Does one size fit all? The sacred and secular divide revisited with insights from Niebuhr's typology of social action

Abstract

Purpose -This paper offers a critique of the sacred and secular dichotomy, a theoretical framework recently introduced into the accounting and accountability literature primarily by Laughlin and Booth. The divide has been used to interpret the ambiguous roles of accountants and accounting practices within religious organizations. Design/methodology/approach -The present paper examines the divide by drawing on H. Richard Niebuhr's narrative theology, and in particular, the distinction that he draws between "internal history" and "external history". Niebuhr's discussion of internal/external history and his typology of social action are used to demonstrate the many ways that religious communities balance faith and social practice. Findings -The paper argues that the activities and contributions of accountants and accounting practices are not by virtue of their secularity antithetical to the values of religious organizations. It contends that within many religious settings, secular activities, such as accounting, often co-exist, promote and are used to support religious beliefs and practices.Research limitations/implications -The paper challenges the dominant paradigm by highlighting the importance of adopting flexible theoretical frameworks. Originality/value -It will be of value to accounting and accountability researchers who are seeking to gain a better understanding of the fit between accounting practices and the internal histories of religions.

Accounting and Accountability in Religious Organizations: An Islamic Contemporary Scholars’ Perspective

“…It has become influential within the academic accounting community and the dominant interpretive model for researching the practices of religious organizations (see Hardy and Ballis 2005). All activities within religious organizations (churches) can be separated into two categories, the first of which are the activities to do with teaching, preaching, educating, and meeting the welfare needs of the religious community.…”

“…These are considered to various degrees as having to do with the sacred. Conversely, finance, administration, resources management, and commercial functions that appear to be not directly related with the core mission activities of the religious organization are considered as secular (Hardy and Ballis 2005;Laughlin 1988;Booth 1993 …”

Towards an Understanding of Social Responsibility Within the Church of England

“…Waters and Ott 2014) and investigating how institutional pressures impact on respective actions; and more specifically, to the literature on religious organisations, which has mainly investigated ethical-and accounting-related issues (Hardy and Ballis 2005;Jacobs 2005;Irvine 2005).…”

Rethinking the sacred and secular divide

“…The sacred-secular divide emphasized by Laughlin and Booth has also been criticized for its internal inconsistency and the way in which it simplistically presents many contradictions, thereby reducing its applicability. Thus, Hardy and Ballis (2005) highlight Booth's difficulty in tracing a sharp demarcation boundary between sacred and secular activities. Moreover, even Booth's attempt to justify the presence of sophisticated accounting techniques within religious groups is suggested to be unreliable, notably his attempt to explain the use of accounting tools within the Harmonists (Flesher and Flesher 1979) and the Shakers (Faircloth 1988) on the basis that they are religious minorities who have historically had a long association with business activities (Booth 1993, 41) Niebuhr identifies a typology which comprises five ways to describe the relationship between religion and society, the way in which a necessary balance is achieved or how religion and society are sustained in "creative tension" 2 .…”

“…This sacred-secular paradigm has been influential in attempting to understand the role of accounting and accountability practices within religious bodies despite criticism of its theoretical framing (Hardy and Ballis 2005;Jacobs 2005), alleged internal inconsistency (Hardy and Ballis 2005) and doubts about its ability to provide scholars with the means to interpret the specific context of a variety of religious institutions (Abdul-Raham and Goddart 1998;Cordery 2006;Ezzamel 2005;Fonfeder et al 2003;Jacobs and Walker 2005;Lightbody 2000;Irvine 2005). …”