As always these days, I am slightly behind on the news response front.
It seems that the Church of England is apologising for having urged – in the recent Bishops' Pastoral Letter – that no one should be paid less than the living wage. The Church itself is accused of 'hypocrisy' (how original…) as examples have been found where churches are advertising posts that do not pay the living wage.
For once, I don't think we should be apologising. To do so is to accept the premise that the Church is telling the rest of the country what to do – “preaching” is the word usually applied to anything we say or do.
But, I just want to put the obvious question: to whom was the Bishops' Pastoral Letter addressed?
The last time I looked, the church (and its thousands of separate charities that are individually responsible for “practising what it preaches”) was part of the world it is addressing. In fact, as the question assumes, it addresses itself first. The Letter was addressed to us.
Posted with Blogsy
Nick Baines's Blog 
February 25, 2015 at 10:04 am
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
February 25, 2015 at 10:21 am
Yes, I thought this too. I’m no longer an Anglican, so I don’t take advice from bishops more seriously than I do from other ministers, including lay people in ‘the Church’. However, why are politicians getting so hot under the collar about what they think ministers should and shouldn’t say to their own flocks? From Becket to More and Wolsey, to Dean Swift, etc., Churchmen have been involved in politics. We would not have had educated, paid MPs for the last hundred years had it not been for the setting up of schools by churches in C19th. If they listened to the advice of their ministers, both inside and outside of parliament, whether spiritual or secular, a bit more often, they might not get into the mess that messrs Rifkind and Straw now find themselves in. God save us from a wholly professional Parliament in which we have to put up with a bunch of ‘control freaks’ as government ‘ministers’!
February 25, 2015 at 11:11 am
Newspapers again!!!
It is tempting to just ignore comments that seek to debase or devalue any association with our church, our God.
I am still reeling from that pathetic ‘head-line’ picture in the Daily Mail of a few grey hairs observed, when Kate’s head was turned – a pregnant vulnerable woman that should have been cherished, not given ‘headline’ exposure on the simple premise of selling newspapers… This is an example of how indiscriminate editorial can be, irrespective of the underlying story…
All stories similar to the ‘living-wage’ referred should be either ignored or a set standard response delivered, which would clearly outline the significance of the Church and its importance to society Worldwide. We shouldn’t sink (ever) to the level of poorly researched journalism.
The Response might be bullet-points, not directed at any particular story, but always repeating the same strong message:
PRESS RELEASE… Church of England…… Date:
For Immediate Release.
The Church of England and its Anglican presence firstly, and most importantly is a spiritual authority born of faith in God:
Provides strong theological messages and mission.
Recognises the need to protect the environment.
Creates awareness of excessive consumerism in society.
Conducts research and a new social awareness in disability.
Creates a significantly better and empathetic society.
Makes churches available to offer a unique experience.
The strong social relevance of churches is evident through pastoral care.
Permits the freedom to evangalise.
Promotes the Beatitudes and Commandments throughout society.
Reflects a diversity of opinions unhindered by the political spectrum.
God is here, God is among us.
God Bless.
February 25, 2015 at 11:15 am
So The Church of England in some respects is like the NUM was and may remain – a Federation.
While supporting a living wage for all would more centralisation be a benefit overall?
My feeling is that this relates to pluralism, and usually worth defending.
February 25, 2015 at 7:04 pm
In fact the challenge only reiterated that made by General Synod in a motion passed in November 2012 which “strongly encouraged all Church of England institutions to pay AT LEAST the “Living Wage”” (my bold emphasis)
February 25, 2015 at 8:01 pm
An apology is not appropriate. A clarafication of position would be. Organizations and individuals that support and advocate a living wage should do their best to pay it. For non-profits and donor based entities this can be very difficult. Critics of the Church should, in addition to their criticism, make clear their own positions and policies concerning the living wage. This would clarify if the objections are ethical or merely ideological. A.L. Hathcock
February 25, 2015 at 8:55 pm
nothing wrong with a bit of hypocrisy!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/feb/20/give-me-hypocrites-over-cynics-any-time-least-aspire-something
I thought Justin Welby did a brilliant job explaining how the church works vis charity, wages etc, and I appreciated his honest, straightforward defense to the TV crews. Unlike Stephen Green. (Who merits his very own sentence).
In any case, everyone knows the bishops’ letter is a Good Thing!
February 25, 2015 at 10:35 pm
Good point – why didn’t we see it?
February 26, 2015 at 12:03 am
Nick have you actually thought that the reason terms become cliches and as you rather sarcastically refer to the word hypocritical as being unimaginative is because that’s how many feel about the church.Just because they are frequently used doesn’t make them less true.Still if it makes you happier perhaps we should say,the church should stay out of electioneering and instead of hypocritical we could say,lying,hollow or even jively,that’s a good one 😊.
February 26, 2015 at 12:13 am
This is for Caroline,please don’t say everyone thinks the bishops letter is a good thing,you certainly can’t speak for me or anyone else for that matter.
I think religious leaders should be more concerned about the Kingdom of God not the kingdom of the U.K.
February 26, 2015 at 8:14 am
The Church itself is accused of ‘hypocrisy’ (how original…)
Ooh, saucer of milk for +Nick! So who in your diocese is being paid £6.50 an hour (which, incidentally, is below the legal minimum wage), as certain other people were?
But actually the problem is not just about wages. My wife spent six years working for an Anglican church. She was quite content with being paid NMW for most of it, but only after she left did she discover that the church had paid no National Insurance, leaving a large hole in her contributions record that she couldn’t (read was not allowed to) back-fill.
It’s the usual problem: the rest of the world is living in the 21st century, the C of E is in most cases struggling to get itself out of the 19th.
February 26, 2015 at 1:03 pm
[…] neighbour?” – to the Church apparently, not to the country or politicians according to Bishop Nick Baines – and the Church of England was subsequently criticised for not managing to have its house […]
February 26, 2015 at 4:39 pm
James, we checked and everyone employed by the diocese is paid the Living Wage or above. The point is that in urging everyone else to pay the Living Wage, the church sees the need to start with itself. This was stated back in 2013.
February 26, 2015 at 4:42 pm
laodice1, I wasn’t saying the church isn’t hypocritical. The church is probably one of the few institutions to admit that it is. But, the church is not alone in being so. The point I was making on my blog was that the charge of hypocrisy rested on the assumption that the church was telling everyone else to do what it itself was not doing. The fact is that the church was addressing itself first, and then the wider world.
February 26, 2015 at 4:44 pm
laodice1, if we take the Bible seriously, we cannot divorce the Kingdom of God (i.e. where God’s remit runs) from how the world is run. Politics is about people and power – things that Jesus spoke about in such a way that he got executed.
February 26, 2015 at 9:59 pm
I can’t think of one instance when Jesus took a political stance.Indeed quite the opposite He become angry when others tried to draw Him in to political debates He withdrew when others wanted to make Him king,he reiterated what He’d said previously,”My Kingdom is not of this world”
….”Christians would not hold political office”-On the Road to Civilisation,A World History,A.Heckel and J.Sigman
February 26, 2015 at 11:58 pm
Ah Laodice, I am sorry if I offended you – that’s me all over I’m afraid, full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse! Kind regards, Caroline
February 27, 2015 at 11:46 am
From the point of view on people like myself the church is increasingly trying to please the world.Same sex marriages,women bishops,instead of dealing with its hypocrisy it’s becoming more duplicitous by ignoring what God says.
You often refer to the good the church does and I accept that many benefit from its charities and support given by good,decent people,but that’s not enough.
Matt.7:22-23.
Many will say to me in that day,Lord,Lord,did we not prophesy in your name ,and expel demons in your name,and perform many mighty works in your name?And yet then I will say to them:I never knew you!Get away from me….
March 2, 2015 at 9:10 pm
I’m half with your grievance on the media portrayal.
Your key point, that it was addressed to the church itself, is indeed in the first sentence. So it’s not hypocritical in that sense: it was the church preaching to itself rather than not practising what it preaches. That said, I can’t believe that this angle, that it was essentially an internal document, was how it was played up by PR officers for the Church, or else why else would it have got any coverage (or would anyone outside the Church (if that exists etc….) take any interest)? And the key issue of the living wage has been pushed by Archbishop John in many circumstances, not just in the bishops’ letter.
Isn’t the issue more that the general public (understandably) don’t understand how church governance works? So, if the Archbishop says “Everyone should be paid the living wage”, they assume that he’s like a CEO at a company who can actually make that happen, when in fact, it’s a myriad PCC meetings agreeing or not agreeing to pay the living wage, who may or may not be influenced by what a bishop, even an archbishop, says. They think Archbishops Justin and John have failed to deliver something, when they don’t actually have the power to deliver it.
There was a very good article once by Andrew Brown about this misconception.
Sometimes, the general misunderstanding plays in the Church’s favour, as with Archbishop Justin’s intervention about credit unions and pay day loans. He had incredibly limited power actually to do anything about this (he can’t make parish churches offer a credit union), but the media didn’t realise this because after all he’s the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that case, he got disproportionate credit when certain of Wonga’s practices were legislated against (ironically, the very thing he’d said he wasn’t pushing for: rather he was planning to “outcompete them”). Just by being in the debate on the right side, and through the media not realising how limited his power was, the Church did well out of it
In this case, he and the Church has done less well out of the misconception.
We win some, we lose some. At least, that’s how I see it.