The Church of England’s financial imbalance


The Church Commissioners have published their investment result from 2022 along with their annual report for the year, and both can be found online here.

The investment results are quite remarkable. Although the headline return last year was only 5.0% last year (compared with 13.3% in 2021), which means a real-terms reduction in the value of their assets during a year when inflation averaged around 10%, this is an astonishing result when compared with investment funds overall. According to this report, the FTSE 100 index grew by less than 1%; the US stock market fell by 20%, and only 17% of the UK funds they tracked made any positive return at all. The Commissioners’ investment team have, once more, out-performed the investment market quite significantly. At a meeting last year, I asked (only half in jest) what I needed to do to pass my savings on to them so that they could invest them for me.

Where does that leave the Commissioners’ assets, and the contribution from those assets to support the ministry of the Church?

The short press announcement notes that the returns have averaged 10.2% over the last ten years, giving a net cumulative growth of 164%; over that time, UK inflation has been around 47%, so the assets have grown in real terms by 80%—that is, it has nearly doubled. [I originally calculated this incorrectly, subtracting rather than dividing by inflation; the value is approximately 264%/147%, though for accuracy this should be done year by year.] Over the last 30 years, the average return has been 10.0%, giving a net cumulative growth of 1,645% (that is, a 16-fold increase, the result of the power of exponential growth) during a period of total inflation of just 100% (due to the long season of low inflation from 1993 under Labour). So in real terms the Commissioners’ assets have grown 8-fold (1,645/200)—and they thus have a much more significant role in supporting the wider Church then a generation ago.

This fantastic success story raises two questions, one about the assets themselves, and the other about their use—questions that I explored previously at a similar time last year.


In relation to assets, the investment growth has been extraordinary—but raises the question ‘When is enough growth enough?’ The distributions of assets has been significant, totalling £186.8m in 2022 (an increase of 27% over 2021) plus £117.1m towards clergy pensions, the historical liability on past pensions (more recent pensions being funded by dioceses to the Pensions Board).

But each year a balance must be sought between paying money out and retaining funds to grow the asset base—which in turn will allow greater contributions in future. So the question is: how do we balance the needs of the present with the anticipated needs of the future? Which has the more urgent claim on the assets? The summary comment on p 12 of ‘Our Purpose’ states:

The Church Commissioners support the Church of England’s ministry, particularly in areas of need and opportunity. We do this through responsible and ethical management of a diverse investment portfolio which enables us to grow our support for the Church, by helping to ensure funding is intentionally used for mission and growth, by managing our costs effectively, and by embracing our principles of accountability and service.

On what grounds, then, should any funds be held back from distribution this year in order to allow greater distributions in future? What level of assets are the Commissioners actually aiming for, after which they will say ‘We don’t need to grow any more; we will distribute all the real-terms growth in the fund to current ministry needs’?

If the Commissioners continue with their excellent investment performance, then we might expect long-term real-terms returns of 7% per year, which would amount to distributing around £700m a year, which after the pension contribution would be more that £500m to the dioceses and parishes. So why are we not doing that now? An obvious response is that the Commissioners need to protect the fund from a possible future catastrophe—perhaps like one we have been through, where some funds lost 20% of their value. But isn’t an £8bn fund enough, giving a continued annual distribution of £450m? If so, then we have already reached the safety margin. If not, then what is the goal?

One thing is for sure: it is not credible to say ‘There is no limit; we aim for continued, substantial, real-terms growth, and will therefore limit the distributions to the current level in order to allow that growth.’ The reason why this is not credible is because of the financial state that the dioceses find themselves in—which leads to my second question.


How do we determine the best use of these assets? There is a fascinating phrase tucked away in the purpose statement: ‘by helping to ensure funding is intentionally used for mission and growth’. It appears as though the Commissioners themselves have a role in determined how the assets should be spent, and whether or not certain uses of the funds are being used well in ministry. I wonder if this is wise?

The Commissioners investment team are clearly doing an outstanding job in what they are good at—investing money to get an excellent, sustainable, long-term return. But on what grounds might the Commissioners make decisions about whether the funds are being well used in the context of ministry?

I suspect they have a statutory duty to do so—but this raises a serious tension between them and those in dioceses and parishes, not least the clergy themselves, about who makes these judgements. Are the Commissioners staffed with people who have long experience in parochial ministry, mission, church planting and growth? The clear answer is ‘no’—but of course those who work with them, including from the Archbishops’ Council, do in fact make the decisions about actual allocation and release of funds, in the past through the SDF (Strategic Development Fund) board, and in future through the more integrated Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB). But this still leaves the larger question: why not simply hand over larger sums of money to dioceses and let them make their own decisions?

On the one hand, there is a clear and urgent need to do this. Yesterday I was in a meeting of our deanery chapter where clergy were sharing stories of the pressing financial situation they are facing a parish level; heating costs have soared, for one parish from £8,000 a year to £26,000 a year, and it meant they would not be able to pay their parish share. We are running more than a £1m deficit in our diocese, and we are far from being the worst. Bath and Wells is running at a £2.2m deficit, and joins other dioceses (Sheffield, Leicester, Chelmsford, and others) in cutting the number of stipendiary clergy posts, in this case from 178 to 150. These reductions are not because of a shortage of clergy, nor for missional reasons (research says that such reductions will lead to further decline, not church growth) but in order to balance the books. I understand that Manchester are also looking at redundancies of both central and clergy posts—and I suspect there are others in a similar situation.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that dioceses are not making good decisions in their deployment of ministry. The scheme in Leicester Diocese had been in the news again, and some claims about what is happening are contested. But, as I noted when it was first announced, the evidence all points to this kind of approach leading to further numerical decline, not growth.


And yet, there is a sense in which the Commissioners’ assets are not their own; they originated in the parishes, largely through Queen Anne’s Bounty, which was established to augment the stipends of poorer livings. Some argue that the money should simply be handed back—but there is no guarantee that parishes would manage their assets as well, and part of the reason the Commissioners have had such a good return is because of their size. The two questions of managing assets, and control over distribution, do not need to be held together—so why not hand the latter decision back to the parishes, whilst the Commissioners continue with their investment responsibilities? (One major difficulty with any conversation here is that criticism of the distribution policy is heard as criticism of the Commissioners as a whole, who then feel as though their excellent investment performance is not recognised.)

The language throughout the Commissioners’ report is of ‘supporting the Church’, as though the two were separate entities. They are, legally and organisationally—but not affectively and emotionally. I believe that it is becoming increasingly unsustainable to have one part of the Church of England so well resourced, and other parts in such dire financial difficulty—hence the picture at the head of this piece. The Commissioners are committed to funding the Church ‘now and for the long term’, but unless more happens ‘now’ there simply will not be a ‘long term’ to support.

Last year I identified four areas where greater funding is need now, and these have become no less urgent in the last 12 months.

First, with the cutting of stipendiary ministry we are facing the real possibility of the C of E withdrawing from large parts of the country. Perhaps that needs to happen, in order for new and effective ministry to be re-established at a later date—but we cannot just ignore this reality.

Secondly, clergy stipends have been in long-term decline, and there is a real sense of hardship amongst those clergy with children and without a second income. Given the overall financial situation, including the Commissioners’ assets, I think this is a scandal.

Thirdly, in 2015 the clergy pension was unilaterally reduced by a third, by what I regard as a sleight of hand. Questions in Synod have confirmed that this would cost a mere £25m per annum to rectify. (I say ‘mere’ in the light of the numbers above). This must surely be put right, and better provision made for housing for clergy in retirement who were not able to buy their own property during ministry. If you are a member of General Synod, please sign my Private Members’ Motion proposing that we address this.

Fourthly, our residential theological colleges are under threat and financial pressure, for a range of reasons, but principally because of the disaster of the RME changes, and because of the unmanaged growth of other forms of training. Historically, these have been vital sources of theological learning; we have already lost what was the largest college, and it would be a tragedy to lose another. These are assets which can never be regained once they are lost.

We need to talk now about making these things happen. The maths is not complicated; what is needed is the will.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

159 thoughts on “The Church of England’s financial imbalance”

  1. The longer it goes on, the more it becomes a skandalon.
    I wonder what the total cost would be of the following measures:
    – to give all Dioceses an equivalent financial fund (equalising the historic distribution) in proportion to population;
    – to raise the National Stipend by 50%;
    – to rectify the Pension steal; and
    – to return to the situation where a stipendiary priest is assured of housing for life.
    I have the sense that all these things together would not make a huge dent in the Commissioner’s funds (two or three years of returns) but it would liberate so much energy.
    Won’t happen of course – but please do continue pushing!

    Reply
  2. Interesting to note in the Church Commissioners Report their values in the remuneration of their staff:

    In response to the cost-of-living crisis, and following
    discussions with trustees, we carried out a ‘deep dive’
    into our approach to pay and reward alongside in-depth
    research into how other organisations were responding.
    The outcome of this work was the development of
    some broad reward principles based on our NCI
    Values of excellence, respect, integrity, compassion,
    and collaboration. This project led to a move to a single
    national pay scale, irrespective of work location; a pay
    award weighted towards our lower paid colleagues; a
    one-off scheme to allow our people to sell some of their
    accrued leave (which had built up during the pandemic)
    and the simplification of our pay scales. Some of these
    changes will help us address our gender pay gap. The
    annual pay negotiations were brought forward to enable
    the pay award to be applied earlier than usual – with
    effect from 1 October 2022.

    Reply
      • They recognise the cost of living crisis places an obligation to pay their staff appropriately. Respect and compassion are just two of the values which would be well applied to clergy pay, pensions and housing. The principle of fairness expressed in “a single national pay scale, irrespective of work location” if applied to pensions would ease the hardship of those of us retiring this year, as the comment below makes crystal clear.

        Reply
  3. Brilliant and timely. As a church treasurer, I would agree that money should not just be handed over to parishes. Congregational giving will rise and fall to meet the need, so if there is less need the congregation will just give less. I’d like to point out that there is a temptation to transfer funds to parishes in a way which is worse than not giving it at all – when grants are offered and then the application and consultation process is so onerous that clergy and key volunteers are taken away from mission to process it. My PCC has been trying to get £20k from the diocese as a contribution to a families worker, but it’s taken two years of frustrating hoop-jumping and being forced to align ourselves with top-down priorities and tick-boxes. A waste of time; literally that time could have been spent raising more money from the congregation and doing more work with families. The system works this way because the people with the money get to feel like they are giving it away, but meanwhile keeping their hands on the levers of power and control. They see it as risk-management to retain control, additionally probably using up half the resources in these long processes.

    On the other hand, as I think you are saying, it is much better to properly fund clergy to mobilise the grass roots and let God work through their local knowledge, passion and gifts. Investing in people, in my view, gives even more return than the amazing returns they’ve got from the stock markets.

    Reply
    • Frustrating to hear of the hoops. But I think people give less anyway when they read about the CC assets. It is all ‘church’ to them—except for places where giving is regularly taught as a spiritual discipline…

      Reply
  4. Excellent article from Ian Paul. The Commissioners, especially the excellent John Spence who has experience in the banking sector, have done an outstanding job growing church investments. However at ground level Church of England Parishes are suffering real hardship, especially in many rural areas or outside London and the Home Counties and are having to combine as many as 5+Parishes under 1 vicar. Diocesan administrators however somehow continue to increase, when 50 years ago the Bishop may only have had a clerk and secretary to assist them. Surely we can transfer more central C of E funds to Parish level to help support Parish ministry, the traditional heart of the Church?

    Reply
    • And there’s a very serious question about why exactly we need some many dioceses, when you consider the actual size of the Church and the huge variation in dioceses themselves – if the Bishop of Chelmsford can cope with 588 churches in 463 parishes serving a population of over 3 million, what’s going with places like Ely, Rochester, and Truro?

      I used to wonder if it would be better to slim the diocesan bishops down to fit into the House of Lords. If you strip the Archbishops of most of their diocesan responsibilities, and make them actual national leaders (which they obviously want to be), put Canterbury at the top, elevate Winchester to an Archdiocese to look after southern England, and leave York with the north, you could then have:

      Under York:
      Bishops of Liverpool, Durham, Coventry, Sheffield, Lincoln, Ripon, Leeds, Manchester, Lichfield, Hereford, and Derby

      Under Winchester:
      Bishops of London, Chelmsford, Salisbury, Oxford, Southwark, Bristol, St Albans, Southwark, Chichester, Peterborough, Rochester, and Norwich

      Reply
  5. Thanks for this enlightening article. I realise that the COE has a wide range of responsibilities, but wondered how much of COE funds goes to the poor and needy?

    Reply
    • The LInC funding is all about that, and church planting has been prioritised for outer estates and other deprived areas. That is all happening as much as it can.

      Reply
  6. A very minor point, but I think a 16-fold increase set against a total inflation rate of 100% adds up to an 8-fold increase in real terms, not a 15-fold increase.

    Reply
  7. Well, I wonder if someone could write a nice hymn for the investment team to the tune of Scott Joplin’s `Wall Street Rag’?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGypF1YuxQ

    The person who put this one up put in Scott Joplin’s interpretative notes which are in the first edition of the sheet music. At 3.10 you read ‘Listening to the strains of genuine rag time music, brokers forget their cares.’ Perhaps the investment team took this advice – perhaps that’s why they ended up with good returns.

    Reply
  8. Ian

    Thank you for your tireless work, not least in the area of pensions.

    I have been reluctant to voice this complaint other than to friends and colleagues but, for example, those currently in receipt of a pension, and so already at an advantage, in April were awarded 10.1%, an increase made possible by the stellar performance of the Commissioners, whereas those yet to receive a pension received a 5% increase (via NMS). Those, like me, who are retiring this year, did particularly badly, at 1%, because the pension when taken, is based on the previous year’s NMS. For some this will amount to an effective downgrade of many thousands of pounds.

    My point is not to complain about the amount, though as you have highlighted previously, that can be rectified at a relatively modest cost, but rather to highlight the inequality between resources allocated to past generations and those in present and the future.

    Reply
  9. The Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976 transferred property to Diocesan Boards of Finance, not to the Church Commissioners.

    Reply
    • You are correct; I have revised. The point remains: the origins of the central assets (whether national or diocesan) were in the parishes, and so it is anomalous to consider ‘the Church’ as a separate, external entity.

      Reply
  10. Ian, I asked ChatGPT to summarise your post in the style of a Gilbert and Sullivan song. Does this help?

    *Ecclesiastical Financial Follies: A Gilbertian Chronicle*

    Oh, gather ’round, good folks, and lend an ear,
    For I have a tale that’ll bring some cheer,
    The Church of England’s financial scene,
    A comedy of imbalance, oh, how obscene!

    The Commissioners, they published a report,
    About their investments, a financial sport,
    In 2022, the return was just five percent,
    While inflation soared, what a lament!

    But fear not, my friends, for their feat was grand,
    Compared to others, they took a stand,
    The stock market fell, oh, what a plight,
    But the Commissioners’ team shone so bright.

    I asked them, half in jest, how to invest,
    My savings with them, to outshine the rest,
    Their growth was astonishing, I must admit,
    But when is enough growth enough, a witty skit!

    The assets grew, the returns were fine,
    A net cumulative growth that would surely shine,
    Over ten years, a 164% rise,
    But what about the needs that underlies?

    The assets, they’re there to support the Church,
    But how do we balance the present and future perch?
    The Commissioners say, with a nod and a wink,
    We’ll support areas of need and opportunity, methinks!

    But should they hold back funds for future glory?
    Or distribute it now and tell a different story?
    If their returns continue with such flair,
    £700 million a year, they could share!

    But hold on, my friends, let’s not be hasty,
    An £8 billion fund, that’s pretty tasty,
    Do they need more, is the safety margin crossed?
    Or is it just their love for exponential growth, so embossed?

    And then we ask, how do they decide,
    The best use of assets, with ministry as their guide,
    But do they have experience in parochial deeds?
    Or are they just numbers folks, managing spreadsheets?

    The dioceses, they’re facing quite a squeeze,
    Financial hardships bring them to their knees,
    Heating costs soaring, deficits abound,
    Oh, what a mess, a comedic sound!

    But let’s not forget, some decisions are flawed,
    Will the Commissioners intervene and applaud?
    Leicester Diocese, their scheme in the news,
    Decline instead of growth, it’s giving us the blues!

    The assets, they originated from the parishes,
    Should they be handed back? Oh, what a wish,
    But would the parishes manage them well?
    Or is the Commissioners’ size the magic spell?

    The Church and the Commissioners, separate yet intertwined,
    Funding discrepancies, leaving some behind,
    It’s time for action, for the long term we must strive,
    Or there won’t be a future for the Church to survive.

    Stipendiary ministry, on the chopping block,
    The decline in clergy stipends, it’s a shock,
    The pensions reduced, a sleight of hand,
    Let’s address these issues, take a stand!

    Residential colleges, under financial stress,
    RME changes, causing quite a mess,
    Let’s not lose these assets, of knowledge and more,
    For once they’re gone, we’ll rue the day, that’s for sure.

    So let’s gather ’round and make a plan,
    To address these challenges, hand in hand,
    The will is what we need, the math is clear,
    To secure a future, let’s lend an ear!

    Reply
    • Are you serious?? That is hilarious! Yes, it does help, and surely makes all the global warming created by computer servers running the thing worth while. The world might burn, but at least we can laugh while it does!

      Reply
  11. Excellent and important article. We need to be clear-eyed about what the assets of the Church Commissioners are for: providing ministry to the nation. This is something that ought to unite the different wings of the church – evangelicals in CEEC have cited as one of the reasons they love the Church of England is that it puts a church in every community in the country, and catholics have always argued that it matters enormously to place priests in church to lead the people. That doesn’t mean a free for all. But it does mean that we’re making the finances sustainable for a very particular purpose, and that’s been the point for a very long time (see Queen Anne’s Bounty).

    The alternative to this is not the Commissioners sitting a great pile of assets, distributing slugs of cash to various forms of mission as they see fit. Instead what we’ll get is the management of the funds as the primary act of witness in itself – see the efforts from some to dictate the investment policy according to various ethical ambitions, climate change awareness, boycotts etc., and the Archbishops keenness to use money for slavery “reparations”.

    Reply
    • Yes indeed. But let us also be clear-eyed about what ‘ministry to the nation’ means: the invitation to all to repent, believe the good news, and become disciples of Jesus Christ. Too often ‘ministry to the nation’ means a priest saying ‘mass’ in a building, or an extension of social work.

      Reply
      • Ha! Snatching dissent out of the jaws of unity…

        I do wonder though how many clergy we really have these days who are content simply saying mass in an empty building. Whilst I recognise the “why evangelize when I can do social work instead?” instinct still has a strong following, with the recent hoo-hah over the CofE’s guidance on evanglizing to other faiths a case in point, the former is harder to discern (but this might be a London thing).

        That said, there is a significant challenge in the modern Church about quite how well the tenets of the faith are understood by the congregations, and what we do to grow the faith not simply in terms of numbers through the door but growing the faith of those in the building already.

        Reply
        • I do wonder though how many clergy we really have these days who are content simply saying mass in an empty building.

          Well presumably they’d much rather be saying mass in a full building, but I was surprised to discover there really do seem to be some who think that a minister’s main job is to dress up in funny clothes and say a magic spell on the regular. There’s a word for that and it ain’t ‘priest’, it’s ‘wizard’.

          Reply
          • Magic spell? You mean the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Christ instituted (Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22) and has been at the heart of Christian worship from the beginning of the Church (1 Corinthians 11)?

          • AJ Bell – ah yes – I really do see the importance of this. So if the C. of E. priests were to go on strike, they really would have to bring in the army to do the Eucharist. The Eucharist service would be led by Captain Snort and Sergeant Major Grout.

          • Magic spell? You mean the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Christ instituted (Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22) and has been at the heart of Christian worship from the beginning of the Church (1 Corinthians 11)?

            I mean thinking that the act Jesus asked us to do in remembrance of him until he comes again is some kind of ritual formulation that, if the correct words are said by a special kind of person, causes some kind of ontological effect, yes. I mean exactly that. That’s a magic spell.

            When we take communion, as Jesus asked us to, God comes to meet with us. But there’s nothing special about the clothes or the words: it’s God who does all the work. The person saying the words does nothing. It’s all God.

        • I do remember the Radio 4 programme ‘Weekending’ from the early ’80’s. One week, when the Anglican clergy were complaining about pay and conditions, they had a beautiful sung responses – along the lines of:

          Vicar: No more midnight mass
          Congregation: Redundancies!

          I wonder what would happen if the C. of E. clergy really did take industrial action?

          Reply
        • During lockdown I had a discussion on Zoom with Leicester Diocese, and one of the other clergy in the debate said precisely that. ‘It doesn’t matter whether anyone is there; as long as I am offering the eucharist for the whole of the parish.’ He meant that he was ‘offering’ it for all the atheists and Muslims along with any Christians. He really believed this.

          Reply
          • He really believed this.

            Did he explain, ever, what exactly he thought he was achieving by this ‘offering’?

        • ‘there is a significant challenge in the modern Church about quite how well the tenets of the faith are understood by the congregations’.

          That is because, evangelical churches aside, clergy do not teach their congregations, despite taking a vow at ordination that they will do so.

          Reply
        • Wow ! What a shocking confession.

          Adopting a principle of Sola Scriptura may help, enormously.

          God bless you, AJ Bell.

          Reply
          • There are numerous Sola panels in the CoE, Steve.
            Splendid environment for hot-house flowers.
            Systemic, synchronist, overheating, alert!
            Dousing with cultural Kool Aid only adds to seismic heat fusion.

          • ” Set up a Sola panel… ”

            As Roman Catholic scholar Hugh Francis Carson KSG (aka Frank Carson, the comedian) would say :

            ” That’s a cracker ! “

  12. Thank you Paul, a very interesting article. I haven’t read the annual report, but if I do, would be delighted to see reference to any teachings at all from Jesus.

    “When is enough enough?” At a recent pension review my financial advisor showed me a cash flow forecast until I’m 100 years old (not quite 40 years away). Even though I’m not quite retired yet, even based on current level of spending and giving, the “pot” would be bigger than now (even allowing for inflation). He then seemed miffed that I confirmed I wouldn’t be adding any more.

    And then, in my small group, I’m faced by a seemingly impossible conundrum raised by one of the members: Jesus said (Lk14:33), “none of you can be my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions” (NRSV). Or in the CEV, “you cannot be my disciple unless you give away everything you own.”

    When is enough enough? We are also told to be very wise stewards.

    Reply
    • ‘ if I do, would be delighted to see reference to any teachings at all from Jesus.’ That is an interesting question! The danger, though, is that C of E reports have cursory references to Jesus, which are usually worse than having no references at all…

      Reply
  13. The real church is people; called -out ones, a royal priesthood of living stones.
    Not a CoE, multi -structural High Priesthood hegemony.

    Reply
    • The “Ecclesia Invisibilis” whose true members are known only to God, and who confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on earth, and for whom God has prepared the New Jerusalem.

      2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 11:13, 16; Rev. 3:12.

      Reply
      • It would be nice for those of us who occasionally dip into this site and who are in ministry in the C of E and are financially dependent on it, if we could return to the subject of Ian’s important article please

        Reply
        • It would be nice for those of us who occasionally dip into this site and who are in ministry in the C of E and are financially dependent on it, if we could return to the subject of Ian’s important article please

          I think you may misunderstand the whole point of a comment section. It is not somewhere to find important information that affects your livelihood.

          Reply
          • I merely asked that comments return to Ian’s article. I am glad to see we now have the benefit of Froghole’s immense knowledge.

          • I merely asked that comments return to Ian’s article.

            You do realise this is an inter-net page and not a physical publication, right? There’s no limitations on space. A comment that you do not like does not crowd out one you might like.

            The owner likes comments to be on topic, but in this case, you were responding to a comment about the true nature of the Church militant, which is certainly on-topic for a discussion about how one denomination of that Church ought to use its assets.

        • ‘It would be nice for those of us who occasionally dip into this site and who are in ministry in the C of E and are financially dependent on it, if we could return to the subject of Ian’s important article please.’

          Yes, I agree.

          Reply
        • Perry Butler – well, I for one read the article with a certain level of amazement and amusement. It comes across as if the Church of England operates along exactly the same lines as a secular limited company – career structure, salary, pension scheme all very important. It would just be one small step to establishing a trades union for C. of E. vicars – imagine Arthur Scargill wearing ecclesiastical vestments as some sort of shop steward and urging C. of E. people to go on strike.

          I’m not a church man – I’m working in an engineering department of a university in an Eastern European country, where I get something of order of 12 000 pounds per annum – and the pension scheme is a non-existent joke. This was entirely my own life choice – and I’m enjoying it – but you can get some idea of the perspective I had last year when Ian Paul wrote another `ain’t got no money’ article explaining how difficult it was for your average C. of E. clergy to make ends meet on a meagre salary which was greater than three times my own.

          I don’t see anything in Scripture suggesting that ‘The Church’ is something that is supposed to have assets, which then get invested. This ain’t what the Apostle Paul is doing with the money when he collects from one congregation to help out with the mission elsewhere – the money goes to meet immediate needs. As I indicated above, I find the basic message in Scott Joplin’s `Wall Street Rag’ (listening to the strains of genuine rag time music, brokers forget their cares) much closer to the Christian perspective than anything I see in the article.

          So …. ummm …. apologies for not taking it as seriously as you may want – but I did get an awful lot from it about the state of the C. of E., attitudes therein – in some sense reminiscent of Anthony Trollope’s ‘The Warden’, ‘Barchester Towers’, etc …..

          Reply
          • I don’t see anything in Scripture suggesting that ‘The Church’ is something that is supposed to have assets, which then get invested. This ain’t what the Apostle Paul is doing with the money when he collects from one congregation to help out with the mission elsewhere – the money goes to meet immediate needs.

            I don’t think there’s anything per se wrong with having assets — after all, if you think of Paul’s collections as shifting money in space form where it was spare to where it was needed, having assets invested is just doing the same thing but in time.

            The problem comes when the church is mistakenly seen as being the organisation rather than the congregation.

            The point of a church is for believers to come there to worship God. It’s not to be a community centre; it’s not for a member of the clergy to dress up and do magic spells. If there are no believers coming together there to worship God, it’s not a church. And there’s no point in spending money to subsidise things which are not churches, just so that you can say your organisation has a branch there. That’s not supporting churches.

            By all means richer congregations should help out poorer ones. By all means every effort should be made in every part of the nation to evangelise the local population. But if you try, for years, and nobody comes, then you’ve got to listen to Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:14. And if only two or three people come then they’ve got to combine with some other local church (and that means combine, ie, close one, not ‘keep both open with a single minister’) until they reach a sustainable level.

          • Trollope. 🙂
            I visited an Abbey last week. A very nice lady at the desk engaged in talk. She and I are both non Anglican. Nice to see evangelical fifth columnists in public facing positions.
            Name and address withheld to protect the undercover operation.

          • The point of the Church of England is to have ministry and churches in every Parish in the country actually, even the most rural ones. That is why it is the established church after all. It absolutely does NOT mean closing ancient rural churches either for church planting in some back of a restaurant in a city. Even merging Parishes under one priest is better than that. The Church of England is and always will be a Catholic but reformed church with some evangelicals in it whose primary purpose as the established church is to maintain parishes in every corner of the land

          • The point of the Church of England is to have ministry and churches in every Parish in the country actually, even the most rural ones.

            The Church is the congregation, not the building and certainly not the bureaucracy. If there’s no congregation then there’s no point in maintaining the building, is there? And if there’s no congregation there’s no point in having s minister there, is there?

            The point is to save souls. If the souls in some area don’t want saved then you should leave them to their fate and concentrate on those who are willing to hear. That’s what Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:6 and Matthew 10:14.

            But you don’t actually want the Church of England to be a Christian denomination, do you? You want it to be a kind of English Shinto, a national religion.

          • S – isn’t that what Slartibartfast (of the legendary planet of Magrathea) did? They decided to sleep through the recession – and found a mechanism to transfer their assets through time so that they were ready and waiting when they woke up again.

            More to the point – if we try thinking of this in New Testament terms, the Gospel of John informs us that Judas Iscariot was the investment manager – and that didn’t end well, did it?

          • S – isn’t that what Slartibartfast (of the legendary planet of Magrathea) did?

            It’s also what Joseph did in Egypt and that worked out pretty well (well… for a while).

          • S – well, I have my view on Joseph (which I have expressed here before). He got special information from God – which he then exploited, to transfer all the wealth of the Egyptians into the hands of Pharaoh. He spent seven years storing up *their* grain and then he sold their own grain back to them at exorbitant prices during the time of famine – thus making the crown dangerously powerful.

            In fact, the author of Genesis does try to portray Joseph as someone who was not a very nice person (and yet was God’s chosen instrument).

            There is a major difference though: God explicitly warned of the seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine, but throughout the New Testament, Jesus keeps telling the workers who are spreading the gospel, doing the pastoral work, not to worry about material issues – these will be provided.

          • He got special information from God – which he then exploited, to transfer all the wealth of the Egyptians into the hands of Pharaoh. He spent seven years storing up *their* grain and then he sold their own grain back to them at exorbitant prices during the time of famine – thus making the crown dangerously powerful.

            This criticism does rather rely on the notion that absent Joseph’s intervention, ancient Egypt would have been a fair free market economy where private property rights were respected, which I’m not convinced was entirely the case.

            <i€In fact, the author of Genesis does try to portray Joseph as someone who was not a very nice person (and yet was God’s chosen instrument).

            Well if God could only use good people then He would not have a lot of material to choose from.

            There is a major difference though: God explicitly warned of the seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine, but throughout the New Testament, Jesus keeps telling the workers who are spreading the gospel, doing the pastoral work, not to worry about material issues – these will be provided.

            Take that to its extreme though and no church should ever own a building — they should only ever rent or meet in somewhere provided by a member, trusting God to provide Sunday by Sunday. You might think that but I would say that if God sees fit to provide a congregation with a permanent asset in the shape of a building that it would be ungrateful not to put it to good use.

            On the other hand it’s clearly wrong for any church to be able to exist solely on the generosity of the dead, so that present members don’t need to give.

            There must be some way between these two extremes.

          • S – well, if Jesus really is planning to come back again and rule the world with a nice posh office in Jerusalem as King of Israel and Emperor of the World for 1000 years, then he is going to need some serious financial resources to do this – so maybe The Church does need a really good investment team to make sure He has the resources to do this. Also, the enormous number of buildings that The Church has acquired over the last 2000 years will undoubtedly come in handy.

          • No, the Church of England very much is the building not just the congregation which evangelicals like you often fail to understand. Even if only 50, 20, 10 or even 1 or 2 in the congregation that congregation must be maintained with a minister to preserve the historic Parish. The point of the Church of England is to do traditional BCP services in ancient Parish Churches NOT to go out on the streets preaching the Bible and ‘saving souls’ (not least as there aren’t many streets to go out saving souls in in rural areas which comprise almost half of Church of England Parishes).

            If your primary goal is to be an evangelical and save souls then you belong in a Pentecostal, Baptist or charismatic free evangelical Church NOT the Catholic but reformed Church of England. You can meet in any modern hall or even the back of a restaurant or pub for worship and that is fine if you like that worship style. Traditional Anglicans like me however prefer BCP worship (while conceding common worship will occur too) in our historic and medieval Churches

          • No, the Church of England very much is the building […] The point of the Church of England is to do traditional BCP services in ancient Parish Churches

            Yeah, you don’t want Christianity, you want English State Shinto. We get it. But the Church of England is supposed to be a Christian denomination, not what you want it to be, so you should leave.

          • The Church of England is a Christian denomination, as you well know from the Christ based Communion BCP services. However it is also primarily a Catholic but reformed denomination not an evangelical denomination. If you evangelicals can’t accept that then you should leave. We are happy to have some evangelicals in the Church of England but we liberal Catholics will not be dictated to by evangelicals trying to change what the Church of England and Anglicanism is!

          • The Church of England is a Christian denomination, as you well know from the Christ based Communion BCP services.

            But you wrote:

            ‘ The point of the Church of England is […] NOT to go out on the streets preaching the Bible and “saving souls”’

            Christianity is about preaching the Bible and saving souls. Do you even listen to the Book of Common Prayer you claim to love so much? Like this bit: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/creed-s-athanasius

            Every Christian denomination, from the Romans to the Methodists to the Pentecostals, including the Church of England, knows it’s about preaching the Bible and saving souls. If it’s not preaching the Bible and saving souls, it’s not Christianity. If it’s about national heritage and old buildings and honouring the monarch, it’s State Shinto. Snd if that’s what you want you should leave the Church of England, because there’s no place for what is basically idolatry — because that’s what you’re doing, you’re making idols of the buildings and the monarch and the institution and the ceremonies — in the Church Catholic. That’s, like, commandment one.

          • T1, if you watched the coronation (or read the BCP) you will know that the Church of England is a ‘Protestant Reformed faith’.

            I don’t think that is really up for negotiation.

          • T1, if you watched the coronation (or read the BCP) you will know that the Church of England is a ‘Protestant Reformed faith’.

            I think it’s fairly obvious at this point that T1 has no idea what any of ‘Catholic’, ‘reformed’ or ‘evangelical’ mean and is using ‘liberal Catholic’ to mean ‘someone who wants pretty buildings and heritage and ceremonies with gravitas but without any actual theology’.

            And he’s using ‘evangelical’ to mean ‘someone who actually believes this crazy stuff’.

            Do you not think?

          • (ie, he thinks ‘Catholic’ means ‘likes pretty buildings and rich ceremonies’ because that’s what he associates with Roman Catholicism, and ‘liberal’ means ‘doesn’t actually have to believe anything’. Hence ‘liberal Catholic’ = the trappings of Romanism, but without the magisterium. Smells and bells but no judgement.)

          • No Christianity is not just about going out and preaching the Bible and saving souls. It is also about the mass and Communion and remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation. You can read from the Bible in Church without going out and reading it in the High Street and preaching at people whether they are interested or not. The Church of England was set up to be the national church in the reformed Catholic tradition headed by the monarch when Henry VIII created it NOT to be an evangelical church. If you can’t accept the Church of England’s historic role then you should be the one to leave it for an evangelical church elsewhere. Line 1 of the very BCP link you linked to says ‘WHOSOEVER will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.’ The Church of England is therefore a Catholic church, a reformed one but still primarily Catholic not Protestant evangelical. It just has a few evangelicals in it

          • ‘The Church of England was set up to be the national church in the reformed Catholic tradition headed by the monarch when Henry VIII created it NOT to be an evangelical church.’

            What do you understand to be the difference between ‘evangelical’ and ‘Protestant Reformed’?

            (Note ‘Catholick’ here means ‘the faith believed in all places in all times’ not ‘a particular theological tradition’. I am part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in that sense. Oh, and marriage as between one man and one woman is the consensus view of the church catholic.)

          • No Christianity is not just about going out and preaching the Bible and saving souls. It is also about the mass and Communion and remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation.

            Do you even read what you write? What is the point of remembering Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation if nobody is, you know, saved? So it is about saving souls. That’s why Christ died: to save souls. So what is the purpose of His Church? Well, it must be to save souls, mustn’t it?

            You can read from the Bible in Church without going out and reading it in the High Street and preaching at people whether they are interested or not. The Church of England was set up to be the national church in the reformed Catholic tradition headed by the monarch when Henry VIII created it NOT to be an evangelical church. If you can’t accept the Church of England’s historic role then you should be the one to leave it for an evangelical church elsewhere. Line 1 of the very BCP link you linked to says ‘WHOSOEVER will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.’ The Church of England is therefore a Catholic church, a reformed one but still primarily Catholic not Protestant evangelical. It just has a few evangelicals in it

          • They are saved every time they drink from the blood of Christ and eat of the body of Christ in remembrance of him.

          • They are saved every time they drink from the blood of Christ and eat of the body of Christ in remembrance of him.

            So it is about saving souls, then, isn’t it? Saving them by getting them to take Church of England communion, if that’s the mechanism by which you think people are saved.

            Or are you happy for most people to die unsaved and never be raised to eternal life, because they never took Church of England communion?

            Because that’s not very Christian of you. Because Christianity is about saving people from eternal death, isn’t it?

          • Evangelical does not even always do weekly communion, rarely does BCP services, puts little importance on the King as Supreme Governor of the Church or Parish ministry. Worship bands more important than traditional choirs and organs. The Church of England now officially allows blessings of homosexual couples after the Synod vote just not full homosexual marriages

          • ‘The Church of England now officially allows blessings of homosexual couples after the Synod vote just not full homosexual marriages’.

            It is weird that you don’t even know what Synod has passed, even when you cite it. Nothing has been agreed. No prayers have been approved. The statements claim explicit that blessing individuals does not bless the relationship they are in (if that is possible). And the doctrine of marriage has been reaffirmed unchanged.

            If you are going to cite Synod, at least do it correctly.

          • Evangelical does not even always do weekly communion, rarely does BCP services, puts little importance on the King as Supreme Governor of the Church or Parish ministry. Worship bands more important than traditional choirs and organs.

            So only superficial differences, you mean?

          • In the C of E, the eating and drinking that saves occurs ‘in your hearts by faith’ and not by pressing the teeth on bread.

            True but you’re missing the point that even when he’s trying to claim it’s not about saving souls it always comes back to saving souls, because saving souls is what Christianity is all about.

            The only way he can get the English State Shinto with the BCP that he wants is by ignoring everything that’s actually in the BCP; listening, presumably, only to the euphonious sound the words make but never ever actually hearing what they mean.

            Jesus had his number, Matthew 13: 13.

          • Yes it has been agreed. Synod voted 250 to 181 to back Bishops proposals to bless homosexual couples. You were in the 181 with most of the evangelicals. You lost the vote. Tough. Yes holy matrimony was reserved for heterosexual couples but blessings of homosexual couples are now allowed in Church of England churches with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Synod’s approval

          • Yes it has been agreed. Synod voted 250 to 181 to back Bishops proposals to bless homosexual couples.

            No it didn’t. The motion, which you obviously haven’t read, which passed by 250 votes to 181, is here: https://lawandreligionuk.com/2023/02/09/church-of-england-general-synod-approves-same-sex-blessings/

            It doesn’t even contain the word ‘blessings’. But the important part is paragraph (g) which I invite you to read and consider how any proposal to bless same-sex couples could ‘not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England’, as the resolution requires the final version of the prayers to be.

          • ‘The Church of England’s General Synod has today voted in favour of a motion to offer blessings to same-sex couples in civil partnerships and marriages after an eight-hour debate over two days.
            Approval of the motion allows same-sex couples to go to Anglican churches after a legal marriage ceremony for services including prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and blessing.’
            ‘…(d) welcome the decision of the House of Bishops to replace Issues in Human Sexuality with new pastoral guidance;

            (e) welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes;’
            https://lawandreligionuk.com/2023/02/09/church-of-england-general-synod-approves-same-sex-blessings/
            I know of Liberal Catholic churches where Vicars have already blessed homosexual couples with such Prayers of Love and Faith in their churches after civil homosexual marriage ceremonies and many more intending to do so. You lost the vote tough. Liberal Catholics couldn’t care less what evangelicals think. We are already conducting homosexual blessings services in Liberal Catholic Church of England churches across England with the full blessing of Synod after we won the Synod vote and you lost.

            Yes paragraph G affirmed holy matrimony as between a man and a woman only which was a concession to you evangelicals. You still lost the main vote on blessings of homosexual couples

          • Once the Bishops have approved the final version of the Prayers and Blessings before July Synod, then blessings of homosexual couples will be rolled out en masse and taking place in every Liberal Catholic Church of England church right across England

          • ‘The Church of England’s General Synod has today voted in favour of a motion to offer blessings to same-sex couples in civil partnerships and marriages after an eight-hour debate over two days.

            You need to ignore the reporting, it’s inaccurate. What matters is the wording of the motion that was passed, not how it was reported.

            I know of Liberal Catholic churches where Vicars have already blessed homosexual couples with such Prayers of Love and Faith in their churches after civil homosexual marriage ceremonies and many more intending to do so.

            Yes, lack of discipline is a major problem in the Church of England. Those clergy should have been suspended.

            We are already conducting homosexual blessings services in Liberal Catholic Church of England churches across England with the full blessing of Synod

            You can’t be doing it with the full blessing of Synod, because the only thing the Synod motion blesses is the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith and those haven’t been published yet. So whatever you’re using, it can’t be what was blessed by Synod.

            Yes paragraph G affirmed holy matrimony as between a man and a woman only which was a concession to you evangelicals.

            Paragraph (g) says: ‘the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England’. That’s not just about holy matrimony, that’s saying that nothing in the final version can be contrary to or indicative of a departure from Church of England doctrine. That doctrine includes not just holy matrimony, but also the doctrine that the only legitimate place for sexual activity s within a marriage of one woman and one man.

            If paragraph (g) had read, ‘the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the Church of England’s doctrine of holy matrimony’ then you would have a point. But it doesn’t. It specifically includes the whole of the doctrine of the Church of England, not just the doctrine of holy matrimony.

            So the situation is: Synod has approved the final version of the Prayers for Love and Faith, which has not yet been published, on condition that that final version is not contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.

            Anyone currently doing blessings of same-sex couples is not acting within the motion passed by Synod because they can’t be using the final version of the Prayers for Love and Faith, which is the only version approved by Synod, and they can’t be using that because it hasn’t been published yet.

          • No it is not inaccurate. I know you hardline evangelicals refuse to accept you lost the vote on blessings of homosexual couples but you did. And from July as the Bishops confirm the prayers for homosexual couples to Synod we Liberal Catholics will implement them in our churches across the Church of England for blessings of those homosexual couples after their civil marriages.

            Your point on doctrine is ludicrously illogical given Church of England churches now remarry divorcees even when their former spouse is still alive and when their former heterosexual marriage was clearly not for life. Church of England doctrine no longer prohibits sex amongst and remarriage of divorcees, nor does it now prohibit the blessing of homosexual couples engaged in sexual relations with each other. That will be official from July too.

          • No it is not inaccurate.

            A denial is not an argument. It is inaccurate, as you can easily see by simply comparing the reporting with the actual motion passed.

            And from July as the Bishops confirm the prayers for homosexual couples to Synod we Liberal Catholics will implement them in our churches across the Church of England for blessings of those homosexual couples after their civil marriages.

            So you now admit that when you wrote: ‘ We are already conducting homosexual blessings services in Liberal Catholic Church of England churches across England with the full blessing of Synod ’

            That that was a lie, and that no one in the Church of England can yet have conducted a ‘homosexual blessings service’ with the approval of Synod?

            Your point on doctrine is ludicrously illogical given Church of England churches now remarry divorcees even when their former spouse is still alive and when their former heterosexual marriage was clearly not for life.

            Only in exceptional circumstances, and with strict conditions, to ensure that such marriages are within the doctrine of the Church of England.

          • No, it is accurate. You hardline evangelicals lost. End of Story. From July blessings for homosexual couples will take place in C of E churches right across England as the Bishops publish the approved prayers for the blessings and you can rant and rave about it but you can’t do a thing about it.
            If your alleged ‘doctrine’ of the Church of England on marriage only allows marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for life, how can remarriage of divorcees ever be compatible with that doctrine? As I said, completely illogical!

          • No, it is accurate.

            That’s just another denial.

            If your alleged ‘doctrine’ of the Church of England on marriage only allows marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for life, how can remarriage of divorcees ever be compatible with that doctrine?

            The doctrine of the Church of England doesn’t only allow marriage between one man and one woman for life. Neither does it generally allow remarriage after divorce; it allows remarriage after divorce only in strictly limited, exceptional circumstances.

            It does hold that the only legitimate context for sexual activity is within a marriage of a man and a woman. So paragraph (g) means that the final version of these Prayers must not, for example, give the impression that pre-marital sex is okay. If they do give that impression they are not within the scope of Synod’s approval and cannot be used.

          • S – I’d say that T1’s assessment – that the anti-gay-marriage people lost – is accurate. The wording (i.e. blessing the individuals rather than the union) is irrelevant – the church services are going to go ahead – and those attending aren’t going to be nit-picking over the precise words of blessing that the priest pronounces.

            Also – on this thread – we have seen such a heavy dose of paganism within the C. of E. (T1’s understanding of what `saved’ actually means – the priest in Leicester who seems to think that it’s OK to hold a Eucharist service for his entire parish in an empty church) that the critical point for declaring the C. of E. to be basically pagan (and no place for a Christian) had been reached long before the gay marriage issue arose.

            These views of the Eucharist do strongly remind me of the pagan theology in some quarters of the C. of E. described in some of Thomas Hardy’s novels, so it isn’t a new thing.

          • Though Synod didn’t go so far as allowing marriages of homosexuals in Anglican churches in England, just blessings. Holy matrimony remains reserved for 1 man and 1 woman for life

          • T1 you are sounding as incoherent as the House of Bishops now. How can we offer a service of blessing to a couple who are living in what the Church’s own doctrine says is sin?

          • S – I’d say that T1’s assessment – that the anti-gay-marriage people lost – is accurate.

            As I have written before, I don’t see how you can say either side ‘lost’ or ‘won’ the vote when the motion that was passed is internally contradictory. Effectively what happened is that a wrecking amendment was accepted, and the motion was then passed with the wrecking amendment in it. So it’s a total mess.

            The pro-change side definitely won the PR battle hands down though, I’ll give them that.

            the critical point for declaring the C. of E. to be basically pagan (and no place for a Christian) had been reached long before the gay marriage issue arose.

            If you want to claim that the Church of England has been de facto pagan (though actually I prefer the description of it as ‘English State Shinto’ — shrines to the monarch, etc) for a long time, I won’t argue, but it’s still — for the moment at least — de jure Christian and I think it’s worth reminding people of that — if nothing else it might eventually force the pagans to explicitly change the canons to match their de facto beliefs and practices and stop pretending they have anything to do with Christianity.

          • It isn’t sin anymore than marrying heterosexual couples who are divorced or who had sex before marriage. Indeed homosexual couples still only get a second class blessing, not even full marriage like the former 2 categories

          • It isn’t sin anymore than marrying heterosexual couples who are divorced or who had sex before marriage.

            Church of England doctrine is that sex before marriage is a sin. The resolution requires that the final version of Prayers for Love and Faith does not contradict that nor indicate a departure from that position.

          • The Church of England now marries heterosexual couples who have sex before marriage as a matter of course. So asking homosexual couples whether they have had sex before civil marriage prior to a blessing but not heterosexual couples whether they have had sex before marriage would be discrimination under the Equalities Act. So it won’t happen and the prayers won’t mention it

          • The Church of England now marries heterosexual couples who have sex before marriage as a matter of course.

            But every Church of England minister who marries such a couple ought to be bringing up with them during their preparation classes that their previous behaviour was sinful and making sure that they understand that and repent of it.

            No doubt some Church of England ministers habitual neglect that part of their duty, which is sinful on their part. But the fact that a duty is neglected doesn’t mean it wasn’t a duty, and those ministers should be being disciplined and suspended from duty (but as has been mentioned the Church of England has a massive disciplinary problem).

            The final version of the Prayers for Love and Faith, therefore, must need faithful to the doctrine of the Church of England as it actually is — not as it is mis-practiced by the sort of neglectful minister who would marry a couple living in sin as if they were doing nothing wrong.

  14. Many thanks for these very insightful remarks. I am not a supporter of Save the Parish, because their agenda appears to be predicated upon individual parishes retaining their own capital. This would likely be a boon chiefly to affluent parishes in wealthy areas. Whereas it is my belief (or delusion) that the Church as a whole dissipates much capital – especially at the parish level – through an absence of risk pooling. It is an axiom of insurance that the larger the risk pool, the lower the premium (and vice versa), yet the parishes self-insure for maintenance costs, heating, etc., and so individually pay much more than would be the case if risks were pooled. Individual, and often fading, PCCs will never have meaningful bargaining power with contractors, especially during a period of rapidly rising prices; however, a national agency in which title to the stock is vested might have the ability to generate large-scale savings, and perhaps to have its own in-house contractors.

    However STP, and those sympathetic to it, are right to note that all of the financial underpinnings of the parish have been eviscerated:

    1. Compulsory church rate, which financed everything bar the chancel, was abolished in 1868.

    2. Tithe, which provided the bulk of clerical incomes and financed the chancels, was commuted to a cash rentcharge in 1836, then commuted to heavily discounted annuities in 1936, which were terminated in 1976.

    3. Glebe, which was appropriated from the parishes in 1976 (note the coincidence of that expropriation with the termination of tithe annuities). This was intended to equalise clerical incomes but also prevent freehold incumbents from selling it (which they had been able to do, subject to certain approvals, from 1888 – it was from that date that the Church’s acreage began to decline rapidly). Expropriated glebe forms a large part of many DBFs’ assets.

    4. Fees, which were appropriated by the DBFs from 2011. Most parsonage houses have also been transferred to the DBFs, who can then sell them periodically on a ‘furniture burning’ basis.

    The parishes now subsist upon whatever endowments they may have, or grants they may be fortunate enough to obtain, and mostly upon donations. Many PCCs lack the wherewithal, expertise, energy or nous to obtain grants, and the process of submitting applications/tenders is risky and expensive relative to the probability of success. In this way, as in others, the fiduciary burden of being a PCC member has become ever more oppressive, and it is little wonder that the burden inspires a mixture of revulsion or despair in many. All this serves to crush mission and outreach. It is cumulatively debilitating, and just think of what energies might be released for mission and outreach on the part of incumbents and congregations if the burden of maintenance could be sloughed off.

    Nor is this all. The Church Commissioners were paying about 50% of the stipends bill prior to 1995, and covered 100% of the pension accruals until 1998. Since then the full weight of those burdens has fallen upon parish share. That would have been bad enough, but it coincided with the liberalisation of Sunday trading in 1994, which had a radical impact upon weekend timetables. The Commissioners had £2.6bn in 1998 and they now have £10.3bn. Thus, at just the time parishes needed to invest more in mission to offset the transformative impact of that liberalisation, they were prevented from doing so owing to the crowding out effect of increased parish share subventions. Of course, parish share is not compulsory, but courtesy of the threat of withholding clerical provision, DBFs exert considerable ‘suasion’ over PCCs. And, of course, just as the Commissioners have no fiduciary obligations to the DBFs, so the DBFs have no fiduciary obligations to the PCCs. All of these trusts are like cogs spinning independently of each other, dissipating energy and capital in the process.

    Therefore, the Commissioners went from doing far too much in the 1970s and 1980s (being forced into speculative activity under Lovelock) to doing far too little after 1995-98. The reforms of 1995-98, prompted by Colman, Field and others were a sort of Pavlovian reaction, and I have found no evidence that serious consideration was given to the medium/long terms strategic consequences of those decisions: for example, it appears that the Pensions Measure 1997 was presented to Synod on a there-is-no-alternative basis. Perhaps it was presumed that, in the period of ‘new era’ economics in the late 1990s, the DBFs and parishes – who had been given little time to prepare – could absorb the full burden of stipends and pensions because returns in the markets were widely supposed to be on what Irving Fisher once called a ‘permanently high plateau’.

    However, since 2000 market performance has swung from one extreme to another, often to the disadvantage of DBFs (though to a large extent, they operate on a paygo basis). Yet the Commissioners have undoubtedly been buoyed by a long period of low interest rates and QE (arguably the longest period of low rates in the several thousand years’ records that we have of interest rates). The burden of post-1998 pension accruals falling upon parish share has grown, perhaps indeed compounded, with every passing year.

    All this amounts to a very regressive transfer of capital from the lowest and most vulnerable tier in the Church – the parish – to the highest and most affluent tier – the Commissioners. The Commissioners may well be geniuses, but really how could they have failed when they had sloughed off their primary burdens onto the parishes more than a generation ago? Not doubt the investment committee believe, and may have cause to believe, that they have done very well, and that they should keep what they have gained, yet I note that even a decade ago Sir Andreas Whittam Smith was warning that it was all very well for the Commissioners to keep morbidly piling up capital, but what was the use in accumulating assets to serve a Church which was at risk of disappearing? The decline of the parish system may have many causes, and perhaps it would have declined anyway, but it may be argued that this vast regressive transfer has hastened the decline, with its consequences now being plain to see across much of the country.

    Of course the Commissioners do cover some pay and rations, and it is those of the bishops and certain other dignitaries. The result is that the bench are, to some extent, captured by the Commissioners’ agenda (and have a direct pecuniary interest in being so captured), whilst they also have no personal skin in their own dioceses’ financial games. I am not suggesting that the bishops are corrupt, but I would note Upton Sinclair’s famous aphorism that ‘a man will believe anything when his salary depends upon it’. It seems to me that the bishops are fairly well conflicted. They also have their own bureaucratic retinues, with which they inevitably interact perhaps more frequently than their own parishes. It has to be asked whether the Church needs 42 expensive baronial bureaucracies, and whether better economies of scale (and savings) would be realised by consolidating their assets in the centre, leaving the dioceses only as purely pastoral agencies. In other words, ending the notion of the bishop labouring under the burden of being an amateur (and sometimes incompetent) CEO, and reviving the ideal of the bishop as pastor to the pastors, with a prophetic responsibility.

    The key question is what we want the Church to be. Should the Church become a relatively small number of gathered churches, mostly in some urban or suburban areas? Or should it still aim to provide Christian witness and worship ‘in every community’? Is it better that witness be concentrated or that it be diffused, or perhaps both concentrated *and* diffused? I cannot pretend, and would not presume, to know the answer to these questions. My preference, however (and it is only a fairly mild personal preference) is that witness and worship should be maximised, and wherever possible: for the Church has souls to save! Also, I note the path taken by the Methodist Church towards concentration from the late 1970s, and its national extinction, which currently projected for about 2036.

    Reply
    • Fiduciary duty?
      An interest concept as it may or may not apply variably with conflict of interest across the organisational structure, bodies and offices in the CoE, but can/has it ever applied to the Commissioners, and if so to whom?
      Is not the duty of the Commissioners determined by their role as; professionals? employees? independent contractors?
      And is that not the place where Ian seems to see an overreach of their role and therefore arguably ultra vires, into the de facto determination of the mission or vision of the church as a whole, its core purposes, scope; its reason for being.
      From what has been written by Ian it seems that the idea that it exists for the benefit of its non members has been jetisoned supplanted by by the self preservation of its heirachy even in the management of decline.

      Reply
      • Many thanks. I use the expression ‘fiduciary’ as a form of legal shorthand. Although the obligations of the commissioners are detailed in the 1947 Measure and the National Institutions Measure 1998, they are a charitable trust (and are registered as such). They have also been treated as trustees in litigation (an obvious example was Harries v. Church Commissioners (1992)). Under trust law a charitable trustee has an obligation to act in the ‘best interests’ of the trust: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved. The question is whether the ‘best interests’ of the Church Commissioners are necessarily advanced by diverting its capital elsewhere. Much the same applies to DBFs. It might be argued that the financial interests of the Commissioners, the DBFs and the PCCs are not completely aligned; indeed, they may be misaligned, if not mutually exclusive.

        However, the object of the 1998 Measure (and of the Turnbull Report 1996 which foreshadowed it) was to clip the wings of the Commissioners. The Church was collectively dismayed by the travails of the Commissioners in 1998-94 and by Lovelock’s [in]famous reaction to them (“you win some, you lose some”). The Commissioners were perceived as being much too independent (at least according to ‘Number One Millbank: the Financial Downfall of the Church of England’, by Terry Lovell (1997) and the second volume of the authorised history of the Commissioners, ‘The Church of England in the Twentieth Century’ by Andrew Chandler (2006)). Although the Commissioners are required to cover the pay and pensions of the higher dignitaries, they are also required to allocate resources in accordance with the requirements of Archbishops’ Council, the de facto ‘cabinet’ of the Church. They may note (indeed, they do appear to note) that they are, to a large degree, under the heels of Archbishops’ Council.

        At the outset of the pandemic the DBFs went into distress as the closure of churches led to the attenuation of parish share income. The Commissioners *lent* (i.e., did not grant) the DBFs a little over £70m to preserve the solvency of the DBFs, and they did so at 2% above base, at a time when Bank Rate was 0.1%. The Commissioners claimed they could do no other legally. It was perhaps an acute embarrassment at that evident tension between DBFs and the Commissioners which led to the promise last year (perhaps under pressure from STP in Synod) to ‘double’ the discretionary subventions of the Commissioners to the ‘local Church’. This saga, it seems to me, illustrates the extent of the misalignment of interests between trusts within the Church. The Church is a sub-optimal confederation of trusts with their own imperatives. This does not, it seems to me, advance the cause of Christianity in England as well as it might.

        I think that you are entirely right about ends and means, and the increasing confusion about the objectives of the Church of England. Again, I do not know the answer, but given what I have seen around the country (I have been undertaking a worship tour/pilgrimage for a number of years), I think the question has to be posed, and debated.

        One of the main problems with the whole issue is that, despite the plethora of works about the finances of the Church in the Middle Ages or the early modern period, there is almost nothing about the modern period, especially at the parish level. This has been noted rather pointedly in a recent article about the finances of the far less well endowed Church of Scotland which, despite the notion of a ‘territorial ministry’ outlined in the 1921 Articles Declaratory, is now moving very rapidly towards a gathered model courtesy of the Radical Action Plan of 2019 (John Sawkins, ‘The Financing of Ministerial Stipends in the Church of Scotland: the Rural Parish’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Jan. 2023, 1-36; also note Sara Flew, ‘Money Matters: the Neglect of Finance in the Historiography of Modern Christianity’, in Peter Clarke & Charlotte Methuen eds., ‘The Church on its Past’ (Studies in Church History, xlix, 2013, 430–43).

        Reply
        • Thank you, Froghole.
          As a former solicitor I have some awareness of trusts, fiduciary duties and of Company law.
          While the details of the history pass me by,
          you have clearly set out the milestones.
          And I was particulary struck by the importance of the relationship of the Archbishops Council and Commissioners, although, in that light, Ian’s article seems to indicate that neither the Commissioners nor the Archbishop’s Council are presently aware of the scope, function and limits of their respective powers and duties, primary or delegated.
          Embedded Confusion seems to be the key word in CoE functionality; an uncertain trumpet call.

          Reply
    • Thank you Froghole. I have been waiting for your comments here. An extremely acute and informative overview. One point where I’d appreciate your views and insights: Maintenance of buildings/fabric for future generations (and continuing presence, service and outreach to the present ones) seems to be a titanic challenge that’s faced as a Church for the Nation, if it aspires to witness as presence in thousands of communities.

      Do you believe there is a joined up strategy to address what should be done about buildings; and the inter-relatedness between a heritage that’s been passed down to us and the wealth that’s accrued into the care of the Commissioners?

      I know you express some indifference, or at least uncertainty, but surely clear strategy and programme for the preservation of buildings (aka witness of Christian presence and heritage in so many parishes) needs to be hastened into action, before loss of many buildings becomes irreversible because no-one is prepared to pay to maintain them.

      The presence of tens of thousands of churches as places of prayer is, I suggest, itself a Christian witness, even if it seems to some to be all a bit numinous (or, some would say, sentimental). The real issue and challenge seems to me to be about will-power of Church leaders and Government to negotiate ways of dispersing costs – whether through plural uses of buildings, or Heritage financing by Government… to achieve which, I suspect a real strategy and settlement is needed to lock church buildings into community access, use, of social benefit to local people.

      To sell these concepts to Parliament when the Church of England is seen as weak on safeguarding, and discriminatory in the eyes of the secular, is a very big ask. Is it an impossible ask? Can a social contract be sold as an idea, and forged, to preserve the amazing heritage (which has implicit religious heritage) for future generations. Or are people resigned to just letting thousands of churches fall into disrepair, or sold to investors (probably with few links to the local community) for development for a profit?

      I realise there are many other issues touched on here, but the cost of maintenance of buildings is a huge financial burden, and the supply of widows’ mites is a rapidly diminishing supply as half the attendees at churches pass on.

      I should love to have a clearer insight into whether there is a Church strategy on this issue, what it is, or whether ‘laissez-faire’ economics is going to just let nature take its course?

      Reply
      • The presence of tens of thousands of churches as places of prayer is, I suggest, itself a Christian witness

        Of what possible witness is an empty, unused, but well-maintained building? What message does that send about Christianity? That it belongs in a museum?

        Reply
      • I am grateful to you and to S for your respective remarks. I am nearly timed out for this weekend (and next week), but I do feel that it is a crushing burden, and it is a burden which falls upon PCCs and congregations. Many PCCs are composed of people on limited incomes – some of them annuitants whose returns are being rapidly compromised by inflation (and there will be others who have no cover from indexation). As such, I think it is seriously unfair, indeed perhaps even immoral, for them to be subjected to this burden.

        I agree that the Church (and churches) should not function as museums. We have a Gospel to proclaim, and it is important that, whatever happens, they are – as far as possible – devoted to that use. My argument for a national and comprehensive solution (i.e., the vesting of the stock in a national agency using capital transferred from the Commissioners – which would essentially return to parishes in maintenance costs the capital expropriated from them via parish share over the last generation) would: (i) avoid exhausting and debilitating local negotiations, which would take forever and may result in widely divergent outcomes from area to area: (ii) preserve the ability of the Church to project its mission across the same area as at present; and (iii) yield economies of scale and bargaining power in the procurement of labour and materials, which is especially urgent when prices have been rising so quickly; and, above all (iv) relieve incumbents and PCCs of the burden of maintenance, so that they can concentrate on mission, witness and pastoral engagement. How many clergy, frankly, took orders in order to function as adjuncts to the heritage business? It has been a grotesque and debilitating diversion of time and energy. I do feel that the DBFs should be liquidated and their assets transferred to the Commissioners by way of compensation so that bishops be relieved of the task of acting as administrators (did they take orders only to become pen-pushers?), because I – and many others – perceive diocesan bureaucracies as being largely a deadweight cost. After all, the Commissioners run the payroll function centrally, and no doubt far less expensively than if there were 42 separate payrolls.

        However, I make these comments cautiously, and note that others might have better, and wiser opinions, and am also most grateful to Dr Paul for raising this whole question. However, I must now be off! Many thanks to both of you again.

        Reply
        • My argument for a national and comprehensive solution (i.e., the vesting of the stock in a national agency using capital transferred from the Commissioners – which would essentially return to parishes in maintenance costs the capital expropriated from them via parish share over the last generation) would:

          You seem versed in law so wouldn’t this be the most awful mortmain? The legal ownership of the assets would be vested in an everlasting body corporate whose terms of reference would basically be to maintain them in their current state, with no way they could then ever be re-purposed or sold, even if shifting demographics or other circumstances meant that missionary work would be best served by such redeployment.

          Reply
    • The parishes now subsist upon whatever endowments they may have, or grants they may be fortunate enough to obtain, and mostly upon donations

      Is that not good, and indeed how it ought to be? Every church community should surely aim to be self-sustaining, perhaps with a little left over to send to help out those which are still finding their feet. The churches to which Paul wrote, after all, would have had no income beyond that which their living members donated, and perhaps anything that could be derived from that which those members who had already fallen asleep had left to their use.

      My preference, however (and it is only a fairly mild personal preference) is that witness and worship should be maximised, and wherever possible: for the Church has souls to save!

      There are indeed souls to save but isn’t there also a time to shake the dust from your feet and stop putting pearls in front of ungrateful pigs?

      Reply
    • ‘but also prevent freehold incumbents from selling it (which they had been able to do, subject to certain approvals, from 1888 – it was from that date that the Church’s acreage began to decline rapidly)’

      This is a shocking reality; the Church became a lot poorer because clergy were selling things off for their own personal gain.

      Reply
    • ‘All this amounts to a very regressive transfer of capital from the lowest and most vulnerable tier in the Church – the parish – to the highest and most affluent tier – the Commissioners.’

      And this is the nub of the problem.

      ‘The Commissioners may well be geniuses, but really how could they have failed when they had sloughed off their primary burdens onto the parishes more than a generation ago?’

      So the question is: on what grounds could they protest at reversing this?

      Reply
  15. When considering the Church Commissioners’ judgement on what to do with the fruits of their own highly successful investment policy on the church’s behalf, it seems they have little faith that the church which they are there to serve has a coherent vision of what it wants to achieve and how to make it happen. But this is the Church of England we are talking about and the influencers and processes of decision making are notoriously impenetrable. Perhaps there really is an agenda which involves going through the current chaos before emerging into the sunlit uplands of revival, a new Christendom, and a thriving church in every English parish; or perhaps not.

    Some of us in Cornwall are suffering the rigours of swinging clergy cuts (cuts upon cuts from only 4 years ago where I live), all marketed under the exciting banner of ‘On The Way’. It’s typical C of E jargon, unfortunate in its enticement to finish off the sentence in a less that complimentary manner. At the same time our diocesan bishop is busily involved with Sarah Mullally over the LLF shenanigans. For those few of us who care about such things the times are dark indeed and as we look to the future, the Church of England is unlikely to have a place. There seems to be a lack of basic understanding of how ordinary people think, what they need, what motivates them, and how they might grow in their faith. It indicates a leadership inhabiting a ‘head office’ bubble where, frankly, ordinary lay people are something of an inconvenience to those who like to think they’re significant players at the national level rather than foot-washing servants of their Christian brothers and sisters in every town and village in England.

    And all of this is happening when the people remain unaware that they are about to experience life changing political, economic, technological and social restrictions which have been quietly advancing across the global West during the distractions of Covid, Ukraine military conflict and Net Zero. We Christians in the church should have been alerting the people to impending loss of basic freedoms, and prophesying to politicians about their duty to be honest and just with the people they are there to serve. At such a time, and in the very near future, the people are, and will be, looking for answers to what has befallen them. The gospel of Christ offers both an explanation and an answer to such challenging times, not as a political antidote but as an understanding of mankind’s sinful nature, reconciliation and peace with God, a source for wisdom and a comfort in sorrow, and an eternal future that puts everything into a right perspective.

    We need more clergy who are up for this task, not fewer.

    Reply
  16. The focus on the Commissioners assets indicates a total lack of confidence in church growth and stewardship. Other denominations and churches seem to manage perfectly well without £10 billion of assets. The starting point is that church leaders should be regularly teaching stewardship with the effect that giving 5-10% of income should be the norm, and all non-UPA churches should be expected to cover their costs in full. Those who don’t should have non-stipendiary or lay ministry or be closed.

    There is a good case for using central assets to restore clergy pensions and increase stipends (although perhaps the latter should be limited to clergy with children and non-working spouses), but stipendiary ministry should be self financing except for UPA’s and church plants.

    And we should ignore Ian’s hobby horse of more residential training. Given the collapse of church attendance most future ministry will need to be non-stipendiary and there is little point taking people of the workplace for 2-3 years training plus a 3 year curacy only for there to be no job at the end.

    Reply
    • Absolutely NOT. The point of the Church of England is NOT to engage in church plants and I very much hope the next Archbishop of Canterbury, who on the natural cycle will be a liberal Catholic to replace the evangelical Welby scraps funding for all church plants and instead restores it to our traditional and historic Parishes.

      The Church of England is of course a Catholic church just a reformed one, with the Vatican correctly storing billions in assets too to secure its future and preserve its churches. Funds can also be used to train priests in proper theology rooted in centuries of Anglican tradition, not trendy fads. Every church must have a stipendiary priest leading it, non-stipendiary ministers should just provide a supporting role

      Reply
      • Funds can also be used to train priests in proper theology rooted in centuries of Anglican tradition, not trendy fads

        What does centuries of Anglican theological tradition say about the definition of marriage, and what does the trendy fad say?

        What does centuries of Anglican theological tradition say about the saving of souls, and what does the trendy fad say?

        And, you do realise that the smells and bells you like was all made up by the Oxford Movement little more than a century ago, overturning centuries of Anglican tradition?

        Reply
        • Anglican tradition says that Matrimony was ordained for: bringing up children; a remedy against sin (that those who don’t have the gift of continency might marry); and the mutual society, help, and comfort for one another.

          The trendy fad says it’s actually all ordained to equip St Paul with a metaphor for explaining Christ and the Church in his letter to the Ephesians.

          When it comes to saving souls, Anglican tradition holds that eternal salvation is through Christ alone, and we are justified by faith. The catechism concentrates on belief in the Trinity and understanding of the Great Commandment to love God and love your neighbour.

          The trendy fad is that actually we’re supposed to be a sect defined by our approach to sexual ethics, which is the true litmus test of faith.

          As of incense, it’s not to my taste, but it’s use goes back to at least the 5th century in the Church, and even further than that if you’re inclined to look at Jewish worship in the Old Testament.

          Reply
          • Anglican tradition says that Matrimony was ordained for: bringing up children; a remedy against sin (that those who don’t have the gift of continency might marry); and the mutual society, help, and comfort for one another.

            Actually Anglican tradition says: ‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’

            The trendy fad says it’s about self-fulfilment and ‘being onesself’.

            When it comes to saving souls, Anglican tradition holds that eternal salvation is through Christ alone, and we are justified by faith.

            Yes; so in order to save people the Church has to bring them to Jesus.

            The trendy fad says that God is nice and jolly so everybody who’s done more good than bad in their life goes to Heaven.

      • Exactly as the Synod affirmed, that holy matrimony is between a man and woman for life. Synod voting to allow blessings of homosexual couples did not change its definition of marriage.

        In terms of Anglican tradition however, the Church of England services are built around the Book of Common Prayer and Holy Communion in ancient rural churches and Cathedrals, not just all age worship with a worship band in a 20th or 21st century building.

        Reply
  17. An excellent and incisive article. It is, perhaps, through wide distribution and loud public discussion that change might be enacted along the lines you envisage.

    Reply
  18. Superb article, Ian; and thank you! From my years of working in the City of London and running a marketing and sales team in the wholesale financial markets of a ‘clearer’, back then we estimated the effort to regain a lost client was seven times that needed to retain it. I don’t know whether that x7 factor applies to retention and return, but I suspect something comparable might. Possibly not in my life time, but maybe not long after, if reallocation of financial resources is not made soon, the Church Commissioners will be answering to the Charity Commission (and God!) what to do with the reserves held for little practical, charitable purpose. Sorry to sound so bleak, even if it is Pentecost!

    Reply
  19. Am I right in saying that the Commissioners invest in stocks and shares, or the equivalent, as well as buildings? If so, Im surprised noone has raised the question of morality in doing so. Many people view such investments as effectively gambling as you can lose your capital as well as not making any return, depending on the health of ‘the market’. I find it odd the coe seems to rely so much on such investments. Most Christians choose not to gamble their own money due to the moral implications, why is it different for the church?

    Even if it were to be argued it is not a form of gambling, one wonders what specific companies they are investing in and whether they are deemed suitable for Christians to invest in – if an individual Christian chose not to for moral reasons, then neither should the church.

    Peter

    Reply
    • To PC1.

      Good points, Peter.

      I was reading Revelation chapter three yesterday, and about the last church mentioned – the church of Laodicea. It reminded me of the topic of this article. Christ Jesus says to it :

      “You are neither cold nor hot! ……You say, ‘How rich I am! What a fortune I have made! I have everything I want.’ In fact, though you do not realize it, you are a spiritual wretch, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire to make you truly rich, and white robes to put on to hide the shame of your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes so that you may see.”

      Re. 3:15-18 (REB).

      Reply
    • Many people view such investments as effectively gambling as you can lose your capital as well as not making any return, depending on the health of ‘the market’.

      The same is true of any unsecured loan though. And even with secured loan you can lose your capital, if the security falls in value or is destroyed in some way not covered by insurance.

      I find it odd the coe seems to rely so much on such investments. Most Christians choose not to gamble their own money due to the moral implications, why is it different for the church?

      What else is the church to do? There’s no such thing as a risk-free investment; the only way to have zero risk is to put your money in a 100% backed deposit account. But then every year your money is guaranteed to be worth less and less because of inflation. Would that be an acceptable way for the church to treat its assets?

      There are investment strategies — eg hedging — where the risk can be reduced to, if not zero, quite close to it (in the same way as one can, by arbitraging, hedge bets on races to guarantee a profit). These strategies aren’t available to most individuals as they require a lot of capital and a long time horizon, but they are available too long-lived organisations like the Church of England. So it’s not as much of a gamble as you suggest.

      Even if it were to be argued it is not a form of gambling, one wonders what specific companies they are investing in and whether they are deemed suitable for Christians to invest in – if an individual Christian chose not to for moral reasons, then neither should the church.

      What, if any individual Christian would choose not to invest in a company for moral reasons, neither should the church? Even if 99.9% of Christians roof be fine with investing in that company, if one single solitary Christian has a problem with it, it’s out? What would that leave? I’m sure for pretty much any given company you could find some Christian somewhere in the world who’d object to investing in it.

      Reply
    • I ought to add that the CC are a world-leader in ethical investment. I was for a few years a member of the Ethical Investment Advisory Committee, composed of church leaders, theologians, and finance people thinking about ethical investment strategies.

      Reply
  20. It is perhaps worth pointing out that C of E pensioners did receive a 10.1 %. ( CPI)uplift from the CC in April when they were only under an obligation to raise it by 5%. I’m told, however, that those renting from the Pension Board had a rent increase if 10.1%

    Reply
    • It did and it didn’t….

      About 60% of mine was increased by10%. The remainder by 5% or 3.5% depending on the changes caused variations the scheme over the 38 years I was a member of it. (ordained in 1977, retired at 65 in 2015).

      I was/am grateful…. despite the relatively late changes which meant going from a year over the requirements to not having quite enough for a full pension.

      However… Later ordained clergy have been treated appallingly badly..Some of us (the majority of clergy? ) saw this coming and protested on their behalf but to no avail.

      Recalling the “story” about the Pope and St Peter…
      The P: No longer can the church say “silver and gold have I none”
      St P: Neither can she say “Rise and walk”

      Reply
      • Ian – I recently discovered a nice little number that the Catholic church has here in Poland for augmenting the priest’s salary. One of our colleagues died a couple of years ago – and a couple of weeks ago they had a ‘mass of intention’ for him. To get a ‘mass of intention’ for a deceased person, you have to give a back-hander of approximately 1000 zlotys (say 200 pounds) to the priest who will then be delighted to perform the mass of intention for the deceased ……

        Reply
        • We’ve been there before: “as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs”. That didn’t end well…

          Reply
          • We’ve been there before: “as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs”. That didn’t end well

            It’s a bit like Simon

  21. It looks as if Truro Diocese is trying to offload its responsibility for reducing clergy numbers by claiming this is a deanery led initiative. The deaneries may indeed have been drawing up the plans for reducing their clergy numbers but this can only be because the diocesan leadership has left them no option. Why else would they be drawing up plans for staff reduction which must inevitably be the kiss of death to any notion of clergy being the visible pastor of a parish flock? Does anyone seriously think 12 deaneries would each be doing this as spontaneous local initiatives for building success upon success?

    https://trurodiocese.org.uk/bishops-blog/setting-the-record-straight/

    Reply
  22. Well, I sort of got lost in all the financial percentages and stocks and share issues, arguments for parish percentages, and pension funding. Being a simple believer in Jesus as my saviour and continually working towards holiness all I can say is ‘Where does this stand against how I see the church being run’? I take Acts 2:42-47 as my foundation and starting point for the church and how it should be. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Clearly, in my reckoning, the C of E needs to get back to where it all began. Incidentally, was not Judas the custodian of the money for the disciples and followers? Chris x

    Reply
    • When do you ever see genuine signs and wonders in the church today, perhaps particularly in the anglican church? I suspect it is a false hope to try to go back as it was in the beginning.

      Reply
    • Chris – I’d say that the remark about Judas is spot on. There seems something fundamentally wrong with the whole idea of `the church’ actually having assets (and the fact that they consistently yield a 10 percent return doesn’t make it all right).

      Reply
      • Matthew Henry’s buzz word was ‘providence’. He said if one takes out insurance one forfeits God’s providence. (Or similar, I read it long ago) And any joy in seeing God provide. Same applies to one’s health. The NHS is good, we use it when we need it. But it is a substitute for providence.
        This probably answers the question of signs and wonders too . Who needs them?
        A dystopian thought… in the future everyone will be on some ‘pathway’ within the NHS, which will be the largest employer in the UK. Everyone will have a mental condition, either social, genetic or cultural. Or all three.

        Reply
        • Everyone will have a mental condition, either social, genetic or cultural.

          I read an article once which described gambling addiction as a ‘pyschobiosocial’ condition, which I though was a nice way to hedge one’s bets.

          Reply
          • Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
            You gotta understand,
            It’s just our bringin’ up-ke
            That gets us out of hand.
            Our mothers all are junkies,
            Our fathers all are drunks.
            Golly Moses, natcherly we’re punks!

            (West Side Story)

        • Steve,
          Some of the more memorable teaching in my early Christian life were the nes of God

          One is Jehovah Jireh God t our Provider. Throughout scrripture it is God who provides.
          Indeed in those early years while it was testing it simultaneously joyful to encounter God providing for us.
          God builds, God provides, yet we rely almost exclusively on our endeavour. Even here, God is only ever God of the gaps in our lives, the life of the church.

          Reply
        • Who needs them? You mean apart from all those, for example, who have diseases that modern medicine still cant cure?

          Reply
  23. Ian,
    I like the picture of the burnt church; looks real.
    The money, on close inspection, looks illusory. Is that prophetically intentional?

    Reply
  24. Although that Bing AI is a pretty ” smart cookie “, Steve, its not up to your theologically- themed, artistic standards, yet.

    Reply
  25. There is an approved charity accounting method that a number of Diocese are adopting to release more of the accumulated increase in value of their endowments. Its called total return accounting. In brief the initial capital value of the endowment is adjusted each year for inflation and the excess of the actual increased capital value of the endowment above this amount is theoretically available to be treated as income. However a buffer is usually retained to allow for fluctuations in the capital value from year to year.

    Reply

Leave a comment