THE Church of England remains a hostile and unsafe place for many non-white clergy, a new study has found.
The study, If It Wasn’t for God: A report on the wellbeing of Global Majority Heritage clergy in the Church of England, is published today, and was written by Dr Selina Stone, Tutor in Social and Political Theology for St Mellitus College. It was produced for the Living Ministry research project, which was set up in 2017 to track cohorts of clergy (News, 24 February 2017).
The group interviewed was small: 12 men and six women from different ethnic backgrounds. The study uses the term Global Majority Heritage (GMH) rather than UK Minority Ethnic (UKME) throughout. It argues that further research is needed to differentiate the experiences of people of different ethnicities, but draws out common themes in the experiences of those interviewed.
Chief among these is the continuing experience of racism, either directly or through neglect, misapprehensions, micro-aggressions, or hindrances to their ministry and well-being. As a result, the study reports “the additional emotional, mental, cultural and practical labour being undertaken by many GMH clergy simply in order for them to be part of the Church”.
It quotes one cleric: “I feel like I don’t necessarily have the time to heal from one trauma before the next one comes along, and the time and space to process. There’s no expectation, there’re no structures, because [GMH] mental health is completely ignored and dismissed.”
The study reports that, while some clergy enjoy taking part in the wider life of their diocese “when their contributions are welcomed but not pre-determined by others”, other clergy find the wider life of the area or diocese “hostile or unsafe, and so clergy avoid such spaces as a strategy for self-protection”.
Lack of preferment is mentioned, along with other hindrances to ministry. Among the examples given is the approach to funerals. Some funeral directors avoid GMH clergy “because the family doesn’t like it”. Silence on the issue from fellow clergy felt like collusion, one GHM priest observed. The study says: “By refusing to challenge racist behaviour — in this case that of the funeral directors — senior clergy and church staff become complicit in racist discrimination.”
The study is candid about the cost of the research. Participants were positive, despite initial fears that they might be fatigued by the flow of research that generally leads to inaction. None the less, there were hindrances to the research because of the would-be participants’ health. The study defines this as a core finding.
“One person we hoped to approach for an interview was away on sick leave and was unavailable, another person went on sick leave within weeks of their interview. One participant postponed their interview after experiencing racial abuse in their parish, and another did not take part because they did not feel well enough within themselves to talk about these matters.”
The researchers themselves admit to the “personal emotional, mental, and spiritual cost” of listening to the trauma experienced by some of the participants.
The study argues that GMH clergy will be able to participate fully and authentically in the C of E only when the Church:
- shows its commitment to challenging the dominance of “white (specifically middle-class) English culture . . . especially in regard to the Church’s expectations regarding how priestly ministry should be enacted”;
- provides space for GMH clergy self-expression “without these contributions being exoticised, tokenised, or presumed to take particular forms”;
- provides opportunities to participate in the wider life of the Church in ways that GMH clergy choose but that are not assumed;
- develops long-term strategies for improving the “belonging” of GMH people which do not rely on tokenism;
- recognises and welcomes contributions from GMH clergy “which are not focused on their ethnic identity or limited to the matter of race”;
- delivers transparent recruitment and disciplinary processes which ensure clergy have the right of appeal; and
- creates pathways to leadership which are equitable for clergy of all ethnicities.
The researchers record positive experiences: for example, from two GMH clerics who minister to congregations that are predominantly white. One said: “I’m looking after two . . . very white congregations. We’ve only got one black family at either site. . . They’ve really been very welcoming, very positive, very open.”
But the study suggests that, even in positive situations, GMH clergy tend to be hypervigilant “because of the likelihood that people will express prejudiced or racist views”. It reports that some clergy welcome it when people are open and honest about their prejudices; others find this traumatising. The researchers observe that many are choosing which battles to fight, often depending on the age of the person expressing the prejudices.
All this takes a toll on GMH clergy, the study argues: “The accumulative effect of these experiences over years can be wearying on the soul.”
Moreover, “if GMH clergy are left alone to teach and correct the racism and prejudice in congregations and communities, then this will do irreparable harm to them and their ministries.”
The study contains several recommendations to improve the well-being of GMH clergy. These include better selection and guidance for incumbents who train GMH curates; attention to financial and material conditions; better support for the self-help networks developed between GMH clergy, and a recognition of the time that this can take; clearer mechanisms for reporting racist behaviour and bullying; and the development of therapeutic support and spiritual direction for GMH clergy.
Read more on this story in our Leader comment here