The clergy’s pensions and retirement housing
From Canon Chris Hollingshurst
Madam, — The Revd David Baker’s brilliant letter (21 February) starkly illustrates the dramatic erosion of clergy pensions over a generation, and rightly seeks answers.
Many will know that the overall retirement picture for stipendiary clergy has worsened in other ways as well, particularly in respect of retirement housing. Despite recent acquisitions, the CHARM scheme offers fewer rented clergy retirement houses than it did a generation ago. With few properties in cheaper areas of the country, it now also sets rents on the basis of local market rates rather than on pension value as previously, and raises its rents in line with pension increases.
This has particularly affected a generation of once-homeowning ordinands who were either advised to sell their homes on commencing training or, in some instances, were forced to do so because mortgages were wrongly interpreted as debts preventing ordination.
The recent Pensions Board consultation was, ironically, called “Enabling Choice”, at a time when, for most stipendiary clergy, the reduction in the value of the pension means that real choices for retirement have been narrowing for years. We are at the stage when stipendiary ministry and a modest retirement are now only affordable for those with working spouses who have their own provision.
Last week, the chief executive of the Pensions Board was reported as saying that a reduced reliance on retirement housing might amount to “a cost saving for the Church” (News, 21 February). Well, yes, it might; but, in a Church that still has billions in investments and as progressively penalised its stipendiary clergy, is that really the point?
CHRIS HOLLINGSHURST
4 Cathedral Close
Guildford GU2 7TL
From the Revd Tim Storey
Madam, — The decision of the Church Commissioners in 2011 to penalise clergy pensions, by reducing future pensions as based on a half rather than two-thirds stipend, was understood at the time as reflecting contemporary financial pressures.
It is to their shame that the Commissioners have hidden behind that decision ever since, ignoring the enormous increases in their portfolio in the intervening years, at the expense and detriment of the clergy. Sitting on such enormous financial sums contrasts with the not insignificant challenges that they have inflicted on the finances of both current and future retired clergy.
As someone with 30 years’ service, and with another few to go, I not only face the reality of such retirement challenges, but reflect on the question whether the approach of the Commissioners reflects a presumption that clergy would be unlikely to adopt militant action in defence of the income that they (and their families and dependants) rely upon and believe has been taken from them.
It is time that the Commissioners not only recognised the unethical spirit with which they had acted over the past years, but also restored things to where they should be.
TIM STOREY
The Vicarage, Reading Road
Yateley GU46 7LR
From the Revd Peter Goodridge
Madam, — As I turn 60 next year, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the insufficient pension provision for clergy in the Church of England. I then see that the Revd David Baker’s letter shows that others are likewise concerned.
When I was ordained in 2009, it was clear that my church pension would be peanuts compared with my pension from my previous secular employment. Nevertheless, after the cut in pension from two-thirds to half minimum stipend more than a decade ago, plus the huge number of years required to reach that level, the pension that I might get if I retired at 65 after 22 years’ service in the C of E is less than £7000 a year.
I am fortunate to have a pension from previous employment, but many of my fellow clergy are not. I am fortunate to have retained ownership of my house from pre-ordination days. Many of my fellow clergy do not have this — indeed, some were erroneously advised to sell (even told it was a requirement of being ordained). In short, clergy have been let down with (a) the real value of stipends cut over the years, (b) pensions slashed, and (c) the promise of housing post-retirement unreliable. This is a disgrace.
Those mis-sold private pensions in the late 1980s/early 1990s were able to seek legal compensation. Will clergy be able to do the same, considering the billions now held by the Church Commissioners?
PETER GOODRIDGE
The Rectory, Church Road
Elmswell
Bury St Edmunds IP30 9DY
Madam, — The Revd David Baker’s letter about pensions prompts another. I am a clergy widower. To my astonishment and joy, love has pounced upon me. My new partner is also a clergy widow. We are both rejoicing at the unexpectedness of life-giving love at a stage in life when that might not have been expected.
We want to marry. To my great disappointment, I find that the Church makes this a sacrifice. Should we marry, we will both lose our Church of England widow’s pensions.
Unlike my partner, I have a second widower’s pension, which would continue to be paid after remarriage. I am shocked that the secular world is either more enlightened, more just — or both — than the Church, seeming to support marriage and a new beginning while the Church discourages it. Can it be that the secular world has a fresher spirit of justice than the Church? This is how it feels.
Our anxiety makes me hesitant even to broadcast our new relationship beyond our intimate circles. Unnecessary it may be, but it is how the situation makes me feel. How can it be that the Pensions Board has not yet dropped these regulations from a previous age when secular schemes have? We long to share our surprising joy with the world. We long to commit ourselves to each other in the sacrament of marriage. We do not long to spend whatever years we have together with financial worries.
We are sure that, ultimately, our love will trump the economics. Losing our pensions won’t mean penury, but the question of justice stings. It is painful to accept that the Church even puts such a dilemma before us.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Safeguarding: policy and individual accountability
From the Revd Dr Philip Goggin
Madam, — Philip Belben (Letters, 21 February) rightly points to some potential benefits of safeguarding: benefits to those who might have been abused in the future but for safeguarding, and benefits to those who might otherwise have been tempted to abuse others and so are spared the penalties that would have followed.
These are noble aspirations, but, in the absence of systematic analysis and evaluation (see the Jay report), how would we know which strategies are effective, and which are wasting resources and causing unnecessary pain in the process? Such evaluation is absolutely vital, and yet has been neglected in the past. It should not, however, be assumed this would be a straightforward task.
For example, it would probably be easy to show that most of those who have been found to have breached safeguarding rules in a minor sort of way (or should not have been identified as a safeguarding risk in the first place — see Jay) would be careful not to give reason for allegations to be made against them in the future.
This could have little to do with any tailor-made safeguarding plan drawn up by a diocesan safeguarding officer (DSO), but everything to do with a common-sense reaction to being accused. So, this is wasted effort on the part of the DSO (by the way, causing to respondents much more than the “inconvenience” mentioned by Mr Belben), and yet potentially hailed as a success story.
On the other hand, a persistent sex abuser may require much monitoring and support, and amply justify considerable time and resources.
The Church currently spends many millions of pounds on safeguarding, acquiring a reputation for a catalogue of failures, and with no secure knowledge of efficacy. But there are alternative ways forward that are more humanistic and proactive, and are better informed by evaluation (see, for example, Stein: “There Isn’t One!” Church of England Safeguarding Policy, published online by Cambridge University Press, 13 January).
PHILIP GOGGIN
4 Valley Road, Wistaston
Crewe CW2 8JU
From Mr David Lamming
Madam, — Andrew Brown (Viewpoint, 21 February) is right to criticise for “fatuous irresponsibility” those who demanded that the General Synod should “send a message” when deciding on the most effective way to manage safeguarding within the Church of England.
You refer in your leader comment (same issue) to the “compromise” amendment proposed by the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, effectively for “Model 3.5”, and agreed by the Synod on a counted vote by Houses as “a pragmatic move”. Bishop North has been unjustly vilified in some online comments for his amendment.
Nevertheless, contrary to Model 4’s having, as you put it, “the imprimatur of Professor Alexis Jay”, Model 3, which the North amendment endorses as the way forward in the short term, and which involves retaining all diocesan and cathedral staff within their existing structures, is consonant with the recommendation made by IICSA (which Professor Jay chaired) in its investigation report on the Anglican Church, published in October 2020 — something not mentioned in the debate, nor, to my knowledge, by Professor Jay: “The Church of England should create the role of a diocesan safeguarding officer to replace the diocesan safeguarding adviser. . . Diocesan safeguarding officers should be employed locally, by the Diocesan Board of Finance” (Recommendation 1, report, page 116).
There was no change to that recommendation in IICSA’s final report, published in October 2022, the relevant recommendation (at page 328) being that the UK Government (not, note, the Church) “establishes a Child Protection Authority for England and Wales” whose purpose should be to . . .
- improve practice in child protection;
- provide advice and make recommendations to government in relation to child protection policy and reform to improve child protection; and
- inspect institutions and settings as it considers necessary and proportionate.”
It is the implementation of that recommendation — for an overarching authority that would cover not just the Church of England — for which Synod members should have been pressing; but, to reword another quote from Andrew Brown’s column, “Is the Government listening?”
DAVID LAMMING
(General Synod member 2015-21)
20 Holbrook Barn Road, Boxford
Suffolk CO10 5HU
From the Bishop of Dorking
Madam, — My heart and prayers are with the victims of Bishop Anthony Pierce (News, 14 February). I am pleased that the Church in Wales has commissioned an external review — to include its systems for the appointment of bishops and senior clergy (and, I would suggest, selection of priests, too). I hope its lessons will be shared with other Provinces.
It is important, however, to acknowledge that this will be a small step towards its destination to “demonstrate that it is a safe place”. The longer journey requires deep reflection on the culture of an organisation in which people fail, for whatever reason, to report abuse. It also involves an interrogation of the structures of accountability which, I believe, are lacking for so many of us.
How’s my bishoping? That’s not just a question for my own self-reflection. For this reason, during Lent, I shall be working with my mentor in reflecting upon the structures of accountability that surround me, so that, when I renew the promises of my ordination on Maundy Thursday, I might have a slightly greater sense that I am being held accountable for them.
PAUL DORKING
Dayspring, Pilgrims Way
Guildford GU4 8AD
Church Commissioners’ grants and distributions
From Mr Oliver Iliffe
Madam, — Andrew Orange’s letter last week raises a very important point on Church Commissioners funding. Under the Turnbull settlement, codified by the National Institutions Measure 1998, the Commissioners make an annual distribution of income — rather than a grant — for cure-of-souls ministry. This enables long-term commitments to paying the stipends of parish clergy. The power under the 2018 Measure, however, is a grant-making power, and the Ecclesiastical Committee was informed that any grant would be for “a set and clearly defined period”.
It is, therefore, puzzling that the answer to the parliamentary question has listed a category of “grants” that may or may not be for cure of souls — totalling £81.4 million in 2023 alone. It is also a matter for concern that the Commissioners have not actually answered the question, which asked for the certificated amounts paid under the 1998 Measure for each year since 1999. These are statutory certificates. It appears that the Commissioners do not wish to disclose them.
What we do know is that the scale of one-off grants made under the 2018 Measure is substantially and relentlessly reducing the income distributed under the 1998 Measure for clergy-stipend payments.
In the Synod, some bishops courageously supported the Revd Marcus Walker’s amendment to the National Church Governance Measure to re-prioritise the cure of souls. If trust in our leadership is to be restored, there must be transparency on this point. And, for the Church to honour God’s call to ordinands, there must be a solid long-term commitment to funding their stipends rather than short-term, unpredictable grant funding.
OLIVER ILIFFE
Address supplied (Ogbourne St George, Wiltshire)
Future of episcopal appointments in the C of E
From Canon Christopher Hall
Madam, — The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), constrained by a special majority, has failed to nominate new diocesans for three dioceses — so far. Last week, General Synod members spent many person-hours seeking to refine the two-thirds majority when applied to 14 CNC votes — after debate was thwarted by voting by Houses. Special majorities are not power-grabs by majorities; it is minorities who cling to the power of veto which a special majority grants them.
It would be salutary to audit the cost in person-hours for both the national and diocesan CNC members, not to mention staff time, in re-running each process. The emotional cost cannot be quantified for the potential nominees and for the extra burdens on suffragans acting as diocesans during prolonged vacancies.
In July 1982, 12 votes in the House of Clergy negatived proposals for a multi-denominational Covenant, which had the support of majorities not just in dioceses, but also in our sister Churches; oxygen was thus sucked out of national ecumenism, and the defeat hastened the untimely death of our leading advocate, David Brown, Bishop of Guildford. (In another context, history has been repeated.)
Many quinquennia ago, it was commented: “Grace moves out when Standing Orders move in.’’ Meanwhile, Screwtape gloats over ecclesiastical paralysis.
CHRISTOPHER HALL
The Knowle, Deddington
Banbury OX15 0TB
From the Very Revd Christopher Lewis
Madam, — I suspect it was surprising to some to see the large headline in last week’s paper “Nominee withdraws from bishopric of Durham” (News).
Given, however, the recent reports about bishops, sometimes on their behaviour towards each other, the decision is understandable. And, after all, there are a good number of clergy out and about who have preferred other posts in the Church and so “withdrew”. There are wonderful posts all over the place which are just as challenging and enjoyable, if not more so.
CHRISTOPHER LEWIS
The Old Brewery
16 Victoria Road, Aldeburgh
Suffolk IP15 5ED
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — You report that, after interviews in November, the Crown Nominations Commission for Durham nominated a candidate who has now withdrawn.
This action taken at such a late stage gives possible cause for concern. The person might be among candidates listed for consideration for current or future vacant sees. In that circumstance, it would surely be appropriate for the relevant CNC to be made aware of the disappointing action by the person concerned.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
From the Revd Dr Keith Elford
Madam, — The Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy’s comment piece (“Shepherds and not managers”, 14 February) contained many penetrating and useful insights into the way we “do” episcopacy in today’s Church of England, and some helpful suggestions for better practice.
I particularly support the argument that those appointed should be deeply rooted in the Anglican tradition and understand themselves as serving the Church as a whole rather than as advocates for particular theologies and programmes. I agree, too, that bishops should work to grow closer to parish clergy.
I think there is a bigger picture, however. The recent national crisis of confidence and morale linked to safeguarding failures has occasioned much comment on the performance of the national Church and of bishops. It has been suggested frequently that resources and focus should be shifted away from the “centre”, to the local, to the parishes. A shift of this kind is probably correct, but the suggestion that all we need to do is to let parishes get on with it is naïve in the extreme. The parishes are “close to the action”, which is both their strength and their weakness. Someone needs to be taking a wider view.
We need a conversation about the roles of those operating at all levels of the Church and about the resources and structures necessary to support them. This includes the national Church, dioceses, and parishes. To have such a conversation to maximum effect, we will need to base it on some shared clarity about the charism and vocation of the Church of England and our aspirations for its future.
At the moment, this shared clarity does not exist, and I do not detect much enthusiasm for seeking it. Until we are willing to look at the fundamental systemic issues that face us, we will continue to be beset by particular problems that we struggle to solve at great cost to reputation and morale.
KEITH ELFORD
149 Woodham Lane
New Haw
Surrey KT15 3NJ
From Mrs April Alexander
Madam, — At the Bridge Theatre this week, we met Richard II’s ill-fated Bishop of Carlisle, who was (wait for it!) female. I am left to reflect ruefully on the absence of any Bishop of Carlisle in our day, male or female. Would discrimination be the cause?
If so, I have seen it all before!
APRIL ALEXANDER
59 High Street
Bletchingley
Redhill RH1 4PB
(Crown Nominations Commission 2013-18; General Synod 2000-21)
Department to be axed at Cardiff University
From the Revd Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
Madam, — I am writing this letter with a heavy heart. Perhaps you will have learned already about the systematic dismantling of Cardiff University by its own Vice-Chancellor and University Council. I write to you as a professor in the Department of Ancient History and Religion, one of the disciplines that has been underlined as unnecessary and is scheduled to be axed.
No humanities subject is unnecessary. Humanities enrich lives, provide platforms for analysis and debate, create people who are problem-solvers, and form sympathetic citizens who see beyond spreadsheets.
My colleagues in the Department are ground-breaking academics; what makes them even more special, though, is that they have the common touch, communicating their expertise in exciting and innovative ways. As a result, we are much loved and valued by our students.
We teach subjects that are at the heart of the human experience. Our students learn about Mediterranean civilisations, the African world, the Middle East and Eurasia, the Far East, and South-East Asia; we explore the religions traditions and sacred writings of ancient and modern peoples worldwide, and we have a department that values the study of world theologies. We are unique among UK universities in providing degrees that offer a global view of history and faith. And never was global understanding more vital than now.
We in the Department of Ancient History and Religion are doing our best to push back against this destructive vision for Cardiff University’s future, while we continue to provide the very best education for our fine body of keen and able students. I know that your readers will be concerned about the untenable situation at Cardiff University and the loss of these core disciplines (along with music, languages, and nursing), and I am sure that they will be troubled, too, about the damage that the loss of 400 jobs will do to the economy of Cardiff and Wales as a whole.
Please, I ask your readers to pray for all the staff at Cardiff University. We are going through dark days.
LLOYD LLEWELLYN-JONES
School of History, Archaeology and Religion
Cardiff University
John Percival Building
Column Drive
Cardiff CF10 3EU
Sisters’ labour of love on show in Ely Cathedral
From Dr Hilary Finlay
Madam, — What an utter delight to visit the exquisite exhibition of ecclesiastical embroidery very fittingly displayed in the magnificent Lady Chapel of Ely Cathedral (News, 14 February).
Aptly entitled “Clothed in Glory”, it is a unique opportunity to share in the usually unseen collection from the archives of the embroidery room of the Community of the Sisters of the Church, dating back to 1876 up to the 1960s.
A variety of embroidery techniques are displayed with helpful captions detailing the textiles used, together with an explanation of their liturgical use. Beautiful painstaking work reveals a labour of love by those early Sisters and their helpers.
Thank you to all involved, including the Church Times for running the photo that you used, and particularly the two people who collaborated tirelessly to stage the exhibition.
I urge your readers to seize the chance to see it for themselves before it closes on 16 March.
HILARY FINLAY
El Molino, 83 North Brink
Wisbech, Cambs PE13 1LN
Where there’s a ‘will’
From Canon A. Lenox-Conyngham
Madam, — I was astonished to read “We still do” in the caption for the picture of 80 couples reaffirming their wedding vows in Coventry Cathedral (News, 21 February). It is a common mistake that “I do” is what couples say at their wedding service. They have never said “I do,” but “I will,” which, in any case, is much stronger. If the Church Times itself gets this wrong, what chance is there for the rest of the press?
ANDREW LENOX-CONYNGHAM
9 Hitches Lane
Birmingham B15 2LS
Sorry, our caption could have been clearer: “We Still Do” was the title of the BBC CWR event. Editor
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters.
