Theological reflections

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.

The biblical model of covenant is the unifying thread describing God’s relationship with God’s people; an asymmetrical relationship between the giver of all gifts and the creatures who are dependent on them, containing within it a gracious invitation. We are invited not only to a relationship with God but to relationship with one another that reflect that covenant relationship – relationships of gracious generosity and mutual regard.

In 2019 the General Synod adopted the “Clergy Covenant” as an expression of the mutuality between bishops, the National Church Institutions, congregations and clergy.

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scripture and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in every generation.

In its formularies, the Church of England recognises that God calls some to serve as deacons, priests and bishops to build up and equip the whole People of God.

Conscious that such a calling is both a privilege and a demand, we commit together to promote the welfare of our clergy and their households.

We undertake to work together to coordinate and improve our approach to clergy care and wellbeing so that the whole Church may flourish in the service of the mission of God.

Whilst much of the supporting documentation focussed on the relationships between clergy and their bishops, and clergy and their congregations, there was also acknowledgement that the financial and resource provision (primarily housing during the period of active ministry) for clergy impacts on their wellbeing. The documentation recognises that a healthy and flourishing church will include healthy and flourishing clergy who are confident in being valued and appreciated not only by the individuals with whom they come into contact, but also by the institution. The clergy covenant seeks to embody a sense of mutuality between all the different constituent parts.

Throughout scripture, we see God making free provision for his people in creation, in relationship and in salvation. We understand this covenantal relationship as a promise, not a transaction. However, we do need a word of caution. While there is mutuality in the biblical covenants, they are entirely asymmetrical. God acts freely in creating us, sustaining us and redeeming us. All is gift and grace.

Human frailty has led us to feel the need to boundary some covenantal relationships with legal frameworks, such as those which govern marriage, and those present in the provision of stipends and housing for most office holding clergy. The vocation to ministry is a self-sacrificial calling in which fulfilment is tied to God’s purpose for the individual, the community and the world. It has dimensions far beyond the legal frameworks of ministry, but the church recognises that ministerial vocation is lived out within the community of the church.

Every covenant relationship enables individual freedom, yet takes individual need seriously within the covenant community. Thus holiness, (For I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. Lev 11:44, 19:2, 20:7 and 1 Peter 1:16) includes care for the widow, the outcast and the orphan (Deut 14:29, 1 Tim 5:13-16). If one metaphor for the church is that of a covenant community, then the church has an obligation to care for those who can no longer care for themselves.

The challenge lies in balancing the obligation towards every individual member with the obligation towards the wider community, including those who will minister in the church of the future. A further challenge lies in the varied understandings of the nature of the covenant, promise or obligation as it has been expressed over time.

In the past, some ordinands have been told that they should sell any property they owned - “because the church will look after you”, others have been encouraged to hold onto property or even to buy before beginning training as part of their financial planning.

Where perhaps once it was anticipated that the (male) cleric would have a spouse whose full-time task was to care for the home and family while sharing in parochial pastoral ministry, in more recent times clergy of both genders may have full-time working partners contributing to the family income. Income levels and expectations of lifestyle have varied widely across time and geography. Finally, we cannot ignore the impact of class on clergy quality of life – the availability of wider family resources to pay for education, holidays, or to provide the deposit for a house or car.

While one generation of clergy may willingly acknowledge that they can and should take responsibility for planning for their own retirement, while still struggling to find the resources to do so, another generation may look to the church to fulfil the promise to care for its retired clergy, on the basis that the stipend is insufficient to provide savings for all that is needed for retirement. Finally, the current cost of housing in England may simply prohibit clergy from getting on the housing ladder, as is the case for many in wider society.

Such a diversity of experience and contexts makes it clear that one model of provision will not provide appropriate housing for all clergy in retirement. Considering our overriding model of covenant, what theological principles might underlie a range of approaches?

The principle of mutual regard reminds us that we are part of one body and should care for the weaker part. That will mean making provision for those in the greatest need, both at the end and the beginning of ministry.

The principle of freedom invites us into dialogue with one another and the institution, to discern how that mutuality will be best expressed in response to individual need, including the suggestion that not all clergy will need to, or wish to, wait until retirement to make provision for housing.

Finally, we return to the gifts we enjoy in creation, freely and generously given by God. How might we focus faithfully on the things that enable the flourishing of the whole body of the church and its ministers?

The 1996 film Trainspotting famously opens and closes with Renton’s narrations on choice and choosing: from a job, a career and a family to washing machines, cars and compact disc players, from golf, sweaters and walks in the park to pensions, fixed-interest rate mortgage repayments and a starter home.

“Choosing life” is not just about acquiring ‘stuff’ it is about the hope and flourishing which flows from the love of God and walking in God’s ways¹ . God promises life in abundance in Jesus - in his life, death and resurrection - who calls and chooses us to bear fruit through the ongoing work of the Spirit² . We navigate this life in the concrete, material realities of houses and homes, mortgages and relationships. There are matters of choice, responsibility, care and accountability.

“Enabling choice” is in part about access to independent information, advice and advocacy in order to make decisions and plan for the future. It is a phrase that is used in health and social care settings. In that context, it is about legal rights to choose services or providers. When that principle is applied to clergy housing in retirement (and financial planning), we are working within a longer time frame and across a range of individual circumstances. We also have to consider questions which are ecclesial and theological - from the nature of stewardship to questions of sacrifice and support.

¹: Deuteronomy 30:15-20.

²: John 10:10, John 15:16.

Context

The provision of a house for the better performance of the duties of the office is usually the best option for supporting parochial ministry. However, irrespective of personal circumstances, there has typically been a single (formal) point of intervention or preparation for life and ministry beyond retirement³ . Proposals to enable choice for clergy are geared to moving towards multiple points of engagement or intervention from discernment through ministry to the pre-retirement phase.

To think about those proposals theologically builds on previous work within the Church of England including the Clergy Covenant which speaks of the ways in which we care for and are accountable to one another⁴ . It brings clergy and the local and wider church into a conversation about wellbeing.

The text of the Covenant Is found below, alongside a set of guiding principles and shared commitments.’⁵ Some of the themes which emerged in this work are important when considering housing in retirement. On the one hand there is the encouragement to share responsibility - with clergy encouraged and helped.⁶ On the other hand, questions are raised about the nature of sacrifice - positively associated with ministry but also its impact on wellbeing and sustainability over time.⁷

It also takes as its basis the values expressed in the reports from Archbishops’ Commissions: values set out in Coming Home in the context of housing and developed in Love Matters in relation to families and households.⁸ Those adjectives present a vision of housing which should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying:

This report highlights five core values that set a new standard and vision for what good housing should look like. A good home is a place that enables us to live in harmony with the natural environment, it is a place where we feel safe, it enables us to put down roots and belong to a community, it is a place we enjoy living in and which is a delight to come home to.⁹

What translates them into active principles of transformation is the way they map onto the overarching biblical narrative from fall, incarnation, redemption and the hope of a new creation. In particular, they are values underpinned by the sacrificial love at the heart of the gospel - God’s love for us and the ways in which we live in relationships of mutual love and support as a result. The report notes that the cost of the housing crisis - in terms of standards, quality and affordability - has fallen disproportionately on the poorest; and it asks all actors in the housing market to share the burden.

Applying those values to the make-up of families and households - as seen in scripture, within contemporary society and the life of the church - acknowledges the diversity of family circumstances (including singleness as well as couple relationships, marriage, blended families and parenthood), which are also reflected in clergy households. It is a vision rooted in the hope that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Godself; and the ongoing work of the Spirit is bringing forth the fruit of such sacrificial love.¹⁰ This theological framework acknowledges human frailty and the importance of mutual support - being alert to how we counter loneliness and isolation, for example.

³ For example the pre-retirement course run by the Diocese of London and others, which serves as a gateway to other services and advice.

⁴ Resources and background documents can be found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/clergy-resources/national-clergy-hr/supporting-clergy-health-and-wellbeing/covenant

⁵ The Church Of England Covenant For The Care And Well-Being Of Clergy Approved By General Synod February 2019 A Document For Reflection And Action For Bishops & The Wider Church: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/COVENANT1_Bishops5.pdf.

⁶ Care for the Carers: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/gcwb1812-revd-carers-2.pdf.

⁷ The 4Ms of Wellbeing:  https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/gcwb185-revd-s-clift-.pdf.

⁸ The work of the Commissions, including the final reports, executive summaries and supporting papers can be found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/archbishops-commissions.

⁹ Coming Home, p.16.

¹⁰ This is worked out in the supporting paper ‘A Christian Vision of Families and Households’ (J. Gittoes) which can be found here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/fhc_theology-insights_julie-gittoes.pdf.

The Rt Revd Dr Graham Tomlin, Vice Chair of the Archbishops' Commission on Housing, Church and Community, Director of the Centre for Cultural Witness, Lambeth Palace

One of the common words mentioned in the New Testament relating to households is the word oikonomia. Literally, it means the ‘law of the household’. It can, at a very practical level, simply refer to the work of a household manager, an oikonomos, a slave in charge of other slaves, managing the affairs of the home, as in Luke 16.2-3, or even the work of an apostle (1 Cor 9.17) or bishop in Patristic texts. At other times, in the Pauline epistles, it refers in a wider theological sense to the ‘economy (oikonomia) of the grace of God given to me for you’ (Eph 3.2) or the overall design of God throughout history such as the ‘plan (oikonomia) for the fullness of time to gather all things in Christ’ (Eph 1.10 – see also 1 Tim 1.4).

The early fathers often spoke of the ‘divine economy’ – the way in which God interacts with human history and works out his purposes through (and sometimes despite) it. We are given a picture of a God who has purposes, plans and designs for his creation. The fallenness of the world introduces an element of randomness to the way thing work out, yet this cannot frustrate the ultimate plan (oikonomia) of God to bring blessing to the whole of creation.

Planning, therefore is a feature of divine activity, from creation to new creation, from the promise in the old covenant of a Saviour who was to come, to the promise in the new covenant of a new heaven and new earth. Planning, for example for a good retirement, or having a sense of purpose and direction for the future, is an aspect of our created nature that mirrors the character of God. Of course our plans are not God’s plans and we have to hold our plans lightly, as we are likely to plan unwisely, yet to plan for the future in the light of God’s self-revelation in Christ is not to lack faith, it is an expression of faith.

Similarly, lending and borrowing are generally spoken of favourably in the Bible and the Christian tradition. Jesus urges his followers to “give to everyone who begs from you and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” (Matt 5.42). Generous lending is commended in Luke 6.34 as a form of love for the neighbour. Basil the Great, one of the early fathers who spoke most trenchantly about social justice, warned strongly against taking on too onerous debts, but also urged that money should constantly circulate, and not be hoarded. It should be used to benefit those who have little, so that they are able to thrive: “Wealth left idle is of no use to anyone, but put to use and exchanged, it becomes fruitful and beneficial for the public."

Planning for the future is also a means of expressing love and care for those whom God has given us to care for and protect. Caring for dependents was always a core duty for followers of Christ. The household instructions in texts like 1 Timothy 5 place a high premium on duty to family, caring for widows, and those who rely on us. Trust in God for the future is a vital aspect of Christian faith. The future is in God’s hands not ours, so a basic posture of joyful trust in God’s providence is needed. Yet trust does not exclude planning, in so far as we are able to do so. To fail to plan ahead to ensure loved ones are cared and provided for is a lack of love, not an expression of piety.

Moreover, the divine economy, or plan, involves the idea of home. The vision at the end of the book of Revelation is that of a world where “The home of God is among mortals: he will dwell with them; they will be his peoples and God himself will be with them” (Rev 21.3). Christian homes, then, whether for a young family, a flat for a single person, or a retirement home, are intended to be an echo of the day when God will make his home with us. A house is more than just a place to shelter from the elements for a short while, it has the potential to be a foretaste of the age to come, and can even be a telling of the gospel in bricks and mortar. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community outlined a vision for good housing of being Sustainable, Safe, Stable, Sociable and Satisfying – characteristics that arise from and reflect the gospel story of Creation, Fall, Incarnation, the Church and the promised new creation. A home like this can be a place of hospitality and welcome for others, as many clergy homes already are, as a means of extending Christian ministry, which changes shape but does not come to an end at retirement.

Our homes are one of God’s great gifts to us. Yet they offer not just comfort and security in this life. They are to be a picture of life with God in the life that we hope for in the future. And so planning for a home that does just that can be seen as a key aspect of Christian discipleship as we wait with anticipation for the new creation.