A new blog Soul Politics (HT David Keen) jumps on the Ekklesia bandwagon about the Church of England and stock-market shares. I think a few comments and clarifications are in order by way of a warm welcome to the blogosphere.
First, Ekklesia is an anabaptist funded blog, and therefore [updated 06/07/09 – see the discussion in the comments below] opposed to the existence of an established church as a theological stance. It regularly seeks to issue press releases criticising the Church of England, sometimes quite rightly, as part of a continuing campaign which is both self-promoting, and theological and doctrinal in its establishmentophobic origins. Read it knowing that, whether you agree or disagree with any particular critique, or with that general stance.
Second, inclining as anabaptists do, to the concept of a pure church of believers unentangled by compromise in the real world, Ekklesia’s attack on the Church Commissioners’ stock-holdings is unsurprising. Soul Politics (Joe50 the poster doesn’t seem to have a full name) seems to share this general distrust of the stock-market for both political and religious reasons. I am far more ambivalent about the markets and what they can achieve.
Those general points are by way of noting that what you will make of this story depends on both your theology and your politics, and not simply on “facts”. (And note my own bias too!)
There are one or two facts, however, which do bear mentioning in this context.
The Church of England receives no state funding. Individual historic buildings owned by the Church apply for and receive grants of various sizes for specific projects maintaining the nations architectural and cultural heritage. (My own view is that this is neither good for the Church or for the nation’s heritage, and that a different relationship ought to be sought for the future, but that’s by the by here.) Beyond this all money comes either from individuals or from the management of historic resources.
The Church Commissioners, who manage these historic assets, have to balance their obligations under charity law, which is to maximise the income from them for the work of the Church, with the theological and ethical teaching of the Church. Periodically this leads to significant flash-points about where the money should be invested, sometimes resulting in motions from General Synod about disinvestment in any particular company. (Most recently there was controversy over the investment in Caterpillar, because their equipment was being used in the building of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories). The Church Commissioners do, however, have a permanent committee advising on Ethical Investment.
The two questions that need to be held together at the heart of any particular case are these. Will the Church be more likely to effect change as a shareholder speaking and voting in meetings, or by way of public protest in selling off the stock? Is the company’s complicity in some particular unethical behaviour so clearly proven, and so definitely in contradiction to the Church’s mission and purposes that it can override the legal obligation of the Commissioners to maximise their returns?
The details of the Ekklesia charges vary from the trivial (Exxon funds groups that question global warming – oh, dear what a wicked crime) to the very serious, namely the implication of Shell (in which the Commissioners are reported to have a substantial holding) in the significant human, political and environmental disaster which is the NIger Delta. (The situation in the Niger Delta BTW is the biggest disqualification of the Nigerian Church from lecturing anybody else on ethics.). The oil company has to operate in a mix of political corruption and greed, local powerful and violent militia and roving war-bands, and international energy need and greed. It cannot take the sole responsibility for every ill, environmental or otherwise.
The Amnesty report which Ekklesia are piggy-backing their outrage on points to some of the issues. Not having read it, I don’t know how complete or partial its diagnosis is. I do know that in situations like the Niger Delta, a full diagnosis is difficult. Even when the problems are made clear, it is often far from obvious whether any particular action will make things worse or better in a climate of political instability where, effectively, warlords rule as much as a government of dubious probity and ethics. If Shell has been a significant part of the problem, as suggested by Amnesty, is it also one of the few institutions that might contribute to a solution? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it seems to me to be precisely the sort of issue I would expect the Commissioners’ ethical investment people to be asking.
Soul Politics “can’t imagine being satisfied with anything less than a total withdrawal from the mainstream stock market.” Ekklesia won’t be satisfied with anything less than the disestablishment of the Church of England. It seems to me both want to live in a black-and-white world. if they ever find one, I’d like to visit.
In the meantime, I’ll stay ambiguously Anglican, in a world of muddy whites, shabby grays and pallid blacks. Despite many repeated attempts (and a new one along tomorrow) to purify it, it seems to me that Anglicanism is definitively the anti-pure Church of wheat and tares.
{ 5 comments }
Hi Doug,
I’m happy to be corrected on the state funding point- it is a misperception I’ve held for a long time apparantely! I should also have made clear that I attend an Anglican church myself and wish for it to remain a state established church. I didn’t intend this article to be an attack on the C of E in general, rather highlighting an issue I think needs urgently addressing.
Having read your response I agree that the Church is not actively complicit in unethical behaviour of comapnies it holds stocks in. However, I do stick by my assertion that by sharing in the profits of those who exploit the poor and destroy the environment the C of E is not heeding the old testament prophets and wisdom literature that speaks against such pratices, and thus my answer to your question as to whether the behaviour is so contradictory to the purpose of the church as to override the Commissioners obligation to maximise returns my answer would be yes.
I agree there is murkiness in the world and even in the Christian faith, but that this issue does crawl out of it and into the realm of black and white. Or maybe my evangelicism compels me to be controversialist on matters of church practise.
Thanks, Joe. I still think there’s a big question whether the C of E can prophecy more strongly in a shareholders’ meeting or in a pulpit? Which is more likely to achieve a real change in the Niger Delta? I honestly don’t know the answer to that one, but it seems a question worth asking.
I am aware that there are very few industries the Church Commissioners have felt compelled to withdraw from. You will be pleased to hear however that they operate a blanket policy (AFAIK) of never investing in the arms trade.
Just a few quick corrections:
1. Ekklesia is not anabaptist funded, we are self-funded (made clear on our website). Indeed we raise £250,000 a year through it for overseas development work.
2. Ekklesia is not anabaptist, I attend my local anglican church, and have attended then all my life. We do however incorporate elements of the anabatist tradition and work with anabaptists, but to characature Ekklesia in this way is to misrepresent us.
3. Your hypothesis that we believe in “a pure church of believers unentangled by compromise in the real world” is just plainly false.
4. The Church of England does receive state funding in a number of ways, not least through the significant tax relief it claims, but also through its schools which are 95% funded through the taxpayer (but that of course is separate to what we are discussing here).
You do not seem to have read the more substantive report we have written (linked to and referred to in the articles you mention) which points out a whole catalogue of concerns such as the Church’s selling off of social housing in favour of out of town shopping centres, as well as our suggestion for alternative investments which would bring in a (possibly better) profit.
I would also be grateful to see any evidence of the way in which you consider us to be “self-promoting”. Certainly compared to the press releases of the Church of England I think that accusation falls apart!
To link our concern in this area to disestablishment also seems to me bizarre. The common theme of our website – if there is one – is a desire to see justice done. That is why we cover disestablishment and church schools, but also climate change, peacemaking, arms control, restorative justice and a whole range of other issues.
I’m sorry I assumed you received funding from anabpatist sources. I clearly misinterpreted this paragraph of your site, which I held to include references to funding:
I am happy to correct that.
It seems to me – and you clearly disagree – that irrespective of the church you attend, the positions you take are anabaptist whenever they touch on the church and the state. It further seems to me that most of your press releases, in order to attract publicity, attack the Church of England more than other denominations. (Possibly these are the only ones the media pays any attention to?)
You may feel I have caricatured Ekklesia. If so, I apologise, since I did not intend to. Nonetheless, the way I have described your organisation is, honestly, the way it has come across to me over a relatively long period of time. Perhaps that is mainly in the fault of my perceptions. Perhaps you have significantly contributed to those perceptions by both your style and content.
BTW. I think your comment about state-funding disingenuous. The only other “tax relief” I can think of other than the VAT on historic building repairs, is Gift Aid – available to every church and charity. Church schools are – on the ground – far more a case of church goers paying extra to fund what is usually regarded as a better education for the local community well beyond its members – a funny form of state funding indeed. And of course available to other denominations. Trying to make out establishment leaves the C of E in a specially funded position is at best misleading.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }