Is the Church Commissioners’ proposal for a ‘reparations’ fund (Project Spire) for ‘Justice, Healing, and Repair’ based on historical facts? Will it ‘repair’, or in fact divide us further? Is there a clear ethical argument, and have they followed clear and transparent processes in proposing this?
The two videos here comprises four addresses given at a fringe meeting of the General Synod on Wednesday 11th February by Professor Richard Dale, Dr Alka Seghal-Cuthbert, Lord Professor Nigel Biggar, and Charles Wide.
The scripts of three of the talks can be found here: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/the-problems-with-the-c-of-es-reparations-project-spire/
Buy me a Coffee
As a point of information, the first video is 16 minutes and the second is 24 minutes. I almost didn’t bother with them because I presumed it would necessitate good couple of hours. Now I’ll listen.
The motivation for reparations seems to be that they are “christian behaviour”. Sadly Christ now seems to be missing in modern thinking and actions.
Ian,
Thank you for your speech resisting Charlie’s LLF Amendment this afternoon
You must be exhausted.
Peter
So thankful for people prepared to do the work to reveal the truth. The first speech shows the utter lack of credibility for this project and therefore the extreme moralistic (ie virtue-signalling) motivation for it. The Christian reformers are defined as standing against justification by ‘works’, instead the proclamation of the Gospel of justification by Jesus. The apparent rot at the heart of CoE leadership is revealed.
Good to hear Nigel Biggar making the points that I made independently on the other thread: that slavery was a universal phenomenon until Britain decided to end it; that the west African kingdoms created the slave trade by capturing other tribes and selling them to western slave traders; that it is impossible to sort out all the injustices of the past and even harmful to try; that the descendants of slaves in the West Indies ironically enjoy better and healthier lives than most people in West Africa; that 19th century Britain paid a great cost to eradicate slavery, financially and in terms of naval lives lost. It is small minded and wrongheaded to belittle the sacrifices of the West Africa Patrol.
There needs to be a far greater recognition of the affront to ordinary churchgoers by Spire.
They are being baited and deceived by the claim that “reparations” are due.
It is an argument with merit and not – as is sometimes claimed – because it is inadequate or ineffectual.
The church goers in this Country and the Civil Society/State of which they are part are indebted to nobody.
If this money were to be paid, who would get it? Would it be Governments or health services or schools or even drug traders? How would checks be done? Should Britain get reparations for establishing schools, roads, railways, hospitals or even government systems?