The Church of England’s plan to establish a £100 million reparations fund addressing its historical involvement in the transatlantic slave trade has come under intense scrutiny and faces both political opposition and legal challenges. The initiative, known as Project Spire, was announced in 2023 by the Church Commissioners, who manage the church’s £11.6 billion endowment, following research that traced some of the church's financial origins to investments linked to the South Sea Company, a key player in the slave trade.

Project Spire aims to create a fund to generate returns to support communities affected by the legacy of African enslavement, distributing grants and seed capital for economic and social projects. The fund forms part of a broader effort within the Church of England to atone for its past, a process initiated under former Archbishop Rowan Williams and reinforced by his successors. Archbishop Justin Welby called it "the beginning of a multi-generational response" to slavery, while Archbishop Sarah Mullally has expressed "lament" for the church’s involvement during a visit to Ghana.

However, the fund has sparked a divisive backlash within the church and beyond. Critics argue that diverting £100 million to reparations is misplaced, particularly at a time when many parishes are financially struggling. Conservative figures such as Nigel Biggar, a retired professor and Anglican priest, have been vocal opponents, framing the fund as “virtue signalling” and contending that it ignores the church’s historic abolitionist efforts. Biggar, who has authored numerous articles against Project Spire, emphasizes a revisionist perspective on the church’s role, contending it exaggerates culpability.

Tory MP Katie Lam has coordinated a campaign opposing the fund in Parliament, accusing the church of advancing a “legally dubious vanity project” and indicating that parishioners may withhold donations as a consequence. Polls commissioned by Biggar suggested this possibility, though findings also indicated that a majority of churchgoers might maintain or even increase contributions in support of reparations. The church disputes claims that funding for local parishes will be affected, noting that overall support for churches and clergy has increased to £1.6 billion for 2026–2028, and that the reparations fund would draw exclusively from the Church Commissioners’ endowment income.

Further complicating the fund’s implementation are legal proceedings initiated by church members. The Rev Jamie Franklin, rector at Holy Trinity in Winchester, and Bijan Omrani, a churchwarden and barrister, are seeking the Charity Commission’s permission to bring a judicial review. They argue the Church Commissioners lack the legal authority to allocate funds towards reparations, stressing that the commissioners’ purpose is to support the church’s mission and ministry, primarily through local parishes. They also highlight the strain on clergy serving multiple parishes with limited resources, challenging the fund’s alignment with the commissioners’ charitable objectives.

The legal challenge, reportedly led by Omrani, has delayed the formal establishment of Project Spire’s arm’s-length body, and the church acknowledges the setback. A Church Commissioners spokesperson reaffirmed their commitment to the fund, describing it as “an act of Christian repentance, responsible investment, and credible witness” addressing historic links to African chattel enslavement.

The campaign against Project Spire extends beyond legal avenues, intersecting with the broader cultural and ideological debates in Britain. Key financial backers of the opposition include Sir Paul Marshall, a hedge fund co-founder and philanthropist who owns media outlets such as the Spectator magazine and GB News. Marshall has financially supported academics and groups aligned with Biggar and other critics, reinforcing a network of commentators skeptical of reparations and decrying what they term “wokeness.”

While Marshall states he is not directly funding the anti-Spire campaign—but would be willing to—he views the reparations fund as “naive and ill-judged,” advocating instead for focusing the church’s resources on supporting struggling parishes. His patronage extends to organizations engaged in culture war debates, and his media platforms have featured repeated critiques of the reparations project, often branding it inconsistent with Christian teaching.

As of mid-2026, Project Spire remains in limbo, caught between institutional commitment, political opposition, legal uncertainty, and cultural contestation. Church leaders continue to emphasize the project’s role in confronting the church’s historical complicity and in pursuing racial justice, while detractors insist on prioritizing traditional parish support and challenge both the fund’s legality and its underlying assumptions. The debate illustrates ongoing tensions within the Church of England and British society over how to address historical legacies and current social justice issues.