What’s the problem? What’s the Solution? The problem with ‘racial justice’ appointments

John Root writes: The diocese of London is advertising for the post of the newly-created ‘Head of Racial Justice Priority’. Other dioceses (such as Leeds) are considering or have made similar appointments. Why? In this blog, with London as the example, I want to spotlight the potential of such appointments, but especially explore the ways in which it is misconceived and so quite possibly an ineffective use of the £66,646 salary, as well as the add-on costs such as running an office, and taking the time of several other people inevitably involved in supporting the appointment.

When the role description sets the job within the diocese’s mission ‘For every Londoner to encounter the love of God in Christ’, and the priority ‘to reach every Londoner’ (Role Description, RD 2,3) then one can only say a loud ‘Amen’. Doing this means they will ‘support the development of the GMH Anglicans community’ (RD 6), whilst soberly recognising that this is ‘an area where many are lacking in confidence’ (About the Role, AtR 2). But the achieving of positive outcomes always requires the elimination of negatives. Rightly that means ‘to break down mental, cultural and institutional barriers’ (AtR 2) —aka ‘racism’. One consequence is to ‘develop and deliver anti-racism training’ (RD 7), though there needs to be serious analysis of how far such training delivers what is offered on the tin.

The diocese then has an important goal in mind for the appointment in enabling the Anglican church in London to be much more effective in its mission in ‘the world’s most cosmopolitan city’ and its very varied inhabitants, and to be realistic about the way that racism in its various forms can hinder that.

But these positive nuggets are set within a framework where the goal is very poorly defined and the focus seriously misplaced.

A poorly defined goal

The goal is very explicit: ‘racial justice’. The problem is defining what it means. How do we know racial justice when we see it? The term is now used too widely and casually and become so amorphous that any precision to its meaning is lost. One suspects that it is now simply a fashionable and impossible-to-reject phrase to tack on to any policy that involves people of different races, whilst avoiding serious thought about its content. In short it has become a cliché.

Bracketing ‘racism’ and ‘racial injustice’ in the ‘Welcome’ document creates a confusing elision. ‘Racism’ is treating someone unjustly, consciously or unconsciously, because of the colour of their skin, with ‘institutional’ or ‘systemic’ racism referring to the more elusive and less easily identified processes which similarly disadvantage minorities. It is sinful. But the term ‘racial injustice’ adds nothing to our understanding of what is happening, and is usually a thoughtless response to inequalities of outcome, based on simplistically isolating race from all other possible causes of unequal outcomes (thus, being guilty of ‘univariate social analysis’). So the documents use a wide range of opaque jargon (‘transform diocesan cultures and structures’; ‘embed racial justice across all operations’; ‘foster a more racially just culture at all levels’) that increasingly lose content as one tries to work out what they mean.

However, one word used at different points in both precise and ominous: ‘equity’. The diocese has a ‘continuing legacy of racial inequity’; the aim is to build a culture ‘built on . . equity’ (Welcome, p 2). ‘Equality’ means recognising the equal value of all people (for Christians, because they are rooted in all people being created in God’s image), thereby that all people deserve equality of response and opportunity; by contrast, ‘equity’ moves to a very much stronger emphasis on equality of outcome. As pointed out in my review of Taboo: How making Race Sacred produced a Cultural Revolution by the political scientist, Eric Kaufmann, this moves us on from simply creating a level playing field to active intervention in moving the players around the field. But the exercise is futile. Different ethnic groups have at all times and in all places experienced different outcomes despite similar circumstances, for which there is voluminous evidence across a very wide panorama. The books of the venerable black American economist Thomas Sowell tabulate the mountain of evidence—his Discrimination and Disparities is full of examples.

For London Diocese to commit itself to equity is either very foolish (it has ignored the evidence) or very careless (it has not thought about what it is saying). We are buying into the widespread but obviously erroneous view that ‘The differences between different cultures don’t make any difference’. As an example, ‘The Diocese of London is committed to creating and sustaining a diverse and inclusive workforce which represents our context and wider community’ (AtR, p 5). But do we really expect the large Bangladeshi population in London to be well represented amongst our clergy? Is it not reasonable to expect that the very high level of African participation in independent or Pentecostal churches will diminish proportionate African involvement in the Church of England? Restricting our view simply to the Church of England, should those who left school at 16 be proportionately represented amongst our senior clergy? Ought they to be? Or is a fairly high level of academic qualification a likely characteristic of our leaders? (After all, the first item in this job’s Person Specification is ‘Degree Level Education’!) In that case will not the marked disparities between the educational achievements of different ethnic groups shape the ethnic profile of our senior leaders.

The evidence is overwhelming that levels of academic achievement do vary enormously amongst ethnic groups. To seek for ‘equity’—that is, representation in the workforce (mainly clergy?) at a fairly similar level to that ethnic group’s representation in either the general community or the church—is a frustratingly impossible task to land upon the Head of Racial Justice Priority. There are all sorts of ways our ‘workforce’ is skewed away from equity. Chinese people are increasingly frequent among ordinands. African Caribbean men (especially of Jamaican background), a large proportion of whom have low academic achievements, are still under-represented, especially at senior level. Meanwhile, Malayalees—the most literate and highly educated group in India—have provided three bishops despite their very small number in this country. One purpose of the appointment is ‘to identify courses of action that address systemic racial disparities’ (RD, p 2). But we have seen that ‘racial disparities’ are ubiquitous in multi-racial societies simply because of the significant differences between the various ethnic groups. Ominously, the term ‘systemic’ is included—the implication being that it is the culture of the organisation (here the diocese and its ‘systems’) that are at fault, rather than the somewhat unmalleable nature of the different ethnicities who inhabit it. Thus, the term invites bureaucratic intervention that can be both ineffective and inappropriate.

Behind all this lies the intellectual laziness, both in the church and the wider culture, of thinking in the broad category of ‘race’ without attention to the fine detail of ‘ethnicity’. It is right to take seriously that racism affects all ethnic minorities and needs to be recognised and countered, but the enormously varied trajectories of the different ethnic groups in Britain (including the white English one) means we need to focus our attention much more closely and thoughtfully on the complex kaleidoscope before us. In this regard for the church to hold on to terms such as BAME, and now UKME/GMH, consistently befuddles us and hinders us from discerning realities. Rightly, the term is excoriated across a wide spectrum of black thinkers ranging from Kehinde Andrews to Tony Sewell. One consequence is that we appoint on ‘race’ with insufficient regard for placing this particular person in this particular place. Insultingly, all non-white minorities come to be seen as interchangeable.

A further problem raised by the elusiveness and imprecision of the phrase ‘racial justice’ is that it makes evaluation very difficult. One criterion for the appointee is a ‘track record of delivering successful outcomes in relation to equality, diversity, inclusion’(EDI); but how does one measure effectiveness in EDI? This job requires that ‘impact is measured’ (RD, p 2), as also ‘key performance indicators’ (RD, p 5). They are to ‘Take an evidence-based and data-focussed approach’ (RD, p 5), and to ‘Encourage the Diocese to use robust quantitative and qualitative data to understand performance, identify disparities and inform decision making’ (RD, p 6). All this is good stuff. It would be useful if parish clergy were held to account as stringently—especially as we know what their task is: ‘to reach every Londoner’ (in their parish). Since no one is clear what ‘racial justice’ is, how can we know what constitutes successful outcomes, or impact, or performance?

At this point one fears the diocese taking the all-too-easy option of listing statistical disparities, comparing percentage outcomes, and—worst of all—setting percentage-based quotas; which is exactly what we find given as markers of ‘Success Criteria’ in the diocese’s ‘Guiding Principles of the Racial Justice Strategy’. Of course, if London’s ‘UKME/GMH’ population was identical with the white English population in every respect except skin-colour then this approach would work. Disparities between them really would prove racism and discrimination, and setting up quotas would be a proper data-focussed measure to judge effectiveness. But the reality is nothing like that.

What Thomas Sowell writes of discussions of social justice is even more true of ‘racial justice’: ‘So many advocate what they call ‘social justice’—often with great passion, but with no definition’ (in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p 3). Therefore the Church of England should apply a moratorium on the phrase until it has produced a clear definition. Meanwhile, there will be angst, accusations, guilt and useless initiatives to achieve a racial ‘equity’ which is not only impossible, but because of the rich and varied texture of London’s ethnic landscape, not particularly desirable.

A seriously misplaced focus

The word ‘parish’ never appears in the documentation, nor does the word ‘clergy’, yet the aspiration ‘to reach every Londoner’ lies mainly with the parishes; very largely it is they who are able to ‘reflect the diversity of our city and be a welcoming, safe place’ (RD, p 2).

It is worth noting that this proposed appointment reflects a changing emphasis in London diocese. Back in the 1980s The Times published an opinion piece on the dire state of London diocese—at a time when the Church of England was still considered important national news! Yet by the early years of this century the diocese was unique in seeing significant numerical growth (but with no corresponding media acknowledgement). The source of this reversal was almost certainly the controversial reforms initiated by Bishop David Hope and carried on by his successor, Bishop Richard Chartres, in stripping down non-parochial roles in the diocese—for example, industrial chaplains, that was the fashionable initiative in the Church of England at the time—and focussing on parish churches, notably by appointing mission-orientated clergy and encouraging the formation of parochial Mission Action Plans. The evidence-based and data-focussed outcome was a significant increase in attendances and electoral roll members; constituting an episcopally led reversal from decline to growth probably unique in the recent history of the Church of England.

Here the contrasting policies and fortunes of the dioceses of London and Southwark are instructive. To use a long quote from a previous article I wrote:

Southwark has been on the front foot as regards racial justice. It has employed specialist officers, two of them for a period, has been assiduous in promoting minority ethnic vocations, and even commissioned a report by Sir Herman Ouseley into its performance as regards racial justice. Yet its record as indicated in the 2007 report ‘Celebrating Diversity in the Church of England’ is less impressive than that of the diocese of London. Although London had no specialist officers, had fewer minority ethnic clergy, and had rather inactive leadership from the top on the issue, yet it was impressive in having ethnic minority participation roughly proportionate to the overall diocesan population, despite having large numbers of other world faith adherents. The difference was a much more explicit commitment to mission, reflected in its criteria for appointing incumbents, and promotion of parochial Mission Action Plans. By comparison Southwark’s Ouseley Report made no mention whatsoever of evangelism in the work of the ordained ministry (4.4.3). The outcome was that it was London’s churches that more vigorously reflected to their population the reality of varied ethnic groups gathered together in united worship. (See the chapter on ‘The Anglican Church in London’ by Bob Jackson, in The Desecularisation of the City: London Churches, 1980 to the Present, edited by David Goodhew and Anthony-Paul Cooper, 2019, esp pp 267-268).

London diocese continues to show ethnic diversity. Two of the four area bishops are from (untypical) minority ethnic backgrounds. More significantly, there has been a recent and marked upsurge in the proportion of minority ethnic ordinations—over one-third for the past two years. It is worth observing that given the length of time required for the nurturing and authorisation of a vocation, plus the years of training, the roots of this upsurge predate the 2020 ‘racial reckoning’ or the production of From Lament to Action but will lie in the everyday work of parishes in the previous decade. In addition, the majority of such ordinands are going to parishes where it would seem that the ‘make disciples of all nations’ emphasis is at least as strong as the ‘racial justice’ emphasis. Certainly, it would be interesting to know more of the stories and motivations of this recent increase of minority ethnic ordinands.

This is not to say that there are no problems. The testimony of minority ethnic ordinands to the indifference, exclusion or simple racism that they experienced in training is distressingly strong. There may be the neglect of talent—though there have also been unhappy cases of expectations loaded inappropriately and too soon on people and with very damaging consequences. The transition from an overwhelmingly white and male organisation, and often one with limited horizons, to one characterised by diversity and respectful, loving inclusion will never be smooth. But it must first be addressed from the parish level, not centrally from the diocese

The way ahead

The documentation for the appointment recognises important objectives, such as ‘to embed preaching and teaching on racial justice from a Christian perspective’ (RD, p 7). But this is a national needs. Do we really need to create a little wheel in every diocese to meet such needs when we have a big wheel at the centre—CMEAC—whose responsibilities already includes ‘sharing good practice’. Some resources for such preaching and teaching already exist. (My sermon and mid-week course on Acts, ‘The Birth of the Multi-Ethnic Church’ is freely available for anyone to use). More can be commissioned. Given the communication resources now available, disseminating them nationally from the centre is not a difficult task without requiring intermediate diocesan posts.

Other needs do require more locally based initiatives, such as on the one hand to ‘Encourage the contributions and input of [ethnic?] communities’ (RD, p 7); on the other hand for white church members to hear ‘ ‘truth telling’ that seeks to acknowledge the historical legacy of slavery’ (Welcome, p 2). There is important work to be done in London diocese. It may need a new appointment; it could possibly be taken forward by enhancing the profile and resources of the different Deans of Racial Justice in each episcopal area.

But to make a wise, and possibly money saving, appointment the whole approach needs to be reformulated. Instead of a top-down approach applying an EDI mentality which amplifies a possibly ballooning bureaucracy but has yet to be proved to benefit organisations’ core purposes, the diocese needs to focus on its own core purpose—‘to make disciples of all nations’. (It is sad to note the shift in the diocese’s Racial Justice Priority Group’s from the biblically-based and parish-focussed document ‘Striving for Racial Justice’ of March 2021 to the subsequent unfocussed abstractions in its ‘Guiding Principles of the Racial Justice Strategy’). In a previous article ‘Racial Justice, or Make disciples of All Nations’ I listed the problems that arise when the making disciples of all nations is eclipsed by an emphasis on racial justice: it leads in reality to a church that is still ethnically homogenous white; it leads to less inter-ethnic relating; it ultimately weakens the church’s national witness as consisting of ethnically variegated communities.

A proper ‘bottom up’ strategy could look at the positives in local church life, and what ‘good practice’ should be shared (in contrast to the unremitting negativity of the ‘Guiding Principles’ document). Or what shapes minority ethnic peoples’ choices in a religious free market—for example why do so many Anglican-background Africans now worship in Pentecostal churches?Consequently, how far is mainstream Anglican worship in this country too inexpressive, therefore culturally alien, and therefore, with no intentionality on our part, ‘institutionally racist’? Certainly, any church that wants to make progress as an inter-cultural congregation will have to find ways to deal with the matrix of white racist assumptions that can be ‘the weight and the sin that clings so closely’ to prevent us running ‘with perseverance’ (Heb 12:1). But all these matters are best worked through in the everyday but complex milieu of people of different ethnicities rubbing shoulders with each other.

In all this the main contrast is between a ‘bureaucratic’ and a ‘relational’ approach to people of different ethnicities living, worshipping and ministering together. Within the restricted relationships common to many organisations the EDI approach may have some traction, though even this is up for debate. Within a ‘whole life’ body such as the church relationships are key. This means we have scores of different situations marked by unpredictability and complexity; prodigiously generating the joys of crossing ethnic differences, of learning, welcoming, understanding and misunderstanding, making mistakes, giving and receiving hurts, forgiving and being forgiven. Given the myriad of relationships that mark every congregation, getting a handle on what is really happening in our multi-ethnic diocese is highly elusive and mystifying. But the best way ahead is to closely observe what is coming up from the ground, and seeing ways in which it can be best helped to work for the glory of God.