Non-stipendary ministry in the Church of England is slavery with all the money generated by the slaves going into the pockets of the slave owners. In fact, it is morally worse than slavery because non-stipendary ministers don't even get fed and housed by their masters.



  1. But which slave owners are getting rich here?
    Not our diocese that’s struggling with an ever dwindling income yet everyone wants their church to remain open and a priest to take Sunday services.

    A priest said to me recently that being in ministry isn’t a paid job, but that you are given a stipend so that you would not have to work to support yourself.
    People who already have enough money to support themselves do not need it.

    Each according to their need?
    Especially where the alternative is not more stipendary priests but no priests?

  2. I think it is complicated by the fact that many people feel that they are ‘called’ by God and therefore it is, for them, a religious/God offering.
    For others, it is a power thing.

    Agree, it is not a good thing in many cases.


  3. You miss the point, Erika. I’m not against people serving for nothing. I’m against the money they earn being given to freeloaders like bishops and their staff. If non-stipendiary ministry was not a cynical way to keep the powerful of the church in paid employment then NSMs would be allowed to keep their funeral fees.

  4. It would help me if we just excluded all of them. But to be realistic we could reduce their stipends to the same as parish priests and only allow them to claim expenses for those outgoings parish priests can claim for eg. no more gardeners and chauffeurs paid for by old Mrs. Smith out of her pension. Oh, and we could ban them from travelling around the world on freebies and “state visits.” Video conferencing would be a lot cheaper and there wouldn’t be so many fights.