by Ian Paul, Psephizo
Project Spire is the name that has been given to the Church Commissioner’s decision to put aside £100m of their investments to be directed to working with and for communities affected by historic transatlantic slavery, with the intention that it creates a lasting legacy. The £100 million, which will be built up over the 9-year period of the three triennia through to 2031, sits alongside the £3.6 billion indicative distributions that the Commissioners have articulated for the corresponding periods.
I commented on this last year, noting the lack of evidence, the racist assumptions behind the goals of the project, and the way that this has been driven by ideology instead of Christian theology. For my troubles, I was identified in the Fifth Report of the Racial Justice Group as an ‘Anglican blogger’ who puts out a ‘false narrative’ that must be ‘suppressed’ (p 23). Actually engaging with the issues raised might have been more productive!
In February, the think tank Policy Exchange published a more detailed critique by four people: politician Lord Tony Sewell, Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at Oxford, Charles Wide KC, a retired Old Bailey Judge, and Dr Alka Seghal-Cuthbert, director of the race advocacy group Don’t Divide Us.
The executive summary offers a disturbing assessment of what Project Spire is doing and the way it has gone about it:
Collectively, these [papers] argue that the Church of England’s programme of reparations is problematic for two reasons:
(a) Firstly, it represents a departure by the Church Commissioners from their core duties, of which international reparatory justice is not one, however worthy or not it might be in the abstract; and a diversion of funds intended for the good of parishes to a purpose for which they were not intended.
(b) Secondly, that this specific act of reparatory justice is poorly justified, historically uninformed and overall inadvisable.
The reason for these claims is set out in the detailed problems with the Project’s approach:
It is contended that Project Spire is based on:
• insufficiently examined preconceptions and contentious moral and political theory,
• flawed, narrowly selective, anachronistic historical understanding,
• a defective process which:
• embedded activism rather than balance,
• paid insufficient regard to legal or ethical propriety, at the outset or later,
• lacked transparency, true accountability, and breadth of reference,
• failed to address authoritative critique,
• failed to consider competing views about the principles of, and criteria for, reparation and failed to justify the project by reference to those principles and criteria,
• was/is racially discriminatory in formulation and outcome,
• failed to consider the risks of division and to the reputation and authority of the leadership of the Church in the eyes of its members and the wider public,
• breached Charity Commission guidance on decision-making,
• lacked due consideration of the legitimate prior claims on the money entrusted to the Commissioners – especially those of parishes, where preaching the Christian gospel and performing pastoral acts of charity most effectively take place and which should be the Commissioners’ highest priority.
These are serious charges; if they have any basis in truth, then it means that those working with the Commissioners fund are responsible for serious misuse of funds.
Read here