DISAGREEMENTS in regards to the future funding of racial-justice work within the Church of England have aired within the General Synod, after the co-lead bishops on the difficulty expressed their concerns.
In the 2023-25 triennium, central funding for racial-justice work — the primary time that it had been allocated for this — was £20 million in designated funds from the Archbishops’ Council.
Last month, nonetheless, the Triennium Funding Working Group (TFWG) announced spending plans for the following triennium, to 2028, which allot £12 million for “social and racial justice” — a pot that can be intended to fund housing and disability justice.
The plans were criticised by the co-leads for racial justice, the Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, and the Bishop of Kirkstall, the Rt Revd Arun Arora, who called the choice “bewildering” (News, 13 June).
At the General Synod’s meeting in York, the spending plans were defended on the premise that the £20-million funding had been intended as a one-off and never as an ongoing commitment.
Correspondence between Dr Mallett and Bishop Arora and the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, who chaired the TFWG, shows that the lead bishops weren’t made aware of the choice before it was announced
In a letter dated 10 July — the day before the Synod began — Bishop Mullally said that restrictions meant that the TFWG couldn’t communicate its decisions prematurely, but apologised if this had “further undermined confidence in relation to the Church’s commitment to this vital area”.
In the letter, seen by the Church Times, she assured Dr Mallett and Bishop Arora that the TFWG would recommend that the underspend from the 2023-25 budget, which was expected to be about £4 million, must be used to bolster the brand new budget.
Also on 10 July, the primary volume of a recent reference document on racial justice was published on the Church of England website. The document includes theological reflections on the problems, and pen-portraits of the bishops, deans, and archdeacons within the Church of England who’re from UK minority-ethnic backgrounds.
An appendix lists the varied networks and groups energetic within the Church of England, including those the Teahouse Network for Chinese-heritage priests (News, 20 August 2021), and a bunch for the increasing variety of Persian clerics within the C of E (Features, 6 June)
In the introduction to the report, the Archbishop of York writes of how “progress towards racial justice within the Church of England has been slow — painfully slow. Much has been achieved within the last 4 years but we’re still removed from where we would like to be, where we should be, as a Church.”
Questions in regards to the funding decisions, and whether or not they were indicative of an absence of commitment to racial justice, were asked within the Synod, and unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the spending plans.
The Vicar of St Luke’s, Prestonville, the Revd Martin Poole (Chichester), attempted to amend a motion welcoming the Archbishops’ Council’s spending plans to request that funding for racial justice be increased to £20 million in the following triennium.
In February, the Synod had heard from the chair of the Archbishops’ Commission on Racial Justice, Lord Boateng, about guarantees on racial justice which had been made after which not fulfilled (News, 14 February). “Don’t perpetuate that scandal by doing the identical,” Mr Poole said.
Daniel Matovu (Oxford) suggested that the funding decisions showed that the leadership of the Church “cares little, at the very least for racial and disability justice”; but Busola Sodeinde (London), a Church Commissioner, said that, while the concerns were “deeply valid”, the funding had been intended as one-off and time-limited, not a sustained source of monetary support.
In a vote by Houses, the amendment fell within the Houses of Bishops and Laity: Bishops 13-7, with three recorded abstentions, and Laity 80-75, with 12 recorded abstentions, despite being carried within the House of Clergy by 89 to 52 with 18 recorded abstentions.
Bishop Arora said afterwards that “it was frustrating to notice that whilst greater than half of Synod voted for the amendment to revive racial justice funding, the deliberate move to oppose this through a vote by Houses meant that the amendment was lost. The vote within the House of Bishops was especially disappointing.”
Earlier within the sessions, Bishop Mullally fielded questions on the funding decision. She said that the 2023-25 funding was a one-off, and that originally only £2.5 million had been allocated for ongoing funding for social and racial justice.
Viewed in this fashion, the brand new plans were a sustainable increase, she said, but she acknowledged that it won’t look this fashion.
