A theological reflection in response to Enabling Choice by the Revd Dr Sean Doherty, Economic ethicist and Principal of Trinity College, Bristol.
I have been asked as an economic ethicist to comment on the Enabling Choice document concerning clergy retirement housing, recently published by the Church of England Pensions Board. I have not received remuneration for this commentary, but my wife and I are both members of the Church of England pension scheme and I am a member of General Synod.
The first and most obvious ethical question is about the legitimacy of planning for retirement housing. This is something about which some Christians understandably feel reservations: in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches his followers not to store up resources for the proverbial rainy day (Matthew 6:19-21), but to give unhesitatingly to those in need (Matt 5:42), without thought of our own future security and trusting God to provide our daily bread (e.g. Matthew 6:25-33). The expectation moreover in the early church was that those who could earn their living, should do so (see especially 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10). This potentially calls into question not only the concept of planning and saving, but the very concept of retirement. Of course, in most ordinary employment situations, age no longer automatically leads to retirement whereas clergy must normally retire by the age of 70 (although many continue in very active ministry in retirement with Permission to Officiate, and/or serve God in other ways such as caring for others).
But biblical writings also recognise that not everyone is able to secure their own material wellbeing, and that those who cannot are vulnerable and need support from the church and/or the wider community. It therefore evolved systems to care for widows (e.g. the daily distribution in Acts 6:1-6, which led to the appointment of deacons with specific responsibility for this task) although there was an expectation that relatives would be primarily responsible for providing for elderly family members (1 Timothy 5:8).
This is a major difference between our culture and that of the New Testament: the biblical writers generally assumed that as you aged and became unable any longer to work, your family and in particular your children would assume responsibility for any family land or property, and they would take care of you. Many clergy, by contrast, will not have much inheritance to pass on, nor would they want to place the burden for their own care onto the shoulders of others such as their children – and, of course, plenty of clergy do not have children. We simply have a different system now. I therefore think it’s plausible that planning for retirement housing is not a rejection of Jesus’s prohibition on hoarding money – although, of course, it could be possible for clergy to hoard resources in other ways, or to put our trust in our retirement plans in a way that makes it harder for us to trust that God will provide for our future needs. That is a spiritual danger to which everyone is prone, and which is probably best addressed via spiritual direction and/or confession.
Seen in this light, one could make a case that we should not be thinking so much about enabling choice, as enabling responsibility. The document makes some good suggestions towards this, with its emphasis on the need for clergy to give regular thought to planning for retirement. At the same time, it is important that the Church takes its responsibility equally seriously to those who faithfully serve it in stipendiary ministry and pensionable service.
A further biblical principle here is that the worker deserves their wages (1 Timothy 5:18). These days, we might add, this needs to include support for housing in retirement, because the stipend is not sufficient to enable clergy to save up the kinds of sums of money which would be needed for a housing deposit, and the value of the clergy pension is not sufficient to cover both rent and other living costs. The suggestion of a substantial means-tested contribution towards a deposit on a first-time mortgage is therefore very welcome (pp. 12-13). Given the Church’s urgent need and desire to recruit clergy from a more diverse range of backgrounds, it is essential that sufficient provision is in place to ensure that stipendiary ministry is not the preserve of those who already have property or expect to inherit it.
The starkly consumeristic vocabulary of enabling choice is perhaps somewhat unhelpful here, since choice is a feature of privilege. The language of choice alongside the document’s seeming preference for home ownership suggests a potential middle-class bias, whereas many clergy will not feel like they have much choice about retirement housing. Other aspects of the document are more encouraging, when the aim is not so much enabling choice, as recognising the diversity of circumstances in which clergy find themselves.
I therefore like the emphasis in Enabling Choice on long-term planning on the part of the individual with the support of representatives of the Church (pp. 10-11), rather than leaving these conversations until a few years before retirement when it may be too late to do much. This potentially guards against clergy becoming infantilised and falling into an expectation that ‘the Church will look after me/us.’ At the same time there is a safety net for those 10 years away from retirement who ‘don’t already have a firm plan’ (p. 14).
However, greater responsibility on the part of the clergy should not be an excuse for the Church to take less responsibility. It is right for the Pensions Board to draw attention to the rising costs of clergy retirement housing and other financial pressures (pp. 6-7). But the document does not propose a meaningful discussion about how much additional funding the Church should make available to meet these rising costs. It places the primary responsibility for addressing the situation on the shoulders of the clergy. When it does talk about the continued provision of Church retirement homes (pp. 16-17), it is primarily to suggest ways in which this provision could be reduced or more restricted.
This makes Enabling Choice in its present form one-sided at best, especially since any reduction in provision will take place at a time in which the clergy pension has been reduced from 2/3 to 1/2 of the National Minimum Stipend (see Ian Paul’s analysis in the supporting paper to his General Synod Private Member’s Motion). The Church doesn’t have an obligation to provide clergy with a retirement house, but I do think it has an obligation to ensure that its clergy have the means to be adequately housed in retirement, if they take appropriate responsibility in terms of planning. This is clearly a matter for consideration by the Church as a whole, but the Board will have a role to play in informing that discussion and providing the Church (and not just clergy) with options and suggestions.
To sum up, there are things to welcome in Enabling Choice, such as its suggestion of means-tested assistance, and the need for clergy to take responsibility in planning for their retirement housing. But further discussion is needed to ensure that the burden of change does not fall disproportionately on clergy, whose pensions have already been significantly reduced in value. This would hinder the Church in its aim of reducing the barriers that prevent ordained ministry from being as accessible as it should be to people from all backgrounds. More discussion is needed about the increased contribution that will be required from the Church as a whole to enable this.