John Root writes: The diocese of London has been awarded a grant of £730,000 from the Church of England’s Racial Justice Unit to develop its racial justice work over a three year period. This is part of a national strategy of giving grants to address the issue.
In this blog I want to question whether spending money on ‘racial justice’ is the best way for the Church of England to take forward its calling to bring the good news of Jesus to the people of England, notably to a context of ethnic diversity. I am using London diocese as an example to examine the appropriateness of using racial justice as a main focus in that task.
For the reasons given below, I believe this is, in fact, not the best or the wisest way in which £730,000 of the Church of England’s money is best spent.
1. It reverses a relatively successful diocesan emphasis.
The last statistical deep dive into minority ethnic involvement in the Church of England was the 2007 ‘Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England’ survey from the Research and Statistics Department. Here London Diocese had the most positive results. As regards the ratio of a diocese’s overall minority ethnic population set against the ‘core congregation’ of members from ethnic minorities (thus measuring a diocese’s impact on its total minority ethnic population) London had the highest ratio of 100:94.
In other words, the proportion of ethnic minority church members was near to reflecting the proportion of ethnic minorities in the diocesan population—particularly impressive given that this included large proportions from other world faith backgrounds (Muslims in Tower Hamlets, Hindus across Harrow, Wembley and Barnet, and of various backgrounds in Southall and Hounslow). The next highest ratios were in Southwark (100:92, shaped partly by the large of concentration of Christian-background West Africans in south-east London), Chelmsford (100:64), Manchester (100:49) and Birmingham (100:46). (Note the often-overlooked major difference between London and the rest of the country; see my article ‘Is London Exceptional’.)
It is important to note that Southwark has had a much more intentional racial justice approach, employing at times two specialist officers, commissioning a report on the diocese by Sir Herman Ouseley of the Community Relations Commission, and with a higher proportion of clergy from minority ethnic backgrounds. By contrast the low participation by London clergy in the research suggested apathy about ministry to ethnic minorities, black clergy have commented that they felt little support from the diocese’s senior leadership at the time, and the diocesan Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican concerns was fairly ineffective. Why then did London diocese have greater impact on people of ethnic minorities than Southwark?
The issue is explored in detail in Bob Jackson’s chapter on ‘The Diocese of London and the Anglican Church in London 1980 to the Present’ (pp 268-278, in The Desecularisation of the City: London Churches, 1980 to the Present, edited by David Goodhew and Anthony-Paul Cooper). Jackson identifies the ‘critical moment’ as being in 1981 when Bp David Hope, later followed by Bp Richard Chartres, focussed the diocese’s concern on mission, redeploying staff with that focus, encouraging churches to develop mission action plans, no longer hindering growth by making growing churches immediately pay more to the diocese. The upshot of this growth and missional focus was that in the period 2001-2019 adult weekly attendances in London increased by 2.7%, in every other diocese they declined, ranging from 7.0% (Southwark) down to 39.5%. Whilst there was no particular focus on ministry to ethnic minorities a rising tide raised all boats: ‘That churches have been able to grow as multi-ethnic communities is one of the most positive aspects of all’ (p278).
In summary London diocese focussed on a ‘mission’ emphasis, Southwark on a ‘racial justice’ emphasis. In terms of the stated goal of involving people from ethnic minorities in the ‘core communities’ of churches the mission emphasis was undoubtedly more effective than the racial justice emphasis: both through having a greater impact on its minority ethnic constituency, and by seeing its churches, which included minority ethnic members, grow.
2. It fails to address our serious crisis in pastoral parochial coverage.
A friend from a minority ethnic background was recently appointed as vicar of a strategically important multi-ethnic parish. He has had to commute there from his present home for over an hour each way because of problems paying for the work to bring the vicarage up to reasonable standards. (Am I mis-reading from my limited knowledge, or do minority ethnic clergy more often get the short stick when finances are tight?)
A parish just inside the North Circular Road consisting of two churches, almost a mile apart, with one an excellent redevelopment on a visible major road site, has been in vacancy. According to the very useful Church of England Census and Deprivation Dashboard the parish population is 27,647 (not including a possibly significant number who didn’t fill in the census return). Of this about 40% are ‘white’, so including the substantial number of Poles, Romanians, Greeks and other non-English whites who live in the area. This gives a non-white population in the parish of at least 17,417 people. This desperately thin parochial coverage inevitably questions the diocese’s bold statement:
Our vision for every Londoner to encounter God’s love is the work of racial justice.
Our position as a national church offering pastoral care to the whole nation through the parish system is becoming meaningless when our pastoral coverage of vast areas of north London is so thin as to be effectively invisible to Londoners of all ethnic backgrounds.
Of course, £730,000 is too small a sum of itself to make a major dent in that problem; but it could, say, provide for four curates in multi-ethnic parishes for three years. Given the increasing weight of administration for incumbents in parishes it is difficult for them to do more than just keep their church simply surviving, especially in communities where few people have administrative capacities. Here, able additional pastoral help can make all the difference between stagnation and growth. Using funding in this way would likely in the short term increase the actual number of minority ethnic people worshipping in our churches—the essential basis for our real-world effectiveness; and in the longer term it would ease our present bottleneck in finding appropriately experienced candidates to appoint to incumbencies in core minority ethnic areas. Also, it would fit with the Archbishop’s Commission on Racial Justice’s Vision to be a ‘simpler’ church, since used in this way little or nothing of the funding would be spent on a further layer of administrative costs.
3. It comes from leadership low in relevant experience.
This comment is in no way a criticism of the ability, intelligence or spirituality of the diocese’s leadership, but it is to say that it has been very thin in terms of experience of urban, multi-ethnic London. In 2024 the Bishop of London and the four area bishops had between them around seventeen years of incumbency, only in one case in a substantially multi-ethnic parish. The two bishops of minority ethnic backgrounds did not grow up nor were trained in multi-ethnic Britain, and both come from atypical ethnic backgrounds. Whilst they share the painful and important experience of receiving racism and being regarded as ‘other’ by white people, and thus an important affinity with everyone from an ethnic minority background, there is not the sort of close cultural bonding that comes from growing up with and sharing identity within one of the main ethnic sub-groups in the country. Whilst fully recognising that the bishops are gifted in a variety of ways, the lack of immersive experience of parochial ministry in multi-ethnic communities is a serious deficiency.
Nationally, the resultant danger is of policy being formed by leaders who share a common identity amongst well-educated, middle-class people, but which is too easily formed by abstract and fashionable theories rather than on the ground realities. Whilst ‘elite bashing’ can be crass, Professor Doug Stokes identification (in Against Decolonisation) of a Professional Managerial Class (PMC) that ‘has emerged under globalisation that secures hegemony through advancing a politics of vulnerability and the bureaucratic corralling of moralising coalitions around identity issues’ (p 14) sounds a little too familiar to the road the Church is going down.
It is too easy to dismiss questioning the usefulness of spending money on ‘racial justice’ as ‘racist’. Rather the question has to be asked as to whether racial justice is the most effective way to develop minority ethnic participation and, in the longer term, home-grown multi-ethnic leadership.
4. It wrongly prioritises theory over evidence.
The Church of England has a long history of being seduced by impressive-sounding policies with little realism about outcomes. Industrial chaplaincies and team ministries were touted as being theologically imaginative and institutionally creative. But they never actually delivered what was claimed for them. (Even a decisive step like the ordination of women—I am not an opponent—was taken on the base of abstract, theoretical, and contradictory, claims about what ordained women would bring to the church but with no serious research whatsoever in looking the actual outcomes of such decisions for Lutheran churches in Europe or free churches in England).
How much scrutiny has there been of the effectiveness of policies for ‘racial justice’? We lack serious study of ethnically diverse parishes, and of what important distinguishing characteristics of leaders and congregations might lead to effectiveness. There has been a substantial increase in the number of minority ethnic ordinands in London diocese over the past few years—usually running to at least 20-25%. Surely analysing what has encouraged such positives ought to precede the Key Funding Objective of ‘removing practical barriers for Global Majority Heritage (GMH) individuals’? How much do we still need to create ‘accessible pathways into leadership’?
As often, the question needs asking as to whether we are like an army that is preparing to fight the last war. Undoubtedly there are shameful examples in the past of racist exclusion of individuals, failure to orientate towards the strengths and needs of ethnic minorities, of unwillingness to hear expressions of grievance, to recognise the multiple ways racist assumptions of white superiority can manifest themselves. Nor have these sins completely disappeared. But are these at the root of the challenges we face today; or is it not rather the simple failure of evangelistic and pastoral impact in parishes, not least with ethnic minority people who have grown up here, especially those who can be loosely characterised as working class?
It has long been argued that the surest way to overcome racism is ‘equal status contact’. Churches can be fruitful sources of racial justice as their leaders and congregations grow in that unplanned and unconscious sharing of our common life in Christ. Why does it flourish so much more in some churches than in others? It is a vital, practical and very consequential question but the Church of England, and London diocese, has never thought to ask it.
5. How might we progress?
As regards racial justice, the London Key Funding Objectives focus on three primary areas:
- Education and Training, especially on anti-racism and cultural competency for clergy and church councils, and a school curriculum regarding links to transatlantic slavery.
- Leadership and Representation, both creating accessible pathways into leadership, and removing practical barriers for Global Majority Heritage people.
- Community Advocacy to work with others to address issues such as youth safety, health inequalities and immigration
How far do these take forward ‘Our vision for every Londoner to encounter God’s love is the work of racial justice’?
The need for thorough clergy training is certainly vital and essential to develop that vision. But we already have a clergy training department so why should this training not simply have a much higher profile in that remit? It is certainly one area where we need a much more energetic approach. Are there not schools’ curricula on transatlantic slavery without the church having to re-invent the wheel on this?
How great are the barriers to leadership for Global Majority Heritage people, given the increasing numbers coming into leadership? The ‘Behind the Stained Glass’ report was an extremely poor investigation of the issue (see my analysis here). No doubt there are still racist weeds blemishing the garden but these are eradicated by honest personal interaction, not by setting up further procedures.
‘Working with others on addressing issues’ is Professional Managerial Class speak. Existing church members are involved in such issues. Would a new layer of bureaucracy justify itself.
‘Racial justice’ does present us with ongoing challenges, not least for more effective clergy and then congregational formation, and for ongoing vigilance in detecting and countering racism at all levels of church life.
But the question remains: would £730,000 for increasing the involvement of people from ethnic minorities in London diocese be better spent on
a. often undefined and elusive racial justice goals, or
b. strengthening the church’s parochial ministry and experience of ethnically diverse areas.
I think the answer is clearly b.
Ian Paul adds: There are two perspectives to add to John Root’s very clear analysis here. The first is Bijan Omrani’s challenge that the Church of England, and the Diocese of London in particular, is forgetting and ignoring its own past actions on this question:
Who remembers Beilby Porteus? He doesn’t quite win the competition for Church of England cleric with the silliest name in history – the reverend Nutcombe Nutcombe, 19th-century chancellor of Exeter Cathedral, easily walks away with that prize. But Porteus was certainly one of the Church of England’s most outstanding campaigners for the abolition of slavery and, what we might call today, racial justice.
From the pulpit of St Mary-Le-Bow in 1783, he gave a seminal sermon. It condemned the inhumane treatment of slaves in the Caribbean, and in particular those on the Codrington Plantations – then owned by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, a Church of England body. Despite this fulminating critique of his own church, in 1787, Porteus was appointed as Bishop of London and thus also to the House of Lords, a position he used tirelessly to support William Wilberforce’s campaign to extirpate the slave trade. He was also committed to improving the lot of the poor, and making sure that as many people around the world had access to the Bible in their own languages.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Diocese of London has forgotten what it itself did to fight slavery…
One injunction of scripture is ‘let us now praise famous men’. Perhaps if the Diocese of London spent more time honouring the legacies and examples of those like Porteus, rather than flagellating itself for imagined sins, they would be more likely to inspire its congregations to practical work against real racism and oppression, rather than driving them away in despair.
The other is the serious demands that the Church of England, the Archbishops’ Council (from whom these funds originate), and the dioceses themselves have as charities. The Charity Commission is very clear on the responsibilities of trustees for how they deploy the funds of their charities:
7. Manage your charity’s resources responsibly
You must act responsibly, reasonably and honestly. This is sometimes called the duty of prudence. Prudence is about exercising sound judgement. You and your co-trustees must:
- make sure the charity’s assets are only used to support or carry out its purposes
- avoid exposing the charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation to undue risk
- not over-commit the charity
- take special care when investing or borrowing
- comply with any restrictions on spending funds or selling land
You and your co-trustees should put appropriate procedures and safeguards in place and take reasonable steps to ensure that these are followed. Otherwise you risk making the charity vulnerable to fraud or theft, or other kinds of abuse, and being in breach of your duty.
This means trustees should not waste money on projects, not engage in projects which are not part of their objects, and not spend money on things that will be ineffective in delivering their goals.
If John Root’s analysis above (and in other articles he has written) is sound, then the use of this £730,000 is likely a breach of these responsibilities, both by the Archbishops’ Council, and by the Diocese of London.
John Root was a curate in Harlesden, led an estate church plant in Hackney, and planted two Asian language congregations in Wembley, before enjoying retirement ministry in Tottenham.
This article was first published on John Root’s substack here.
Buy me a Coffee
Yes spending this money on Parish work in areas with large numbers of ethnic minorities would be far more sensible and make more practical difference to ethnic minority church members on the ground
I deny that I view non-white people as ‘other’. I view non-Christians as that. If this ghastly ‘racial justice’ unit dares to tell me otherwise, it is up to them to prove it.
Check with minority ethnic people you know what is their experience of being ‘othered’ . Many would find it a not unfamiliar experience.
‘Racial justice’ is not ghastly. It is a proper Christian moral concern, though it does need to be defined much more precisely. My blog was simply about priorities of racial justice . For large multi ethnic areas to have seriously inadequate pastoral coverage is a primary racial injustice.
I agree that racial justice is a Christian concern.
I think the difficulty is that Racial Justice, understood in the Marxist/critical theory way underlying these approaches, is not.
The test will be the response of those pushing Racial Justice to your evidence-based approach. If they say ‘You are right, we need to rethink’, then I think they will be engaged in racial justice. But I doubt that will happen!
You misread me, John. I called the CoE’s racial justice unit ghastly, not racial justice itself.
There is only one race, the human race. Exposing racism is a fashionable woke-ish thing at the moment which seeks out grievances and piling on guilt.
Much better to be building up cross cultural ministry. CMS could link with this. Afterall mission is a chief focus for the church.
Whilst this article is an enlightening and thought-provoking piece of work on an issue that many of us in suburban life don’t really come across, the author does recognise it as one aspect of the biggest problem of all: the takeover by the “Professional Managerial Class” of so many western institutions.
I suspect that disabled people and people of lesser education/intelligence would make the same claims of discrimination that non-whites do, but they don’t feature in the global elite either and so tend to be ignored.
In the end, people of sincere faith, who seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will instinctively treat everyone fairly and with love; the elite can’t organise equality into people’s hearts.
It is a pertinent tension; at my last meeting of the Archbishops’ Council (having been there for 10 years), we had to decide how to split a pot of money between *further* spending on racial justice, and a disability access project.
The latter won out—precisely because it was clear, well-defined, and has measurable goals and outcomes. That is essential for charitable spending.
Hmmmm.
I agree with the central thesis of this article: the church should invest resources where it is clear that God is at work, and not in speculative initiatives that we hope God might turn up and assist us in if we start them, however nobly they may be envisaged.
For all the good that an emphasis on the ‘missio dei’ has done for contextualising mission in many new and pioneering initiatives, it still seems that in practice we try to humanly strategise our way into solving problems much more than we spiritually discern our way into responding well to the problems God presents us with.
Is that over-idealised? Yes, probably, but that is certainly my perception of the institutional response to these things. The need to be recognised as doing something often means something specific and ‘showy’ gets a bit more priority over the decidedly unglamourous solution of more investment in the basics. And to be fair, I am including myself under the banner of ‘institutional’ here. 🙂
I had never heard of Bielby Porteus, but yes, what a fantastic name.
Mat
The tyranny of the ‘showy’…I think otherwise called ‘virtue signalling’.
Porteus is a really key figure. Do read up about him.
In Christ there may be no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female.
But apparently there is black and white.
…and the situation is even more incendiary in the US than it is in the UK…
It seems that a lot of the racial policy difficulties in the UK result from influential UK academics importing racial theories from an entirely different (US) culture to ours.
When my brother first travelled to the US on business in the 1980’s, he came back and said, “They look like us and they talk like us, but they have evolved on a far away continent for over 200 years. They are very different from us.”
Paul is not saying these categories don’t exist, he’s saying they’re secondary to our new identity, which is in Christ. I am a Christian man, and I did not cease to be the latter when I became the former, just as I did not cease to be white, or English. One can be a black Christian without having to pretend to ignore, or dismiss the lived reality of being so.
Racial justice does not mean pretending everyone is the same. It means recognising that Christ unites us all in his death and ressurection, and that it is not our prerogative to include or exclude people on any basis other than our status in Christ. It is not a contradiction to say our experiences differ on the basis on the basis of these characteristics, but it is a contradiction to say that our status (or our Salvation) does.
I do wish people would be a bit more careful with Galatians three. Paul is not erasing difference, he’s valuing it while recognising that it has no bearing on our justification, identity and inheritance.
This is not a annoyance exclusively aimed at you, John. 🙂
How do you best spend £730,000?”
Given the current situation; perhaps helping Parishes with
Heating and Lighting bills?
Maybe that parish in Oxford diocese that could only afford a boiler, not a heat pump, nstalled it and was refused a faculty. So what, I’d reply.
The context for the Colossians phrase (not Galatians) is ‘Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man [anthropos] with its practices and have put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.’ Thus it is in Christ that such differences – racial, but also covenantal, linguistic, cultural – cease to be significant. We are baptised into the body of Christ, and he is the new man whose identity, transcending all these categories, is to be taken on. Any appeal to ‘racial justice’ on the basis of Col 3:11 is meaningless where the whole of humanity is in view. It only makes sense if you have been born again, and know what it means to put to death the old Adam, the old body that is carnal and sinful.
The movement to abolish slavery had theologically had quite another basis: all human beings were descendants of Adam and, as such, made in the image of God. For that reason they deserved to be respected and not enslaved.
We should not confuse the two. The role of the Church is primarily to preach the kingdom of God, forgiveness of sins in Christ, the coming king; the surpassing worth of the new man, not the old.