Dr Carlton Turner, November 25th, 2025
A Call to Action
Before diving into this summary and discussion of my recent research through the Cross-Training in Psychology for Theologians, I wish to express my thanks to the Cross-Training fellowship through the University of Birmingham made possible through the generosity of the John Templeton Foundation.[1] The aim of bridging the conceptual and methodological worlds of psychology and theology in interdisciplinary fashion is, to my mind, is an urgent one. This opportunity has allowed me to further interrogate an experience in the life of the Church that requires interdisciplinary attention; that is the experience of racism – how it is understood; how it is addressed; and the kinds of conceptual, methodological, and institutional changes needed for fruitful conversations and ongoing flourishing in the life of the Church.
I am a Practical and Contextual Theologian from the African Caribbean who has spent more than fifteen years in the Church of England as a minister and then as an academic theologian. I work at the Queen’s Foundation, an ecumenical theological education institution that has long been pioneering research and writing into theologies of justice, one example of this being its Centre for Black Theology. As an Anglican tutor and Deputy Director of Research I have bridged the worlds of Church of England (CofE) polity and ministerial formation. A few experiences have impacted me deeply. Firstly, my office has often been the place in which clergy like me, as well as UK Minority Ethnic (UKME) and Global Majority Heritage (GMH) seminarians, from have found themselves in tears desperately trying to make sense of their experiences of marginalisation, bullying, and despair. Secondly, the CofE itself has been coming to terms with its problem with racism. In February 2020 the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, declared that the CofE is institutionally racist.[2]
The other big movement in the life of the CofE was the publication of the Lament to Action Report in April 2021. The report mapped the lack of action by the Church in providing cultures of inclusion and flourishing for UKME and GMH persons, putting in place a process for ensuring structural change. Much of the monitoring of these workstreams are overseen by the Archbishop’s Commission for Racial Justice (ACRJ) and their biennial reports, and the Racial Justice Unit (RJU) through its grant-making and advocacy endeavours.
Thirdly, theological research and writing into the experience of racism by UKME and GMH persons is surprisingly sparse. Mukti Barton’s Rejection, Resistance and Resurrection: Speaking out on Racism in the Church (2005), was perhaps the earliest published qualitative report and reflection into the experience of racism by Black and Asian Anglicans in the West Midlands. This was some twenty years ago, and little has been researched since. What was not explored was the psychological impact of racism on UKME and GMH Persons, and the psychological aspect of institutional racism and its effects on religious and spiritual life; both in the individual lives of those affected, and more corporately in the nature of the institution. The only published research and report seeking to bring the experience of institutional racism into psychological conversation theology and practice of the church is Sanjee Perera’s ‘Beyond the Lych-gate; A Strategic Diagnostic of Church Culture and Practices that Marginalise and Disenfranchise Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic People in the Church of England’ (2021). However, Perera, a cognitive psychologist, does not go into detail about the research on racism that precipitated it, but rather gives diagnostic and strategic recommendations for church implementation. In fact, the report seems to be more preoccupied with theological reflection than it is with engaging with deeper psychological research and insights. A similar critique can be made of her most recent publication “Gauntlet at the Lych-gate: How and Why is the Church of England Racist?” (2023). While it references psychological research done in the Diocese of Birmingham, much of the article still attempts an ecclesiological reflection with little reference to the psychological research undergirding it.
Perhaps, the latest published research in this regard has been Selina Stone’s ‘If It Wasn’t for God! A Report on the Wellbeing of Global Majority Heritage Clergy in the Church of England’ (2022). This qualitative report, commissioned by the CofE’s longitudinal research into the well-being of clergy over a ten-year period, ‘The Living Ministry Project’, was specifically qualitative research into the lives of UKME and GMH clergy. Under the broader framework of clergy well-being, the report employed the language of ‘racial trauma’ and ‘re-traumatising’ of interview participants in having to recount their experiences. It also noted the emotional and mental toll on those conducting interviews. I was one part of the research team conducting some of the interviews. The report went so far as to suggest that the longitudinal study revise its framework to include, race, ethnicity, and culture as predictors of well-being in the CofE. The report also makes reference to psychological well-being in the context of institutional racism in the CofE, particularly regarding the lack of trust in relationships within the institution. Another term suggested by the report is ‘racial safeguarding’, that processes are put in place to investigate instances of racial abuse, without causing further harm to the victims. Connected to this is the need for fully funded culturally appropriate therapeutic support available for UKME and GMH persons, as part of the process of psychological address of the experience of racism. Nonetheless, this report, though valuable, simply points to the need for deeper psychological attention to the Church’s conversation about racism, and the need for further psychological research that informs theologies as well as policies within the CofE.
Embracing Psychological Research
While ‘racism’ has been a particular idea interrogated within the theology and ministry of the CofE, most of its documents and reports and the few theological publications cite little or any engagement with other disciplines that might helpfully strengthen such reflections on what is, in reality, an entangled concept. It has a legal definition, and insights can be explored from research in the fields of sociology, education, and psychology, amongst others. Engagement with psychological research is particularly attractive as it strengthens theological assertions with quantitative and qualitative research insights, giving clear pictures of the actual experience of the phenomenon both individually and corporately. Recent publications set a good foundation for exploring the engagement of theology with the psychological sciences. Particular attention is given to the concept of Science Engaged Theology (Perry & Leidenhag, 2023) and TheoPsych (Barrett, 2022).
As a Practical theologian I am concerned with the practices of the Church and its methods of theological reflection, recognising that, as a discipline, Theology is partial, contextually rooted, and can often reinforce the problematic issues it seeks to address. Following the logic by Swinton and Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (2006), that theology is given logical priority over the social sciences, and employing their insights for my own deeper seeing and knowing, the psychological research literature is used in the service of deeper theological reflection into the experience of racism in the CofE. My starting premise is that theology does not have total knowledge of what racism ‘is’ and can learn from other insights; and, perhaps, this limited use of other disciplines lies at the heart of contemporary conversations in the CofE around race and racism.
It seems from what I’ve stated above that theological conversations about racism and its effects on UKME and GMH persons in the CofE are concerned with the flourishing of such individuals in the context of the wider Church, and practical steps are being made toward this end. However, my project explores the degree to which such conversations are psychologically informed. The overriding research question is this: while racism is being used as a concept or a framework for naming harmful dynamics within the life of the CofE, how psychologically informed is the concept? Supplementary questions are:
- Is there space for a deeper understanding of ‘racism’ in both its individual and collective forms that theological conversations in the CofE might learn from?
- What might research on racism in the psychological sciences add to the conversation?
- Using a practical theological approach, how might this science engaged theological research into the experiences and dynamics of racism help strengthen or even transform the theology and praxis of the CofE in this area?
Acknowledging the Gaps
With the help of my Psychology mentor, Professor Kimberly Rios, I was directed to two theories in social psychology that would help further and deepen my theological reflection on the topic. These are Minority Stress Theory and Social Threat Theory. In the former, the idea that minority groups experiencing stress within organisations and institutions leads to negative mental and physical health outcomes, can help to tease out the ways in which theological research into racism in the CofE might need further research and reflection. Similarly, social threat theory, as a conflict theory might help elucidate the relational dynamics within race related occurrences within the CofE. In research these two initial theories it became clear that there are serious gaps in the literature. Most of the research is North American or US based and most of its populations are either the university setting or the health sector. Research in the UK context follows the same pattern generally. What is relatively absent in the psychological literature is any direct application to Church of ministerial contest. Furthermore, there seems to be hardly any interdisciplinary research within ecclesial contexts which brings both Psychology and Theology together for the purpose of transforming institutional approaches to the realities of racism. In short, the psychological dimension, particularly the psychological research needed to ground the Church’s conversation around racism, simply does not exist.
Some Insights from the Research
My research into Minority Stress and Social Identity Stress theories led to two other sub areas of research that I believe would be helpful for the CofE’s continued theological research and discussion around racism. Firstly, there is Race-Related Stress Theory in psychological research and literature, which posits that racism and racial discrimination can be a significant source of stress, potentially leading to negative psychological and physical health outcomes, including increased risk of anxiety, depression, and even trauma-related disorders. Secondly, there is Racial Trauma Theory which posits that experiences of racial discrimination and bias can lead to psychological trauma, similar to PTSD, with long-lasting negative impacts on mental and emotional well-being. I think an awareness of the impact of racism especially when being researched through these theories helps the church to get a better view of racism’s impact on the life of the church – individual numbers, institutional policies, and the culture of the church itself. What psychological research highlights in very concrete ways, is that racism is has deeply disturbing effects in everyday life and simple more abstract conversations or reports are not enough.
Furthermore, the way I would describe the CofE’s theological conversation, is that it is usually more one dimensional – at most it speaks two dimensionally. There is the individual level in which we pay attention to people who receive and perceive racist experiences; in other words, how individuals are affected. Then there is the language around ‘structural racism’, that the institution of the Church is implicated in the process of making some individuals experience racism.However, the psychological literature usually thinks about racism in three domains, hence it can be considered as more three dimensional. It thinks of the individual, the institutional, and the cultural. While the institutional is where we can see and research policies and procedures, habits that exclude minority groups, the third one, ‘cultural’ charts the broader entrenched cultural attitudes that shape both the individual and the institutional. What if we were to begin exploring the ‘culture’ of the CofE? This requires us to do a deep dive into the nature of the CofE itself. I think this broader level is often missing in reports and publications around racism. Ultimately, I think the biggest insight is that the psychological dimension of racism and its pathological consequences isn’t considered enough in theology. Psychological research reminds us constantly of the extent to which experiences of racism lead to significant adverse physical, mental and emotional conditions across the board.
Some Soundbites around the CofE
Part of the research involved canvassing some sense of how different dioceses are implementing the Lament to Action report, or their general conceptual approaches to racism and the ways in which they instrumentalise anti-racist practices. I did this through approaching racial justice offices or those most tasked with setting and implementing anti-racist agendas in the life of the Church. A summary of information gathered from a few dioceses including Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, Birmingham, London, Oxford, and the West Midlands Racial Justice Initiative reveals the following. Firstly, diocesan structures have put funding in place to address recommendations by the Lament to Action Report. The creation of regional diocesan collaborations such as the West Midlands Racial Justice Initiative or the ecumenical collaborations in Bristol Diocese have been combing efforts to bringing about anti-racist practices. Dioceses such as Liverpool have worked hard to provide a Racial Justice Statements and strategies. Others such as Oxford have appointed key personnel such as Rev’d Serena Tajima, Dean of the UKME Chapter. Secondly, a survey of diocesan strategies and conversations with key personnel reveals that there is some attention to psychological care in terms of attending to the well-being of UKME and GMH clergy through local interventions, creating a sense of belonging, and providing peer support. However, whilst there are clear strategies and highly capable and motivated people at work in these spaces, there is the need for a deeper theology undergirding such work, one that can address the deep psychological implications of the experiences of racism in the life of the Church. In this regard much of the work is reactive, though not intentionally, and deeper research and reflection is needed to address the sources and processes of racism in the life of the church, which to my estimation, requires an interdisciplinary assessment of the CofE itself.
Fruitful Possibilities
Out of this initial interdisciplinary research I think there are some implications for changes amongst practitioners and for the institution and policies of the CofE. Clergy and Chaplains would be persons in the institution with more immediately access on the ground. They would be the people we can engage for key and further research. But more than anything, I think training clergy in psychologically informed theology around racism would be helpful. The psychological research literature is rich, and much more extensive than that of theology around the issue of race. There is much to learn from about good practice. But the basic idea is that racism should be taken seriously, not just as a topic of conversation, but as an area to enact strong and carefully monitored policies. This should be the baseline approach for clergy and chaplains and authoritative bodies within the Church.
I am a theological educator and think often about the fact that I’m preparing emerging church leaders for ministry. In this research I want to impress upon people like me to adopt an interdisciplinary approach in which you teach theology in context, and you highlight the trauma of racism (or any other pathology), and how its existence is owed to individuals, institutions, and cultures. In short, we need to theorise anew around racism – and we need to challenge our theological formations in the face of this present reality.
The other thing to mention here, which ties into the anti-racist element inherent in the research, is the need to be self-reflexive. The psychological research literature also talks about the silence that pervades contexts in which racism takes place. People are silenced as they tell their experiences. These kinds of exploitations are permitted because they’re not taken seriously by leadership and safeguarding processes. And most glaringly, there needs to be ways of exploring and challenging racist attitudes and behaviours entrenched in institutions and cultures. These can only come about by being reflexive and taking an interior gaze.
I hope that the take-away is to take racism seriously, not as an experience that minoritised persons have, but as deeply destructive and deeply pathologized behaviours and attitudes that are very present, which we don’t challenge deeply enough. There is also another trajectory of conversation that I feel needs to take place. The 3 -dimensional approach to racism that we find in psychology needs a corresponding 3-dimensional approach in theology, or the theology undergirding conversations in the CofE. By this, I am specifically referring to the need to theorise around the nature and culture of the Church as a collective when thinking about racism. While we talk about structural racism, I think a lot more research needs to go into the psychological nature of the Church itself, its ingrained culture, and the psychological nature of how and why it treats minorities the way that it does. Unless you can see the problem, then you can address it to some degree. Theologically, the church still operates at the level of the individual, but it will not pay theological attention to itself. Psychology, as a discussion partner, allows us to see the church better, more deeply. This seeing and knowing requires further interdisciplinary research and writing.
[1] https://crosstrainingpsychologyandtheology.com/
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51469566#:~:text=The%20Church%20of%20England%20is,hostile%20environment%22%20to%20those%20people.
