At Candlemas, the Church celebrated the presentation of Christ in the temple.
In a lovely, meticulously cared-for Nene Valley church, I preached on the virtues of faithful patience, exemplified by the ‘righteous and devout’ Simeon and prophetess, Anna. The sparse congregation of wonderful, patient people knew whereof I spoke: they have been without a vicar for two and a half years.
Indeed, until very recently, in the deanery where I plough an idiosyncratic furrow as a lay minister in the Church of England, roughly half of the 35 parishes were in the same situation. Underpaid, poorly supported, and overstretched – who would want to apply for such a job?
Every diocesan bishop has a legal duty to provide, as far as possible, ‘sufficient priests to minister the word and sacraments’. The Church Commissioners have investments of £10.3 billion and legal obligations towards parishes. They must especially “have particular regard … to the making of additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required”.
What has possessed them, at a time of existential crisis for the Church, to press on with ‘Project Spire’? This enterprise commits £100million to a ‘Black-led’ … ‘Fund for Healing, Repair, and Justice’ (in plain English, reparations) to atone for what is said to be complicity in the slave trade on the part of Queen Anne’s Bounty, the Commissioners’ predecessor, upwards of three hundred years ago.
And this is just the start. The aim is to increase the fund to £1 billion, using money in the Commissioners’ care, while hoping to attract additional ‘co-investors’. Every penny given in grants and ‘initiatives’, or used to pay for slavery research, or not gained due to politicised, sub-optimal investments, is a penny that cannot go where it is urgently needed – the parishes.
A compelling case has been made that this racially discriminatory, divisive project is founded on contentious moral/political theory and deficient, narrowly selective, anachronistic historical understanding. The Rev’d Professor Lord Biggar, Dr Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert and I have drawn the threads together in a recent report for Policy Exchange, The Case against Reparations: Why the Church Commissioners for England must think again.
The Commissioners are subject to oversight by the Charity Commission which has issued guidance setting out ‘7 decision-making principles’ for charity trustees (as are members of the Board of the Church Commissioners). Compliance with this guidance is especially important in the context of a project that would be very complex, costly, and controversial (factors which the guidance explicitly identifies).
Trustees are obliged to be able to show that they have followed those principles. This demands both compliance and transparency. In this case, as I shall set out, the process has been and continues to be deeply flawed.
Before taking a decision, “trustees must be sufficiently informed’”. Here, the historical and economic material considered was narrowly sourced and did not explore abundant contrary academic opinions. No sufficient account was taken of the multiple caveats entered by forensic accountants instructed by the Commissioners. The collective ethos of an intentionally ‘Black-led’ Oversight Group, appointed to advise the Commissioners, embedded activism in the process, rather than ensuring a breadth of information and opinion.
Considering ‘all options’, as required by the guidance, seems to have been overcome by a determination to make some form of reparation. The consultation was focused on those who might benefit from reparations, omitting those whose interests might be adversely affected, especially the hard-pressed parishes.
The guidance requires trustees to consider risks to reputation. There is no evidence of any assessment of reputational harm amongst members of the Church and the general public who profoundly disagree with the concept of reparation being applied in these circumstances. Nor was there assessment of the risk of reputational harm amongst the many Anglicans in Africa who may be concerned about the influence granted to an Oversight Group with a controversial activist ethos, which seems to have called for the Church to repent of its missionary work in Africa.
There is abundant evidence that very many members of the Church, lay and ordained are dismayed by the project and feel alienated from what seems to them to be a remote, insufficiently accountable elite.
When Project Spire was announced, in January 2023, it was intended to be up and running before the end of that year. Now, two years after the launch, it is stuck. What has happened?
The Church Commissioners are bound by statute and charity law. The Charity Commission guidance states the obvious: “Trustees must act within their powers”. It is very odd indeed for a charity that exists to fund the activities of others to embark on a reparative project of its devising. The problem of ultra vires (beyond legal powers) sticks out a mile.
Instead of being clear about their legal powers, the Commissioners seem to have just gone ahead. This has been, concerning legality, done in secret. There have been references being in “constructive dialogue with the Charity Commission”. however, attempts by members at General Synod, and by me in correspondence, have met with almost nothing of substance.
The Church Commissioners’ office has acknowledged the need to act lawfully, said that there were ‘technical issues’ which were being discussed with their regulator, claimed confidentiality concerning “discussions at the Church Commissioners’ Board”, nd said “the Commissioners recognise that they would require authorisation”.
The Charity Commission has revealed only that it is “engaging with the Church Commissioners” and has “not received an application for an authority”. Other requests have gone answered. The principal elements of this correspondence are reproduced in our report for Policy Exchange and demonstrate the lack of transparency at the heart of this process.
Two years after its launch, problems with Project Spire’s legitimacy have not been resolved. It is reasonable to infer that this is because it is ultra vires, outwith the Commissioners’ legal powers and charitable purposes.
It cannot be right for these discussions to take place in secret, without wide consultation. If Project Spire is ultra vires, it is hard to see why the Charity Commission should help the Church Commissioners get around the problem, especially when there is a clear case that they are in breach of the Charity Commission’s own guidelines.
The question of ultra vires is not determinative. Whatever the strict legality, for very many hard-pressed, faithful ordained and lay members of the Church of England, Project Spire is a politicised misuse of money which, in good conscience, really belongs to them.
