Should racial justice be at the heart of the Church’s mission?

John Root writes: ‘Being Built Together Volume 1: A Reference on Racial Justice in the Church of England’ (hereafter BBT) is a ‘book of readings and testimonies about the work of racial justice and the experiences of people of colour in the Church of England’ according to the Church’s leading administrator, William Nye. It includes some short basic ‘set piece’ sections from the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice: Theological Reflections, an Appeal to the Church of England, a Summary of Key Recommendations; pen portraits of the twenty-three minority ethnic senior office holders, plus longer and at times powerful personal reflections by several of them; Lord Boateng’s final address to General Synod; and a mosaic of other opinion pieces or information sections.

A recent quotation regarding geopolitics struck me as being intriguingly appropriate for the Church of England’s attitude to race: ‘amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics’. The document being reviewed shows both sides. It would be unfair to call the main actors involved here as ‘amateurs’, but there is a focus on broad issues of ‘strategy’, and a lack ‘professionalism’ in neglecting ‘logistics’—carrying through the everyday details of how the church ministers in a multi-ethnic society .

The problem at BBT’s heart—as indeed more widely with the churches—is the focus on the term ‘racial justice’ which is assumed to carry the weight of the church’s ministry rather than an aspect of it. BBT offers a definition:

a church in which nobody is marginalised or excluded on the basis of their ethnicity, in which people of all ethnicities are not simply welcomed but truly belong, and in which their diverse gifts as members of Christ’s Body are fully realised.

Who could argue with that, or with the Archbishop of York’s summary: ‘to love our neighbours as ourselves’ (p 7). BBT then spells it out more sharply:

in reality our life together continues to be marred by racism—racism that shows itself in individual attitudes and acts, but that is also woven into the structures and habits of our life together (pp 18,19).

Two primary areas of injustice, then. As regards ‘individual attitudes and acts’, most of the leaders spoke of experiencing racism in some form. The document mentions leaders’ experience within church contexts of people not looking at you when they speak to you, a deliberately offensive comment about mixed-race children, patronising attitudes, or overtly racist responses to Bishop Rosemarie Mallett’s advocacy of reparations for profits from slavery. Our life together is indeed being marred.

As regards ‘the structures and habits of our life together’, gathering clear evidence of institutional racism is harder to establish. Much weight is given, both by a four page summary in this document and by strong commendation in Lord Boateng’s address, to the deeply flawed Behind the Stained Glass report (see my criticisms here), in which the statistical evidence is either weak, or indeed counter-productive (we are now training above-proportionate minority ethnic ordinands), whilst the anecdotal evidence of unfair treatment is not that different from the complaints one can hear in any gathering of white clergy. For BBT to summarise that ‘The personal preferences and biases of bishops hinder people of Global Majority Heritage in appointment processes’ is irresponsible given that the evidence is no stronger than that of a disgruntled minority ethnic cleric. (Indeed, at the foot of p 51 BBT in effect asks the church to treat the report gently).

Significantly the most substantial experience of being damaged by the structures was Bishop Tim Wambunya’s account (p 66) of the ‘deep injustice’ of how, as a qualified engineer, he was required to spend a pre-ordination training year at the Simon of Cyrene Theological Institute (SOCTI). SOCTI had been set up at the instigation of the Association of Black Clergy (ABC) to provide an access course to enable under-qualified black people with a call to ministry to get on the training ladder. But the constituency was found not to exist, so patronising authorities had to justify SOCTI’s existence by sending along already well-prepared black ordinands. It is a case study of a useless strategy devised with no attention to logistics. The ‘strategists’ (ABC and the Board for Ministry) expended a significant amount of money and manpower on an institution which in terms of delivering training (‘logistics’) was redundant. Further, I am not aware that there has ever been any ‘lessons learned’ response to the episode. Consequently, I suspect that the Church is still spending money and manpower on ‘strategic’ trophies which from a hard logistical perspective are unlikely to produce any benefit.

In summary, BBT produces some evidence that racial injustices persist in the Church of England, but mainly at the level of personal interaction. That shouldn’t be dismissed but nor should we fail to recognise that for an ever impure church, as Bishop Esther Prior recognises, ‘Racism is a painful reality, and I believe it will persist as long as live in a fallen world’ (p 78).

But is the evidence strong enough to justify the dramatic language that occurs in BBT? Lord Boateng’s speech to Synod speaks of us being in ‘a time of existential threat to the Church of England’ (p 46). How substantial is the ‘harrowing, lamentable and frequent experience of rejection and harassment of UK minoritised ethnic clergy’ (p 47). ‘The times call us to new outlooks and to new measures’ (the Appeal, p 19). Elsewhere we are told that (yet again!) we are in a kairos moment. But ‘strategists’ need a perma-crisis to justify costly schemes. Thus, variants of the vapid cliché ‘we have made progress but there is still a long way to go’ are repeated—from the Archbishop of York (p 7), William Nye (p 8), Lord Boateng (p 47), Preb Dr Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu (p 56).

BBT appeared in the context of complaints about budget cuts to the Racial Justice Unit. The terms above support its demand that the Church pays for more of the same. Yet is the demand for more ‘Racial Justice’ activity, for further strategies, warranted?

In contrast to the frequent mood of alarmism and guilt, the most exhilarating parts of the document are the ‘Up Close and Personal’ stories of several of the church leaders. Bishops Anderson Jeremiah and Esther Prior and Archdeacon Javaid Iqbal tell vivid and heart-warming stories of their journeys in faith and ministry. It was fascinating to read Dean Andrew Zihni’s experience of faith through the Anglican choral tradition. The Appendix on Ethnocultural Networks and Groups pointed to vigorous grass-roots initiatives amongst various ethnic minorities. It was also helpful to note that several stories highlighted the support, not the problems, people received from white leaders or colleagues. Can any lessons be learned from the fact Bishop Lesslie Newbigin—humble, culturally sensitive, mission orientated—is mentioned as providing important input into two of the life stories? There is also positivity in some of the Racial Justice Units initiatives, for example in developing effective mentoring, and gatherings for minority ethnic clergy and lay leaders.

So, the very varied collection of writings in BBT—the ‘Contents’ extends to almost three pages—gives contrasting pictures. A rather heavy, gloomy, frustrated back-drop suggesting a church which is badly handling its response to a multi-ethnic society. But set within that worthy but dour context are positive stories of inspiring faith, caring fellowship and forward-looking mission. As with our society as a whole—and a running theme in these blogs—we can choose between telling a bad story or a good story. There is truth in both. We can not ignore the bad stories that minority ethnic people tell of slights, micro-aggressions, patronage, and at times of downright racism. Nor can we ignore the possibility that decision-makers can be working with negative assumptions about minorities. But we can also let those failures push into a downward spiral of guilt and fear which can lead into well-meaning but inappropriate responses (‘strategies’) which are costly but ineffective.

In fact, making our strap-line ‘racial justice’ pulls us into that direction. It focusses attention on injustices, which given the sinfulness of humanity, will never be removed this side of eternity. That is no excuse to tolerate evil, but it is to recognise that whilst we need to struggle, there will forever be ‘a long way to go’ in seeking racial justice, inevitable in a church which is open to all. Moral perfectionism of any sort always leads to depression.

But how and when was it decided that the Church of England’s central focus in a multi-racial society should be ‘racial justice’ rather than the dominical ‘make disciples of all nations’ (Matt 28:19)? Yes, we need to be living out the gospel’s call to love our (ethnically different) neighbour as ourselves, and racism in any form both dishonours Jesus and mars our witness to our society, but that is a sub-set within the larger issue of seeking to help everyone in our society find eternal life in Jesus.

Holiness and mission go hand in hand. Without holiness mission becomes shallow. Without mission holiness becomes self-focused. In BBT there are positive stories of lives changed by the gospel (but so often before coming here!) and of the rich benefit that the Church of England can receive from leaders expressing that faith. There are resources with some of these leaders to take the church forward in effective inter-cultural mission. My fear is that pre-occupation with the ‘strategies’ of finding ways to promote ever-elusive ‘racial justice’ will suppress the potential of some of these leaders to take us forward in outward-looking mission and church growth.

Additional note: A colourful A3 poster has been widely circulated by the Church of England headed ‘Racial Justice’, then in smaller print ‘at the heart of the church’s ministry’. It continues:

General Synod voted that the church’s parishes and deaneries give full consideration to the Appeal, Key Findings and Recommendations of the Archbishops Commission for Racial Justice.

Churches are then meant to reflect and act upon the Report. BUT the Final Report it commends doesn’t actually include the capitalised areas that we are meant to consider, though an Appeal and Key Recommendations do appear in BBT.

The ‘Introduction’ on the posters’ down-loaded QR code states that:

Attitudes based on racial prejudice can have no place in the life of the church. However, the evidence shows that patterns of behaviour within the church that privilege some and disadvantage others are still widespread. The mission of the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice was to show the church the actions and attitudes that we need to adopt to enable the church to live up to Jesus’ standards! So, please read the report and start to make change happen where you are.

BUT the ‘patterns of behaviour’ are nowhere spelled out, nor are we guided about ‘the actions and attitudes that we need to adopt’.

In short, what seems like a confused mix-up suggests that the Church is still floundering in its response to a multi-racial society. The Archbishops’ Commission and the high-sounding, expensive publicity surrounding it have still not got a handle on what the church should actually be doing in its ministry ‘to live up to Jesus’ standards’.

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, in a slightly revised form, on John Root’s substack here.