Central to a lot of the thinking and research in the area of accounting in religious organisations is the work of Laughlin (1988, 1990) and his distinction between sacred and the secular in the context of the Church of England. Laughlin (1988, 1990) was concerned with providing a contextual analysis and explanation of the role of accounting within the Church. This was a response to the broader call to study accounting within its social and organisational context (Hopwood, 1985, 1987; Burchell et al., 1985). Laughlin (1988) showed that there were four different types of accounting operating in the four different parts of the Church organisation. At the parish level the accounting systems were rudimentary and were deemed irrelevant to the “ongoing life of the parish”. When accounting was used to evaluate and determine behaviour it was seen as “an unhealthy intrusion” (p. 23). Budgets were occasionally produced but they were not usually seen as binding on future activities (Laughlin, 1988, p. 23). Annual accounts were always produced, but these tended to be simple receipts and payments accounts that were largely ignored and rarely used to evaluate past actions (Laughlin, 1988, p. 23). The Diocesan accounting systems were found to be more elaborate than those at the parish level. However, these functioned to generate the income required to meet a largely fixed expenditure and as such the budget was an “elaborate act” of salesmanship (p. 23). The accounting system of the central board also had an important “income generation element” and served to determine if the resource were available for plans to proceed. Laughlin (1988) suggested that the accounting system of the Church Commissioners was more concerned with accountability than decision-making. Laughlin (1988) showed that within one institution there were different kinds of accounting systems, playing different roles. However, Laughlin (1988, p. 24) argued that to “understand what is really going on” it is necessary to “dig much deeper into the social dynamic which underlies the Church of England, as well as to go further demonstrate how this institution is symptomatic of all religious organisations”. To provide this deeper insight and broader application Laughlin (1988) turned to the work of Durkheim (1976) and Eliade (1959).

Laughlin (1990) also presented an analysis of the accounting practices of the Church of England. This paper was concerned with issues of accountability and drew on theories of accountability (Roberts, 1988; Birkett, 1988; Stewart 1984) and structuration (Roberts and Scapens, 1985). However, Laughlin’s (1990) analysis of the Church of England was also heavily based on a “sacred secular divide” (p. 106) drawn from Eliade (1956) and from Laughlin (1988). In essence, Laughlin (1990) argued that the underlying structure of financial accountability relationships in the main Church-based units were dominated by the sacred-secular divide. Laughlin (1990) quotes Eliade (1959) to suggest that all Church organisations are dominated by this divide and his perception of the role of accounting was clear – “In this context finance, accounting and accountability matters are seen as secular and secondary” (Laughlin, 1990, p. 107).

Previously published in: VINE, Volume: 18, Number 2, 2005  less