My opinions on the Church Commissioners, offered here yesterday, reached The Times today, if you can get behind the paywall.
The message? If you do invest then do so to demand country-by-country reporting.
If you don't, why are you there?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You should ask your friend the Lord Reverend Stephen Green for help to convince the church of this 🙂
Amused
The Yesterday Channel recently ran the “Yes Prime Minister” one that dealt with the choice of Bishops. Great fun, but on reflection is The Church of England in effect a tax haven on its own account? If only on the grounds that God needs a little help from Mammon?
From the ‘Thinking Anglican’ web-site regarding Green recommending MBA programmes for the leading clergy:
“In terms of process, there is a problem about the composition of the group who produced the report. Not one ordained woman was on the review group – and at a time when the Church is about to welcome women bishops. This is breathtaking. Nor was there a recognised theologian, or an academic specialising in continuing professional or vocational education. And, despite the fact that the report raises secular “MBA-style” programmes to a level of apotheosis, no recognised scholar with expertise in management or leadership from the academic world formed part of the core working party.
In the actual text of the Green report, there are a couple of serious issues to wrestle with. First, it has no point of origination in theological or spiritual wisdom. Instead, on offer is a dish of basic contemporary approaches to executive management, with a little theological garnish. A total absence of ecclesiology flows from this. The report has little depth or immersion in educational literature.
A more notable absence is any self-awareness in the report: unaware of critiques of management, executive authority, and leadership which abound in academic literature, it is steeped in its own uncritical use of executive management-speak”
Very much what I have heard from many about the report that does Welby no credit
Here we go folks – the corporate capture of the CoE and religion in the UK. Shut them up by co-opting into the wealth illusion.
This is how they do it. Writ large.
And we are told that only the Trotskyists do infiltration!
I notice with dismay that comments at The Times are not as carefully moderated as they are here.
Such a pity that naysayers are allowed a free rein to critique such a densely argued piece.
I never read the comments on published articles
I know no sane author who ever does
I follow but wouldn’t you concur that other perspectives can be enlightening and can help to shape and define one’s own theories.
In this specific instance, though, and as you say. it’s probably best to pass by on the other side.