The Commissioners and clergy stipends and pensions
From the Chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Finance Committee
Madam, — Recent letters have highlighted the concerns of parish clergy about the levels of stipends and pension provision in the Church of England today. I completely understand the concerns and strength of feeling among clergy about this.
A motion was carried in the General Synod in February 2024 which committed the national Church and dioceses to working together to ensure stipends and pensions can be improved sustainably. It is a motion that I voted for and wholeheartedly support.
The challenge is how we achieve this together without adding to the financial pressures on dioceses and parishes. I provided an update on our thinking at the Synod in February. One of the main areas of discussion was that pensions and stipends have fallen behind inflation since 2011, particularly following the higher levels of inflation experienced since the pandemic.
As I set out at the Synod, we propose increasing future stipends automatically in line with inflation, on top of a catch-up increase to the national minimum stipend, which will boost both stipends and the starting rate of pensions. There may be further opportunities to improve pensions, and I am grateful for the technical expertise and creativity of the Church of England Pensions Board, who are helping us to look at various options.
In parallel, efforts are under way to simplify the Church’s funding arrangements to help to improve transparency. Part of that ought to involve standardising clergy stipends to eliminate the postcode lottery that currently exists and to provide clarity to clergy over their finances.
The triennium funding process currently under way between the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners for England will set the funding priorities for the wider Church between 2026 and 2028. This process involves a careful balancing of the resources available to the Church to support clergy, dioceses, and the longer-term ministry of the Church. It provides the opportunity to address pensions and stipends holistically, and our plan is to bring forward firm proposals to the Synod in July.
It is essential that we take the necessary care to get any changes in this area absolutely right — for clergy, for dioceses, and for the future ministry of the Church.
CARL HUGHES
Archbishops’ Council
Church House
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3AZ
From the Revd Marcus Gibbs and more than 700 members of the clergy
Madam, — We, the undersigned, representing a growing movement of clergy, retired clergy, and supporters, are calling for urgent and decisive action on clergy pensions. In just a week, more than 1500 people have joined the Clergy Pension Action group (www.clergypensionaction.uk), demonstrating the deep concern and widespread frustration over the Church of England’s current pension provision. This is a fundamental justice issue that must be addressed without delay.
In February 2024, the General Synod voted unanimously in favour of pension reform, and yet there has been little movement towards an adequate resolution. Yes, there was talk of an increase in the national minimum stipend at the most recent sessions of the General Synod, but this is merely a drop in the ocean. The pace of change is far too slow, and the measures taken so far are simply not enough. This matter is too urgent to be allowed to drift. We expect the Church of England to uphold its commitments and accelerate the implementation of reforms that ensure clergy can retire with dignity.
At a minimum, there must be a full, backdated restoration of the pre-2011 pension level, which is an essential first step toward justice. The deeper issue, however, remains: if a stipend is considered the minimum necessary to live in active ministry, why is it deemed acceptable for clergy to receive a fraction of that amount in retirement without housing provision? The reality is stark: many retired clergy face financial insecurity, housing struggles, and the indignity of relying on charity after years of faithful service.
The Church of England has £10.4 billion in assets. It would take a fraction of the annual investment returns to correct this injustice. The moral responsibility is clear: clergy who have dedicated their lives to serving the Church must not be abandoned in retirement.
We urge the Church Commissioners, the Pensions Board, and diocesan leadership to act with speed and integrity. Justice delayed is justice denied.
MARCUS GIBBS and others
Address supplied (Wandsworth, London)
Other signatories’ names here
Church Army cutbacks
Madam, — It was very sad indeed to read about the current financial position of the Church Army, with the possibility of severe cutbacks and several people losing their jobs (News, 7 March): sad not only because of job losses, but also because of the excellent work undertaken by the organisation which could come to an end; and sad also because of the long and faithful history of the charity.
Your report says: “The board’s statement says that it needs to act now, given projections showing that, on the current trajectory, it will run out of reserves in the next 12 to 18 months. In 2023/2024, expenditure of £11.1 million exceeded income by £3.8 million.”
The Bishop of Chelmsford, who chairs the board of trustees has said: “Our trustees have made this difficult decision.” This looks, however, to be a serious situation that should have been addressed at least three years ago. Looking back at the organisation’s previous years’ annual reports, in 2021-22, there was a deficit of £2.349 million, and in 2022-23, there was a deficit of £3.907 million, and in 2023-24 a deficit of £3.863 million. That is a total of £10 million over three years, which presumably they have taken from reserves over that period. How is it that a board of trustees has allowed the situation to become so serious without acting earlier?
The trustees, having allowed this to continue for so long, now face losing most of the work and making staff redundant. It is interesting to note that those deficits occurred during the time of the previous CEO, who left after three years in the job. You reported last year that under his leadership there was unrest and unhappiness in the Church Army (News, 14 June 2024). The recently appointed CEO now faces a very difficult situation, with severe cutbacks and redundancies.
Is it unfair to suggest that the board of trustees appear to have been irresponsible in allowing the situation to continue for so long before acting, and that they need to consider their position? Indeed, is it now a situation that calls for an inquiry by the Charity Commission?
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Lords Spiritual should boycott trump state visit
From Mr Richard Heller
Madam, — Donald Trump has been invited to make an unprecedented second state visit to our country, to include a speech to both Houses of Parliament.
Although I am a secular atheist, may I, through you, humbly invite the Lords Spiritual not to attend this event? I suggest that, for all his professions, Donald Trump has been in performance the least Christian President in history and one who has parasited on the genuine faith of his supporters. Especially repugnant is his claim in his Inauguration Address that God saved him to make America great again. That implies that all his opponents are enemies of God. It also suggests that, in the act of saving him from assassination, God willed or at least allowed the death of his supporter Mr Comperatore. Trump exploited that event not only politically but commercially, through the merchandising of related sneakers and fragrance.
For these and many other reasons, I hope that all the Lords Spiritual might find pressing diocesan business to absent themselves from Mr Trump’s speech.
Nevertheless, if one is required to read prayers before it, may I also suggest that these refer to the Third Commandment?
RICHARD HELLER
204 The School House
Pages Walk
London SE1 4HG
Arrangements to commemorate VE and VJ Days
From Mr J. Alan Smith
Madam, — I am disgusted, but not at all surprised, at your report (News, 7 March) on the way in which the British Establishment is, once again, commemorating the key anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day in such different ways.
VE Day will be celebrated over four days: on Monday 5 May, there will be a military procession to Buckingham Palace with a flypast; on the Tuesday, historical buildings will be floodlit; on the Wednesday, historic landmarks will be floodlit, and the Parliamentary Choir will host a concert. On the Thursday, the Westminster Abbey service will, I presume, take place.
In contrast, VJ Day will be commemorated by a service at the National Memorial Arboretum “on the Friday”, though whether this is Friday 9 May or Friday 15 August is not clear from your report. If the former, it would appear to perpetuate the lie that the Second World War ended on 8 May; if the latter, it merely confirms the view that those who fought against the Japanese were second-class warriors and their surviving families are second-class subjects of the King.
My father, in the RAFVR, was captured in Java in March 1942 when the Far East Air Force surrendered and died in Japan in December 1942 as a result of the inhuman way the Japanese transported their prisoners. The British Establishment was not responsible for his death and for the deaths of the others who died in the war against Japan, but they are responsible for the discriminatory way in which those who fought in the Far East, particularly those who died, and their families have been treated since the War. Is there any organisation, political or religious, where honour may still be found?
J. ALAN SMITH
40 Albany Court, Epping
Essex CM16 4ED
Attend to the nuances of opponents of ‘wokery’
From Canon R. H. W. Arguile
Madam, — Canon Rod Garner’s case (Analysis, 7 March) is well argued so far as it goes, but the tone adopted by controverters is not the only issue. No doubt the tone adopted by some of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) speakers was unhelpfully adversarial, but some of the points made, not only but certainly by Dr Jordan Peterson, were substantive.
Social justice means different things to different people. Jonathan Haidt in his excellent book The Righteous Mind points out that the dimensions of conservative moral thinking are often more widely based than those of liberals. Words such as care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity are not only differently valued, but they can mean different things. I was not at the ARC conference. I do know, though, that one of Dr Peterson’s concerns is what he regards as the vital part played by two-parent heterosexual marriages in the upbringing of children, for which there is a good deal of hard data in support. It used to be an assumed position of the Christian church.
I was sorry that Canon Garner did not set out the particular distortions claimed by speakers and apparently resisted by others and what their reasons were. Nuance is a matter in part of good manners; solid argument on specific issues and the importance of noticing the range of moral concern is what interests me. It is what you say, as well as how you say it.
R. H. W. ARGUILE
10 Marsh Lane
Wells-next-the-Sea
Norfolk NR23 1EG
Clapping to Kendrick
From Dr N. P. Hudd
Madam, — The Notebook by Canon Jarel Robinson-Brown (Last Word, 28 February) struck a chord. The problem with “Shine, Jesus, shine!” actually is the clapping, not the failure to clap. There are two reasons. First, as a chorister and conductor, I have rarely (possibly never) heard a congregation that could keep the clapping in time. As a doctor, I realise that this is because clapping is a whole-arm, not just hand, movement. Second, people concentrate on the clap (which is hard work because of the above).
Canon Robinson should try telling them not to clap, but to sing the words as though they are really meant. All the phrases are grammatical imperatives and must be articulated as such. The song is a magnificent proclamation. “Blaze, Spirit, blaze!” You can’t light a fire while clapping.
N. P. HUDD
13 Elmfield, Tenterden
Kent TN30 6RE
