Hmm. It might be easier to simply abolish the monarchy, or at least relieve the King of the burden of being Supreme Governor of the C of E...
Seriously, though, what a pickle the C of E seems to be in at the moment. Maybe good will come out of it all, in the long run, but with the church fragmenting and losing worshippers, it's hard to see a rosy future.
‘We need to abolish the monarchy to help the CofE pick an Archbishop of Canterbury quicker’ is definitely *a* take
I think the point is more that the two institutions are wrapped around each other in their respective death spirals, and actually that no disentanglement would really work, because it wouldn't solve either institution's other problems. Disestablish the Church and all it does is change the paperwork which happens while it's in freefall. Abolish the monarchy, and you end the freefall of the monarchy, which is definitely happening, and add some similar paperwork to the church's process of terminal decline to that required for disestablishment.
I think its too early to write off a female, if only because most of the eligible male candidates are less than inspiring.
But that would shatter the church of England. It's already broken of course, and the same is true of the Anglican communion.
Exactly, it’s the only way the situation could be made immediately *worse* (even if it needs to get worse before it gets better) - now I’m sympathetic to the idea that it’s probably a nettle that needs to be grasped sooner or later, but who in their right mind is going to accept a deal of
‘Your appointment has just detonated all the structures and status quo in England and in what still passes for the Anglican communion, here are the keys, have fun.’
Tbh I’m half persuaded that anyone coming in on those terms should be ruled out on the grounds of clearly not understanding the proposition, or masochism.
Serious thinking needs to be done on equality of opportunity to be ABC, and what that will look like*, so that we never again - I’d argue it is too late this time - end up at the point of discernment without having done it and therefore, realistically, ruling out candidates on the grounds of gender.
A female ABC *could* be done now, but really who would it be fair on? Never mind traditionalists, or the outriders on the other side desperate to ‘send a message’, or the average person in the pews, at the centre of it will be a human being, for which the CofE will have found a new and interesting wheel to break them on.
I’m not kicking the can down the road. I want this sorted for next time. But this time is, through inaction and heads in sand, not sensible. IMO. YMMV.
*as in, so it’s not all up for grabs at the moment it happens, so it’s not a surprise, not as in it will look different for men vs women
The other side of the sexist argument about the gender of the next Archbishop of Canterbury is that the loss of trust and confidence in the CofE's competence at handling abuse does not appear to have been down to the behaviour of female bishops.
Come on, we don't want Papists and sectaries from heretickal conventicles sitting in the House of Lords. That would never do ... 😉
Lord Soper was there of course and there have been plenty of RC peers, even when they were considered 'recusants'. But no, nonconformist ministers wouldn't automatically get a seat in the Lords.
The question is, would they want to?
If they were recusants, they could hold on to their titles but not take up their seats in the House of Lords as doing the latter would involve pledging allegiance to the Church of England.
The other side of the sexist argument about the gender of the next Archbishop of Canterbury is that the loss of trust and confidence in the CofE's competence at handling abuse does not appear to have been down to the behaviour of female bishops.
Nail on head. Certainly so far as the UK is concerned.
But even if the international dimension wasn’t there, I suspect that betjemaniac has the right, pragmatic view. It would be interesting to test, however!
It's worth remembering that, globally, the Anglican Communion is broadly in favour of the ordination of women, even among those who align themselves with GAFCON. Homophobia does not always imply full blown misogyny.
I suggest the more relevant issue here is the consecration of female bishops, which I believe remains a more contentious issue in GAFCON (and elsewhere). See, for example wikipedia.
The election of a Diocesan Bishop shall be by a Bishop’s Electoral College.
The Bishop’s Electoral College shall consist of:
(a) the Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishops;
(b) the six clerical and the six lay Episcopal Electors from the diocese of which the see is vacant; and
(c) the first three clerical and the first three lay Episcopal Electors on the list of each of the other dioceses.
(There are regulations for the election of both Clerical and Lay Electors).
For more than 20 years the Church Commissioners and clergy charities have been encouraging clergy to take steps to ensure that they can afford somewhere to live when they retire and are no longer living in tied housing.
The pension provisions are OK in relation to the cash value of the stipend, but less good in relation to the overall ‘remuneration package’ when the housing is taken into account. The lump sum and retirement income are not likely to be enough to get onto the property market (mortgage at 65 or 70 anyone?), even rental can be a major challenge, and the provision for retired clergy housing is well known to be under strain (and is under review). And since the stipend level is set on the basis that housing is provided it can be very challenging for clergy to make provision for themselves.
We started on this journey over 20 years ago with a property that needed a lot of work. We were lucky to buy at a low point in the market. We were very fortunate to benefit financially from the loss of parents, and to be able to pay off the mortgage. That has given us a little headroom to get some more work done on the property. It is now perfectly liveable, but not yet lettable either short or long term.
A six-bedroom property sounds very generous, although given the size of the family, not unreasonable. It’s value is hard to predict - anything from around £90,000 to £1.8M I imagine they might be planning to sell it and buy something in the UK, although I don’t actually know. I guess a rural hamlet in Normandy might not work well for continuing contact with family, and for Caroline to continue to work if she is going to.
It’s not uncommon for retiring clergy to continue to live for a period in the parsonage house for a few months. It is quite common for there to be a gap in making a new appointment, but it often needs work doing before it can be let, and can be hard to let for only a few months. I imagine there are other reason why the flat at Lambeth Palace can’t easily be let!
When we stop, we plan to ask to stay on in the vicarage in order to downsize furniture and belongings and move forward in a planned way. Maybe 2-3 months? Not unusual AIUI.
Like @BroJames, we are fortunate, similarly 20 years ago. We got ourselves a property that is now almost paid for. But it is not easy to guarantee that we will be able to gain access to that property if the tenant wants to stay on. And if we want to sell the property and purchase/live in a different area of the UK? That may take longer.
For more than 20 years the Church Commissioners and clergy charities have been encouraging clergy to take steps to ensure that they can afford somewhere to live when they retire and are no longer living in tied housing.
The pension provisions are OK in relation to the cash value of the stipend, but less good in relation to the overall ‘remuneration package’ when the housing is taken into account. The lump sum and retirement income are not likely to be enough to get onto the property market (mortgage at 65 or 70 anyone?), even rental can be a major challenge, and the provision for retired clergy housing is well known to be under strain (and is under review). And since the stipend level is set on the basis that housing is provided it can be very challenging for clergy to make provision for themselves.
We started on this journey over 20 years ago with a property that needed a lot of work. We were lucky to buy at a low point in the market. We were very fortunate to benefit financially from the loss of parents, and to be able to pay off the mortgage. That has given us a little headroom to get some more work done on the property. It is now perfectly liveable, but not yet lettable either short or long term.
A six-bedroom property sounds very generous, although given the size of the family, not unreasonable. It’s value is hard to predict - anything from around £90,000 to £1.8M I imagine they might be planning to sell it and buy something in the UK, although I don’t actually know. I guess a rural hamlet in Normandy might not work well for continuing contact with family, and for Caroline to continue to work if she is going to.
It’s not uncommon for retiring clergy to continue to live for a period in the parsonage house for a few months. It is quite common for there to be a gap in making a new appointment, but it often needs work doing before it can be let, and can be hard to let for only a few months. I imagine there are other reason why the flat at Lambeth Palace can’t easily be let!
I certainly appreciate the difficulties regular clergy can experience on retirement, particularly those who were led to believe the church would provide for them and encouraged to give away their assets at ordination. However I don't think this is the boat +Justin is in, given his previous career and the more generous stipend and pension afforded to senior clergy. If he can't afford to rent a modest 2-3 bedroom flat in a reasonable location I would be very surprised.
The current stipend for the ABC is £95,630, although obviously that has stopped now.
The pension is around £17500, I think (possibly, if I’ve misunderstood the pension rules it might be as much as £24,600).
A three bedroom flat in, say, Croydon - my not posh home town - is in the order of £2000+ per calendar month - so not affordable on the clergy pension.
Either way it doesn’t seem unreasonable, at no cost to the church, to allow him and Caroline time to make decisions about whether they now need to sell the property in France and use the proceeds to buy something suitable in the UK.
The current stipend for the ABC is £95,630, although obviously that has stopped now.
To a Baptist Minister on a standard stipend of £29,575 (some do get more), these figures seem incredible. Our pension contributions are based on the stipend plus a notional "Manse allowance" of £7,741 - ministers pay 8% of pensionable income (can add more if they wish) and churches pay a further 10%. Unlike the CofE scheme, ours is not non-contributory; and the pension one gets will vary according to how long one has been paying into the scheme.
The current stipend for the ABC is £95,630, although obviously that has stopped now.
The pension is around £17500, I think (possibly, if I’ve misunderstood the pension rules it might be as much as £24,600).
A three bedroom flat in, say, Croydon - my not posh home town - is in the order of £2000+ per calendar month - so not affordable on the clergy pension.
Does that include the double pension for having been ABC? And why pick a Greater London location? There are literally thousands of 3 bed homes available to let for half that or less.
The £24,600 is the ‘double pension’ - based on Welby’s years of service. But the rules appear to say that all pensions are capped at around £17,500.
As for the location, many people can and do choose to stay where they are when they retire - where they already have connections. Those that do move often move to somewhere they consider more desirable, or to be near one or more of their children. That was the basis on which I went for Croydon, plus, knowing the place, I could tell whether we were looking at a posh area of the town or not.
Away from south-east property prices, Coventry/West Midlands would only (!) be about £1500 a month. Still a very big bite out of the pension.
And I still can’t see why the normal no-cost-to-the-church arrangement shouldn’t apply as is often the case with other clergy retiring.
@Baptist Trainfan the standard stipend where I am is around £30,900. The national average stipend is about £150 more.
On a different issue, the Anglican Church in Southern Africa has now produced a report on its response to the information it received about Smyth.
Your stipend is roughly the same as the salary as a newly qualified nurse (bottom of band 5).
The stipend for the ABC is approximately the same as the middle of Band 8 d - Examples of roles at band 8d include consultant psychologist (8c-8d), estates manager, chief nurse and chief finance manager.
Just as a point of comparison - these people don’t typically have accommodation provided in addition to salary.
Bluing the accommodation part of the package is tricky. Typically vicarage’s are of a size to accommodate a study (aka office accommodation), and a toilet accessible without going through the house, also a room of sufficient size to hold a meeting. I don’t remember, but have a feeling that the design considerations also include providing for an expectation that clergy may need to offer overnight hospitality. This means that the house is often larger than clergy would afford for themselves, and in some parishes may be of an actual value astronomically beyond their means.
Last time I did the calculations on the basis of the officially provided estimate of the value of the housing, clergy were at about the same level as a classroom teacher about four years qualified, with no special additional responsibilities.
Bluing the accommodation part of the package is tricky. Typically vicarage’s are of a size to accommodate a study (aka office accommodation), and a toilet accessible without going through the house, also a room of sufficient size to hold a meeting. I don’t remember, but have a feeling that the design considerations also include providing for an expectation that clergy may need to offer overnight hospitality. This means that the house is often larger than clergy would afford for themselves, and in some parishes may be of an actual value astronomically beyond their means.
Last time I did the calculations on the basis of the officially provided estimate of the value of the housing, clergy were at about the same level as a classroom teacher about four years qualified, with no special additional responsibilities.
There’s also the requirement for clergy to live in the same area as their church. A challenge in some areas given the amount of the stipend in relation to rents / mortgages.
We couldn’t afford anything near Rev T’s current church. (Just outside North London).
For more than 20 years the Church Commissioners and clergy charities have been encouraging clergy to take steps to ensure that they can afford somewhere to live when they retire and are no longer living in tied housing.
As with many things in the CofE, there doesn't appear to have been any requirement for those giving advice to have any expertise.
I certainly appreciate the difficulties regular clergy can experience on retirement, particularly those who were led to believe the church would provide for them and encouraged to give away their assets at ordination.
Indeed, as the Church Times pointed out (in an article in 2017), in the 1980's and into the early 1990's, candidates for ordination were still being told to sell their houses.
In 1983, Tony, a candidate for ordination from the diocese of Bradford, was told by the diocesan director of ordinands (DDO) that, if he wanted to train for the priesthood, he would first have to sell his house.
...
The money raised from the sale would be needed to look after his family and cover his costs while training, Tony was told. “Like an idiot, I did it,” he said last month.
Rupert, a priest in the diocese of Portsmouth, is another of those left without a property because of what he now regards as bad advice. He was told to sell his home before studying at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, to give him and his wife a “nest egg if things didn’t work out at theological college”.
...
Upon arrival at college, however, Rupert discovered that the advice varied widely from diocese to diocese. Indeed, some ordinands had not just been told to hold on to their homes: they were even given help with their mortgages by their dioceses.
For more than 20 years the Church Commissioners and clergy charities have been encouraging clergy to take steps to ensure that they can afford somewhere to live when they retire and are no longer living in tied housing.
As with many things in the CofE, there doesn't appear to have been any requirement for those giving advice to have any expertise.
I certainly appreciate the difficulties regular clergy can experience on retirement, particularly those who were led to believe the church would provide for them and encouraged to give away their assets at ordination.
Indeed, as the Church Times pointed out (in an article in 2017), in the 1980's and into the early 1990's, candidates for ordination were still being told to sell their houses.
In 1983, Tony, a candidate for ordination from the diocese of Bradford, was told by the diocesan director of ordinands (DDO) that, if he wanted to train for the priesthood, he would first have to sell his house.
...
The money raised from the sale would be needed to look after his family and cover his costs while training, Tony was told. “Like an idiot, I did it,” he said last month.
Rupert, a priest in the diocese of Portsmouth, is another of those left without a property because of what he now regards as bad advice. He was told to sell his home before studying at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, to give him and his wife a “nest egg if things didn’t work out at theological college”.
...
Upon arrival at college, however, Rupert discovered that the advice varied widely from diocese to diocese. Indeed, some ordinands had not just been told to hold on to their homes: they were even given help with their mortgages by their dioceses.
And several more.
The BU wasn’t much better.
If you went to one college you were advised to keep your house and your sending church was encouraged to help with the mortgage to ensure you had somewhere to go afterwards.
If you went to another, you were advised to sell your house to fund your studies as the BU housing association would give you somewhere to live when you retired.
As we head towards the big wave of clergy retirements, the end result is a toxic mess of anger, disillusionment, entitlement and exasperation.
For more than 20 years the Church Commissioners and clergy charities have been encouraging clergy to take steps to ensure that they can afford somewhere to live when they retire and are no longer living in tied housing.
As with many things in the CofE, there doesn't appear to have been any requirement for those giving advice to have any expertise.
I certainly appreciate the difficulties regular clergy can experience on retirement, particularly those who were led to believe the church would provide for them and encouraged to give away their assets at ordination.
Indeed, as the Church Times pointed out (in an article in 2017), in the 1980's and into the early 1990's, candidates for ordination were still being told to sell their houses.
In 1983, Tony, a candidate for ordination from the diocese of Bradford, was told by the diocesan director of ordinands (DDO) that, if he wanted to train for the priesthood, he would first have to sell his house.
...
The money raised from the sale would be needed to look after his family and cover his costs while training, Tony was told. “Like an idiot, I did it,” he said last month.
Rupert, a priest in the diocese of Portsmouth, is another of those left without a property because of what he now regards as bad advice. He was told to sell his home before studying at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, to give him and his wife a “nest egg if things didn’t work out at theological college”.
...
Upon arrival at college, however, Rupert discovered that the advice varied widely from diocese to diocese. Indeed, some ordinands had not just been told to hold on to their homes: they were even given help with their mortgages by their dioceses.
And several more.
As someone who has been off and on in the foothills of discernment for decades, if anything denying a clear call to the priesthood, I just read stuff like this and feel vindicated in continuing to run from it.
I know several people who have gone forward for ordination, and who have been accepted; those who have been rejected; and those who have been rejected and subsequently accepted. Trying to think of something that binds all their disparate experiences together, I'd say it's worked out OK for those who have had the resources (of all kinds) to look after themselves.
So, to anyone considering ordination: if you find yourself believing anyone who tells you that the CofE will look after you, you could be just the kind of person the CofE is looking for.
And just to note that the CofE's General Synod starts tomorrow. Safeguarding is most definitely on the agenda.
I know several people who have gone forward for ordination, and who have been accepted; those who have been rejected; and those who have been rejected and subsequently accepted. Trying to think of something that binds all their disparate experiences together, I'd say it's worked out OK for those who have had the resources (of all kinds) to look after themselves.
So, to anyone considering ordination: if you find yourself believing anyone who tells you that the CofE will look after you, you could be just the kind of person the CofE is looking for.
And just to note that the CofE's General Synod starts tomorrow. Safeguarding is most definitely on the agenda.
It’s partly a generational thing.
Some of the group that are coming up for retirement believe they were promised housing afterwards in exchange for their service. The advice not to worry about it all was taken at face value.
Others were less trusting / more cynical and made their own arrangements.
The generation after that have no expectations. Although the suggestion that their service is somehow lesser is a bit irritating.
Do clergy in tied accommodation have to pay rent ?
No.
So why is it unreasonable to have expect the ABC to have saved up money toward accommodation ?
It’s possible they have but … Either they need time to find it or for it to be available if it’s all ready rented out.
Allowing them some time to make arrangements is reasonable. Six months seems extremely generous though.
Most ordinary clergy find saving up for accommodation for afterwards extremely challenging for some of the reasons mentioned in previous posts. Along with everyone else. The U.K. housing market is a shitshow.
One reason Church of England clergy find it hard to save up for accommodation is that the value of the stipend is calculated in the basis that the employment package includes provided accommodation. I’m fairly sure it doesn’t include an element calculated to enable people to save for accommodation at retirement.
Do clergy in tied accommodation have to pay rent ?
No.
So why is it unreasonable to have expect the ABC to have saved up money toward accommodation ?
It looks as though he has saved up money toward accommodation in the form of a house in rural France. OK for that ‘investment’ purpose, and as a holiday bolt hole, but possibly not where he and his wife want to live in the longer term.
I heard or read today that the average time to complete a house purchase in England is five months, so maybe that six months is not so generous after all. And it is up to six months. They may well go sooner if the housing situation gets sorted more quickly.
Do clergy in tied accommodation have to pay rent ?
No.
Most ordinary clergy find saving up for accommodation for afterwards extremely challenging for some of the reasons mentioned in previous posts. Along with everyone else. The U.K. housing market is a shitshow.
Right, and there's an element of it being better to level up everyone's conditions (though I can understand why it would galling for those on lower pay and also that everyone isn't going to be making this argument).
I don't know if this still happens, but in past time the Pensions Board would sometimes buy somewhere and then rent it to a retired priest. When my own aged Papa finally retired he looked at dozens of rental properties owned by the PB, some in central London, others in the Home Counties, and ranging from a pied-a-terre in Zone 1 to a 3 bedroom bungalow with a garden big enough to keep a horse.
On top of that there are things like the College of St Barnabas and other similar places. There are numerous Colleges and Almshouses scattered throughout the country, and in particular in Cathedral cities or towns that at some stage had a prominent religious community - for example the Hospital of St Cross in Winchester, St Mary's Hospital in Chichester, St Ethelbert's in Hereford and St Katherine's in Ledbury come to mind.
Slightly tangential, but I gather that more and more C of E clergy are being appointed to parishes on a self-supporting or house-for-duty basis, often part-time (Sundays and a couple of weekdays, or equivalent hours for the sake of flexibility).
I suppose they have other sources of income, and perhaps a property somewhere to which they could retire.
It looks as though he has saved up money toward accommodation in the form of a house in rural France. OK for that ‘investment’ purpose, and as a holiday bolt hole, but possibly not where he and his wife want to live in the longer term. ...
Even if they did, the no-goods (corrected from a much more noxious word that I originally put there, but realised might get me censored) that voted for Brexit in 2016 means there's no reason to suppose that they could.
Slightly tangential, but I gather that more and more C of E clergy are being appointed to parishes on a self-supporting or house-for-duty basis, often part-time (Sundays and a couple of weekdays, or equivalent hours for the sake of flexibility).
I suppose they have other sources of income, and perhaps a property somewhere to which they could retire.
This makes the priesthood a middle class pursuit doesn’t it ?
Slightly tangential, but I gather that more and more C of E clergy are being appointed to parishes on a self-supporting or house-for-duty basis, often part-time (Sundays and a couple of weekdays, or equivalent hours for the sake of flexibility).
I suppose they have other sources of income, and perhaps a property somewhere to which they could retire.
The self-supporting ones usually have their own property, but at least some of the house-for-duty ones don't, which isn't that surprising in the circumstances - if you're willing and able to keep serving, it's one of more cost-efficient ways of finding a place to live after you've reached retirement age.
It does, rather - although I suppose it often has been, anyway.
One other thing which perhaps we need to factor in is that many clergy (including Welby) have come into ministry as "more mature" people, following other employment. In many ways this is a good thing as it means they've had experience of "real life". It also means that they may well have bought a house (admittedly with a mortgage and/or student loan hanging over them) which they can hopefully keep hold of, perhaps as a rental property, during their years of Vicaring. Of course, if they were told to sell their house, either to support themselves during training or because "we'll look after you in your retirement", they may find themselves in difficulty later on.
Slightly tangential, but I gather that more and more C of E clergy are being appointed to parishes on a self-supporting or house-for-duty basis, often part-time (Sundays and a couple of weekdays, or equivalent hours for the sake of flexibility).
I suppose they have other sources of income, and perhaps a property somewhere to which they could retire.
This makes the priesthood a middle class pursuit doesn’t it ?
In some cases, yes, although there are (AIUI) some *part-time* clergy who do have a form of secular employment as well.
Of course, if they were told to sell their house, either to support themselves during training or because "we'll look after you in your retirement", they may find themselves in difficulty later on.
Of course, if they were told to sell their house, either to support themselves during training or because "we'll look after you in your retirement", they may find themselves in difficulty later on.
Although it rather raises the issue of liability.
In practice, it appears not. From all the reporting that I've read (and heard about), this "advice" was always given verbally, rather than in writing.
As far as I can tell, the house-selling issue appears to have been a consequence, at least in part, of the CofE's one-time(?) policy of people going forward for ordination not having unsecured debt, and DDO's and other clergy not knowing the difference between unsecured debt and a mortgage (or other forms of debt).
As with many things in the CofE, there doesn't appear to have been any requirement for those giving advice to have any expertise.
Your post prompts me to speculate that another possibility is that some dioceses saw it as an issue of managing their own financial liabilities (again, possibly incorrectly).
Comments
‘We need to abolish the monarchy to help the CofE pick an Archbishop of Canterbury quicker’ is definitely *a* take
I suspect either of those might be even more difficult to contemplate than a female Canterbury?
Some are born schismatic, some achieve schism, and some have schism thrust upon them.
Shatter the delusions of grandeur of the misogynists in the Church of England.
If they were recusants, they could hold on to their titles but not take up their seats in the House of Lords as doing the latter would involve pledging allegiance to the Church of England.
But even if the international dimension wasn’t there, I suspect that betjemaniac has the right, pragmatic view. It would be interesting to test, however!
The SEC selects three candidates and the electoral synod of the diocese vote (in secret) on them. Fr Kelvin's (Glasgow Cathedral) most recent blog post has some thoughts about the process.
https://thurible.net/2025/01/31/divine-dating-the-mysterious-art-of-finding-a-new-cleric/
Canon 4 lays out the formal procedure (PDF, p19):
https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Canons-2024.pdf
Guidelines and commentary:
https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Guideline-and-Commentary-on-Canon-4.pdf
The election of a Diocesan Bishop shall be by a Bishop’s Electoral College.
The Bishop’s Electoral College shall consist of:
(a) the Archbishop and the Diocesan Bishops;
(b) the six clerical and the six lay Episcopal Electors from the diocese of which the see is vacant; and
(c) the first three clerical and the first three lay Episcopal Electors on the list of each of the other dioceses.
(There are regulations for the election of both Clerical and Lay Electors).
It would appear he has forgotten he owns a 6 bedroom house in Normandy ...
Irrelevant. He can rent a flat or a house like anyone else with money who finds themselves in need of housing.
The pension provisions are OK in relation to the cash value of the stipend, but less good in relation to the overall ‘remuneration package’ when the housing is taken into account. The lump sum and retirement income are not likely to be enough to get onto the property market (mortgage at 65 or 70 anyone?), even rental can be a major challenge, and the provision for retired clergy housing is well known to be under strain (and is under review). And since the stipend level is set on the basis that housing is provided it can be very challenging for clergy to make provision for themselves.
We started on this journey over 20 years ago with a property that needed a lot of work. We were lucky to buy at a low point in the market. We were very fortunate to benefit financially from the loss of parents, and to be able to pay off the mortgage. That has given us a little headroom to get some more work done on the property. It is now perfectly liveable, but not yet lettable either short or long term.
A six-bedroom property sounds very generous, although given the size of the family, not unreasonable. It’s value is hard to predict - anything from around £90,000 to £1.8M I imagine they might be planning to sell it and buy something in the UK, although I don’t actually know. I guess a rural hamlet in Normandy might not work well for continuing contact with family, and for Caroline to continue to work if she is going to.
It’s not uncommon for retiring clergy to continue to live for a period in the parsonage house for a few months. It is quite common for there to be a gap in making a new appointment, but it often needs work doing before it can be let, and can be hard to let for only a few months. I imagine there are other reason why the flat at Lambeth Palace can’t easily be let!
Like @BroJames, we are fortunate, similarly 20 years ago. We got ourselves a property that is now almost paid for. But it is not easy to guarantee that we will be able to gain access to that property if the tenant wants to stay on. And if we want to sell the property and purchase/live in a different area of the UK? That may take longer.
I certainly appreciate the difficulties regular clergy can experience on retirement, particularly those who were led to believe the church would provide for them and encouraged to give away their assets at ordination. However I don't think this is the boat +Justin is in, given his previous career and the more generous stipend and pension afforded to senior clergy. If he can't afford to rent a modest 2-3 bedroom flat in a reasonable location I would be very surprised.
The pension is around £17500, I think (possibly, if I’ve misunderstood the pension rules it might be as much as £24,600).
A three bedroom flat in, say, Croydon - my not posh home town - is in the order of £2000+ per calendar month - so not affordable on the clergy pension.
Either way it doesn’t seem unreasonable, at no cost to the church, to allow him and Caroline time to make decisions about whether they now need to sell the property in France and use the proceeds to buy something suitable in the UK.
Does that include the double pension for having been ABC? And why pick a Greater London location? There are literally thousands of 3 bed homes available to let for half that or less.
As for the location, many people can and do choose to stay where they are when they retire - where they already have connections. Those that do move often move to somewhere they consider more desirable, or to be near one or more of their children. That was the basis on which I went for Croydon, plus, knowing the place, I could tell whether we were looking at a posh area of the town or not.
Away from south-east property prices, Coventry/West Midlands would only (!) be about £1500 a month. Still a very big bite out of the pension.
And I still can’t see why the normal no-cost-to-the-church arrangement shouldn’t apply as is often the case with other clergy retiring.
@Baptist Trainfan the standard stipend where I am is around £30,900. The national average stipend is about £150 more.
On a different issue, the Anglican Church in Southern Africa has now produced a report on its response to the information it received about Smyth.
The stipend for the ABC is approximately the same as the middle of Band 8 d - Examples of roles at band 8d include consultant psychologist (8c-8d), estates manager, chief nurse and chief finance manager.
Just as a point of comparison - these people don’t typically have accommodation provided in addition to salary.
Last time I did the calculations on the basis of the officially provided estimate of the value of the housing, clergy were at about the same level as a classroom teacher about four years qualified, with no special additional responsibilities.
There’s also the requirement for clergy to live in the same area as their church. A challenge in some areas given the amount of the stipend in relation to rents / mortgages.
We couldn’t afford anything near Rev T’s current church. (Just outside North London).
The BU wasn’t much better.
If you went to one college you were advised to keep your house and your sending church was encouraged to help with the mortgage to ensure you had somewhere to go afterwards.
If you went to another, you were advised to sell your house to fund your studies as the BU housing association would give you somewhere to live when you retired.
As we head towards the big wave of clergy retirements, the end result is a toxic mess of anger, disillusionment, entitlement and exasperation.
So, to anyone considering ordination: if you find yourself believing anyone who tells you that the CofE will look after you, you could be just the kind of person the CofE is looking for.
And just to note that the CofE's General Synod starts tomorrow. Safeguarding is most definitely on the agenda.
No.
It’s partly a generational thing.
Some of the group that are coming up for retirement believe they were promised housing afterwards in exchange for their service. The advice not to worry about it all was taken at face value.
Others were less trusting / more cynical and made their own arrangements.
The generation after that have no expectations. Although the suggestion that their service is somehow lesser is a bit irritating.
So why is it unreasonable to have expect the ABC to have saved up money toward accommodation ?
It’s possible they have but … Either they need time to find it or for it to be available if it’s all ready rented out.
Allowing them some time to make arrangements is reasonable. Six months seems extremely generous though.
Most ordinary clergy find saving up for accommodation for afterwards extremely challenging for some of the reasons mentioned in previous posts. Along with everyone else. The U.K. housing market is a shitshow.
It looks as though he has saved up money toward accommodation in the form of a house in rural France. OK for that ‘investment’ purpose, and as a holiday bolt hole, but possibly not where he and his wife want to live in the longer term.
I heard or read today that the average time to complete a house purchase in England is five months, so maybe that six months is not so generous after all. And it is up to six months. They may well go sooner if the housing situation gets sorted more quickly.
Right, and there's an element of it being better to level up everyone's conditions (though I can understand why it would galling for those on lower pay and also that everyone isn't going to be making this argument).
On top of that there are things like the College of St Barnabas and other similar places. There are numerous Colleges and Almshouses scattered throughout the country, and in particular in Cathedral cities or towns that at some stage had a prominent religious community - for example the Hospital of St Cross in Winchester, St Mary's Hospital in Chichester, St Ethelbert's in Hereford and St Katherine's in Ledbury come to mind.
They recently conducted a survey and produced a report called ‘Enabling Choice’ which can be found (along with other information) on this page .
I suppose they have other sources of income, and perhaps a property somewhere to which they could retire.
This makes the priesthood a middle class pursuit doesn’t it ?
One other thing which perhaps we need to factor in is that many clergy (including Welby) have come into ministry as "more mature" people, following other employment. In many ways this is a good thing as it means they've had experience of "real life". It also means that they may well have bought a house (admittedly with a mortgage and/or student loan hanging over them) which they can hopefully keep hold of, perhaps as a rental property, during their years of Vicaring. Of course, if they were told to sell their house, either to support themselves during training or because "we'll look after you in your retirement", they may find themselves in difficulty later on.
In some cases, yes, although there are (AIUI) some *part-time* clergy who do have a form of secular employment as well.
Although it rather raises the issue of liability.
As far as I can tell, the house-selling issue appears to have been a consequence, at least in part, of the CofE's one-time(?) policy of people going forward for ordination not having unsecured debt, and DDO's and other clergy not knowing the difference between unsecured debt and a mortgage (or other forms of debt).
Hence my earlier comment: Your post prompts me to speculate that another possibility is that some dioceses saw it as an issue of managing their own financial liabilities (again, possibly incorrectly).