On 5 November, the Church of England published a report for the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice, Behind the Stained-Glass: A Report on the Participation of UK Minoritised Ethnic People in the Ministry and Leadership of the Church of England. The report by a team led by Professor Paul Miller concludes that although the study did not set out to prove or disprove the presence or absence of institutional and/or structural racism within the Church of England, on balance, the evidence confirmed the existence of both structural and institutional racism within the Church.

Its overall findings are as follows:

• “Ethnicity data ranges from patchy to largely non-existent, except for within four dioceses.
• Pathways data on recruitment trends show that individual applicants from UK Minoritised Ethnic/Global Majority Heritage [UKME/GMH] (especially Black) applicants were much less likely to be appointed or interviewed compared with white applicants.
• Pathways data shows that UKME/GMH clergy were not applying for posts in certain geographical areas.
• Data shows an increase (from 6%-13%) in UKME/GMH ordinands between 2017-2023.
• UKME/GMH individuals face significant personal challenges, particularly self-supporting clergy and women, who struggle with financial instability and lack of support.
• Class and cultural dynamics within the Church hinder the progression of UKME/GMH clergy. Greater value appears to be attached to UK qualifications and people from ‘traditional Anglican’ backgrounds over diverse experiences and routes into the ministry.
• Discernment and progression panels are believed to lack understanding of UKME/GMH spirituality, preferring traditional Anglican norms.
• The personal preferences and biases of diocesan bishops were highlighted to play a significant role in the recruitment and progression of clergy in the hierarchical structures of the C of E. As a result, this meant that this was all hindering the careers of UKME/GMH individuals.
• HR and appointment processes of clergy and lay people from UKME/GMH are believed to range from inconsistent to non-existent and lacking in transparency, leading to subjective and biased recruitment and selection.
• There appears a lack of formal support structures for UKME/GMH individuals many of whom rely on poorly resourced informal networks that are incapable of tackling institutional and structural discrimination or exclusion.
• The role of bishops and Training Incumbents as gatekeeper was shown to be one of the ways in which systemic racism has continued unabated in the C of E and this has disadvantaged those in the minority, especially those from low-income backgrounds including UKME/GMH individuals.
• The results suggest that there was a culture of non-engagement from Theological Education Institutions [TEIs] and their leaders, who tended to be white individuals who did not always see the need to engage with anti-racism and decolonial discourses. Accordingly, TEIs are believed to perpetuate institutional and structural racism through a predominantly white curriculum delivered by predominantly white staff.”

The Church of England issued a press release in which it quotes the Commission’s Chair, Lord Boateng, as saying:

 “This excellent report confirms with irrefutable evidence the Commission’s earlier findings on the detrimental impact on the Church’s ministry and witness of its failure to collect the data necessary in order to measure progress in the area of diversity and racial justice.

A stark and shaming picture of the inadequacy of information to chart the representation and progression of UKME clergy emerges that is anathema to success in tackling this issue of continuing underrepresentation and disadvantage.

My hope and prayer is that the Church of England will have, at the very least, started to take the necessary steps to action these recommendations before the publication of our final Report at the end of the year. What more does this institution need before it comes into line with what is now accepted practice in HR and data collection in both the private and the public sectors?”