A £100m recruitment plan for the Church of England has been criticised as a raid on church assets that has not been properly thought out and amounts to “spending the family silver”.
The proposals, submitted last month, are intended to address what Andreas Whittam Smith, head of the Church Commissioners, calls a “relentless decline in membership”. Mr Whittam Smith has previously said this has resulted in the average age of Anglican congregations approaching 70.
The commissioners manage the Church’s historic and investment assets, worth slightly more than £6bn at the end of 2013. Mr Whittam Smith wants to use about £100m of that to boost the number of ordained priests by 50 per cent.
This is in addition to the £2m already approved to train senior clergy and potential leaders in a “talent management” programme, a controversial proposal made in a report chaired by Stephen Green, the former chairman of HSBC and an ordained minister in the Church.
I understand that the CofE Church Commissioners hold about £6 billion in assets, mainly listed buildings. They are said to require £2 billion to cover the clergy pension fund.
So the proposal to sell £100 million worth of assets may not seem like much. But it raises a lot of questions. The biggest problem is that most of the £6 billion worth of assets need to be maintained, and the Church Commissioners and the CofE itself are having problems with cash flow.
In the same vein, only some of these properties can generate income, and one wonders if they are the ones which will be easiest to sell? If so, then its an idea that carries some inherent dangers.
But I can see why they would want to do it – they simply must grow the congregations or the drain on revenue will continue. And those churches that grow tend to have a good supply of well trained and committed clergy. So at least on paper, it looks like a good idea.
An interesting article from the Secular Society in Britain: http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/03/should-taxpayers-be-paying-for-the-churchs-leaking-roofs
I suggest this is a useful demonstration of how secular Britain is starting to come to terms with how much the secularisation of Britain is going to cost them. The full impact hasn’t hit them yet, but it will.
Lord Avebury of the Liberal Democrat party bemoans how much the government is already spending to prop up the Church of England:
[blockquote] “He has also noted the state already contributes hugely to the upkeep of churches through gift aid worth some £84 million; the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme worth £42 million; the National Heritage Memorial Fund, currently funding repairs to Winchester Cathedral costing £14 million and of York Minster at £18.3 million; further grants to cathedrals recently announced worth £8 million; Heritage Lottery Fund grants to churches of £300 million in the 10 years to 2004, the lion’s share to the Church of England; and the £15 million already announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for repairs to church roofs and rainwater pipes under the Listed Places of Worship Roof Repair Fund.” [/blockquote]
Where is this leading? Well, the secular society tells us in the next sentence:
[blockquote] “By making these payments, the Chancellor adds to the hardship caused by the huge cuts to public services already made and being contemplated, which is inexcusable given the Church has a surplus of £4bn in the kitty.” [/blockquote]
[The last figure is a reference to the amount of assets which exceeds that required to support the CofE clergy pension fund]
On its face this sounds fair enough – why should the government spend so much money propping up an organisation with a spare £4bn? But Lord Avebury and Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society need some basic lessons in logic and applied intelligence – £4bn worth of assets does not necessarily translate into any form of income. In fact it can (and does) have the reverse effect – i.e. acts as a drain on income.
Mr Wood acknowledges the problem: “Few would feel that our finest architectural heritage should fall into terminal disrepair. An inevitable consequence of the continuing decline in church attendance is that there are far fewer in the congregations to shoulder the repair burden. When they are unable to do so, who else should pay and under what circumstances?”
His solution (and Lord Avebury’s) is that the Church Commissioners should do so. But from where are they to get this money? Having statutory responsibility for “£4bn worth of assets” is not much use when it is those very assets that are generating the need for maintenance!
The Church of England is responsible for 10,000 – 12,000 listed buildings which are vital to the heritage of Britain and indeed also to the lucrative British tourism industry. If it can’t maintain them all (and it is increasingly becoming obvious to even the most brain-dead British politicians that it can’t) then the public purse is going to have to find the funds.