Three weeks back, I wrote about the financial settlement, announced by the Titus Trustees, with three Smyth survivors. My comments about the accompanying statement, issued at the same time by Titus, were that it was less than satisfactory. There was no real engagement with the pain of the survivors caused by Smyth either in Britain or in Zimbabwe. If the Titus Trustees believed that the announcement was going to give them a good press, they were mistaken. Among the observations made here on this blog, and elsewhere, was the fact that far more charitable money has been spent fending off the complainants and protecting Titus assets, than used on the actual settlements. In short, the charity trustees seem to have been most focused on preserving their wealth. The question about how they might most generously and charitably help victims and survivors of Smyth’s brutal activities, does not appear to have been asked.
In the last few days we have learnt of a further development in the story. The Rev Simon Austen, the Vicar of an active conservative Anglican parish in Exeter and Chair of the Trustees running the Iwerne camps, has relinquished the post of Chair and Trustee. This second piece of news is worthy of comment. Of course, the explanation for this resignation may be completely mundane. The demands of a busy parish may indeed mean that he does not have the time to give to the trustee work. But the history of Iwerne/Titus is such that it is hard not to speculate that an event like this has a deeper significance. The original Titus announcement about the survivor settlements was issued by press release on a Friday evening in Passion Week. We might wonder whether there was a hope that it would be overlooked. This second piece of information about Simon’s resignation was not the subject of any press announcement at all. His name as a Trustee simply disappeared from the website and on the record in Companies House it was stated that the this resignation had taken place on the 9th April, the day before Good Friday. Once again there seems to be an attempt to keep this news under the radar. A spokesman for St Leonard’s Church, Exeter stated that Simon had come to the end of an agreed period of office.
The Titus Trust are entering a very difficult period in their history. Apart from the announcement of the financial settlement a week previously, the Trustees are now apparently cooperating more freely with Keith Makin’s inquiry into the Smyth affair. Indeed, it is hard for them to refuse to do so now, since their excuse has always been the existence of a law suit now concluded. We still, however, have yet to witness any real expressions of enthusiasm for sharing information from this quarter. The one thing that the ReNew/REFORM/Iwerne constituency have proved to be excellent at is the keeping of secrets.
Why did Simon Austen really resign? We have no definite means of knowing anything beyond the official reason given. It cannot be a popular decision for him to have taken as far the Trust is concerned. It is hard to see who else is going to want to willingly occupy the position of chair of an organisation, now so much under scrutiny. Apart from Keith Makin’s enquiry, there is also a promised cultural review to be conducted by the trustees themselves. Unless the trustees have already determined what conclusions are going to be revealed ahead of time, these enquiries are likely to be less than comfortable for all concerned. The networks that intersect with Titus and Iwerne Trust before it, are crammed full of secrets and no one in that group will have any interest in revealing them. The story of Smyth’s activities and his downfall have been shown to implicate others who knew but did nothing.
The Smyth affair has never been just about one person’s evil proclivities. As I have claimed several times it is a story of institutional secrets, conspiracy to cover-up, tribal loyalties and corrupt behaviour by a range of people. Simon’s resignation may be one person attempting to distance himself from a leaky wooden boat which is rat-infested and taking on water. But from what I can gather, Simon, like all the members of the network, must know murky things about the past. This means that he cannot so easily walk away from the secret-infested culture of Iwerne/Titus of the past thirty years.
In my interest in power dynamics and my observations of the ReNew network, I have noticed that everyone taking a position of responsibility within the network has been promoted through a system of patronage. Like an old-fashioned mediaeval kingdom, the positions of power and influence are handed out to those who have been ‘approved’ by the ReNew leadership. This finds its centre in the main conservative parishes like St Helen’s in London. Past and present (and future?) chairs of Titus have all apparently received the stamp of approval from this leadership core within this powerful conservative wing of the Church of England. The power they possess consists of three strands. They have massive wealth which allows them to be financially independent of the Church authorities at the centre. At the same time the parishes in the constituency can threaten to withhold money from dioceses. They know that if that threat were ever carried out, it could cripple the work of an entire diocese. Secondly, they have the power of patronage, as has been discussed. Thirdly they have the power of being able to control information through strong tribal loyalties. Smyth’s and Fletcher’s misbehaviours were supressed for over thirty years. Even now, with all the information being revealed to the press and outside enquiries, the typical member of the ReNew network remains unwilling to share information even if he/she may have been a victim. Inquiries and investigations have still to reveal more about what happened in the past. Those who were the victims of Smyth’s and Fletcher’s behaviour continue to suffer because the full truth has never been properly told. The power of omerta is at work in this network and that power creates its own special flavour of evil. Do those with knowledge of evil actions in the past, as actors, witnesses or sufferers, not realise that their silence acts as collusion for something deeply toxic?
The resignation of Simon Austen and the lack of information about the true reasons may indeed be a matter of little importance. But, to judge by the way that the ReNew group behaves and keeps secrets which damage people, they have no right to expect to be believed by outsiders when they offer innocent explanations for the events that take place. Withholding information, as Iwerne/ReNew have consistently done over so long a period can be seen as an act of hostile and aggressive behaviour towards the innocent. When we finally see clear evidence of metanoia and open sharing of truth on the part of leadership of this ReNew constituency, then we will begin to believe that they are being honest with us. Until then, we will hold on to the thought that the only thing that seems really to interest them is their influence over others and their maintenance of their power within the church. The incubation of evils like that of Smyth and Fletcher has had the long-term effect of making the whole network appear toxic to the rest of the church. Can we really be blamed for that attitude, even if it is not completely fair?
As sharp and insightful as ever. Thanks Stephen.
As a former (fairly recent) student parishioner, I have it on good authority that Simon Austen’s Bishop refused to grant the parish a new curate unless Simon resigned his position.
‘They have massive wealth which allows them to be financially independent of the Church authorities at the centre. At the same time the parishes in the constituency can threaten to withhold money from dioceses. They know that if that threat were ever carried out, it could cripple the work of an entire diocese.’
What is the actual financial muscle of the conservative evangelical constituency in the Church of England on a diocese by diocese basis? I don’t know the numbers but it is certainly the case that a significant proportion of stipendiary clergy in the ReNew network would be in net-receiving churches, as I was before I left the Church of England. The large flagship ReNew churches have a number of stipendiary clergy on their staff teams, so their net-giving contribution to their dioceses would not be that significant, particularly if they are quota-capping.
It could well be that if every ReNew church, large and small, left the Church of England tomorrow with their paid clergy, in terms of the salaries and benefits it would no longer be paying out, the denomination as a whole would be quids in.
If the average diocese has something in the region of 300 to 400 parishes, it has been my experience that fewer than 30 will have a healthy critical mass, and rather less than ten (or, more usually, less than five) will have a demographic spread that is truly ‘representative’, i.e., where the numbers aged between 10 and 40 are comparable to those in the wider population.
Almost without exception these churches are of the HTB/Bishopsgate stamp. They are invariably to be found in affluent suburbs and dormitory towns. It is wholly exceptional to find a church of this type in a rural situation, although not unknown (Fordham in Essex would be an example, although even there it is top-heavy with pensioners).
Since a very large mass of rural churches or churches in deprived urban districts will not be meeting their parish share contributions (at least before the advent of the virus) it may be assumed that diocesan finances are highly dependent upon the conservative phalanx and that a shortfall in subventions from that quarter (whether by means of financial mismanagement or blackmail) can have an abrupt and dramatic adverse impact upon diocesan finances. Here it should be noted that dioceses have highly uneven endowments: many of the newer dioceses are poorly endowed, but so are some of the oldest (Canterbury itself is one of the worst). Whilst some dioceses (e.g., Oxford) have consolidated their glebe assets, many have not and – in any event – will have burnt through sales proceeds at a significant rate since 1976.
With dioceses running on such tight margins, and being so critically dependent upon parish share contributions (which in some dioceses account for more than 70% of income) any shortfall can lead to a mini-crisis. If anything the virtual disappearance of the parish share over the last eight weeks and the fact that the Commissioners have only provided assistance to the dioceses by way of *loans* (though we do not yet know on what terms) to cover the costs of stipends and pensions will, arguably, increase the ‘suasion’ that conevo churches will be able to exert of the diocesan authorities once, and if, the crisis abates.
What I can predict is that parish share contributions from struggling churches will decline still further because of the apprehensiveness of the over-70s returning to worship, and that this will underscore claims from the conevo camp that they are subsidising their failing neighbours, that this is inequitable, and that weaker churches (i.e., almost all other churches) should be closed so that there can be increasing returns to ‘success’.
Conservative evangelicals may deprecate the influence of Darwin, but their belief in the Darwinian/Spencerian concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ certainly applies to their ‘understanding’ of the ecclesiastical ecosystem.
We didn’t cancel ourstanding order. Has that happened on a large scale?
Changing the name of an organisation’s Trust or company was meant to be a cunning plan. A new entity can’t be sued for the liabilities of the former. Or can it? Legal manoeuvres and name tricks don’t really fool anyone. Trustees and directors have a constructive obligation at the very least.
Perhaps, whenever we see a new name being used for in essence the same organisation, we should be put on notice for skeletons in cupboards?
This presents important and legitimate questions. One of the most important and striking contributions at the last General Synod debate was from Susie Leafe, who is a Conservative Evangelical of integrity. She distanced the legitimate theological views of people like herself from the manipulations of men like Smyth and Fletcher and put her finger on the problem for Titus Trust and those still practicing narrow party political omertà. Abusers don’t groom individuals, she said, they groom entire congregations. She was spot on.
Sadly Titus Trust continues to throw a protective cape round the enablers of abusers and
Does not feel a safe place for those who want to speak out. I hear from multiple sources that people who know, fear to tell, even now. The implications for such witnesses embedded in that culture and community are just too great. It is the fear of shunning other sects use to maintain cohesion and resist outside scrutiny.
What is so problematic with the Iwerne project is that its entire underlying purpose has been to develop and promote a strong leadership role for its protégés within the established Church of England. That in itself is neither wrong nor ignoble. We have other constituencies legitimately contending in good faith for other visions for the CofE. I have no problem with anyone making their case in good faith and pitching their tent within our broad Church. I instinctively welcome listening to diverse views, they all teach me something.
What is quite unacceptable is for a leadership to be promoted that resists transparency and accountability in such a key area as safeguarding. If you cannot be trusted in this – and it is not a matter of triviality – you cannot be trusted, full stop. If that is your leadership style – no thank you.
The Iwerne/ Titus project is facing an existential questioning of its integrity and currently it is not looking good. The CofE does not need leadership of this shabby calibre.
The big problem with this type of leadership is that it isn’t “promoted”, it’s covert. Like membership of a secret society, even in these days of increased transparency, it’s hard to know who was “in” and who wasn’t. Behind the omertà, there’s a rock-hard fraternity. To speak is to betray.
I think Martin is right about shunning and about whole congregations being groomed. I’ve experienced this myself, firsthand.
The behaviour observed in those associate with Titus Trust is inculcated from an early. It’s the muscular public school “typology.” Those outside that background are treated with suspicion and are, generally, ignored except when there’s some “grunt work” required.
There’s a bigger issue with the posh public school – establishment ethos across the whole of the CofE. Sponsorship and patronage are the name of the game – simply look at those elected as Bishops. I’m waiting for a woman from a council estate to get a post but I suspect it’ll be a long time. The whole system is corrupt and reeks of cronyism.
associated with the Titus Trust is inculcated from an early age …. missed the edit
There’ll be a shortage of intelligent capable well-educated women ordained and suitable as Bishops for a long timeto come. The men who rule thechurch prefer thesaintly type to Miss Hubbard! You can easily be rejected if you’re clever!
There are a number of intelligent, well-educated, capable women who would make good bishops. However, the Church doesn’t tend to appreciate those who are also independent-minded. It prefers women and men who are establishment types and those who will follow the party line. And that’s why we’re so short of true leaders. Mostly, they get the kind of parish or sector job you don’t get promoted from.
There are a few exceptions, and thank God for them.
You have to be blond, posh (or with a posh husband) and with an ever present silly grin otherwise no chance. It remind me of Goodness Gracious Me – the blandest thing on the menu.
Notalways, ofcourse. Ihad onefemale incumbent who justcouldn’t understand theway mymind workedatall. Andone who sawme ascompetition. Sorryforpoorlytablet.
Froghole makes important points. On the one hand people will want to maintain their tithes, but with some folk losing income, the net effect will surely be a decline. With a high fixed (actually rising) cost base, the “bottom line” is extremely sensitive to small changes in income.
The only question is how quickly the decline comes. In the past I’ve argued that the asset base would be used to cushion a slow decline, buffering the sense of change with the establishment maintaining the status quo, at least for themselves. However I hadn’t bargained for Covid19. Even learned fund managers have lost money recently. I’m not au fait with whom the C of E uses, but I’d be surprised if they’ve done better with their resources.
Many thanks for this, Steve.
Yes, I think you are exactly right. I have assumed that the ‘strategy’ was to build up a large buffer within the Commissioners that could withstand the long winter which awaits the Church. If so, it was largely at the expense of the dioceses, then so be it. Indeed, if might have been reasoned that if the dioceses went bust then the Commissioners would have greater authority and would end up running the Church. Even if this was not a conscious plan, it is one that might have emerged as a matter of auspicious happenstance; after all, what bureaucrat sitting in Whitehall or in Church House does not think that localism (whether that or the district or county council, or of the diocese) is irritatingly inefficient?
However, the virus may have deranged this supposed strategy. An £8.3bn buffer is perhaps not quite enough, and my guesstimate is that it has fallen by at least a third in value, perhaps more, since the Commissioners have invested heavily in commercial property for which there is now no market, and that sector will probably be seriously impaired by the secular shift to home working. So the Commissioners are now taking on the burden of the dioceses with a heavily depleted asset base; this crisis, in effect, undoes much of the work undertaken by the Commissioners since 1998, whilst the dioceses will now be in a far weaker state than they were 22 years ago.
My fear is that there will be an awful day of reckoning for innumerable parishes up and down the country, and there is now little or no chance that the state will come to the rescue of the buildings (the Commissioners are unlikely to be able to furnish a dowry of sufficient size). The Church has made a series of existential miscalculations since the 1870s and now an awful lot of chickens are going to come home to roost, whilst it will be the parish church that will take the hit.
What might help is if the primary cost base (stipendiaries and beneficiaries of the CEFPS) take a haircut. It will be interesting to see the next report of the trustees of the CEFPS (here was an update before the crisis began: https://www.ipe.com/news/churchs-new-valuation-methodology-brings-deficit-reduction/10043194.article). This is what clergy in the Church of France get: https://www.la-croix.com/Journal/vie-materielle-pretres-2018-02-10-1100912666 (it can be run through Google translate if necessary). It makes the English clergy seem spoilt by comparison. Since stipendiaries, at least, have secure rent-free housing, I would have thought that it would be possible for many of them to take a temporary haircut. This would stem the bleed for the Commissioners to some extent and be an act of solidarity with many laity and, not least, future generations of clergy.
I see what you mean about the French priests. Looks like they’re not paid very much at all.
On this site, and many others I’m sure, the pay and benefits of clergy are often discussed. It is, let’s face it, en masse a huge cost in the accounts. Paring this cost is fraught with difficulty and from experience there seem to be some inequities in the system. For example a single person without provided house in an expensive town will struggle to subsist on a church wage. On the other hand I’ve often seen married clergy appointing their spouse to a paid role. If the spouse earns big elsewhere, the double plus income and sometimes private property too, puts them in a much better position to survive a cutback. One size does not fit all.
I recall the vicar of Baghdad telling us he’d decided to forgo a salary altogether. Of course he was telling us this and donations to his cause (and Book sales) increased accordingly, but I was impressed by his example on balance.
Steve,
I have been surprised at how little pay/rations are discussed on any of the Anglican blogs I have encountered. Indeed, I seem to be one of the few people who bores on about it. Yet it must surely be the key determinant of the future of the Church and its ability to project its mission and, amongst other things, to provide due recompense to abuse survivors.
I have been watching services on Youtube from various cathedrals and parish churches in Europe and, especially, France. Having read as much as I can about the Church of France and its history (though, alas, there isn’t nearly as much as I would wish), its position is more nearly analogous with the Church of England than many continental ‘national’ churches in that it has, since 1905, had to rely upon its ‘own resources’. The Church of Sweden, which was disestablished between 1995 and 2000, is also analogous to some extent, though its parochial support is more systematic and it received a lump sump from the state for the support of its buildings: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/5811/file/Factsheetaboutstate-churchrelations_2000_en.pdf. The other Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Alsace-Moselle have church taxes; Iberia and Italy have voluntary taxes (but considerable state aid); there are no taxes in Norway, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands (but in Norway and Belgium there is also considerable state aid).
The big difference between the British isles and France is that in France the culture ministry owns the greater churches and the communes the parish churches. The clergy are therefore almost the only overhead. Since the Church of France is now quite poor any shortfall in parish collections means an almost immediate crisis, and that is why (as I learnt at the end of a mass celebrated by the archbishop of Bourges yesterday) a number of priests are now unemployment benefit, whilst continuing to work.
I also note that a number of charities, which have also been hit badly, have furloughed staff and implemented all-round pay-cuts. Christian Aid has furloughed 20% and everyone has taken a 20% cut.
The CEFPS is a non-contributory final salary indexed link scheme with a lump sum. It is probably one of the most generous surviving schemes outside the public sector. It is ‘funded’, though there have been persistent deficits, but post-1998 accruals are financed by the dioceses on a pay-as-you-go basis. Therefore, no parish share means no pension fund.
I really do think that it is time that the Church takes a good, hard look at the sustainability of its stipendiaries and of its pension arrangements. It is most unlikely that the Church will get anything from the state. If it is to remain anything approaching a national church that means its primary overhead, clergy costs, must be reduced quickly. English Athena and others are positive proof that it is possible to exercise an effective ministry without being a stipendiary.
James
Thankyou. Theproblem isclergy oftendon’t carefor usingReaders.
An English squeamishness about talking about money shouldn’t have surprised me thinking about it!
Financial matters are a deliberate mystery to some who have plenty enough ability to understand the big picture at least. Media frequently point out how final salary schemes (defined benefit) are so much more generous.
The few employers who persist with such schemes have whittled away at the terms, for example making the “final” bit an average of earlier years, reducing the amounts they have to pay out. That the Church persists with a most generous scheme is astounding.
Bottomless pit financial planning is either arrogance or they are expecting someone else to underwrite the scheme. I’ve witnessed firsthand such arrogance in the private sector. It runs along the lines of: “We think we are so successful/bright/strong/better than others (*delete narcissistic traits as applicable) that we will continue with OUR pension scheme. We consider failure to be beneath us.”
In the public sector FS schemes are more common. They are probably underwritten by the government ultimately.
Does the Church of England expect the government to pick up the pension scheme deficit? As James infers, and his analysis is most instructive, monies for abuse victims are an increasingly remote prospect.
Several points to answer:
1) Tied housing is seen as a benefit, and in many ways it is. But for those of us who are single, running a large house (and often enormous garden) on just one salary is a burden. I have always had to use some of my own money to pay for missing pictures and fittings, and to hire gardeners and cleaners. So it has not been easy to save for retirement.
2). Like so much about the C of E, the ‘stipend’ terminology is a pretence. It’s explained that ‘stipend’ means you are given enough to live on rather than rewarded for the amount and quality of work done. If that were true all clergy would be paid at the same rate, and we’re not as Froghole has observed. Nor is it just the salaries – bishops (and often archdeacons) get secretaries and generous hospitality allowances. In many parishes money is so tight that clergy don’t claim all their expenses. I was never able to have a secretary and always paid for my own computers.
3) Non-stipendiary ministers can indeed be very effective, and I salute Athena and others. But with retirement age moving near 70, how can those earning their own living be free during the day for school assemblies, funerals, and other commitments? I’ve always worked between 50-80 hours per week, and so do many clergy. And it never seemed enough to satisfy congregants. It would need a massive re-imagining of church life to stop having full-time stipendiaries. Maybe it would be good for the Church to do that, but it will be the poor parishes and the clergy at the coal face who will pay the heaviest price.
Plus pensionshave been revised downwards severaltimes inthelast twentyyears.
James
There is a deep burden here, one of not being listened to. To speak sense, to demonstrate a duty of care and to meet a blank response is dispiriting. A deafening silence is still a response.
I was once told: “Stop thinking Steve”. It wasn’t actually in a church, but easily could have been. As you will understand, I thought about that statement a great deal and can even laugh about it now!
Whether it is prophetic or not I don’t know, or just learning and experience. I have about 10% or so of your appetite for rich and valuable detail, so it must be considerably worse for you.
I’m often wrong but not as often as I used to be. In these statements I wish I were. Sometimes I join in the silence, but the burden grows, that if I don’t speak up when I could have done so, more will be lost. There are no prizes for being right either. But thanks for your valuable contributions which I relish.
Best regards, Steve
The CofE has kept its excellent Pension scheme. Other denominations are not so fortunate – it means a 30% drop in retirement income for many
Sorry, I have yet again moved off topic, and Stephen has been very considerate.
As I understand it the CEFPS is non-contributory. The level of benefits was changed wef 1 January 2011, but the main impact was to adjust the ceiling for indexation. Since inflation has been below the pre-2011 and post-2011 ceilings for most of the last two decades it could be argued that it was an academic change.
Here is a useful summary of clergy benefits which some of you might find instructive (if you haven’t seen it already): https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/GS%20Misc%201243%20Central%20Stipends%20Authority%20Report.pdf
I am certainly not arguing that stipendiaries are abolished. However, much of the country has effectively been denuded of them for some time, and what is surprising is how things can be provided much as they were before, *provided* that each community has one or two point people who can keep the show on the road. This might be a retiree, or a reader, or a pastoral assistant or an informed churchwarden. Of course, a further difficulty is that many of these people are well on in years and are not being replaced because of the secular decline in voluntarism which has afflicted many charities.
What I think has to happen is that there needs to be a candid discussion about the affordability of the CEFPS and the numbers of stipendiaries. For at least a decade I have been telling anyone who wants to hear (i.e., almost no one) that there should be a very small cadre of high quality stipendiaries in each diocese – perhaps not much more than thirty – who do parish work, with more people being ordained on an SSM basis.
Steve has referred to ‘arrogance’. This is apt. The Commissioners have been willing to indulge in self-congratulation about beating the market each year. However, they do not consider that they have been allowed to do so in large measure because they passed the buck for all future accruals to the dioceses from 1 January 1998. So how could they have failed? This is why the dioceses are so prostrate, and this is why there has been so little investment at a parish level when it has been needed urgently because of the demographic death spiral. From a strategic perspective it has been very foolish, and we went from one extreme (the Commissioners carrying everything pre-1998) to another (the dioceses, i.e., parishes, post 1998). What’s more the self-congratulation, and the supine attitude of the dioceses (partly attributable to the fact that the bishops are conflicted by being ex officio Commissioners) has probably inhibited a candid debate about the cost of the CEFPS; its terms should have been altered 20 years ago. Note that the civil service scheme, which was always contributory, now demands much higher contributions from its beneficiaries.
We ought to also to query the role of fund managers like Black Rock (the current ‘vampire squid’) in the management of the Commissioners’…