THE General Synod affirmed the dignity and value of purposeful work in a debate on Saturday on a motion from Oxford diocesan synod.
A paper from the Bishop of Oxford’s office states that the longer term of labor is some of the pressing questions of the times. The type, quality, and economic nature of labor has been transformed, it argues, and recent technology similar to AI — characterising “a recent industrial revolution” — threatens to eliminate more jobs than it can replace, with none process for sharing the prices and advantages equitably across society.
The paper concludes: “Work is a central theological in addition to anthropological concern. . . In line with the five marks of mission, Christians should welcome any technology that augments human dignity and value in work while resisting anything that exploits or requires humans to behave more like computers.”
About 12 per cent of working-age people globally do not need a job opportunity of any kind, it says. Robot process automation (RPA) was forecast to switch as much as 500,000 retail-sector jobs by 2025, however the pandemic has accelerated the transition from high street to digital warehouses. A 2023 report found that AI would soon enable “dark warehouses”, through which every job was automated.
Introducing the motion, the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, who leads on AI and online security within the House of Lords, highlighted lots of the symptoms and forecasts within the paper, and said that, should Elon Musk’s suggestion of a future through which work was entirely optional develop into a reality, “the challenge can be to search out meaning in life.”
He referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s description of AI technology as a “lion to be tamed”. “That lion is growing in strength and appetite,” he told the Synod. “We need to higher understand the challenges in addition to the opportunities it offers. It is a key a part of human flourishing and the society we would like to construct together.”
Gill Ball (Chelmsford) felt that the scope of the discussion needs to be broadened to handle unpaid and volunteer work, in addition to the role of ladies, particularly domestic employees in health care, lots of whom were migrants earning much lower than their directly employed colleagues, she said.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) accused the Church of England of “gross hypocrisy”. Given the way in which through which it treated its clergy, lay employees, and volunteers, he said, the Church didn’t have the standing to inform anyone else learn how to behave. “Any stipendiary priest working over 50 hours per week might be earning lower than the minimum wage,” he said. ”Non-stipendiary clergy are treated as free labour. The Church of England has no capability to lecture anybody on learn how to treat their employees.”
Sandra Turner (Chelmsford) described the motion as a missed opportunity to affirm the worth of unpaid work. She moved an amendment looking for to incorporate a reference to “paid and unpaid [work], including child rearing and caring for the frail and old”, which, she said, may very well be “a fantastic opportunity for the Church to take the lead in valuing everyone”.
The amendment was supported by the retiring Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, who thought “naming them does matter. It’s absolutely vital we regard unpaid work as work.”
The amendment was lost by 124-88, with 14 recorded abstentions.
Abigail Ogier (Manchester) then proposed a “short but essential” amendment toadd “paid or upaid” to the the words “purposeful work” in paragraph (a) of the motion. “We live in a society where people’s price is measured by their economic output,” she said. “Our value as children of God isn’t diminished by our personal circumstances. . . We should recognise that each one work is helpful.”
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) agreed: her part-time appointment meant that she “straddled work each paid and unpaid”. The Revd Dr Sara Batts-Neale (Chelmsford) said that the implications of not listening to unpaid work — much of it done by women — were that, in relation to things like public transport, “we design systems and structures that don’t help people.”
The amendment was carried.
The Archbishop of Canterbury brought an amendment to endorse the Rome Call for promoting an ethical approach to AI. This would extend the Oxford motion and amplify the decision put out by 38 organisations and individuals in society and academia, he said.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, felt that the motion was becoming something of a “Topsy motion”, including every part that seemed relevant. “We have to be positive about AI as well,” he said. “We create jobs once we undergo change: we’ve to interact with it and search for the positive elements.”
The Revd Fraser Oates (Worcester) supported the amendment. “The world can see the Lord inviting us to a more radical and delightful lifestyle.”
Canon Tim Bull (St Albans) believed that the Rome Call wanted to advertise transparency: AI systems “have to be comprehensible so that each one can know the way they work. I support the principle, though I’m undecided it’s quite the precise approach to do it.”
The amendment was carried. An amendment from the Revd Lindsay Llewellyn-Macduff (Rochester) was not moved.
The Synod debated two further amendments from Rebecca Chapman (Southwark), the primary of which sought to encourage all C of E institutions and organisations to implement the living wage for workers. There was a public and media perception of hypocrisy, she said: “We have to be seen to remove any logs from our own eyes. . . This is a likelihood to indicate we’re calling for this for ourselves as well.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesRebecca Chapman (Southwark)
The Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) also referred to removing the beam in the attention: “We have to be willing to take a look at ourselves.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said that the necessity for a living wage was inside the scope of the motion. “If people give employers a tough day’s work, they need to be given a good day’s pay.” It was essential to “catch people before they fall into hardship. We must prepared the ground.”
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) opposed the amendment out of concern for “asking us to pay a certain quantity in our parishes. . . If the living wage isn’t inexpensive, let’s not make them feel guilty in certain situations.”
The amendment was carried.
Ms Chapman then moved her second amendment, which called on the NCIs, by means of a review of the Transforming Effectiveness/Simpler NCIs programme, to affirm the dignity and value of purposeful work for its own employees. A former staff member herself, she described staff as feeling undervalued, “doing more work and struggling under more pressure”, and wanted the Synod to know the “real impact of the change”. Working in a faith context when things went incorrect may very well be most difficult, she observed: “Listen to staff and NCIs at every level.”
The Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Martin Seeley, who’s the lead bishop for the Transforming Effectiveness programme, endorsed Ms Chapman’s encouragement to affirm the dignity of labor for NCI staff, but opposed her amendment. The feedback was continuing, and progress was being made, he said. “It would feel like duplication so as to add further revision.”
Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford) said that the Church needs to be not only affirming, but modelling, what work was and was not, besides taking a lead on learning and teaching the nobility of labor.
The amendment was lost.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) then moved an amendment so as to add to paragraph (c) “specific advice on how these changes impact the work of ladies”. There was still a gender pay gap of 15 per cent within the UK, she reported, and under-representation of ladies in senior positions, especially women from a minority-ethnic background. “By 2040, one in seven people might be over 75, and the necessity for care might be increasing. AI won’t have the ability to wipe people’s bottoms any time soon.”
Deborah McIsaac (Salisbury) suggested that girls within the Church who were non-stipendiary suffered disproportionately. They described themselves as “the invisible group”, never consulted, and at all times having to prove themselves, she said. “We pay a high price for being unpaid.”
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) spoke with gratitude in regards to the support that her elderly mother had received from “an enormous army of carers” at home, most of whom were women and on the minimum wage. “Synod, we’ll all become old,” she said.
The amendment was carried.
An amendment from the Revd Andrew Mumby (Southwark) desired to add encouragement to “have a look at biblical wisdom on work, employment, and economy in its widest sense”, to make more explicit the Christian impulse behind the motion. Dr Croft resisted the amendment on the grounds of its length.
The debate was adjourned on Saturday night, and resumed on Monday.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) applauded what the amendment was trying to attain. He urged consideration of Thessalonians 3, with respect to the duties, standards, and responsibilities of the employed, in addition to the employer.
The Revd Ross Meikle (Oxford) felt that the amendment added something about poverty and the poor: “We have a gospel that speaks about learn how to take care of the poor.” Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) declared his belief in biblical wisdom: the amendment drew attention to the principle of jubilee. Peter Barrett (Oxford) suggested that AI may very well be used for good or evil. Technology was not all-important, and ethics were essential.
The amendment was carried.
Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) then moved an amendment requesting the Church Commissioners to contemplate conditional investment in recent technology firms. He welcomed the report, but said that it was only half the story. Where next? “Start with our practices,” he urged. “Step out of our comfort zones — make a difference.”
Dr Croft resisted the amendment: this plan of action was already under energetic consideration, he said.
The amendment lapsed. The debate was adjourned again, and resumed in a while Monday.
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) thought it imperative that Christians embrace technology that affirmed human dignity, but oppose anything that dehumanised the workplace. He urged the Bishop to interact proactively with organisations similar to the Centre for Cultural Witness to speak theological insights to wider society.
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said that the nation was failing to harness the talents of asylum-seekers, 1000’s of whom desired to work, and had the talents, but were effectively prohibited from working. It had been estimated that lifting the ban on asylum-seekers’ working until six months after their arrival would save the Government £4.4 billion, increase tax by £880 million, and add £1 billion to GDP. “It would allow people to rebuild their lives with dignity and purpose.”
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, who chairs the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC), agreed that it could be desirable to construct on existing work on theology and work, however the FAOC had limited capability and numbers: it was not “a standing army of theologians simply waiting to tackle more work”, and central theological resources had been scaled back with the Transforming Effectiveness programme.
Kenson Li (co-opted) urged the Synod to avoid hypocrisy, given the conditions of parish assistants, lots of whom found the non-public cost of giving up a stable job too high, and ordinands, who, he said, were also not recognised for his or her contribution to the ministry of the Church and were paid the bare minimum. “We are treated as unpaid interns who’re graciously given opportunities to experience what ministry is like. . . If you would like younger and more diverse vocations, show people you’re serious about wanting us and pay us accordingly.”
The motion as amended was carried:
That this Synod, mindful of the deep economic effects of the pandemic, the impacts of recent technology, and the worldwide rise of recent types of working:
(a) affirm the dignity and value of purposeful work, whether paid or unpaid, as a major factor of human flourishing;
(b) endorse the Rome Call for promoting an ethical approach to Artificial Intelligence (AI);
(c) endorse and commend the five principles used for evaluating fair and dignified platform work within the gig economy by fair work;
(d) encourage all parishes, benefices, dioceses, cathedrals, Theological Educational Institutions and other Church of England organisations to implement, at a minimum, the living wage for workers and to have a regard for work/life balance and dignity at work; and
(e) call for the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) along with Mission and Public Affairs Committee to advise on what is important to purposeful, dignified, and fair work within the context of the fourth industrial revolution now in progress including specific advice on how these changes impact the work of ladies and to take a look at Biblical wisdom on work, employment and economy in its widest sense; and to contemplate a spread of practical solutions from recent economic considering in harmony with the Christian tradition’s emphasis on grace, justice and mercy, similar to questions around pay ratios inside organisations, Basic Citizens’ Income, poverty and wealth lines, to strengthen our Christian voice in the general public square as a Church.
