PMS protesters prepare to doorstep the Presbyterian Church
On yesterday's Talk Back, a Presbyterian Mutual Society saver explained why he, and others, would be holding a protest at the opening session of this year's Presbyterian General Assembly. Mervyn Redmond, a spokesman for the Shore Street PMS Action Group in Donaghadee, said, 'We feel betrayed' by the Presbyterian Church.
'We and our families and forebears have always turned to the Church in times of serious difficulty, but during this desperate situation we are reduced to confronting the Church leaders and elders because they have refused to take a compassionate and fruitful initiative,' he said in a press statement.
I've asked many Presbyterian ministers, elders and memebrs just how serious a challenge to the church is posed by collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. In short, no one can remember a comparable public controversy involving the church. Some say this has been the greatest challenge to the leadership of the Presbyterian Church in the denomination's history. Serious questions are being asked by PMS members about the way this crisis has been handled by Church House officials, and some of those questions may be raised during the debate on Tuesday.
Was enough done to respond practically to those PMS members who have been placed in financial difficulties as a consequence of the mutual's collapse? Just how close is the association between the church and the mutual society? They share a website and email address, and they once shared a building. Some PMS members say the communications and PR material they receieved from the Mutual Society and the church gave the impression that the mutual was an agency of the church. Even though they accept the church official statement that the two organisations are "legally separate", those investors are asking who is responsible for giving that impression of a closer association?
When I asked Mervyn Redmond what he wanted to see now from his church, I was struck by his answer. He said he wanted the church to look like they cared, that they were listening, that they were interested in the plight of PMS members who thought they were helping their church when they placed money with the mutual society.
On Tuesday afternoon, at the General Assembly, Mervyn Redmond and others will be listening carefully for clear answers to those questions, and for signs of a compassionate and caring response.
Update: The leaders of the Catholic, Methodist and Anglican churches in Ireland have released a joint statement: "We have become increasingly aware of the difficulties faced by people whose access to their savings has been blocked by the Presbyterian Mutual Society being placed in Administration. Since assistance has been offered to others, it is our hope that the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government will take urgent action to resolve these difficulties." The statement is signed by Cardinal Seán Brady, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, Archbishop Alan Harper, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and Rev. Aian Ferguson, President of the Methodist Church
Comment number 1.
At 29th May 2009, Seceder wrote:Sadly the protestors haven't told us - i.e. other presbyterians - what they want?
Do they want us to underwrite their loses?
Personally I would not be in favour of underwriting all the loses, the church should consider making hardship funds etc available but while the church has some linkages to the PMS it was not the church that created the problem and so the church shouldn't be made to carry the can for what is not their mess.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 29th May 2009, bluebadger123 wrote:Industrial and Provident Society Order 2006 - seems as if someone forgot to get this passed in NI to keep us in line with the rest of the UK.
Reason for run on PMS funds.
UK Treasurer offers £50K gaurantee on savings in UK banks.
Clerk of General Assembly e-mails Clerks of Presbyteries about the problem in PMS before shareholders are informed.(see general Assembly report 2009)..
PCI and PMS are inextricably linked.(
PCI set up the Rural Settlement Trust in 1945.
Agreed to change its name to PMS in 1983.
PCI appoint an 'agent'who has voting rights onto PMS board.
We only want UK Gov. to gaurantee loans to let a restructured PMS 'trade'out of this situation and enable it to operate under proper legislation.
Church House operate only ' a damage limitation policy for their Church...which isn't working.
Credit Unions,Mutual and Provident Societies are a benifit to society and our Church is avoiding helping the ailing PMS.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 30th May 2009, John Wright wrote:So why do I get the impression that these people want to blame the Presbyterian Church completely for their entire losses, losses which weren't a result of any wrongdoing by the church? Yes, the church mismanaged when the SHTF, but it wasn't the cause of the economic meltdown. Where is the responsibility upon the investor to know what the hell they're investing in and to accept that there are risks in all such investments?
I can see that PCI share some blame here... but not all of it, by any means.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 31st May 2009, secondveryunhappy wrote:We put our money in the PMS because of all of the literature promoting us to do so - "Save within your Church" - "its in the Church's interest and yours".
The PMS grew out of the Rural Settlement Trust and the links between the two were very evident around all of the Church - Ministers too promoted us to save within our Church.
We were not investors - we were savers who were willing to share our savings for the benefit of the Church - to help create a line of credit for the building of the church. We did not ask for our savings to be lent out to Builders! We helped build and extend approx 460 churches and this is the thanks you get!!
The savers are the victims here - It was a £1 in and a £1 out with interest - we did not receive any increase on our capital in the event of a normal wind-up - the PCI received the surplus - they were the beneficiaries - and of course in the event of a bad wind-up there is no help forthcoming from the PCI to help with the deficit - very strange - in fact there is no consistency on this very issue throughout the Church.
Remember - approximately 60% of the savers are of pension age - they and we all believed it to be a part of the Church - the elderly especially look up to their Ministers and believe all they hear from them.
This is affecting approximately one quarter of regular church attenders as there are many congregations, bible clubs, choirs, presbyterian women etc who have their money involved.
It is now time after seven months of pain for 10,000 savers - for the church to morally deal with this - whilst Government help would be the best answer and questions need to be raised on the lack of regulations for this financial institution in NI (DETI) - the church cannot say that the Government morally need to resolve this and not take the moral view themselves!
Surely the PCI with their large income and spare income can service a loan secured on their buildings to resolve this issue. It is a problem for all Presbyterians.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 31st May 2009, petermorrow wrote:Some time before Christmas, when this all blew up, I got into trouble for passing comment on the PMS/PCI problem, I have said nothing since. One of the things I tried to say then was that while according to the letter of the law PCI and the PMS are distinct, by the spirit of Presbyterianism they are one. This has a number of implications, one of which is, as secondveryunhppy says, that the PMS problem is a problem for all Presbyterians. Put simply all Presbyterians are the church and we ought to be helping one another.
I am not a PMS investor, but am happy to be part of the solution. Secondveryunhappy suggests that a loan could be secured on our church buildings, this is one option. Others include, congregations contributing to a church fund to assist PMS members who have lost money, churches contributing a percentage of their FWO collections to such a fund, churches putting on hold plans for buildings and other material improvements to properties and donating such money to those who have lost their investments. People in most need might receive money first along with those in receipt of an annual income less than a determined amount.
This of course requires a bit of determination and a bit of leadership, it requires that the church makes some difficult decisions and faces the issue head on, but maybe in the middle of it all we might rediscover the lost art of ecclesiastical community. Who knows, maybe this week at the Assembly...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)