Here we go again. I don’t often lose my temper, but this morning I nearly did.
The Church of England Newspaper (which hardly represents the Church of England) today has a scandalised headline that states: ‘Bishops expenses rise by millions since recession’. The ensuing article goes on to claim that ‘the news has riled clergy who believe the church is too top heavy and that resources should be distributed to support more mission and pastoral work for those “doing the ground work”.’ (‘Riled’? Really? How? And which clergy? How many? Who?)
Let’s take a moment’s silence while we try to hide our collective embarrassment at this hopelessly poor bit of ‘reporting’. Consider the following:
- Recognising that the 2009 costs were hundreds of thousands of pounds lower than in 2008 (a good thing or not?), the profligate bishops cost more than they did in 2007! Funnily enough, they also cost more than they did in 1995 or 2002. What has that got to do with ‘the recession’?
- The use of the word ‘expenses’ is wilfully misleading. The vast bulk of bishops’ expenditure goes on salaries for staff and the costs of running a functioning office. Why does a bishop run an office? For the sake of his own personal gratification or entertainment? No. In order to serve the clergy and parishes of his diocese as best he can.
- A union officer shows staggering ignorance when she states: “More questions need to be asked about why there are these huge increases when clergy are not experiencing the same increases”. Er… that is breathtakingly inept. This year’s reduction is now ‘a huge increase’? Does she think this refers to a bishop’s income over against a vicar’s income? If anything, more questions need to be asked about why this union officer appears not to know the business of her core client.
- A Church Society spokesman complains about “rising bureaucracy in the Church’s hierarchy” – without saying what this so-called bureaucracy involves. Might it have to do with the massive increase in legislation and legal responsibilities now lying at the bishops’ door? Does he think bishops live for bureaucracy. Not having heard of the ninth Commandment, he doesn’t even say to what he refers. What price facts?
- The chairman of Reform admits he doesn’t know what the figures mean, but that doesn’t stop him joining in the whinge.
Now, forgive me for being over-sensitive here, but where does reality intrude into this nonsense? The entire report basically says that costs have gone down this year, but have gone up in past years – without congratulating the bishops (or the Church Commissioners) for reducing costs in the face of increasing demands (legal and financial – such as pension costs of staff). That would be inconvenient, wouldn’t it?
Here are some facts from one minor bishop:
- Suffragan bishops are housed by the diocese, not the Church Commissioners. That is the only cost on the diocese. We don’t live in ‘palaces’, but in houses that should be fit for purpose. Mine is excellent – it used to be a vicarage.
- Bishops are not paid by their diocese, but by the Church Commissioners. There is not a necessary correlation between finances available for bishops and diocesan clergy. Or would we prefer bishops’ costs to be borne directly by the dioceses? (Some would say ‘yes’ – but they need to check the realities before concluding.)
- Many of us don’t spend our allocated ‘expenses of office’ because we are careful with them. At the end of October I have nearly £7,000 in my account; I will not find things to spend it on in order not to lose it (as someone recently suggested bishops do) and I will lose it at the end of the year and that is right. I am not alone.
- Bishops cover wide distances in the exercise of their ministry and are leased a car (if they wish) for that purpose.
- The last time I looked, bishops were involved in ‘mission and pastoral work on the ground’. What else are we supposed to be doing – often under great pressure and at some personal cost? What do they think motivates a bishop?
What do the people who write this stuff think we do all day? Do they think we swan around in purple being grand and remote? Do they know anything about the reality of a bishop’s life, diary or ministry? Do they ever check facts before exposing their prejudices?
Being a bishop is a privilege. The bishop’s fundamental role is to enable the clergy, parishes and institutions to do their ministry and mission in their parishes – resourcing, encouraging, leading and supporting. To do this well comes at cost. If it is to be done differently (which might be right), then we need to work out what it would cost… which might be more than financial.
Over-sensitive, I may be. Unwise to write it out like this – possibly. But, this stuff shouldn’t go unchallenged – and I haven’t seen anyone else challenge it yet.
October 29, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I say: “Well challenged sir!”
I hope that the fairness with which you write, as well as your passion, integrity and example, mean that your small broadside will disperse the minor cloud sent to obliterate more important matters of mission and ministry.
October 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Thank you for your robust comment and for challenging such silly and sloppy reporting – with some facts.
October 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Way to go!
October 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I just twittered the below comment beofre relaising that this was a better forum for it so repeat again:
There is nothing to regret here except that the CEN chooses again to misrepresent the Church rather than report on real CSR justice issue…
October 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I reluctantly parted company with the Church of England Newspaper as I too found it sloppy, both in reporting and in dealing with those who occasionally wrote for them. Use your subscription to buy me a beer some time.
October 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I’m glad you wrote this post; I didn’t have any perception of “riled” or resentful clergy.
Why do you think the Church of England newspaper would write such a piece? I can’t see it increasing readership.
October 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm
St, always up for a beer…
October 29, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Nice work. Sometimes bad reporting needs to be called. Too often the Church lets it pass by. Much more fun this way!
October 29, 2010 at 8:21 pm
This is as predictable as the Mail’s annual headline about exams getting easier. The CEN is a desperate rag with a long tradition of sub-news of the world journalism. Don’t let it get you down. Just make sure all your PCCs are paying their clergy’s expenses too.
October 29, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Few of us realise fully what is going on. Many at our Synod were troubled at the reduction of reserves until reassured that during the property downturn some curate housing had been bought – something that will be reflected in the balance sheet and is likely to be a good decision and good stewardship in later years.
There must be many similar examples where even the well meaning do not know enough to
make accurate comment.
October 29, 2010 at 10:26 pm
I suspect that the clergy who are “riled” are those who most wish to be independent. The rest of us (well, me anyway) are grateful that our bishops and dioceses take their duty to train and support their clergy, lay leaders and parishes seriously.
October 30, 2010 at 2:08 am
Good comments…and Good to hear someone say their mind Nick…very refreshing.
October 30, 2010 at 9:33 am
I remember this coming up time and time again; we always used to challenge the newspapers on their reporting, not always with any great result.
But I do remember when one paper asked why Bishops’ expenses had gone up by 60% over a period of years; I pointed out that in exactly the same period, the cover price of his newspaper had doubled …
CEN might just give you a right of reply if you ask …
October 30, 2010 at 11:42 am
Thanks for the corrective, Nick.
Just one small point. You ask, ‘Or would we prefer bishops’ costs to be borne directly by the dioceses? (Some would say ‘yes’ – but they need to check the realities before concluding.)’ That is exactly what happens here in Canada.
October 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I do hope you do not have any ‘Duck Islands’ floating around in your moat. Or indeed, plastic ducks in your font.
To be serious though (for a change) exactly how big is your budget?
KK
October 30, 2010 at 8:13 pm
NIce one mate. As one who, as a Chaplain, used to be a ‘Bishop’s Expense’ I got equally mad when stupid stuff was said.
This takes the largest of many biscuits. Stopped reading CEN when they stopped asking me to write for it…
October 30, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Jeremy’s comment reminds of Disraeli – “When I want to read a good novel- I write it”.
October 30, 2010 at 11:13 pm
If Anglican parishes had to fund their own clergy and also pay a contribution to the bishop’s stipend I bet there would be much more attention paid to the monthly and annual accounts. You should try it, people very quickly learn about giving when their spiritual leader is threatened with unemployment.
October 31, 2010 at 7:14 am
I came across this by accident this morning, but it is apposite.
http://jeremyfletcher.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/giving-up-football/
Not being a football fan, I am of course not qualified to comment on Jeremy Fletcher’s decision, but he makes a very good point about the salary levels involved. Moreover, the statistics on Wayne Rooney were published at the same time as the C of E’s… Did the CEN raise any column inches about footballers?
October 31, 2010 at 5:53 pm
When I see our bishop, it’s mostly in the supermarket buying industrial quantities of squash and biscuits (I think he may have a yoof group somewhere) or getting on the train (second class). He doesn’t seem like the duck house type at all.
October 31, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I have e-mailed to CEN editor expressing my dissatisfaction, blind copied to you Bishop Nick.
Had just renewed my subscription as I receive CEN by post. Have been a reader for many years but actually becoming unhappy with its current standards. Some very good mixed with sloppy like this one.
October 31, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Hi Nick,
From what I can see CEN haven’t got any material facts wrong, you just happen to disagree with their interpretation, and with the people they’ve quoted. I’m sure they’d give you right of reply as a ‘misrepresented’ suffragan bishop. But it really doesn’t do to be too sensitive about these things. Not everything is a personal attack on you – this is the stuff of legitimate public debate.
October 31, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Andrew, I wondered when you would respond! It isn’t just a matter of ‘disagreeing’ with interpretation or people quoted. Do you think a story is helped by quoting people who say they don’t know the facts or how to interpret them, but they’ll give you the expected negative quote anyway? I’d be ashamed to be writing that sort of stuff.
Of course, the subject matter is legitimate stuff for debate. That doesn’t obviate the need for reasonable or responsible writing. My sensitivity is two-fold: (a) I hear endless frustration about the CEN (among other ‘organs’), but nobody wants to challenge – I will; (b) I thought a few facts from a bishop might help the ‘legitimate public debate’.
Let’s see what others think.
November 1, 2010 at 4:19 am
John Gilbert said: ‘If Anglican parishes had to fund their own clergy and also pay a contribution to the bishop’s stipend I bet there would be much more attention paid to the monthly and annual accounts. You should try it, people very quickly learn about giving when their spiritual leader is threatened with unemployment.’
Once again, let me point out that in many Anglican parishes around the world, that is exactly what happens. In my own parish in Edmonton, Alberta, for example, the congregation pays my salary and benefits (including cost of housing as we have no rectory), and on top of that pays assessment and apportionment to the Diocese, which is responsible for the full cost of our bishop and her ministry.
November 1, 2010 at 6:17 am
The google ad on this post is for a a business expenses management system …
someone trying to tell us something?
November 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Andrew Carey writes, “From what I can see CEN haven’t got any material facts wrong, you just happen to disagree with their interpretation, and with the people they’ve quoted.”
The sloppiness of this article is how the material facts are ‘arranged’ and interpreted. It is the interpretation that I find to be negative and far from constructive.
November 1, 2010 at 11:11 pm
The stark and searching question posed by the CEN news report is: why bishops’ expenses have risen since 2007 when churchgoers are losing their jobs, tightening their belts and finding it difficult to raise parish share? I don’t think any of the facts that you offer change the urgency of that question. And rightly, you question the CEN and other organs because newspapers never get it right all the time. My intervention here is in the same spirit.
November 1, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Well done Nick for challenging the very poor standards in the CEN. I started reading it as a teenager! (Yes, I have always been a sad individual). In those days I seem to remember it was a good publication but it has slid into too much Daily Mail style sloppiness. Colleges and courses get free copies which is how I read mine now. At a certain college, the students fall about laughing when they read the weekly freebie – they cannot believe how poor it is.
Sadly, this article is but one example of so very many – the obituary of John Methuen which was not an obituary but rather a parading of one (inglorious) facet of an otherwise fruitful ministry was deeply offensive – why do that in an obit? The reporting from the USA in mind-bogglingly one-sided. And the turns of phrase are often inept. (But that’s just me being picky….)
Cannot the CEN be redeemed? The CT is usually very good, but an alternative would be helpful.
I have recently written for them and found the sub-editor I dealt with helpful, but like Jeremy F they no longer pay me!
November 1, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Andrew, try considering increasing salary and pension costs for bishops’ staff for starters. If you think costs have gone up disproportionately, please identify where and what you consider to be the waste or excess. And you might also wish to account for the £400,000 reduction in 2009 at the same time.
November 1, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Charles,
Part of my frustration with the CEN is that the Church (and world) needs a distinctive alternative to the Church Times. But the CEN is becoming distinctively off the wall.
November 2, 2010 at 5:51 am
Andrew, just for fun, can you provide 1) the CEN’s running costs and 2) a table with the cover price of the CEN over the past fifteen years?
November 2, 2010 at 10:48 am
I could think of many ways in which central and diocesan bureaucracy could be cut. From merging archdeacons and suffragans, to consecrating parish clergy and regionalising the administrative functions of dioceses. What is the diocese except for a relationship among bishops, clergy and laity? Anything else may be desirable but is hardly a necessary aspect of that relationship. I’d pretty much axe/rationalise or regionalise the unnecessary things a diocese does and fund ‘frontline ministry’.
Hi Jonathan Jennings. Good to speak to you online. I long ago ceased to have any role in CEN on editorial and management matters. It seems to me that the CEN has had to tighten its belt radically and now functions on fewer staff than it it did in my day. I think they do a pretty good job in difficult times. But I don’t see how you can compare a private company with a bloated nationalised industry like the Church of England.
November 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Andrew, your statements beg further serious questions. Do you lump all diocesan work under the word ‘bureaucracy’? Which suffragans and archdeacons would you merge and what is the theological/ecclesiological rationale for this? Which elements of their work would you let go in order to make the merger effective in improving the mission of the Church on the ground? Have you any experience (apart from criticising) of managing change in an institution – and in the Church of England in particular? What grievances lie under your choice of phrase: the ‘bloated nationalised industry like the Church of England’?
Can you tell us what the current circulation of the CEN is? Who funds it? And who directs the editorial ‘line’?
November 2, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Gosh, an interesting one, this, for someone who has just spent all day learning up-close-and-personal how a Bishop’s office and ministry operates.
From what I have gleaned, I am persuaded that you are speaking sense, +Nick.
I have rarely read the CEN, but the few encounters have rarely impressed…
November 2, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I don’t think I lumped all diocesan work under the word bureaucracy but I did say that much of it was not necessary to what a diocese is about. I suggested regionalising, for example, certain aspects of the work of the average diocese – education, finance could be shared across a large number of dioceses. In response to one of your questions can you give me a theological/ecclesiological rationale for having archdeacons?
Finally, I’m sorry I didn’t realise that in the democratic blogosphere I had to be qualified in ‘managing change’ (more jargon) in order to venture an opinion. I thought the opinions of a longstanding confirmed Anglican, a PCC member and a worship leader might be enough. As for ‘bloated nationalised industry’, the sad thing is that the CEN report points to a church which hasn’t yet made the really tough decisions to get its spending under control.
I don’t know what the current circulation of the CEN is. I have already said that I’m no longer involved in management or editorial decisions. Your question, ‘who funds it?’ betrays a misunderstanding of how businesses work. In this case the readership and the advertisers fund it. For the answer to your final question not surprisingly the answer is: ‘the editor’.
November 2, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Andrew, you know that there is already sharing going on between dioceses, that regionalising resources is already on the table.
Opinions should be informed – including by experience. I think you are telling me that you have no experience of managing change in an institution – and that says something about your critique of those who have.
November 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Good, so you actually agree with me that going down the road of regionalising resources is one way ahead. I’m well aware that this has already happened but it is not fast enough. I have already indicated that I would go further than this.
I resisted stating explicitly my experience of ‘managing change’ because I think every churchgoer of whatever experience is entitled to an opinion. But yes I do have experience of ‘managing change’ in business, charities, education and in the local church.
Let me throw a question back at you? Although, I haven’t lived in Southwark for a good few years, I have no doubt that the diocese could save money without harming ministry in the parishes. Are you seriously telling me that everything the diocesan structure does is necessary to its vision of the church in South London?
November 3, 2010 at 12:02 am
Just a minute Nick. I have often had to submit to having my performance evaluated by the ‘audiences’ I serve [whatever their qualifications] and I am regularly called on to evaluate the performance of people who provide services to me – for instance at elections. Since when has anybody needed experience of managing to know that they are being mis-managed? And protest that mis-management?
Plato was opposed to democracy on the grounds that it gave the uneducated masses a chance to exercise their opinions – he thought they didn’t know what they were talking about. He may have had a point but is this really the kind of slippery slope you want to go down? You seem very close to it at times.
November 3, 2010 at 8:06 am
Dubious, You make the point well – ‘performance’ is always open to critique. But, the value of any particular critique is judged (or weighted) according to a set of appropriate criteria. One of those is (in my view) whether or not the critic knows what he/she is talking about – that is, do they know what the reality of what they insist upon actually is. I am in a role that is open to all sorts of critique – if you could see my Inbox and In-tray, you would know what I mean. My reason for asking questions of Andrew Carey is that whereas I (and the Church of England) am to be subject to any old critique from journalists (and, apparently, supposed to be grateful for it, regardless of accuracy or intelligence or ideological bent), journalists are to be free to say what they like about anything.
If I thought accountability was up for grabs, I certainly wouldn’t be opening myself up to argument on this blog.
November 3, 2010 at 8:24 am
Andrew, read what I wrote, not what you want me to have written! I did not ‘agree’ with you in what I wrote – I simply stated that, as a fact, these things are already going on and are not waiting to happen. Actually, I DO agree with some of the rationalisation (for a variety of reasons, some of them to do with mission); but that is not what I wrote.
It is this that keeps me coming back to where this discussion began: an expectation of better literacy from those whose words are intended to shape agendas and inform opinions. The accountability of bishops is obvious; so, I believe, is the accountability of journalists who set out to shape public opinion. I still find it remarkable that we are supposed to take anything that gets published, recognising it as ‘contributing to the debate’, while some journalists get very upset at having their own work criticised. (As a professional linguist before ordination I was used to language being challenged – words matter hugely. I don’t see why I should change that view now.)
Secondly, you are perfectly entitled to think that change is not going fast enough. What I am interested in is whether you, as someone who expresses strong opinions on these matters (and regularly passes sweeping judgement on the Church of England and the bishops), understand anything of what effective or efficient change would look like, what the processes involved would be, how that change should be managed (and how fast), what the costs would be, etc. We all know that badly managed change rarely leads to ‘improvements’. (My questions were not intended as criticism, but as clarifying competence – or, better expressed, exploring the validity of the critique.)
So, you ‘have no doubt’ that the Diocese of Southwark could save money – despite having said you haven’t lived here for many years and, therefore, do not know what you are talking about? Do you know the diocesan structure? Or is this just broad-brush judgement that is not informed – a bit like saying ‘the government is rubbish’ or ‘evangelicals are congregationalists’? I happen to believe that this diocese needs a good appraisal and review of many of its structures – and I have said so in the run-up to the appointment of a new Bishop of Southwark. But, the changes I think need attention are informed and I know where the ‘obvious’ might be damaging to the mission of the Church.
Incidentally, you should know that the Diocese of Southwark covers East Surrey as well as South London and, in geographical terms, is more rural than urban.
November 3, 2010 at 8:26 am
Fair point dubious, but the origin of this discussion was Nick’s reaction to a piece of reporting that looked on the surface to promise a serious weighted criticism of the church but which in the end he felt offered little more than long held opinion, largely unsupported by analysis, expertise, inside knowledge of any depth. And it was all hung on a slightly odd reading of the statistics.
Yes, there are plenty of us who might feel that the church doesn’t get the best out of the resources it has and needs some serious reconfiguring, possibly along the lines that Andrew has suggested in relation to combining parts of the operation regionally. And if the CEN piece had interpreted the statistics from that perspective in a serious and considered way, speaking to people who had ideas about how that might be done, it would have been a valuable perspective and a real contribution to that debate.
But it wasn’t, and so Andrew’s attempt, post publication, to claim that in mitigation doesn’t really convince me much.
Nick’s criticism wasn’t of the perspective but of the journalism.
November 3, 2010 at 9:45 am
I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter here. My problem with your critique of the CEN news story, on grounds other than accuracy, is that you are dismissing criticism from those you do not deem to be ‘informed’. It’s a sweeping ad hominem approach to public debate. Your attempts to demonstrate that I am not competent to comment, or that I am not informed about the arcane processes of managing change, and your questions designed to invalidate my critique are all of a piece. It could equally be argued that those like you, who are inside the structure, are limited in capacity to see the possibilities of change. But that would again be an argument aimed at the person rather than the issues themselves.
November 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Nick & Jonathan: Thank you for your responses. I was attempting a return to fundamental principles which Andrew had gestured at in one of his comments:
“I’m sorry I didn’t realise that in the democratic blogosphere I had to be qualified in ‘managing change’ (more jargon) in order to venture an opinion.”
It is in the nature of our liberal democracy to allow everyone [qualified {whatever that means} or not] to have a voice in the shaping of the society in which they live [as long as they do not incite hatred or violence]. We are all equal in the mouth of the ballot box as it were. That can be very frustrating to those who are [justifiably or not/well qualified or not] holding the reins or the steering wheel [back seat drivers are always a pain] but it is a necessary constraint on what would otherwise be unbridled power and the alternatives are hideous as we do know.
Marginalised groups, throughout history, have been silenced [and frequently denied an education, paradoxically] on the grounds that they didn’t know what they were talking about! I am well aware that journalists in Britain hardly count as a marginalised group but they do elsewhere and, in some contexts, risk their lives to get a picture of certain realities out in the open.
So, whatever the particulars in this case [and I do appreciate Nick's aggravation] I will defend to the death the freedom of the press to sound off – just as I would defend the freedom of allcomers here to blog off! and agree with Winston Churchill’s sentiment that whatever the faults of an [albeit representative] democracy it is the ‘least worst option’ ….. and anyway don’t we all just love witnessing Nick and Andrew’s gladiatorial spats?! Long may they continue.
November 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm
No, Andrew, you are missing the point. I am not dismissing criticism from people Ideem not to be informed, but the level of information is pertinent to the seriousness with which their critique is taken. You still seem to assume a certain objective neutrality in how the ‘story’ was told, when my view is that the telling of the story was not only ill-informed but told in such a way as to imply a judgement that doesn’t bear scrutiny. Look again at the people quoted and tell me (without laughing) that they were remotely worth quoting.
From your writings you clearly do think that people like me are limited in capacity and you rarely seem to desist from impugning us. I don’t have a problem with that – that’s the game we’re in. However, I still reserve the right to criticise on good grounds those who write about us – regardless of how hopeless they think we are.
November 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Dubious, I agree with you – basically. But, in our democracy I want to hold to account those who hold the rest of us to account. Furthermore, I think we should hold our journalists to the best standards of writing, comment, criticism and observation, and not just accept lowest common denominator stuff on the grounds that any expression of anything will do.
I have a massively high respect for good journalism – which is why it is so frustrating to see poor journalism. I write as one who spent years reading Pravda, Izvestiya, Neues Deutschland and others along with the ‘democratic’ European press. This is partly why I feel the way I do.
Now I think we’ll stop entertaining you with gladiatorial spats!
November 3, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Selah!
November 3, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Look Nick, there is something telling about the ad hominem nature of this remark:
“Look again at the people quoted and tell me (without laughing) that they were remotely worth quoting.”
If you’re not sweepingly dismissing criticism from people you deem not to be informed, you are certainly claiming a knowledge of their level of information which I simply don’t think you have.
Furthermore, you seem to have a certain animus against my writings because you presume I am impugning ‘people like ‘you”. One of my rules, learned from long and bitter experience is to engage the argument rather than the person. As a freelance scribbler for a small church newspaper (a tiny contribution to how I earn my living) I have no doubt at all that it is an aspect of my job to hold bishops to account (because frankly I don’t think they are properly accountable). Yet I recently did an exercise of looking back at my columns over the past decade and I find that I quote bishops approvingly as much as disapprovingly. I certainly don’t attack them personally or impugn them as a particular class of people.
And finally, where have I ever questioned your right to criticise journalists. Just don’t expect that you won’t get some comeback from a friendly journalist (who happens to enjoy reading your blog) when you appear to do so on specious grounds. Nothing you’ve said, for example, would gain you a hearing from the Press Complaints Commission it is simply a different interpretation of the same material.
November 3, 2010 at 11:56 pm
OK, Andrew, I don’t think we are going to agree and I don’t think you’ve understood my point (which might be my fault for not being clear enough). But, it probably isn’t going to get us anywhere by continuing to pick up on each other’s points. I can’t see why you can’t see that quoting people who are ill-informed is rather odd – which is not the same as demanding that everyone be fully-informed before commenting on something.
Anyway, thanks for engaging (again) and for doing me the honour of reading the blog in the first place.
November 4, 2010 at 8:37 am
Fair ’nuff. I don’t think it’s about misunderstanding but outright disagreement. Thanks though for putting up with me on your blog.
November 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Just stumbled on this one, and entertaining it (sort of) is too.
Going back to the basics of the facts reported, at a surface level, it would seem that a £400,000 drop in spending from 2009 to 2008 would by any reasonable person be treated as a decrease (even if 2007 was lower than 2009). For what it’s worth, that’s how the Church Times reported it and I think that’s how most people would see it. Thus, in terms of news, it seems to me that the CEN headline was clearly misleading, and I noted as much when I read the article last week, even before Nick B weighed in with his points here. I struggle to see how it can be defended, even through Andrew C offers a herculean post-rationalisation.
What might be more constructive is a debate about how the church finances itself and its leaders: and interestingly, the Comments section of this blog, do hint towards this.
I remember a conversation four years ago with the Bishop of Hulme, Stephen Lowe, who had said the Church Commissioners had decided to buy a new house for the Bishop of Oxford, because a college had withdrawn its support, and that although the house was likely to cost over £1 million (I think – I may have misremembered), this was an essential part of the bishop’s ministry, and he thought it a worthwhile purchase, even though it would attract criticism.
I don’t even know what the outcome of this was, but that kind of thing should be questioned.
Most bishops, not all, being older are past the family-stage when big houses are useful, and so for living don’t need big places. What IS useful for them (it seems to me) is a large pad for functions from time to time.
Is it possible that instead of buying the big house, the church buys a smaller house (if a bishop is, indeed, childfree by then) and then sets aside £10k a year to spend on hiring venues for hospitality at certain times?
If they’d spent £500k on a house in Oxford and then set aside 30 years of £10k for hospitality, that would still leave £200k to spend elsewhere.
Anyway, that’s a tiny example, but I wonder who thinks about this, who decides about this, who measures this?
Is part of the seeming snide remarks from the CEN really reflecting that there’s a vacuum of communication from the bishops about destination of expenditure?
Does each bishop really need a chaplain? (Does each bishop actually have one?) I don’t know. Maybe they do. I can well imagine this to be the case – keeping them spiritually on track. But it would be good to hear people (bishops) explain why and what really makes them tick.
For me, my cell group is absolutely key. The two 48 hour meetings are the best value £150 I spend all year, in terms of support of my ministry but I’m hesitant about claiming it against the parishes I work in, because it’s also such fun, and it’s not clearly a parish cost. (I tend to claim half.) What is the best purchase a bishop spends from his perspective?
Oddly, I’m the only person in the C of E who tends to think there isn’t enough ‘middle management’. It seems to me that archdeacons are vastly over-stretched and they’d be some real value in adding to the management to support the front-line clergy, even if that means fewer front line clergy themselves. It depends, I guess, on the quality of the management. Certainly, though, I can’t think of an organisation with such a phenomenally ‘flat’ management structure: there’s hardly anythnig spend on this at all.
So in that sense, if the bishops use money on salaries to support chruch functions, I’m not per se against.
It’s just that I am ignorant on it, and in this vacuum, then there can be some exploitation.
Anyway, what a waffle. But maybe some good can come of the misreporting in the end.
I genuinely don’t know the answers and I’d be interested not so much in finding out, as hoping that some people somewhere are asking the questions and thrashing it out.
November 4, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Robert, thanks for your comment and questions. I’ll try to address them briefly and concisely, but I might need to do a fuller post on them at some point when I have time.
1. Bishop’s house: there is something important about the bishop offering hospitality in his home. However, I know that consideration is being given to locating bishops’ offices closer to (or co-located with) diocesan offices in some places. But, bishops exercise ministry differently in terms of hospitality and one size doesn’t fit all. I think few people see the amount of hospitality a bishop offers: civic, diocesan, clergy, political, etc.
2. The Church Commissioners are in constant dicussion about these matters – so are those responsible on the House of Bishops. It is an on-going conversation and has led to some rationalisation of see houses. However, see the debates about Aukland Castle – it is not simply a financial matter.
3. A Bishop’s Chaplain fills many roles, including chaplain (liturgical, etc.), PA, administrator, researcher. The title doesn’t do justice to the role. Different bishops use their chaplains differently. I don’t have a chaplain, but I do have a PA (without whom I would live behind a computer).
4. I agree with you about middle management. There is much shortsightedness around that counts pennies but ignores other ‘costs’.
I’ll try to expand one day…
November 5, 2010 at 6:29 am
One observation in answer to Robert’s question about the Oxford house.
Spending £1m on a house for a bishop is more expensive that half a million plus 300k in renting function room space, yes, but at the end of the period you would still have an asset worth £1m (or its market equivalent).
This asset can be used on into the future, as long as the maintenance costs are reasonable, over and over again, and could still be swapped for another asset of comparable market value. Buying cheaper and renting additional capacity means that the 300k is gone and can not be recovered and will then need to be found for the next period in which such use is envisaged.
I am presuming that the Commissioners make the calculation that the upscale in maintenance and running costs between a half million pound house and a million pound house was not such as to represent any disadvantage in maintaining a capital asset as against buying capacity for a limited period.
It would be interesting to run the figures over the thirty year period Robert suggests to see what the relative positions would have been, nearing in mind both the increase in the value of property and the increase in the cost of hospitality.
Assuming a £1m budget in 1980, to achieve roughly the same provision, the difference at today’s date would have been between having an asset worth roughly £8 million, having spent only the ongoing upscale costs and having an asset worth £4 million and now being at the point where an additional source of funding would now be required to pay the additional renting requirements. This ignores the income from the interest on the unspent half million, but it also ignores the increase in the cost of renting hospitality space, which I suspect would be far more than both the interest income, and come to that, the upscale in maintenance costs over the years.
November 5, 2010 at 6:51 am
… of course the other scheme would be to invest the ‘spare’ half million and use the interest from that to facilitate the additional renting cost, assuming that interest income would meet the cost and grow the invested asset sufficiently to keep pace with inflation …
But that would rather depend on that asset or income not getting raided for other things …
November 5, 2010 at 8:56 am
Given that, I guess, there is a little more flexibility over where Bishops live compared to parish priests would it be possible to give bishops the option of living in their own houses?
November 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm
[...] last week’s spat about the Church of England Newspaper’s misleading front-page story about bishops working [...]
November 23, 2010 at 12:05 am
I am sorry that you almost lost your temper, but I think you should accept some responsibility for that.
You say that certain aspects of the article are wrong because they contradict your opinions, which apparently have been informed largely by how upset you were with the idea that bishops and their attendant costs might not be the best way for the Church to use its resources. The fact you find that idea so outrageous might help you answer your questions about what people think you do all day.
Many of your criticisms of the article are based on the quotations used. It seems that there is a poverty of logic where you cite extracts from an article as evidence against what you have decided the article’s claim is. When writing news stories, journalists will often include quotations which qualify themselves, whether or not that was intended by the original speaker. The method relies on readers not being dim, and not having such a patronising view of fellow readers that they are offended on their behalf. I’m sorry that it was unsuccessful in your instance.
I could take issue with almost all of the swipes you make, and am tempted to join discussion on the interesting topics you have touched on. However I think they need a less shrill approach than prevails on this blog.
November 23, 2010 at 9:41 am
Toby, what took you so long – everybody else has moved on?
Your comment illustrates my point: I do not “say that certain aspects of the article are wrong because they contradict my opinions”. I criticise the article because (a) it is not presented as an opinion piece, but a front page headline piece of reportage, and (b) because it was poor journalism. My opinions have not been “largely informed by how upset I was” – because the idea of doing things differently doesn’t upset me – indeed, I have long advocated different ways of doing what we do. That is a ridiculous charge and a false assumption on your part. It also wasn’t the point. Your comment about what people think we do all day is just inept.
The quotations used in the article are pointless. Please justify their content and the choice of people to question. Do you really think that getting people to say they don’t understand the figures, but are against them anyway is good journalism or added to the information the story purported to tell?
You think I am patronising? Have you asked why so few people read the CEN?
I would be interested to know which posts you consider ‘shrill’. It seems to me that a forthright challenge to journalistic failure reveals a very thin skin on the part of those held to account (which, I recognise, is your criticism of people like me). It seems to me that at least Andrew Carey recognises the difference between an opinion piece and so-called reportage.
November 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I’m sorry Bishop Nick, I was rude. I’m glad that I’m not held up to a Bishop’s standards, but I do feel you can be sloppy in your arguments over topics that need greater attention, and that you risk being simplistic and wilfully naive in a way that can encourage the conflict I know you wish to avoid. That is no excuse for my insolence. Please understand that it was my misdirected response to a situation where I felt that for all your broad criticisms of CEN, your attack centred overly on an article by one journalist, who I’m sure respects what you say.