Criticisms of Church Commissioners’ Project Spire
From the Revd Professor Lord Biggar
Madam, — The Church Commissioners accuse critics of their £100-million slavery-justice fund, Project Spire, of “continuing to make false claims, refusing to correct mistakes, . . . cherry-picking arguments”, and being “tone-deaf to the theological underpinnings of our moral obligations” (News, 11 July).
In February, Policy Exchange published The Case against Reparations: Why the Church Commissioners of England must think again. In addition to myself, the authors were Charles Wide, KC, a former Old Bailey judge, and Dr Alka Seghal-Cuthbert, the Indian-British Director of the anti-racist advocacy group Don’t Divide Us. Lord Sewell, the descendant of African slaves brought to Jamaica, contributed an introduction. To date, the Commissioners have offered no direct, comprehensive response to its many-sided critique, which goes well beyond the issue of contested historical claims.
In May, a document, “Independent responses to claims criticising the historical basis of the Church Commissioners’ research”, appeared on the Commissioners’ website. One of the two authors is Professor Richard Drayton, who has been involved in Project Spire since his appointment to the Oversight Group in July 2023. He is not disinterested and, in that sense, not independent. His response makes no mention of the Policy Exchange essays, refers vaguely to “some public figures”, and tries to discredit them as generating “cynicism”.
Last month, History Reclaimed replied by publishing a point-by-point “Critical Commentary” on the “independent” responses. Its authors include Robert Tombs, Professor Emeritus of History at Cambridge University; Lawrence Goldman, former director of The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and of the Institute of Historical Research, University of London; and Richard Dale, Professor Emeritus of International Banking at the University of Southampton.
Accountability now obliges the Commissioners to explain in public exactly what false claims its critics have made, which mistakes they have not corrected, and what cherries they have picked. Scattergun accusations are not good enough.
As for “the theological underpinnings of our moral obligations”, I look forward to learning what the Commissioners think those are. To date, no considered Christian ethical explanation of the rationale for Project Spire has been offered.
Judging by the Bishop of Salisbury’s answer to Question 180 at the General Synod, the Commissioners excuse themselves from responding to “arguments that are . . . offensive to some people”. But what if it’s the truth that offends? And how will we know, unless we see the answers and judge their quality?
In protesting that they are merely “acting in faithful service of the gospel”, the Commissioners turn a deaf ear to Christian brothers and sisters who sincerely doubt that the gospel is well served by a divisive policy based on a faulty understanding of data, a racially biased focus on historic wrongs, unsubstantiated assertions of continuing effects, and the disparaging neglect of heroic Anglican anti-slavery endeavour — all at the expense of resources that should be available to support parish ministry.
BIGGAR
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
From Mr Jonathan Guthrie
Madam, — The Church Times recently published a letter from Professor Richard Dale (6 June), who believes that the essential justification put forward for the Healing, Repair and Justice Fund is that investment in the enslavement of Africans was profitable for the South Sea Company and the predecessor body. Without profits — he argues that there were none — no fund would be required, presumably.
Professor Dale’s portrayal of the fund’s justification is inaccurate, however.
I was pleased to serve as a member of the independent oversight group appointed by the Church Commissioners to provide guidance on the mission and operations of the fund. The final report published by the group made clear that the fund was a response to the predecessor body’s complicity in helping to finance transatlantic chattel enslavement. Profits, or the lack of them, did not come into the picture.
To me, this is both moral and logical. Abducting and enslaving millions of Africans remains a vast evil, regardless of how profitable or otherwise it was for the perpetrators and their backers during any given period of history. It would be perverse in the extreme to argue that people are only culpable for evildoing when it proves ultimately remunerative for them.
Public debate about the fund is healthy. But inaccurate portrayals of the fund are not.
I am writing in a personal capacity. My views are not necessarily those of other Oversight Group members or the Commissioners.
JONATHAN GUTHRIE
Address supplied (south London)
Ministry supported by the Spirit but not a stipend
From the Revd Hugh Thomas
Madam, — I am grateful to Rt Revd David Wilbourne (Comment, 4 July) for highlighting that self-supporting ministers (SSMs) are exploited in their roles. Having just completed a research project on this ministry in the Church of England (write-up due shortly), my interviews with SSMs would generally concur with the comments in the article. Bishop Wilbourne, however, included those retired PTOs in his comments also, whereas I looked at SSMs who serve in a parochial capacity.
Whereas, since 2022, the shared discernment system does not distinguish between SSMs and stipendiary ministries, it will take longer for the “level playing field” or treatment of active SSMs to be rolled out across many dioceses and parishes. Many SSMs do feel exploited, but their response to God’s call is stronger than the negativity that many have experienced. They often serve in spite of the Church and not because of particularly (or any) strong support. That, I hope, is changing.
The lack of a common focus for the treatment of SSMs across dioceses has resulted in some dioceses’ offering partial fees for occasional offices, and some none at all. The ongoing annoyance of SSMs’ being unable to attend midweek deanery Chapter meetings is another feature.
If the Church of England wishes to recruit more SSMs to provide priestly cover where finances no longer allow, then a more consistent and non-exploitative approach is needed. SSMs currently (2022 latest figures) comprise an average of 30 per cent of active priests, excluding PTOs, whereas in some dioceses they make up to 38 per cent. The ministry of SSMs is not to “fill in” when stipendiary priests are not available, but to bring their considerable and varied skills honed elsewhere to further the gospel message. If we are all ordained with the same charge by a bishop, why treat SSMs differently afterwards?
HUGH THOMAS
Vicar (house-for-duty, part-time)
Parish office, St Nicholas’s
Church Hill, Hurst
Reading RG10 0SN
From the Revd Ian Falconer
Madam, — Bishop David Wilbourne’s article on non-stipendiary clergy was thought-provoking. I agree that unpaid labourers are worthy of their hire. As I read it, it struck me that, theologically, there should be no such thing as self-supporting ministry. To have any effect, all ministry surely has to be supported by the Holy Spirit. I don’t think it’s trite to say that Christians should be God-reliant rather than self-reliant.
But it’s not just some clerical ministry that is unpaid. Most lay ministry — Readers, churchwardens, treasurers, parish choristers, youth and children’s workers, etc. — is unpaid.
In my 42 years as a stipendiary deacon, then priest, and now 18 years as a retired priest (with pension) with permission to officiate, I have worked with, appreciated, and learnt from so many unpaid lay workers without whom the Church would not exist. They are just as much in Christian ministry as I am, but in different and varied roles in the Body of Christ.
IAN FALCONER
70 Lowgates, Staveley
Chesterfield S43 3TU
Madam, — In his articlem the Rt Revd David Wilbourne states that the Church has come with up a self-justifying narrative, i.e. that it has limited resources to pay for its staff (despite owning 200,000 acres of land) and that working for nothing is a true vocation.
But we must remember that not only are some “clerical” staff working for nothing, but many, many lay people are doing the same, week in, week out, covering a multitude of services, travelling from church to church, many of which have been in vacancy for a considerable time. I know, because I have been doing this for 20 years.
I don’t want paying. I never have. I would just be happy to get a genuine thank-you from the higher-ups once in a blue moon. If only!
Name and address supplied
Resourcing report and the C of E’s lamp stand
From the Bishop of Islington, the Revd Dr Ryan Gilfeather, and Canon Mark Powley
Madam, — As the authors of Resourcing the Church?, we were pleased to see attention given to the report (News, 11 July). We do, however, wish to emphasise some of the positive aspects of resource churches which are covered in the report but not featured in detail in your story.
While the range of data that we have so far is, indeed, “modest”, the impact of these churches is not. As we set out, these churches have seen “significant” and, at times, “dramatic” congregational growth, including very encouraging numbers of young people and adult baptisms. Such evangelistic energy and baptismal life offers the prospect of “renewal of worship and mission” for the wider Church.
The challenges you cite from the report are important, but they are part of an emerging and hopeful picture that we seek to address in a balanced way.
We hope that the report helps dioceses to take the opportunity that resource churches offer, and that the model continues to develop and diversify further.
RIC THORPE, RYAN GILFEATHER, MARK POWLEY
Address supplied
From Canon Andrew Dow
Madam, — It was disappointing to read Canon Angela Tilby’s column on Evangelical Charismatic church-plants, groups about which she clearly has negative feelings (Comment, 11 July). St Paul, sharing similar feelings about other “church groups”, was rather more generous and open-hearted. “The important thing”, he writes in Philippians 1.18, “is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Can we not do the same, wherever there is growth, however modest or imperfect?
Canon Tilby may yearn for “the reliable, boring C of E” — even if it’s dying? and likely to have its “lamp stand removed from its place” (Revelation 2.6)?
ANDREW DOW
7 Bluebell Close
Moreton-in-Marsh GL56 9PW
Time for Primate of All England alla milanese?
From Revd Peter Ridley
Madam, — There is no reason that a lowly suffragan bishop may not become Archbishop of Canterbury (Quotes of the Week, 11 July). Cosmo Gordon Lang was not a diocesan bishop when appointed. At the Reformation, neither Thomas Cranmer nor Matthew Parker had even been bishops; and Reginald Pole was ordained priest only two days before becoming Archbishop. St Thomas Becket had been a mere archdeacon. They followed the example of St Ambrose, who was an unbaptised layman when appointed Bishop of Milan. Three of our most admirable Archbishops of Canterbury (Tait, Davidson, and Lang) were brought up as Church of Scotland Presbyterians; and Ramsey’s father was a Nonconformist. So let those charged with seeking the right person cast their nets far and wide. Perhaps there is a dean or an archdeacon or a rural dean, or just an experienced parish priest, who might come to office to give us all a new start?
PETER RIDLEY
The Castle, Hilton
Appleby-in-Westmorland
Cumbria CA16 6LX
A thing as lovely as a churchyard yew tree
From Canon Brian Stevenson
Madam, — I read Paul Wood’s article on trees of the churchyard (Feature, 11 July) while sitting under a tree in the grounds of St Mary’s Abbey, West Malling, enjoying its shade during the third heatwave of our present summer. Many of the other seminar members sat under similar trees while having a picnic.
As Mr Wood writes, we need their long life and sense of timelessness. They need our protection as much as need theirs on a sun scorched day.
One tree that he does not mention is the ubiquitous Irish yew. Since I have retired and now take services around Kent, it has been rare to visit a church and churchyard without an Irish yew, usually planted in the late 19th century. Indeed, some churchyards have avenues of them, such as Shoreham in the Darent Valley, which has some 25 healthy specimens. They provide an awesome verdant guard of honour.
BRIAN STEVENSON
Michaelmas Cottage
Stan Lane, West Peckham
Kent ME18 5JT
St Richard’s additions
From Prebendary Norman Wallwork
Madam, — Reflecting on the strength that his journey has derived from the Prayer of St Richard of Chichester (Prayer for the Week, 11 July), Sir Robert Buckland hints at the modern invention of the “clearly, dearly, and nearly” triplet. Indeed, the late Mike Stone of Chichester established not only that the triplet was created for a collection of prayers by George Bullock-Webster in 1913, but that we owe the “Day by day” version to the1931 preparations of Percy Dearmer for Songs of Praise.
NORMAN WALLWORK
Brookside Lodge
Three Horse Shoes
Cowley, Exeter EX5 5EU
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters
Issue of 11 July 2025
A supply problem meant that some copies of the Church Times were packaged in plastic rather than compostable film. Our printer has taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again. Please accept our apologies.
