Anglican Reader and barrister Charles Wide has said that the Church of England's decision to press ahead with Project Spire is “unpopular, ill-judged, [and] highly political”.
Project Spire is the controversial commitment by the Church Commissioners to set up a £100m “fund for healing, repair, and justice”. The money will go towards projects supporting ethnic minority groups allegedly impacted by the transatlantic slave trade.
The motive behind the fund is repentance and an attempt at restitution for the alleged role of the Church of England in the slave trade.
The commitment was reaffirmed by Sarah Mullally, the Archbishop of Canterbury, during her recent visit to Ghana, which included time at a former British slavery site.
"I pray not only in lament for the Church’s involvement in the slave trade, but also for hope - hope that the God of healing can bring justice and reconciliation to all who are still impacted by its legacy," she said during her visit.
"In the name of Jesus Christ, who came to set people free, I pray that we have the courage to continue our journey of repentance, and to strive for a world in which all of God's children are treated with dignity."
Critics however have questioned not only the wisdom of the fund but the historical research that underpins it. Dr Richard Dale, Emeritus Professor of the University of Southampton and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society has argued against claims the Church of England benefited financially from the slave trade.
Even if it had, others question whether it is in line with the spirit of the gospel to expect modern-day members of the Church of England to pay for the alleged sins of their ancestors.
Writing for The Telegraph, Wide said, “None of the parishioners I know played any part in the slave trade and bear no responsibility for it … They have no reason to repent something they did not do, nor can Church leaders repent on their behalf or on behalf of Christians of three hundred years ago. The Gospels reject the idea of inherited sin and furthermore make clear that our obligation to forgive is not conditional upon the contrition of those who have done us wrong.”
Wide also noted that during her visit to Ghana, there was no record of Mullally reminding Ghana’s modern-day leaders “of their predecessors’ dependence on slavery for their wealth”.
Perhaps ironically, Ghana has been at the forefront of demands for reparations, despite the involvement of its former elites in the days of the slave trade.
The transatlantic slave trade, generally speaking, was a complex industry with its own supply chains. Europeans provide commodities to African rulers and merchants, who in return provided slaves, often taken in raids or conflict with rival tribes.
Wide said that Mullally had given a “contested history” during her visit to Ghana and warned that proceeding with Project Spire, despite a potential legal challenge, could backfire.
“Has she considered the reputational harm, throughout the Anglican Communion, if this unpopular, ill-judged, highly political hangover from the Welby regime cannot be lawfully delivered?” he said.
