A PROPOSAL to abolish differentials in stipends between clergy of the Church of England was rejected by its General Synod yesterday.
The proposal would have meant that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who currently earns £45,350 a year, would receive the same as an ordinary vicar, just over £13,600. The resolution would have saved £2.6 million a year, about 2 per cent of the church's wage bill.
While the bishops voted 16-4 against the move and the laity 105 to 68, the margin among the clergy was much narrower 89 to 77.
Moving the proposal from the diocese of Carlisle, the Archdeacon of West Cumberland, the Ven John Packer, stressed that the clergy stipend was neither a reward for performance nor a reward for responsibility. "It is there to enable archbishop or curate to live in such a way that his or her work can be done in accordance with God's will," he said. "It is impossible and wrong to value Christian ministry financially."
Archdeacon Packer pointed out the differences that could exist between incumbents officially drawing the same stipend. "I was once incumbent of a parish with an extremely generous corporate patron," he said. "Cheques arrived unrequested through the door new cars would be bought and, if you let them, school fees paid The patron of my next incumbency was the bishop. The effective stipend reduction was surprisingly hard to cope with."
But Bishop Michael Baughen of Chester drew attention to the alarming extra expenses clergy could have to meet on becoming a bishop. "The first shock of moving into a big house was the gas bill £1,000 for the first quarter and we were plunged into debt." He then had to pay for furnishings for the "vast" house and he said "It drained every penny.
However, Mrs Mary Bordass from Salisbury thought that what was needed was proper provision for the clergy's expenses.
The Rev Stephen Trott of Peterborough asked. What is this say ing to the world at large, that the church reserves distinctions that belong to the secular