THE “starkly consumeristic vocabulary” of “enabling selection”, utilized in the Pensions Board’s consultation on retirement housing for clergy, has been criticised in a set of theological reflections.
The Principal of Trinity College, Bristol, the Revd Dr Sean Doherty, who’s a specialist in economic ethics, suggests that the language is “perhaps somewhat unhelpful here, since selection is a feature of privilege . . . alongside the document’s seeming preference for home ownership [it] suggests a possible middle-class bias, whereas many clergy is not going to feel like they’ve much selection about retirement housing.
“Other features of the document are more encouraging, when the aim is just not a lot enabling selection, as recognising the range of circumstances by which clergy find themselves.”
The consultation was launched in November after the Board warned that the present provision — the CHARM scheme that permits clergy to rent a property from the Board — had turn out to be unsustainable (News, 17 November, 24 November).
Among the 4 principles set out within the proposals is “enabling home ownership during ministry, through overcoming barriers to level the playing field between clergy and their peers”.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Revd Dr Sean Doherty speaks on the General Synod meeting in York, last July
Dr Doherty welcomes some elements of the document, including the suggestion of a “substantial means-tested contribution towards a deposit on a first-time mortgage” — in step with the biblical principle that “the employee deserves their wages.” The emphasis on long-term planning “potentially guards against clergy becoming infantilised and falling into an expectation that ‘the Church will take care of me/us”, he writes.
He warns, nevertheless, that “greater responsibility on the a part of the clergy shouldn’t be an excuse for the Church to take less responsibility.” The Board has emphasised the effect of rising costs, he writes, but “doesn’t propose a meaningful discussion about how much additional funding the Church should make available to fulfill these rising costs. It places the first responsibility for addressing the situation on the shoulders of the clergy. When it does talk in regards to the continued provision of Church retirement homes, it’s primarily to suggest ways by which this provision might be reduced or more restricted.”
The document is “one-sided at best”, he concludes, “especially since any reduction in provision will happen at a time by which the clergy pension has been reduced from 2/3 to 1/2 of the National Minimum Stipend”. More discussion is required, he writes, to be sure that the Church is just not hindered in its aim of “reducing the barriers that prevent ordained ministry from being as accessible appropriately to people from all backgrounds”.
The deadline for responses to the consultation is 31 January. Dr Doherty’s contribution is certainly one of 4 requested by the Pensions Board, and could be read here.
