The Problem Of “On Merit Alone”
Over the years whenever I, or someone else, brings up the need in church settings to diversify teams, platforms, conference speakers and leadership structures there’s a phrase that someone always chimes in with, which is usually along the lines of “well as long they are appointed on merit alone” and is often accompanied by statements of not wanting tokenism, ensuring that people are actually called to the role, and not wanting to appoint someone to a role purely because they are a woman, or because they are black or brown. Some of you reading this will have been in conversations like this, maybe you’ve said something like it thinking you were well meant and even thought you were defending underrepresented groups, or maybe you’ve been on the receiving end of it like my husband who once had someone “joke” with him that he must have got into Cambridge University because they “needed to fill their quotas” rather than on merit alone. Often when people hear comments or statements about people being appointed on merit alone it can sound convincing – after all, who wants to be given a role or position on anything other than their calling and ability? But I want to outline why this response is deeply problematic.
Given that in a UK context many leadership structures, teams, platforms and conference keynote speaker lists have a majority of white men, making the statement that any women or people of colour can only be appointed on merit alone implies that the absence of women and people of colour is because they haven’t thus far merited the roles - that the reason that so many teams and platforms are not diverse is because there simply aren’t enough gifted women, black or brown people that deserve to be there. The idea that everyone gets the roles they deserve and anyone not in those roles must not deserve them is naïve at best. Everyone loves the story of the one woman, or the one black person or one brown person who managed to make it, to be appointed to a senior role or be a speaker in a conference line-up; but if hard work, calling and gifting were all it took then many teams and platforms would be significantly more diverse already. Let’s not insult those currently underrepresented in many areas by implying that it’s their own lack of gifting, calling, anointing or suitability that has prevented them from certain roles. The reality is that there are many factors, from lack of opportunities to be mentored, to existing networks and circles of influence, to a lack of opportunities to demonstrate skills and giftings, to unconscious biases, and wrong theology, that can work to prevent people from fulfilling their callings. We can’t pretend there is a level playing field to start with, where everyone regardless of race or gender has equal access to the same opportunities.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that might have restricted many people and of course this is not saying that white people or men have been appointed to roles or platforms merely because of their privilege – hard work, gifting and calling are significant, but it is a very different experience when you regularly see and interact with people who look like you in leadership roles, in senior teams and on platforms and when your gender or the colour of your skin don’t work to prevent you in any way. Calling, gifting, character and effort should be the only things that matter when it comes to appointing people to roles, leadership positions and inviting them to preach and teach, but they aren’t always the only factors at play. If we claim that there are no systemic or institutional issues that restrict people of colour and women from taking leadership roles or being appointed to teams, then we must find another explanation for the fact that in so many church settings across the country, people of colour and women are still significantly underrepresented.
It has been encouraging to see some churches and denominations diversifying their leadership and platforms in recent years, but this hasn’t happened by accident. A few months ago I attended The Justice Conference and one of the things that particularly impacted me was the line-up of speakers who were a balance of women and men; were a range of ethnicities; varied in age and had a variety of experience. I tweeted the organisers commenting on how great it was to see such a line-up and they replied “We want to show that it can be done”! And that’s the wonderful thing – it can be done! But if we are going to see true integration, as opposed to being satisfied when there is one woman or one black person on a majority white and male team or platform, we need to stop pulling the “on merit alone” argument out and instead commit to being intentional about assessing where we currently are and how we enable and provide meaningful opportunities going forward to all people who are gifted and called.
Catherine De Souza, 15th June 2020
