to be quite shocked that the church invests so much in media?

[Orbinator]

I realise the Church is in effect a business now, however I didn't realise that all that collection money is being proffered to such companies as NOTW.
Isn't it fairly obvious that this is to promote religion in some way in our national press? I realise NOTW is/was less than independent, but I'm still quite amazed.
Surely they could fix all those bloomin' church roofs in one fell swoop!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8627499/Phone-hacking-scandal-Church-of-England-could-withdraw-4-million-from-News-Corp.html

Even the church has to have a pension fund.

I get that, I think I am just surprised at ties with media. Would have thought there would have been criticism for that from the get go as possible propaganda or similar.

I would have thought the media is exactly where you'd find the church

Both trying to communicate with a lot of people.

YABU... Central role of any religion is to communicate its message and convert people to it. The word 'angel' comes from the Greek angelos meaning 'messenger'. In the old days, the people came to the religion, sat meekly and absorbed. Now the religion has to go to them through whatever media they can. No point having nicely repaired brickwork if no-one walks through the doors

It's actually quite appropriate given that newspapers have taken over the church's function of telling the masses what to think....

Dunno if people have ever sat meekly and absorbed religion cognito (thinking of all the arguments people have got into about what God was trying to say and how we should be listening).

I'm not sure the C of E is out to convert the masses either, not that I've noticed anyway.

But I agree they have some lovely brickwork

Millions of people over the ages have sat meekly and absorbed religion, Agent Zigzag - it's only the few who don't who you hear about....

Yes, it does seem to be all about the money. Can't see the Archbish wanting to be seen as funding Pg 3 for example...
Rusty I agree with you to an extent. Just surprised that I hadn't heard of it before (seems a little menacing) and wonder how many CofE people realised what their Sunday coffers have been partially funding.

But if people blindly obeyed rusty, religion would have never changed like it has over the years.

Some are meek, but most peoples nature is to question everything.

This is the C of E owning (and now selling) shares in News International. It invests its wealth in various businesses. It spreads its investments around.

It has a bunch of incompetents an ethical investment committee looking at what suits and what doesn't.

There are probably lots of other relatively big shareholders in News International. Maybe your local authority has invested a few million.

Agent I'm not so sure that is "most people's nature". From what I have seen it's actually the opposite. Most people like being sheep. Hence the abundance of addidas and branded sportswear in McDonalds, for example.

Surely the church gets a say at what the advisers invest in though? Or do they become meek at this point?

I think it is a bit much to suggest that the CofE is somehow culpable or wrong for investing in News International.

I run various investment funds but to be truthful, running a truely ethical investment is a nightmare that it is almost impossble to achieve in reality. Fine you can avoid alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, arms, military contractors but where do you stop?

Would you exclude banks that lend to the list of businesses I set out above, what about oil and mineral extraction firms that impact the environment, what about electricity generators, drugs companies that do animal testing, retailers that sell clothes made in factories in China with its questionable human rights record, insurers that insure any of those firms?

Just how far does one go because there is no truely ethical investment in my experience?

I agree with MoreBeta. I am involved with developing an ethical procurement policy for an organisation and at the rate we're going the only people it'll be left doing business with will be a rather small nunnery in the Outer Hebrides.

LineRunner - I can already think of three ethical issues with a nunnery in the Outer Hebrides

By the way I invest for funds for children so ethical issues are something we did think about quite seriously so am not being entirely flippant.

What I mean is that the majority will 'listen and say amen' to the established order until they have a reason not to.

If someone who disagrees with the established order manages to gain a following it may be perhaps because they are a charismatic speaker and leader, perhaps because times are bad and people want someone to blame, or sometimes because the Establishment changes things or exerts control a bit too much for the majority to accept - then you will get change.
At other times, those calling for change will just be excommunicated or burned and unless there are too many burnings, the masses will accept it.

Sometimes, of course, the change may be taken over by the Establishment for its own reasons; for example Henry VIII took on board the idea that the Pope's authority could be challenged because he wanted a divorce, not because he wanted to get rid of Catholicism - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the results were far-reaching and probably not what he intended.

You almost certainly have invested in News Corp! At least if you have a pension, an ISA, Unit trusts etc.
Even places like the Coop have a limit to how many places they can boycott before their investment products become a) un attractive b) too risky as its all in one sector.
Pharmaceutical companies are also dodgy, so are food companies, car companies (may make weapons too) and so on.
YABU

Oh Dear Lord, MoreBeta, don't tell me that. Is it the wimpoles?

The wimpoles? I think I mean wimples. Do I mean wimples?

Parable of the talents?

Clever.

Investing in News International - what would Jesus do?

You mean wimples.

Yeah, I know. Have been reading about Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Got all me wimplish things confused.

Anyway, as the OP has probably lost the will etc., I would like to actually pay attention to her original post and say that I think whilst the C of E's investment may now seem with hindsight suprising and inappropriate, it was not in fact unusual. Therefore YABslightlyU.

YABU. The Church Commissioners have a responsibility to make sure that e.g. church employees' pensions do not go up in smoke, that there is enough income to maintain buildings and that they can keep charitable projects and giving sustainable etc., so they will have a wide investment portfolio just like any other organization. You cannot do this properly on collection plate offerings alone. I am an Anglican and am perfectly happy for the church to make investments as it sees fit.

As you can see from the article they have an ethics committee (for example it is highly unlikely they invest in arms companies, unlike banks) and they are considering whether or not to dump the shares.

I realise this kind of thing surprises people who don't otherwise think about the church much, but if say a charity or public organization didn't manage its money professionally, people would be up in arms about it because it would be bad financial practice. The same applies to the church.