Welcome. As churches approach their Annual Meetings, may this blog help churches find the wisest possible balance in their leadership of both representing varied ethnicities and make good use of the competencies of all their members.
Representation and Competencies.
President Joe Biden has recently announced his intention to choose a black woman for the Supreme Court ‘because it should look like the country’ (27/01/2022). His aim is representation. The composition of the Supreme Court should, as best it can with nine members, be of fairly similar proportions in terms of race and gender to the overall population of the USA. So should, by extension, the PCC of St Agatha’s-in-the-Marsh, be congruent in ethnicity and gender with the Electoral Roll membership
It is a goal widely shared in this country with regard to membership of powerful institutions – in government, law, business, media, academia, church, and many other areas. This blog will seek to unpick the pros and cons of this assumption of the importance of some sort of ‘proportional representation’ of ethnicities, with particular reference to churches.
1. The value of diverse representation.
The need for diverse input. An article in Harvard Business Review (Dec 2013) on ‘How Diversity Can Drive Innovation’ states that ‘new research provides compelling evidence that diversity unlocks innovation and drives market growth—a finding that should intensify efforts to ensure that executive ranks both embody and embrace the power of differences.’ Diverse representation is in itself a route to good outcomes. I take this to be a fairly standard view across a wide field of activities today. Voices from diverse backgrounds become a case of ‘iron sharpening iron’ (Proverbs 27:17). One of the strengths for churches coming from multi-cultural worship, according to the ethno-musicologist, Ian Collinge, is that enhanced diversity ‘breaks down strongholds’ (2 Cor 10.4) of the ungodly attitudes and behaviour that can so easily solidify in various cultures, if not challenged and rebuked from outside. By contrast, different life experiences provide breadth, balance and enrichment.
If the House of Commons or the House of Bishops were to consist entirely of public-school educated, fifty-something white males it is fairly obvious that their capacity to govern or provide leadership for a very diverse nation would be impaired. Lack of diversity leads to an increasingly narrow and unbalanced focus. The disgracing of segments of evangelical Anglicanism through the John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher scandals grew out of the socially elite ‘is he one of us?’ mentality that created environments of unquestioning conformity. There is no questioning of the competence of the people involved; simply the distorting consequences of close uniformity. The recommendation ‘From Lament to Action’ to take steps to bring wider and often neglected areas of experience into the collective mind of the House of Bishops is wise.
Empathy can be important. There is a sort of sliding scale as to how importance identification with leaders is in various situations. For example, very few people will be concerned as to whether or not their dentist is ethnically similar to them. With doctors the number concerned will increase, whether from an instinctive sense of trust, or the value of cultural familiarity. By the time we get to counsellors or psychotherapists, there is a much greater stress on the importance of congruence. Some universities now deliberately appoint minority ethnic staff. Matters such as familiarity with parenting patterns, attitudes to sexual behaviour, or experiencing racism can all greatly increase the value of ethnically congruent counselling.
So, when people attend church whether or not they feel some sort of affinity with those in positions of leadership is significant. Churches with diverse leadership wisely often show pictures of their leadership group in publicity. (See my Grove Booklet ‘Worship in a Multi-Ethnic Society, p19). It is worth noting here that for at least two hundred years the Church of England has struggled with unrepresentative leadership in its ministry, especially in urban and working class communities. Diverse representation is not in our bloodstream. As often, race (more particularly colour) simply highlights pre-existing problems that we have never succeeded in overcoming, and so are often detached from a large swathe of the population.
Competence is in itself culturally defined. It is not an a-cultural given. What is seen of value varies considerably between cultures and contexts. This is very apparent in churches where it is arguable that standards of competence we expect from ministers, in preaching for example, are culturally varied. As with the point above, it can be argued that the Church’s expectations have long been out of synch with the bulk of the population, and that the more dynamic peaching of both evangelical non-conformity in the 18th and 19thcenturies, and with minority ethnic churches today is a more appropriate competence. Indeed the emphasis on empathy suggests that the emotionally limited approach of traditional English leadership is in fact incompetent in many situations.
2. The Limitations of Representation.
Ethnic groups are not identical. The conservative commentator Douglas Murray has pointed out how often we are expected to believe what we know is not true. The belief that different ethnic groups all bring to the table broadly similar qualities is one such. The baleful consequence is that we are expected to see a fairly even representation of ethnic groups across all positions of responsibility in our society, and that remedial action needs to be taken where this is not the case. In so far as this makes institutions, including the church, ask questions and explore why this is not the case, that is to the good. When pressure is experienced to downplay issues of competence in order to increase representation then bad decisions are likely to be made. If your church’s PCC is not typical of the congregation that should lead to scrutiny. But if after consideration the right people are doing the right jobs, then so be it whatever their ethnicity.
The alternative, to big up the qualities of the less able to look more representative is ultimately demeaning. Thomas Sowell in ‘Discrimination and Disparities’ has pointed out that admitting lesser qualified students to elite universities to get a more proportionate ethnic balance leads to them performing less well than similarly able students in less elite settings.
However, it is arguable that in questions of religion it is the ‘white’ tradition that is limited and impaired. God’s choosing of ‘the lowly things of this world and the despised things’ (1 Cor 1:28) is evident both in the changing shape of world Christianity, and in church participation in this country, especially in large cities. This makes the setting of quotas a very shaky procedure. If, on the one hand, targets such as those set up at several points in ‘From Lament to Action’, are often arbitrary, impossible of fulfilment in a voluntary organisation, or build damaging pressure to make inappropriate or premature appointments; then, on the other hand, they might eventually prove to be insufficiently ambitious. In the medium to long term we ought to be expecting the Church of England to be not only overly inclusive of ethnic minorities, especially of African or African Caribbean background, but to see disproportionate over-representation – if the ethos of the institution allows itself to change towards a more expressive and spontaneous spirituality.
The demands of super-diversity. With but nine members the United States Supreme Court can only make a very crude attempt to represent the very varied mosaic of American society. At present it is not going to ‘look like’ the East or South Asian segments of its population, even less the disadvantaged white people depicted in J D Vance’s widely discussed ‘Hillbilly Elegy’. Does St Agatha’s PCC give adequate representation to its white working-class members? Do its attempts to be ‘inclusive’ cover both African Caribbean and African background members? How can it hope to cover ‘micro-minorities’, say Philipino or French members? Clearly a PCC that is an accurate, scaled down reproduction of the diversity of the whole congregation is an impossibility. In that respect it is important that all PCC members seek to be conscious of the concerns of the whole membership, rather than be seen to carry some sort of representational function for ‘their’ group.
Limitations of Choice. Not long back I was visiting our local hospital and saw (and photographed a board showing pictures of all the staff of a particular department, with the most senior staff on the top rows. As you moved down the board the complexions on the board grew increasingly darker. I guess boards showing church staff and office holders would reveal a similar pattern. To claim such boards to be clearly revealing ‘institutional racism’ would be premature. It is possible that there were policies (in both hospital and church) that militated against the appointment and promotion of non-white people to the upper echelons, but it is certain there were other factors at play. Ethnic groups are not equally distributed across the age spectrum of our society, being younger on average so that more senior positions are more likely to be occupied by white people. Length of time in Britain is another distorting factor. The porters and cleaners along the bottom ranks of the hospital staff board may often have been fairly recent arrivals in Britain, possibly refugees, possibly only just learning to speak English.
3. The Dangers of Representation.
Undermining those who are selected. It is not difficult to come across instances where well qualified and able minority ethnic people have had their appointment undermined by the allegation, or perhaps more often insinuation, that they were chosen simply because of a need to enhance diversity (though as we have seen that can in itself be a valid influence). A downside of positive discrimination is that it can unfairly cast a shadow over all those who are appointed.
Bad choices. Haste to enhance diversity can lead to recklessness. The Labour Party has had no less than three bad outcomes from selecting black women as MPs: Fiona Onasanya was the first MP to be subjected to a recall petition after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice; Kate Osamor has been under a cloud through employing her son and claiming to be unaware of his drug conviction; Claudia Webbe has been convicted of harassment, and may also be subjected to a recall petition. In response it might be said that there has been no shortage of scandals surrounding white, male Conservative MPs, but in the Labour cases it raises the question of whether the cause of poor selections came, at least in part, from their specific commitment to enhance diversity which led to the nominations, apparently against local protests in the case of Claudia Webbe.
Since the death of George Floyd and the growth of Black Lives Matter in this country the pressure to appoint black leaders has grown. This may have brought to the fore people who hitherto had been wrongly overlooked; conversely it may put in positions of authority leaders who are either little more than figureheads, or leave organisations losing impact because of poor leadership. Again, it needs saying that poor choices can be made where ethnicity has not been a factor; nonetheless we should be alert to the possibility that the first years of this decade will be marked by a rash of bad choices made on the basis of minority ethnic preference. The likelihood is made worse if organisations respond to bad choices by just moving on rather than seeing them as learning experiences. Since developing ethnic diversity often means breaking new ground, then on the one hand soberly assessing the reasons for mistakes is more than usually important, whilst on the other hand the spectre of being accused of racism makes such analysis more fraught. Here, as elsewhere, my impression is that the Church of England does not have a good track record for analysing its failures.
Conclusion.
Amongst all the very big issues facing him, may President Biden make a good choice to the Supreme Court. In this instance there are several viable candidates who meet his conditions. But what of those situations where there is a real tension between appointing a ‘representative’ person and a ‘competent’ person?
There is no simple trade-off. In many situations enhancing diverse representation contributes to the overall effectiveness of the institution even if it means somewhat depleting its level of competencies. But not having the width of representation in leadership that may be desirable is not in itself a cause for feeling guilty, or an indication of institutional racism. It may simply be the result of a realistic intention to make the best possible use of human resources.
Representation and Competencies. # 65. 22/02/2022
Thank you John. This article has reminded me the complexity of "Reservation" system in India, where finding a right balance between empowering backword caste students (in spite of their low grades) and denying seats to potential candidates, has been very challenging.