REPARATIVE work to heal the legacy of slavery within the Church of England was discussed within the General Synod on Monday morning, after members were presented with an update on the Church Commissioners’ £100-million impact investment fund (News, 13 January 2023).
The presentation was followed by questions.
Introducing the work, the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, said that his visit to a slave prison in Ghana last yr had been “an experience I’ll always remember”.
Next to talk was the Archbishop of York, who said that the “terrible legacy of enslavement” was racism, inequality, and discrimination. “This is our sin as well. Our Church colluded with, encouraged, and profited from human enslavement.”
Slavery remained a reality, and contradictions in theology and history still went uncorrected, he said. The Commissioners’ project would begin this process. Even the nice victory of the abolition of slavery had culminated in compensation paid to not former slaves, but to the slave owners, Archbishop Cottrell said. Christianity was about “repairing rupture” and healing injustice; and the Commissioners were inviting the Church to construct a special future. “We cannot compensate those that suffered from false theologies, but we will face the past more truthfully and start to repair and heal.”
The Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, said that she had been frustrated by the “countless reports and little motion” on racism and slavery within the Church. But there have been now “growing shoots of excellent practice”, she said, pointing to the recent discussion concerning the Racial Justice Unit (see separate story).
She chaired the oversight group to assist the Commissioners to shape their response to the historical findings that a few of its precursor funds had benefited financially from slavery. Most of the group were of African descent, and every brought different expertise and experiences, she said.
The programme that they really helpful was the product of a consultation with communities within the UK and globally. It was a daring and “audacious” project, which sought to bring about culture change, combining impact investment and research. “We recognise we will’t heal past scars of institutional racism, but it will possibly change the best way we work in the current and supply a legacy for a hopeful future.”
Jonathan Guthrie, an associate editor of The Financial Times and a member of the oversight group, said that his world was the City of London, which had a history deeply entwined with chattel slavery. Endowments were an excellent solution to counter historic wrongs, he said. The recent fund should function “penitent recognition of the Church’s involvement in an amazing crime against humanity”. He hailed the courage of the Church in proposing a fund, and asking an independent group to plan it: many other City funds equally enmeshed in slavery had not come near this sort of moral reckoning, he said.
Roy Swan, of the Ford Foundation, one other oversight-group member, recalled the US-led Marshall Plan which had donated billions to rebuild post-war Europe. He said that he had been “dumbstruck” when he heard concerning the Commissioners’ plans. Much just like the Marshall Plan, the investment could encourage hope and rebuild “what was once lost”. The fund would unleash black people’s potential and innovation, he hoped. “The Church Commissioners are leading by example,” he said, and the fund would unlock further contributions from society. “I even have not even a shadow of a doubt that this historic motion will encourage others to act.”
These investments would profit not only the descendants of slaves, but in addition the Commissioners, just because the Marshall Plan had been a part of the “enlightened self-interest” of the US. Those who saw the brand new fund as a “loss to the Church” betrayed their failure to recognise that black people were a part of the Church, and that “God was watching.” He recalled how Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail condemned US clerics for feigning interest in racial injustice after which failing to act. Sixty years later, Mr Swan wanted to specific gratitude that the Commissioners had taken motion.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett
The Dean of St Edmundsbury, the Very Revd Joe Hawes, said that the USPG had already begun its work exploring its own legacy of slavery, and hoped that this might be tied in with the Commissioners’ project.
Dr Walker responded that he was aware of the USPG’s ignominious history with slavery, and was keen to be a part of the answer for them, as he had been with the Commissioners. He could be upset if their fund stayed at £100 million, as they longed for others to affix in.
The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Revd Stephen Lake, asked whether the Commissioners understood the project as a slavery reparations fund, because it was often characterised within the media.
The Chief Executive and Secretary of the Church Commissioners, Gareth Mostyn, said that he had originally avoided using the word “reparations”, because the project was not about compensating individuals. He had since been exploring the thought with the oversight group, and so they now saw reparations in a broader light. The hope was that the fund could be a “small step on a road to repair”. He hoped that this work could encourage others, reminiscent of the USPG, as they launched into their very own journeys.
Canon Douglas Machiridza (Birmingham) asked whether the fund could be enough or “only scratch the surface”.
The Revd Andrew Mumby (Southwark) was impressed with the “careful language” utilized in the project. Some white people could feel defensive and fragile while exploring these topics, he said. He asked whether the group could advise how that they had avoided this.
The Revd Folli Olokose (Guildford) said that times were hard in parishes, and money was running low. Some parishioners had asked where the £100 million was coming from; so, he asked, how would the Commissioners communicate the truth of the fund to correct misinterpretations?
Dr Walker said that the project was about greater than just money. To illustrate this, he asked the Archbishop of Canterbury what his recollections were of the visit to Ghana, and slave castles. Archbishop Welby said that he had been struck by the graciousness and forgiveness from Ghanaian church leaders, which he found “moving and overwhelming”.
Dr Walker said that the £100 million was felt to be an excellent middle ground between something sufficiently big to point out that the Church cared, but not a lot that it will impinge on the regular allocations from the Commissioners for the C of E.
Mr Guthrie said that he had grown up seeing slavery as a “historic quirk” abolished by “sensible white people”. He had been on a journey to know how the heritage of slavery was throughout, each in cultural and capital terms. The report would still be difficult for white readers, but there was nothing there that was improper. It was simply a daring statement of reality.
The Revd Arwen Folkes (Chichester) asked whether the research had shown whether other parts of the Church were also enmeshed financially with slavery.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) asked whether advice might be given to parishes on the best way to pastor and honour the descendants of slaves of their midst.
The Revd Jane Maycock (Carlisle) said that her nearest church included the tombstone of a freed slave, and a tomb for a neighborhood slaveowner. She asked for material to assist parishes to interact with similar issues.
Mr Mostyn responded that the research had taken longer than expected due to how much there was to learn, and had been shared transparently across the Church. It didn’t transcend Queen Anne’s Bounty, nevertheless it did show what number of personal benefactors of the Bounty, also embedded in parishes, had benefited financially from slavery.
Dr Mallett said that one parish in her episcopal area had produced its own report on local heritage connected to slavery. “If you’re intentional about wanting to get under the skin of your community and church’s history, we will support you.”
Archbishop Cottrell said that his stipend was paid directly by the Commissioners, and that he due to this fact felt uncomfortable knowing that ten per cent of the Commissioners’ fund got here directly from money made through slavery. This story was replicated throughout the Church, as Ms Maycock had indicated. Resources could be produced to coach people about this, he said. “We are doing something really significant here, but we take no pride in it.”
He also spoke of the evangelistic potential of the project, saying that he could now tell young people whom he met about how the C of E was finally being honest with itself about its history, and attempting to make it right.
