[REVISION HISTORY]

Church of England slavery reparations debate

Updated 1 time since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-08-05 04:57 UTC → 2026-08-14 20:59 UTC · added ~~removed~~

In late July 2026, Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally visited Ghana’s Cape Coast Castle and reiterated the Church of England’s commitment to a £100 million reparations fund, describing it as an act of repentance and a programme of investment, research and engagement for communities affected by the legacy of slavery. Her remarks came amid criticism from some UK MPs, peers and academics questioning the fund’s narrative and legal basis. A few days later, the debate intensified after British politician Suella Braverman claimed that historic contributions made slavery reparations illegal. The Church responded by promoting a new $135 million “Spire” fund, again emphasizing concrete action and investment across Africa. Historians and other commentators continued to challenge the scope and historical basis of the Church’s reparative efforts, keeping the controversy alive. By mid-August, the initiative, officially named the Fund for Healing, Repair and Justice (or ‘Project Spire’), faced intensified internal and external opposition. Ameer Kotecha, CEO of the Centre for Government Reform, criticized the project as a “foolhardy” crusade that risks “politicising and disunifying the church”. Additional critics raised concerns regarding the allocation of resources toward the fund while local parishes face financial struggles, alongside various theological objections to the project’s implications.

Versions

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.