From lament to action and Lord Boateng’s speech

Earlier this year, Lord Paul Boateng addressed the Church of England’s General Synod as the newly appointed Chair of the Racial Justice Commission.

In that widely praised speech, he skilfully wove his lived experience and self-evident Christian principles into a rich oratorical tapestry that both encouraged and admonished in equal measure.

Memorably, he declared: ‘Racism is a gaping wound in the body of Christ’, repeating for emphasis that ‘Every time we succumb to it, we hurt Him’. Yet he tempered that with a gracious acknowledgement (with which I concur) that: ‘We’re trying to love Him. We’re seeking to love Him. We love Him imperfectly’.

Lord Boateng further declared: ‘Your Parliament looks better in terms of diversity than you [Synod] do … and that hasn’t just happened … That required intentionality’. I can only imagine how mortifying that moment must have been for all those who attended General Synod on that day.

Doubtless, Lord Boateng’s emphasis on intentionality would have resonated with the House of Bishops. Back in 2020, at the inception of the anti-racism Task Force, they collectively linked the Church’s credibility, in terms of moral leadership, to swiftness in addressing the Church’s own issues of racial injustice. They stated: ‘For the Church to be a credible voice in calling for change across the world, we must now ensure that apologies and lament are accompanied by swift actions leading to real change.’

Yet, on the same day as Lord Boateng’s speech, the paper, GS 2243, was laid before Synod which summarised actions taken on recommendations contained in the Task Force report, From Lament to Action.

If anything, GS 2243 has revealed that, to date, there has been woefully little action in implementing those recommendations.

For example, in terms of participation, the Task Force recommended that: ‘mandatory diversity-monitoring forms are implemented immediately, and all racial diversity data gathered and reported annually to inform recruitment processes.’ In stark contrast with mandatory monitoring, GS 2243 states: ‘However, a diversity monitoring form that can be adopted or adapted in dioceses who wish to use it, is currently being developed by the Archbishops’ Advisor for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns (AAMEAC).’

Another Task Force recommendation stated: ‘All appointing persons (PCC Reps and/or appointment panels for clergy posts) undertake an anti-racism recruitment focused learning programme’.

Disappointingly, GS 2243 outlined a makeshift implementation that lacks the intentionality that Lord Boateng so ably described: ‘There are some plans in hand for reviewing training for senior panels.

This could contain an anti-racism component with an intersectional framework.’

Furthermore, the report explains that costs associated with several of the accepted recommendations have been included in the Racial Justice Triennium Funding application. While this application might result in the National Church contributing £7.6 million to implement those recommendations, the actual disbursements are conditional upon the willingness and ability of ‘dioceses who can show investment, theory of change and a significant commitment to racial justice endeavours, to successfully apply for funds to create such roles, if they so wish.’

In effect, this approach is akin to a matched funding arrangement, whereby dioceses decide on the extent to which they will opt into (or opt out of) the anti-racism recommendations.

Contrast this with the Church’s approach to National Safeguarding, which is addressed with far more seriousness and intentionality.

For example, between 2014 and 2021, the National Safeguarding budget rose from £44,500 to £3.525 million. Notably, the 2021 Safeguarding Learning and Training Framework explains (p.10): ‘There is a direct correlation between the ratio of facilitators/ trainers to participants, the depth of engagement and quality of dialogue that can be achieved, and the consequent impact on the pathway.’

Well, that ‘direct correlation’ also holds true for tackling racial injustice. Despite this, last year, cost was cited as the rationale for rejecting the Task Force recommendation that the Church should appoint 42 Racial Justice Officers who would fulfil the equally vital role of facilitating anti-racism training in each diocese. Consequently, it’s no wonder that GS 2243 reports such little progress with the recommendations.

In May, the Racial Justice Commission will deliver its first report on the Church’s progress with its timetable for implementing the agreed Task Force recommendations.

I do hope that the report reveals a considerable improvement in the Church’s intentionality and resourcing for its anti-racism initiatives. If not, then I very much doubt that Lord Boateng will mince his words. Given his widely respected public standing, if he delivers an adverse report, there will be severe consequences for the Church of England’s public reputation and credibility.