judeo-Christian thought. It provides a socio-historical gaze in regard to the finite and infinite, which cannot be refuted and for inhabitants of the altera civitas has not been out-narrated. The theological narrative and its resultant socio-historical gaze clearly has a place in helping us to understand the complex textual history of the relationship between Christianity and secular culture, in the context of accounting and accountability.

Bibliography

Abdul-Rahman, Abdul Rahim & Goddard, Andrew (1998). “An Interpretative Inquiry of Accounting Practices in Religious Organisations.” Financial Accountability & Management 14(3): 183-201.

Becker, George (1997). “Replication and Reanalysis of Offenbacher's School Enrollment Study: Implications for the Weber and Merton Theses.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36(4): 483-496.

Bellah, Robert N; Madsen, Richard; Sullivan, William M; Swidler, Ann; Tipton, Steven M. (1996). Habits of the Heart - Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Bennett, John C (1946). The Limitations of the Church. The Gospel, the Church and the World. K. S. Latourette. New York, Harper Brothers.

Berger, P (1963). “A Market Model for the Analysis of Ecumenicity.” Social Research Spring: 77-93.

Boland, J. Richard & Schultze, Ulrike; (1996). Narrating accountability: cognition and the production of the accountable self. Accountability - Power, Ethos & the Technologies of Managing. R. M. Munro, Jan. London, International Thomson Business Press: 62-81.

Booth, Peter (1993). “Accounting in Churches: A Research Framework and Agenda.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 6(4): 37-67.

Booth, Peter (1995). Management Control in a Voluntary Organisation - Accountants in Organizational Context. New York, Garland Publishing Inc.

Braaten, Carl E & Jensen, Robert W (1997). The Two Cities of God - The Church's Responsibility for the Earthly City. Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Durkheim, Emile (1899). Concerning the definition of religious phenomena. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Durkheim, Emile (1912). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: the Totemic System in Australia. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Durkheim, Emile (1913). Review. Levy-Bruhl - Les Fonctions mentales dans les societies inferieures and Durkheim - Les Formes elementaires de la vie religieuse. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Durkheim, Emile (1913). Contribution to discussion. Religious sentiment at the present time. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eliade, Mircea (1959). The Sacred & The Profane - The Nature of Religion - The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, Ritual within Life and Culture. San Diego, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eliade, Mircea (1985). Cosmos and History. New York, Garland Publishing.

Faircloth, Archie (1988). “The Importance of Accounting to the Shakers.” The Accounting Historians Journal 15(2): 99-129.

Fenton, Steve; Reiner, Robert & Hamnett, Ian (1984). Durkheim and Modern Sociology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Flesher, Tonya K & Flesher, Dale L; (1979). “Managerial Accounting in an Early 19th Century German-American Religious Commune.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 4(4): 297-304.

Fuglister, Jayne & Bloom, Robert; (1991). “Accounting Records of Quakers of West Falmouth, Massachusetts (1976-1860): An Analysis.” The Accounting Historians Journal 18(2): 133-154.

Funnell, Warwick; (1998). “The narrative and its place in the new accounting history: the rise of the counternarrative.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 11(2): 142-162.

Goldenweiser, A. A. (1915). Review. 'Les Formes elementaires de la vie religieuse'. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gunther, Marc (2001). God & Business. Fortune: 63-74.

Holl, Karl (1958). “The History of the Word 'Vocation'.” Review and Expositor 55: 126-154.

Homrighausen, Elmer G (1946). The Vocation of the Christian Today. The Gospel, the Church and the World. K. S. Latourette. New York, Harper Brothers.

Hudson, Winthrop S. (1988). “The Weber Thesis Reexamined.” Church History - Centennial Issue 57(Supplement).

Irvine, H (1996). Pass the Plate Around Again; A Study of Budgeting in a Local Church. 4th Critical Perspectives on Accounting Symposium, New York.

Jacobs, K & Walker, Stephen P (2001). Challenging Models of Accountability: Findings from a Religious Community. APIRA, Adelaide.

Jonsson, Sten & MacIntosh, Norman B (1997). “CATS,RATS, and EARS: Making the Case for Ethnographic Accounting Research.” Accounting, Organisations and Society 22(3/4): 367-386.

(1999). Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(3 & 4).

Kresier, Larry & Dare, Phillip N; (1986). “Shaker Accounting Records at Pleasant Hill: 1830-1850.” The Accounting Historians Journal 13(2): 19-36.

Kvale, Steiner; (1996). Interviews - An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1946). The Church and Christian Society Today in the Perspective of History. The Gospel, the Church and the World. K. S. Latourette. New York, Harper Brothers.

Laughlin, Richard C; (1988). “Accounting in its Social Context: An Analysis of the Accounting Systems of the Church of England.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 1(2): 19-42.

Laughlin (1990). “A Model of Financial Accountability and the Church of England.” Financial Accountability & Management 6(2): 93-114.

Lightbody, Margaret (2000). “Storing and shielding: financial management behaviour in a church organisation.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13(2): 156-174.

Lightbody, M (2001). Accounting and Accountants in Church Organisations: A Critical Reflection. APIRA, Adelaide.

Llewellyn, Sue; (1999). “Narratives in accounting and management research.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 12(2): 220-236.

Martin, David (1969). The Religious and the Secular. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Milbank, John (1990). Theology and Social Theory - Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford, Blackwell.

Mishler, Elliot G (1986). Research Interviewing - Context and Narrative. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Napier, Christopher J (2001). “Accounting History and Accounting Progress.” Accounting History 6(2): 7-31.

Niebuhr, Richard (1946). The Responsibility of the Church for Society. The Gospel, the Church and the World. K. S. Latourette. New York, Harper Brothers.

Niebuhr, H. Richard (1952). Christ and Culture. London, Faber & Faber.

Novak, Michael (1982). The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York, A Touchstone Book\Simon and Schuster Publication.

Polkinghorne, Donald E; (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany, State University of New York Press.

Porth, Stephen J; McCall, John & Bausch, Thomas A (1999). “Spiritual themes of the "learning organization".” Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(3): 211-220.

Richard, G (1923). Dogmatic atheism in the sociology of religion. Durkheim on Religion - A selection of readings with bibliographies. W. S. F. Pickering. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Samuelson, Kurt (1963). Religion and Economic Action: The Protestant Ethic, the Rise of Capitalism, and the Abuses of Scholarship. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Shafer, Luman J (1946). Necessary Reorientations in Thought and Life. The Gospel, the Church and the World. K. S. Latourette. New York, Harper Brothers.

Sinclair, Amanda (1995). “The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses.” Accounting, Organisations and Society 20(2\3): 219-237.

Stackhouse, Max L; (1987). Public Theology and Political Economy- Christian Stewardship in Modern Society. Grand Rapids, Wm. E. Eerdmans.

[1] Funnell’s (1998) paper lists a number of accounting history papers that make use of the narrative. The paper also draws attention to the fact that the use of narrative provides a potential fault line between so-called ‘traditional’ and ‘new-accounting’ historians. Although as Funnel notes despite disagreements narrative is used by both sides.

[2] Napier (2001), also has concluded that the use of the narrative within the accounting and accountability literature, should be judged on the basis of its persuasive efficacy, and cogency.

[3] It will be argued in section 7 that the use of the sacred and secular divide within the accounting and accountability literature, does introduce a universal social constant to religious beliefs and practices.

[4] Latourette (1946) – refers to Sunday School movement, YMCA (also womens), Bible Societies, Foreign Missions, Temperance Societies. Also social movements including reform movements linked to education, prisons, slavery, alcohol use and anti-war movements.

[5] Refer Homrighhausen (1946); Novak (1982); Stackhouse (1987)

[6] Refer to the ‘Journal of Organizational Change Management’, 1999, Volume 12, No 3 & 4.

[7] The promotion of good character by disciplining one’s emotions and passions in response to circumstances. Refer Milbank (1990, p412)

[8] H. Richard Niebuhr (1952) acknowledges his debt to Troeltsch (and indirectly to Weber), who taught him to acknowledge the multiformity and individuality of men and movements in Christian history. Thus although Niebuhr’s five typologies are based on theological arguments they also have links to and acknowledge a wider academic debt.

[9] Christians whose beliefs and practices meet the spirit of the age in which they live.

[11] Christians who maintain that the moral law is not binding on them.

[12] This paper will confine itself only to published literature on the sacred and secular divide. However it should be noted that there are a range of conference papers that are also use and refer to this sociological lens albeit nor always with approval. (Irvine, 1996; Lightbody, 2001; Jacobs, 2001)

[13] Laughlin’s published papers re the sacred and secular divide are based on an unpublished PhD (1984).

[14] Laughlin initially used the term the sacred and profane (1988) however both he and Booth now use the term the sacred and secular divide.

[15] Booth (1993) suggests that Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic lead to a sacredisation of accounting in the context of the link between economic action and religious fervour. This suggestion is difficult to sustain in light of research that questions the applicable of such an ethic based upon the historical evidence. Refer to (Becker, 1997; Hudson, 1988; Samuelson, 1963)

[16] Lightbody (2001) also found evidence for this, although places a different emphasis on reasons for its existence.

[17] The pervasiveness of the sacred and secular divide as a lens is already occurring within the accounting & accountability literature. Abdul-Rahman & Goddard (1998) in their study of accounting practices in the context of Islam, implicitly accept that the sacred and secular divide represents an orthodox and accepted Christian position, in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture.

[18] Laughlin (1988) suggests that quasi-religious behaviour is an organizational phenomena.

[19] Refer to the ‘Journal of Organizational Change Managment0, 1999, Volume 12, No 3 & 4.

[20] Refer to the ‘Journal of Organizational Change Management’, 1999, Volume 12, No 3 & 4.

Les Hardy

Section 4 Christianity and Civilization – The Gordian knot

H Richard Niebuhr’s (1952) five typologies in regard to the relationship between Christianity and secular culture are listed below, and are followed up with a brief summary of each position: -

1. Christ against Culture;