Working for or against Justin ?

I have to ask the question because after the Archbishop of Canterbury  (ABC) spoke out against the loan company WONGA in the Summer of 2014 it transpired that the Church of England held shares in it. We were told then that the Ethical Investment Advisory Group were going to tighten things up to prevent any such embarrassment (although recall reading a paper which claimed the CofE might still be getting money from military, tobacco and other 'approved' investments).

Seems that Justin and others have differing ideas about what's 'ethical' - especially after his robust (and in my view 'spot on') speech to the Annual Conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in which he denounced Amazon (and other companies) for their lax morality as made apparent by their corporate greed and the oppressive stance taken against their workforces.

“When vast companies like Amazon and other online traders — the new industries — can get away with paying almost nothing in tax, there is something wrong with the tax system!”

How good it is to find the man at the top of the CofE getting stuck in and preaching it as it should be preached, for after all, the Bible tells us that, "The love of money is surely the root of all kinds of evil." (1 Tim 6.10)

It was quoted that last year's tax bill for Amazon was £1.7M (against a profit of £72.4M) - that's about 2.4% if my maths head is working: About a tenth of the basic tax rate for low end earners!

So applause for Justin as he draws our attention to the naughtiness of Amazon. But before the applause dies down there's a  small voice crying out, "There's one small problem!"

No, it's not an Old Testament prophet  - it's the voice of someone who has noticed that the CofE has shares in Amazon and so Amazon's amazing profits produce dividends which end up in the very self-same organisation's coffers that the man drawing attention to them is leading.

Once again we have a massive case of apparent hypocrisy - the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing (which at least is biblical) - or an indication that the investment people and the ABC  are singing from different song sheets!

A news item reporting on this matter claimed that the CofE had 'massive' investments (that's a few million to you and me) in Amazon. So once again the CofE, and Justin, is given a badge emblazoned with the word 'hypocrite' flashing brightly on it.

Now I don't think he is - so this is sad, but then again the various horrible bits of reporting of sexual abuse and other stuff that has pinned the badge on the CofE, former ABCs, Justin himself and bishops just too many times of late. Is it any wonder that the CofE stock is so low with so many people? Or any surprise that the young people apparently struggle to find anything credible in us (the CofE)?

I am certain that the Christian message has lost none of its integrity or attraction.

I feel fairly certain that Justin is a good bloke with a lack of support from some.

But I am also certain that we cannot keep shooting ourselves in the foot with the covering up of wrong, the shooting of the wounded the CofE has wounded, the making of a (correct) stand only to find that the CofE is in bed with the people Justin is denouncing.

I know we need to get good returns from investments held - that's how things get paid for - but it seems that those who invest are doing their job according to the financial world's standards and not Justin's (or God's)?

Time to get the man at the top and the people in the banking chambers in agreement and while they're at it, perhaps they could have a word with those who have dealt so wrongly with the victims of abuse and other excesses too.

Then Just can speak with assurance and authority when he sticks his head above the parapets!

Really?

Just been talking to a 'Christian' who thought they might put me straight - not that they asked me whether I needed to be put straight or even had the grace to find out if I agreed with their views before they launched into their view of what Church should be.

And it goes like this (don't think she even stopped for breath):

'Church needs to stop being so sexist and stop being homophobic and stop supporting Israel and stop being so stuck in the past and should realise that marriage isn't the norm' anymore and should lock up all the paedophile priests and get rid of the Pope and stop lending money to people that can't afford to pay it back and should stop trying to make everyone feel guilty just because they are having fun and should leave Christmas alone and stop going on about God and Jesus and making everyone feel like they're doing it all wrong.

If Church just told everyone that they're doing alright and got on with helping the poor and doing what it was supposed to do then it would be more popular!'

So I asked if they were Christian and the response was in the affirmative.

So I asked what church they attended (thinking of praying for their pastor/minister/priest) and the response was, 'Oh, I don't go to church, I don't believe in God!'

'But you started by telling me that you were a Christian,' said I (just a little confused by now).

Her response placed the cherry on the whole pile of patisserie she had just baked for me:
'I am, I was christened!'

So I thanked her for her advice and said I'd pass it on (Justin, Ruth, Gavin - are you watching?) and left her to her campaign of world domination and the sunshine (and looked for a suitable wall to bang my head against)

And it's only ten to nine in the morning!!!!!!

ps. assume the lending bit referred to Wonga - glad Justin has stopped doing that :-)

Church of Wonga

Now as much as I don't agree with payday loans, they are of course better than the alternative, which is two large geezers knocking on your door to 'enquire' why Mr X hasn't had his money yet!

Just as payday loans were applauded for removing some of the the poor from the vagaries of the 'loan shark' (and we still have them and people 'helping' those around us get further into debt) the reality is that Justin is on the right track with his championing of Credit Unions and low-rate payday loans, helping to replace white goods without increasing the burden of debt and more.

One of those I spoke to on Friday said that 'the Church' ought to stick to i's own business and keep out of the financial world - after all, they said, 'You don't see banks opening churches now, do you?'

What a thought - perhaps Errol Damelin, Founder of Wonga, ought to draw up battle lines and open the Church of Wonga - Motto: 'Why not count on tomorrow to pay for today?'

I have to say that I think he looks the part - so why not? After all, money is the focus of many of those I meet and so a church that looked towards the accruing, spending and general worship of the stuff would be popular - and you could always take out a loan for the repayments (errr, I mean, offering!)

The reality is that Damelin and his organisation are meeting an obvious need - that's what business does.

What Justin is doing is trying to meet that same need, but in a better way, and this has to be good for everyone - well everyone except those who make money out of lending it that is) - and this has to be applauded and acted upon (Church is often poor at the former and invisible in the second of these).

For my money (and prayers), Justin has chosen his battlefield well - he just needs the CofE to be more circumspect in its investments now. Still, he looks good in the shirt!

He, and the CofE, will look even better when he's taken it off ;-)

Ethical Investment is not really investment

Well, not in the financial sense anyway!

I find it interesting that when engaging in conversations with people the issue of 'the Church' and money often crops up and those who bring it up often work on the same script as me dear old Dad (what's no longer with us). It goes a little like this (they're in italics):

So why does the Church need money then, I thought it was rich?
Well it does have money, that's true, but it needs what it has to provide for the future by investing some so that they can spend the rest wisely.

Yeah, but if it spent the money it has it wouldn't need to be out with the begging bowl all the time - after all it's not like you've got much to pay for!
But there's loads we need to pay for - we have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings, gas, electric and water, staffing, housing, administration ... everything down to, and including, bread, wine and toilet roll.

But the government pays for that though, doesn't it?
Nope - everything we have to pay generally comes through the giving of the church members and fees* for some of the services that we do.

This is usually the point where the other party expresses surprise as they thought 'the Church' was in some way funded or subsidised by the state - after all (as one person put it) - the Queen owns all this so surely she should be paying for it!!!

It is about now that the conversation either tails off, or moves into the more interesting topic of investment.

The problem as we hit this area is that I am usually told that we should be getting the best returns we can on our investments but when I ask whether investing in arms companies, or in organisations that scar the earth or damage the environment in pursuit of profit the answer is, more often than not, a resounding 'No'. I then have to explain that the more risk and the dirtier the deed, the better the potential for high returns on invested capital and, of course, vice versa.

In monetary terms 'truly ethical' is really lending money at no interest to altruistic and beneficial companies. Those who will make a difference (in a good sense) but not a profit.

This is why there are quotas and limits placed on the 'ethical' definition and I have to admit that I'm not comfortable with them, for they go something like this (ballpark figures - I'm a dogcollar not an investment banker or manager):

An investment is considered ethical if the total involvement of the company being invested, in those acts which might be considered to have limited or dubious moral or ethical standards, comprises no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of its business.

This means that, with regard to the CofE and it's investments, they can invest in a finance group which has, as this is an issue at the moment a payday loans division, and as long as it's less that twenty-five percent of its overall business then they can still say they have ethically invested.

When it comes to armaments, munitions and other 'weapons of war', they can still invest in a company which produces them (or components for them - often harder to pinpoint) and here the threshold is lowered to say, ten percent.

The problem we are seeing with Justin's stand against high-interest, short-term, payday loans is that the investment division of the CofE are applying the limits and are, technically, maintaining the ethical investment stance. The easy answer would be to only invest in truly ethical institutions and accept that there's not going to be any real interest (could put it in the bank and see the same interest - except of course they are more than likely not investing their money ethically either and so the money still has that taint attached, albeit second or third hand).

I'd rather that we didn't put even a penny where it will be used for a business that denies the Biblical teaching - but that would surely means that interest and that nasty word, 'usuary', would have to crop up.

As one who supported a now defunct Credit Union I long for the day when we could see them working out of every church building, acting to combat the rising tide of debt and working to maximise what people have and helping them into healthy and sustainable lifestyles.

So before we laugh at Justin's misfortune we ought to realise the complexities of trying to balance the books and the problems of realising the best interest on what capital we have financially and ethically.

So let's applaud Justin and hope that which he has started will continue and that we will see an increase in church-based credit unions for our members and, most importantly, for the people we serve and live out the Gospel with.

Pax

*Usually another interesting conversation to be had regarding setting of fees by Parliament; Ranges from disgust to amusement to indignation that the State should 'dictate' to the Church :-)