[Closed] The Church Commissioners

I didn’t realise the church was so good at making money.

Not a student of history, then? 🙂

Not a student of history, then?

I can't claim to be. I was referring to the recent returns on their investments.

Anyone else thinks this stinks to high heaven?

Yes, that level of assets and investments does stink.

Eye of a needle.

Rochester in Kent here. They own massive amounts of land and property around here.

Given the diminishing amount of practicing Christians I can't but help think it really is about money more than religion these days. Perhaps it always was.

To clarify, I have no problem with religion, Christianity or otherwise. As usual, it's mans interpretation that leaves much to be desired.

What are they not paying taxes on?

It's not about tax though is it, unless we do simply deem it to be a business corporation just out to make money? If that's the case then it is just about tax.

I'd like to think it (the C of E) should be about more than that.

What are they not paying taxes on?

Given they're a registered charity, I'd imagine they're doing a good job of avoiding tax, in comparison with a commercial, for-profit asset manager. At least I hope the increasing focus on environment, social and governance investing regs will force them to invest more ethically. That size of portfolio has the potential to do some good in the world.

Hyde Park is one of the royal parks and nothing to do with the CoE.

Secondly, The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings. The Tax point is I believe a mute one for the simple reason that the state should probably make a greater contribution to maintain the buildings that are key to our rich history.

Secondly, The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings.

I'd sooner they invested however they need to for this rather than take it from the public purse.

Church Commissioners own Hyde Park Estate, not the park itself.

What did you think organised religion was ? It's for accumulating wealth, nothing more.

I didn’t realise the church was so good at making money.

One way or another making money is their primary purpose, whether under the guise of scaring people to donate with stories of devils and purgatory or as you rightly point out, clever investment. Any cultural or community benefits are a secondary benefit which helps their corporate social record.

I’m more comfortable with how the Anglican Church/Church of England handles its money and assets than how the Catholic Church does.
And let’s not get into American Evangelicals, their involvement with US politics and their obscene wealth.

The c church has always been about money and power. For an organisation that is so wealthy they seem to do so out of begging when a church roof needs maintenance etc. Surely  the whole point of these funds should be to pay for this. If it’s not then what if it for?

If it’s not then what if it for?

To pay pensions to priests and other employees, the church still has offers a defined benefit pension. Most churches are expected to be self financing and are required to pay a certain amount to the "centre" every year for provision of priest and to cover central costs

What did you think organised religion was ? It’s for accumulating wealth, nothing more.

Oh right. I missed that but.

One way or another making money is their primary purpose, whether under the guise of scaring people to donate with stories of devils and purgatory

No more ‘Horrible Histories’ for you, I’m afraid. 🤨

The Church Commissioners’ investments pay for the upkeep of thousands of historically important buildings.

This is accurate.

To pay pensions to priests and other employees, the church still has offers a defined benefit pension. Most churches are expected to be self financing and are required to pay a certain amount to the “centre” every year for provision of priest and to cover central costs

As is this.

The land is essentially an inherited asset, do something with it and people moan

They have running costs which they try and find via investments which means a drive for higher returns, essentially justifying poor decisions for the greater good

CofE has a crisis, it needs priests on the ground yet is investing in a bloated middle management. Congregations have collapsed so no money coming in. Churches are expensive to run, inner city deprivation has the highest need and lowest income.

They need to be radical yet retain identity, a hard problem to solve

It's an easy one to solve. Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time. Job jobbed.

They have running costs which they try and find via investments

Come on, have you seen how much the commissioners' investments are raking in? Who sees the benefit of the majority of this? Only a fraction goes back into the church and through their "charity".

There was an excellent documentary series a few years back that touched on this.

They tell fairy tales to the weak minded. Do you you expect them to be ethical in all other areas?

Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time.

Except, as Trumpism and the pandemic have shown, a lot of people need "something" to believe in when they feel things are outside their control, and the modern CofE is nowadays amongst the lesser of the evils.

For all its many faults in its many guises, nearly all the food banks and free accessible family support services around here are run by religious organisations, and don't just exist for the believers.

OP wait until you find out about private schools charitable status...

If their fund is, as you say, about £9Bn, then I'm just astonished at how tiny it is.

Really, just not worth worrying about.

This thread is discussing this as though that's some giant amount of money, but it isn't.

To put it in context, it's about 1 year of EU contributions, or about 25% of Peloton's market cap.

Yes, this charity you're complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.

It’s an easy one to solve. Dissolve the church and eliminate their influence on weak minds and negate the money issues at the same time. Job jobbed.

Just the CofE or all denominations? Just Christians or all religions from pagans to Zoroastrian?

Well if they have £9bn kicking about then they can't be spending that much on their historical buildings. Also if they are so good at the upkeep and maintenance of them then why do most churches up and down the country seem to have continual begging campaigns going on to fix the church roof? They're sat on £9bn and still asking pensioners for a couple of quid every Sunday.

But they do take care of their assets that's for sure. A mate of mine lives next door to a vicarage. He wanted to build an extension to his house to have a completely dedicated space to look after his severely disabled son and the CofE blocked the planning permission because they were concerned it would impact on the value of the property too much. It's true. The Lord does work in mysterious ways.

or about 25% of Peloton’s market cap

Hmmm.

Have Peloton considered clergy led sessions?

You could have Imam / Rabbi / Vicar led HIIT classes all whilst pumping out the relevant religious doctrines and even some music - Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer?

And reserve some spaces in churches / mosques/ synagogues for some spin bikes in place of pews etc.

Could alter religious demographics, drive some revenues.

Irony is that Peloton is far more exclusive than any religion yet is worth four times more than the church’s pension fund.

Making money from investments is a lot better than covering up child abuse.
On the list of shitty things done in the name of God, making money isn't that high on the list.

Yes, this charity you’re complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.

You've misunderstood peleton - its not a company that makes bikes (I would be surprised if they even make the bikes themselves). They are far more of a threat to the gym chains than any bike manufacturer. They are a company that has a recurring base of revenue of relatively affluent customers who will be sitting in front of a peleton screen for prolonged periods... and they've managed to do it at a time when traditional gym use is taking a covid hit. Their valuation is however crazy!

But they do take care of their assets that’s for sure. A mate of mine lives next door to a vicarage. He wanted to build an extension to his house to have a completely dedicated space to look after his severely disabled son and the CofE blocked the planning permission because they were concerned it would impact on the value of the property too much. It’s true. The Lord does work in mysterious ways.

Loss of value isn't a planning issue, the council officer would have stated that.

If the councillors took note of the church's objection without declaring an interest then your friend should be taking his complaint up with the council standards officer and the head of planning

Making money from investments is a lot better than covering up child abuse.
On the list of shitty things done in the name of God, making money isn’t that high on the list.

Making money work is actually a key parable. Obviously it was in an ethical context but the church doesn't have to apologize for making its assets work. The quantum of the assets is a different issue as you enter the arguments around sustainable funding of good works

Yes, this charity you’re complaining about is worth substantially less than a company that makes static bicycles.

Market value and asset value - I suspect they are somewhat different...

With the type of revenue that level of assets and investments brings in, they shouldn’t be asking any congregation for contributions or asking for donations to maintain properties. If you have those kind of assets and investments - you seriously do not need tax exemption on any income frame that as part of charitable status. You have to question as well, what they are doing investing in businesses that avoid tax e.g. Amazon.

The Church Commissioners is the investing arm of the CofE. It’s a registered charity that is managing 8.9bn worth of assets including 100,000s of acres of land and property (it owns Hyde Park and leases to the London Stock Exchange). It has charity status to essentially pay clergy their retirement. It donated about 10% of its 1bn profit in the last year to charity.

A good few years ago I was a trustee of a household name charity. I didn't sit on the investments committee but they reported back to the main charity council (Board) which I was part of. It takes a bit of getting your head around the amount of cash involved, and that we are celebrating Mrs Miggins running a coffee morning and jumble sale that raised £1000 whilst our stock portfolio was raising that every fifteen minutes.

I'm no fan of the church. But I'm not quite sure I understand what most of the OP's objection was.

Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with.

there may be many reasons for this. What is it you would like them to do with their land?

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently blasted the likes of Amazon for not paying its fair share of taxes. Amazon is one of the CC’s biggest stock ownerships.

During my time as a charity trustee, we set up ethical investment policies and divested from Arms investments (if you knew which charity it would be particularly ironic that this has ever even been a possibility), but couldn't persuade the money people that we should divest from tobacco, or nestle (during their peak baby milk scandals). The problem is that the charity has an obligation to manage its assets as effectively as possible - and manage risk by having a diverse portfolio. Which 20 companies should the Church invest in which are (a) squeaky clean (b) actually good investments (c) different from each other enough that one failure doesn't impact on others. We used a lot of managed funds - but if we implemented "investment policies" we needed to apply those policies to those as well and that can really limit your choices. I'd certainly imagine that finding a fund that only invested in companies who were more generous with their taxes than they needed to be would be very difficult!

It is right however to call out and question the church if they have hypocritical pronouncements - slagging Amazon whilst investing in them is probably not even close to top of that list, but perhaps it is not the holding the investment which is wrong, but rather the public criticism of corporations?

It is right however to call out and question the church if they have hypocritical pronouncements – slagging Amazon whilst investing in them is probably not even close to top of that list, but perhaps it is not the holding the investment which is wrong, but rather the public criticism of corporations?

If only there was some kind of historical record or document that was promoted by the said organisation meant to provide some kind of ethical guidance for this type of thing - from the point of view of the organisations original proponents...?

Imagine, an example it might include that hinted at the attitude of the organisations founders to the use of assets to facilitate money-making, or the use of investment to provide revenue, or even the attitude of the rich to the assistance of the poor... That could be so useful.

I’m not quite sure I understand what most of the OP’s objection was.

They're involved in food banks, helping the homeless, giving back to communities but my point is this is hypocracy when they're only giving less than 10% of what they make through these very worthwhile activities. I haven't got an issue with them making money but it’s hyprocracy when they're keeping hold of the vast majority of it whilst peddling their holier than thou crap. Why can't vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they're sitting on to charitable causes? To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don't provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension? Or maybe they should declare themselves a profit making organisation that has a religious charitable arm. In any case, in my opinion, it just stinks to keep projecting a raison d'etre of being for the greater good.

Money and power.

That's all really.

Not forgetting that the CofE exists because 1 fat man didn't want the incumbent bunch of money-and-power snake oil preachers telling him what he couldn't do from their palaces in Rome.

Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with

dead assets?

Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?

Because a vicar doesn't get paid enough to invest in a pension on his own. Even with a house provided, he is still responsible for basic upkeep, council tax, and utilities - bills which can be ridiculously high when the vicarage is a huge, draughty Victorian pile.

vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?

Maybe have a look at the sort of thing that goes on in our neighbourhoods every day, but stays under the radar:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55133081

@poly

if you knew which charity it would be particularly ironic that this has ever even been a possibility)

You are talking about save the children arent you? That is not a secret that they have huge amounts of investment money in things like tobaco and booze.

Much of the land it owns it doesn’t do a great deal with.

Round here, quite a lot of it is farm land, so it generates rent, and in turn generates (a few) jobs, income etc.

Not sure what else you could do with it....

What is totally bonkers is that their 'offer' (of absolution?) is so appealing that they can freeload on the goodwill of congregations and underpaid staff.

What is totally bonkers is that their ‘offer’ (of absolution?) is so appealing that they can freeload on the goodwill of congregations and underpaid staff.

Good grief.

Who’s supposedly benefitting from all this freeloading?

Anyone else thinks this stinks to high heaven?

Well it rather depends what they are doing with the money, doesn't it? The Church doesn't really have any other income stream.

Are you alleging that someone in the Church is lining their own pockets unfairly? Who might that be?

Simply making money for an organisation isn't necessarily bad - they pretty much all do that. They question is about what they then do with it.

@silverneedle - not Save the Children but that level of hypocrisy!

curent searches show nothing about Save the children investing unethicaly could be that I was miss remembering and it was comic relief that I was thinking of.

They’re involved in food banks, helping the homeless, giving back to communities but my point is this is hypocracy when they’re only giving less than 10% of what they make through these very worthwhile activities. I haven’t got an issue with them making money but it’s hyprocracy when they’re keeping hold of the vast majority of it whilst peddling their holier than thou crap.

I'm not sure you understand how charities or pension liabilities work. They have the pension liabilities right through until the pension holders die (their accounts list that as a £1.5Bn liability), but their funding is far from being just the pensions of the clergy (in fact they only have liabilities accrued until the late 90s). So your question, and it is a legitimate one for all charities - is should they spend all their (investment) income today or keep some back to make the pot bigger so they can grow more in the future. And if so how much should they keep back? For an organisation like the church I'd assume they have taken a fairly significant look at:
- their projected future expenditure (all those old buildings)
- their projected future income (church attendance is falling, their classic supporters are dying out, I'd not be surprised if legacy income is falling too).

My guess is their modellers/actuaries have said (1) We expect to see demand for expenditure rise (2) We expect to see church incomes fall - to ensure you can continue to service those needs long term you need to increase the size of their capital/endownment.

Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?

Vicars are employees just like most other people - you can't just turn around many years later and say "we are abolishing the pensions we promised you". Now many employers change the rules for new entrants, some (often with much public outcry) even change the criteria for future accrued benefits but its almost never going to wash to change the contractual benefit retrospectively. Given the Commissioners only have a liability accrued prior to '97 it sounds like they are already on it.

To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?

So people should only get a pension if the vast majority of modern society thinks they should - because they used to do something useful? I also suspect you might be wrong that the "vast majority" think they don't do anything worthwhile. We'll see what the Census says - my expectation is it will still show a lot more people claiming to be associated to a church than either weekly attendance or daily life would suggest; but even many of those like me who are not religious (indeed I have quite an open dislike for most aspects of religion) would recognise that many vicars actually serve some publicly useful function, at least for their own congregations, and sometimes the wider society.

Or maybe they should declare themselves a profit making organisation that has a religious charitable arm. In any case, in my opinion, it just stinks to keep projecting a raison d’etre of being for the greater good.

Now since the "advancement of religion" is one of the legal purposes that a charity can be set up to deliver I think you are on a shaky nail with your argument that they should not be a charity... but what difference would it make financially if they were to declare themselves "profit making" - HMRC (the same people scrutinising Amazon!) scrutinise charities to ensure they comply with any exemptions and if they don't (some don't) they pay the tax?

I've just skim read their approach to investment ( https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/church-commissioners-england/how-we-invest) and I'd say it is pretty modern in terms of investing on ethical criteria, and they have policies on lots of things: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/ethical-investment-advisory-group/policies-and-reviews now admittedly it doesn't have a policy on investing in companies that minimise their tax - because that is ALL companies.

I think if you want to have a concern about their governance it should probably be having 6 MPs (including the PM) and a couple of Lords. They seem to mostly be there on account of their office - and is a sign of how entwined church and state still are in this country, but it clearly makes is difficult for any reform of charities which might be working at the boundaries of charitable status if those who make the rules governing charities are sitting on their "boards".

Good grief.

Who’s supposedly benefitting from all this freeloading?

What I think we're getting at here is the disparity in the CoE business between their local outlets claiming poverty (and underpaying staff, asking for donations and relying on volunteers) and their management structure sitting on billions in assets.

All facilitated by a model based on superstition and absolution.

I think we have a failure to understand the legal obligations of the trustees of a charity, which have been well set out above.

Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?

At 18yo & straight out of school I was on a higher wage than my vicar dad.

To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?

Despite me being 100% non beleiver in that god nonsense, one thing that (most/some/maybe my dad was the exception) vicars do is provide a valuable if hidden social service.

One of the churches my dad was vicar of (he had 5 parishes to look after) was of historical importance & a local landmark - he always hoped it would burn down so he didn't have to deal with it anymore 😄

I think we have a failure to understand the legal obligations of the trustees of a charity, which have been well set out above.

No i believe the obligation to maximise charity assets is well understood (if thought perverse when perceive to conflict with charity objectives). For me it's definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.

For me it’s definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.

Which bit?

Well if they have £9bn kicking about then they can’t be spending that much on their historical buildings.

16,000 churches and 42 cathedrals.

If they were to split it between them all it would give them a £561,000 investment fund per church to pay for upkeep in perpetuity. I don't think that would go very far. Some of the larger churches and cathedrals will be spending in excess of that on maintenance annually!

For me it’s definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.

Which bit?

I consider people who believe in deities and the supersticions around them as vulnerable.

I consider organisations which prey upon these vulnerable people, and which take money from them, as fundamentally immoral. Bookies and religions both qualify.

Furthermore, I consider any business which claims poverty at a local level whilst retaining enourmous capital centrally as cynical and immoral.

Just Christians or all religions from pagans to Zoroastrian?

Shouldn't that be Agnostics to Zoroastrians, vie Buddhists, Catholics, Daoists... 😀

I consider people who believe in deities and the supersticions [sic] around them as vulnerable.

I'm sure they're fortunate to have you looking out for them!

Furthermore, I consider any business which claims poverty at a local level whilst retaining enourmous capital centrally as cynical and immoral.

And yet your earlier comment is extremely cynical. Are you saying that the church is extorting money? From whom? I thought church services were free to attend?

The maths you have just been shown indicates that whilst they have a lot of assets generating income, they also have huge liabilities across which that income is spread. So they aren't that rich. Surely you aren't confusing revenue and profit?

@saxonrider my Mum died god fearing (note, not god loving) which broke my heart.

This was due to a totally ****ed up upbringing where churches called her an illigitimate bastard, a convent school drummed into her some weird guilt, and local churches (she tried them all, methodist, CoE, baptist) used her vulnerability (and seeming desire to repent something despite being salt of the earth) to accept donations and goodwill, whilst the great and the good of the church community swanned round in big cars, in their big houses, ****ing people over in business but showing a pretence of piousness on a Sunday.

If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I've helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.

@molgrips

Are you saying that the church is extorting money?

Not far off. They definitely prey on the vulnerable. Religion is humanities' most effective scam.

If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I’ve helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.

I won't defend any religious organisation that abuses people, or takes advantage of vulnerabilities, but you do realise that: a) it is not a sine qua non of religious belief and practice to inflict such things, and b) there are any number of pathologies from which people may suffer that do not take as their point of departure religious adherence.

To conclude that religious belief and/or practice was to blame for your whatever your mum went through is to paint all faith with a ridiculously large brush, while ignoring many other potential factors.

Im really sorry that your mum's experience was so bad.

However, its like saying all cyclists jump red lights ergo all priests are abusive manipulators?

Sadly/happily sweeping generalisations tend to be wrong.

What I'm not hearing from you defenders of faith is a cohesive or compelling explanation of religions' purpose. What is it if not to convince people of a narrative and build loyalty to their brand, thereby creating income?

I'm not trying to make that argument. If you want it, maybe start a new thread. This thread is/was about the Church Commissioners and their investments, and I was just pointing out that some of the side comments being made were either spurious or inaccurate or both.

However, its like saying all cyclists jump red lights ergo all priests are abusive manipulators?

Eh?

A priest's competency framework would presumably major on their ability to lead, persuade, empathise, hold a line, gain trust....

Abusive manipulator is a bit strong but they are essentially salesmen.

Sorry if we drifted. OP noted the CoE ability to make money. A few people commented that making money is their primary purpose. I've delved a little into their modus operandi.

Not far off. They definitely prey on the vulnerable.

How? This money they make isn't given to them by vulnerable people, is it? The whole point of this thread is that it's being made from investments just like your pension.

If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I’ve helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.

What about all the people who die happier because of their faith? Your viewpoint is very intellectually limited.

This was due to a totally **** up upbringing where churches

There are religious people, there are abusers, there are greedy people, there are megalomaniacs and there are well meaning people who do damage. These groups aren't all the same. You're linking shitty behaviour with religion, but you're ignoring all the shitty behaviour that was done for secular reasons. Like for example taking indigenous American kids away from their families to try and 'civilise' them etc etc etc.

A priest’s competency framework would presumably major on their ability to lead, persuade, empathise, hold a line, gain trust

Yes, also like a salesman, business owner, manager, film producer, and so on. These are just people skills. You're demonstrating extreme selective bias.

but they are essentially salesmen

We're all essentially salesmen / saleswomen, just that some haven't realised it yet.

Abusive manipulator is a bit strong but they are essentially salesmen.

Sorry, I thought that was the thrust of your post about your mum's experience.

Religion brings a lot of comfort to many, just as it has done terrible things to others. Usually when the religious aspects are twisted for political purposes.

What's missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly 'gifts' from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!

The only problem is that church and state being so intertwined in the UK church land is effectively state land (the prime minister does after all have the power to appoint bishops on behalf of the queen who is head of church and state but proxies her power to the government).

Given the current government seems inclined to give away as many state assets as they can to their mates (and previous governments) at least when it comes to claim our common heritage for the people all we need to do is say thank you for keeping things in order church commissioners now hand the keys back to the people please.

The thing is, Christianity is very explicit in telling you not to be an asshole. The fact that people have acted like assholes in the name of religion therefore tells you that it wasn't religion - it was just them being assholes.

Bad people are always going to do bad stuff. It makes little difference what kind of hat they are wearing when they do it.

What’s missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly ‘gifts’ from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!

Same as the aristocracy. Again - not an exclusively religious thing. Blame William the Conqueror for that.

What’s missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly ‘gifts’ from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!

I think you'll find in most societies the spiritual and temporal sitting side by side, one influenced by the other

It's not a CofE thing it's a human thing

@molgrips

What about all the people who die happier because of their faith? Your viewpoint is very intellectually limited.

I'd contest that sanctuary found in religion at death only exists because of the fear that was instilled in them by that same religion initially. Tell them they're shit then save them. Salvation!

And strangely, it is blinkered views based on faith that I find the intellectually limited perspective!

You know some people get comfort and support from religion long before facing death?

And that not all religions tell people they're shit?

I’d contest that sanctuary found in religion at death only exists because of the fear that was instilled in them by that same religion initially.

Yeah you don't appear to be an expert in this area.

Have you tried asking happy churchgoers what they like about it? Have you considered the underlying neuroscience at work here?

is this the thread where someone with their own ill -formed and ignorant views (not in a pejorative sense) tries to explain why religion = bad?

Can you all wait while I get snacks.

Can you all wait while I get snacks.

Can I have wafers and red wine?

Can I have wafers and red wine?

😁😁😁

You can have some red Shloer and a KitKat!