Abstract
In recent years, there has been a shift in focus within the UK-based charitable sector's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) agendas from equality to equity. Although equality is not altogether absent, it is equity that is now most often emphasised within organisational policies. This is most likely attributable to the way equality is understood within the sector. Nevertheless, when organisations whose practice is underpinned by Christian theology adopt this shift towards equity without interrogating the implications of doing so, there is a danger of losing both the richness and challenge that theological understandings of equality can contribute to organisational practice. Focusing specifically on the international development sector in the UK, this article explores how theological understandings of equality and equity can be brought together with sectoral understandings to positively shape organisational practice. The article is rooted in Catholic Social Teaching, since this offers a helpful theological framework for faith-based organisations underpinned by Christian theology to understand the significance of the ‘E’ in EDI.
Introduction
The image most often used to demonstrate the distinction between ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ is a cartoon depicting three people of differing heights standing behind a fence that separates them from a sports match. All three appear to be trying to watch the game, but two are not tall enough to see over the fence. ‘Equality’ and ‘equity’ are illustrated by placing boxes underneath each person to adjust their height. Equality is typically portrayed as the provision of an equal number of boxes for each person—that is, equality is about treating everyone the same, regardless of their height. Equity, on the other hand, is typically portrayed as the provision of differing numbers of boxes according to the height of each person—in other words, equity is about treating everyone differently with the aim of enabling all to reach the same height.
Several questions can be asked of this image and its depiction of equality and equity. If each person represents a different societal group, such as those of a specific race or socio-economic background, with their height representing their respective advantage or disadvantage within whichever societal system is being examined—for example, a specific sector, organisation or community—and if the fence depicts the barriers they face in achieving a desired outcome, what does the sports match depict? Why is the focus of the image on adjusting the height of each person rather than dismantling the fence? Why is the focus of the image on bringing each person to the same height, rather than accepting the height that each person is and changing other aspects of the set up; for example, carving holes in the fence? There are, of course, a number of assumptions within the image, not least that all seek the same outcome—that is, to watch the game from the same height. This assumption might be reasonable in light of other aspects of the image, such as the fact that all are facing the fence, for example, yet there is also much that we cannot know from simply looking at the people in the image.
In recent years, there has been a shift in focus within the UK-based charitable sector's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) agendas from equality to equity. 1 Although equality is not altogether absent, it is equity that is now most often emphasised within organisational policies. 2 This is most likely attributable to the way equality is understood within the sector, which, in turn, has its roots in the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act came into force in October 2010, bringing together more than a hundred pieces of existing legislation. Its purpose was to provide a legal framework to protect people from discrimination both in their places of work and in society in general. 3 Efforts in this area have a long-running history, of course, with various Acts introduced over time in response to societal concerns being raised and elevated. Examples here include the Race Relations Act of 1965, which was the UK's first legislation tackling racial discrimination. Similarly, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was the first to address discrimination on the basis of sex, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that against disabled people. By enshrining equality in law as the Equality Act did, it placed a legal duty on organisations not only in relation to their employees, but also towards the wider public. In time, this led to the development of organisational frameworks to ensure compliance with the law, and since the Equality Act emphasises the need for ‘equality of opportunity for all’, organisational understandings of how best to address discrimination have been influenced to this end. 4 Nevertheless, as far as such frameworks are concerned, these have evolved in recent years in keeping with the evolution of discussions within society more broadly, from a focus on diversity and inclusion (D&I) to DEI or EDI, to incorporate equality and, more recently, equity. Some organisations have adopted variations to address particular aspirations, such as JEDI, which includes justice, or EDIB, which emphasises belonging.
One of the challenges when it comes to organisational approaches to EDI, however, relates to how equality and equity are used and understood. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, for instance, and even when a distinction is made between them, understandings, and therefore practices, across different organisations can be inconsistent. 5 Further, when organisations whose practice is underpinned by Christian theology adopt this shift towards equity without interrogating the implications of doing so, there is a danger of losing both the richness and challenge that theological understandings of equality can contribute to organisational practice. As will be argued below, theological conceptualisations of equality encompass so much more than equality of opportunity, and this necessitates reflection on what might be lost in adopting the move to equity.
Focusing specifically on organisations within the UK's international development sector, this article explores how theological understandings of equality and equity can be brought together positively with sectoral understandings such as these to shape organisational practice. Theologically, the article is rooted in Catholic Social Teaching, which offers a helpful theological framework for faith-based organisations underpinned by Christian theology to understand the significance of the ‘E’ in EDI.
A Sectoral Perspective on Equality and Equity
Within the international development sector in the UK, structural racism is a reality. The Bond report ‘Racism, Power and Truth’ states that: ‘Despite the sector's public commitments to diversity and inclusion, there are high levels of racism preventing people of colour from entering and progressing through the sector’. 6 The term equality is typically understood to relate primarily to equal opportunities, as one would expect, holding that everyone should be treated exactly the same regardless of the differences between them. A resource published by Bond, Peace Direct and The Advocacy Team titled ‘This is the Work’ explains, for example, that: ‘The terms “equality” and “equity” are often used interchangeably, although they embody quite distinct points of view. Equality implies that no differences should exist between people. Everyone should earn or receive the same’. 7 The term equity, on the other hand, is most often understood to be about giving people what they need in order to achieve a particular end. For equity, then, outcomes are important, and whether something is seen to be equitable or not is measured against these. To return to the image described above, the question to be addressed would be whether all groups can watch the match from the same height after the boxes have been distributed. Within the sector, then, equity leads to a focus on identifying and overcoming the ‘barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups’. 8 It enables a focus on individual groups and the specific disadvantages that they face, and it is often spoken of in terms of ‘levelling an unequal playing field’. 9 Examining the discussions on equality and equity within this particular sphere of activity, it becomes apparent that the emphasis on equity has arisen primarily in response to a felt need: even with the focus on equality, development practitioners were noticing inequality in relation to outcomes, and thus attention shifted to how to enable equal outcomes. By focusing on equity, the sector was able to place a spotlight on the barriers that were neither being acknowledged nor addressed. 10
With regard to the faith-based sphere, and more specifically, organisations whose practice is underpinned by the Christian faith, the EDI-related content within the policies of a range of such organisations operating within the sector provide helpful insight into the ways in which equality and equity are understood and outworked. Some continue to use the language of equality, but even where equality is not explicitly singled out as being a focus area, it is still present within their theological rationales, often through references to the equal being of each person as created in the image of God. 11 Some organisations also seem to be adopting broader understandings of the concept of equality than is common within the sector, sometimes defining it as equal outcomes and equal participation in addition to equal opportunities. 12 Thus, equality within such organisations is not only about provision, but also about being. Still others appear to have replaced the word ‘equality’ with ‘equity’ without specifying how each is interpreted or have simply added the latter to their EDI statements in addition to equality. 13
Although there are significant variations in practice, then, equality appears to be the underlying theological principle for many of these organisations, with the focus on equity emerging from and rooted in this principle. Arguably, equity has become a concrete and practical outworking of equality; to put this in another way, equity is operationalising the theological principle of the equal being of all by ensuring that the treatment of all is different so that equal outcomes can be achieved. Importantly, many organisations also mention justice in these webpages, which suggests that the theological concept of justice is closely connected to those of equality and equity. It is therefore pertinent to explore a particular theological interpretation of the concept of ‘equality’, that is, the understanding of equality promoted in Catholic Social Teaching, to discern whether it can offer a helpful framework for Christian organisations to root their praxis in theological thought.
A Theological Perspective on Equality
Although the language of ‘equality’ has become a technical and legal language most associated with human rights, ‘equality’ is thoroughly theological language as well. Faith-based activists and social movements have long drawn on the principle of equality to resist situations of inequality and indignity in history. The idea that there is a fundamental equality of all human persons is also a cornerstone of modern Catholic Social Teaching. Both Catholic Social Teaching and grassroots movements for justice connect the idea of equality with the concept of human dignity. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize on 10 December 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. exclaimed that ‘I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits’. 14 In a similar vein, in its guidelines on equality and diversity released in 2005, the Catholic Bishops’ conference of England and Wales begins its policy with the following: ‘The fundamental truths of Christianity, in common with other faiths, include the dignity and equality of all human beings’. 15 As these quotes make evident, there is a dynamic between equality and dignity which has served as a core impetus for justice in both the popular and Catholic cultural imagination. The fundamental interconnection between the two concepts of equality and dignity can also be seen in the wider canon of Catholic Social Teaching. For example, in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis writes that: ‘God has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity’. 16
The understanding of equality presented in Catholic Social Teaching offers a distinctive framework for Christian organisations to interpret the theological significance of the ‘E’ in EDI. 17 This distinctiveness comes from its rootedness in the idea that all people have inherent dignity due to their shared origin, nature, and proper end in God. 18 To understand the principle of equality within CST, therefore, there is a need to understand the account of creation and salvation which underlies it, as well as the theological anthropology to which these accounts lead. Within the canon of CST, all people are seen as created by divine love for divine love. 19 This particular rendering of what it means to be human is particularly emphasised in Pope Benedict's encyclicals. In Deus Caritas Est, the pope writes that ‘God's love for us is fundamental for our lives, and it raises important questions about who God is and who we are’. 20 In Caritas in Veritate, he expands upon this notion, explaining that ‘everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope’. 21 This belief that every person has a common origin and end in God's love is rooted in the Judeo-Christian story of creation. 22 As the theologian Elizabeth Johnson reminds us, a particularly important aspect of the traditional Christian account of creation is the doctrine of continuous creation. What this idea affirms is that nothing can exist without God and so God's creative and life-giving love is keeping everything rooted in life at every single moment. Johnson explains: ‘Continuous creation affirms that rather than retiring after bringing the world into existence at some original instant, the Creator keeps on sustaining the world in its being and becoming at every moment’. 23 Johnson draws on a metaphor provided by the Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe to further illustrate this notion of continuous creation: God's creative act is not like that of a sculptor who creates a beautiful piece of art and then steps away. Rather, creation is like a song sung into existence by the divine singer and which is continuously held in being by this singer. It cannot exist without the singer holding it in existence at every moment. 24 What this means is that every single human person at every single moment in time has a relatedness to, and reliance on, divine love which is at the core of their being.
The belief that all people are created by divine love for divine love is also predicated on a particular account of the ultimate destiny of all human persons for communion with the divine. According to CST, this is an end which Christ has made available for all through His incarnation and salvific action in history.
25
This theocentric account of creation and salvation, therefore, is why the Catholic Church affirms that all human persons share a common origin, nature, and proper end in God. So, the theological anchor to the belief in human dignity and equality is the idea that every human person is created by divine love for divine love through the creative and salvific work of the Trinity. Stan Chu Ilo draws on this understanding of what it means to be human to argue that the most intimate reality of every single human person is that they are a unique and personal ‘subject of divine love’.
26
Indeed each individual person is uniquely loved into being and sustained at every moment by the divine. Hence, each individual person that exists has a singular dignity due to their inherent relatedness to the triune God which must always be respected. This theology leads Pope Benedict to regard humanity as ‘a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity’.
27
As Anna Rowlands explains, the equal dignity of all human persons should be understood primarily as a gift that is bestowed on each human person through the action of the divine. As Rowlands writes: Dignity is something we can seriously debase in ourselves or others, but it is not something that we can fundamentally lose or become completely alienated from, for whilst dignity is something we can be said to possess it is not something that we ourselves found or guarantee. Rather, dignity is based on a gift given and is something capable of endless renewal through the same divine initiative.
28
This equality in nature and dignity is a truth to which CST constantly calls us back in order to direct our practice, that is, to instruct us in how we are called to live and work together as a community of kin. Indeed, the Catholic Bishops’ conference of England and Wales have released two sets of guidelines on the practice of equality and diversity in Catholic organisations, one entitled Guidelines on Equality and Diversity published in 2005 and the other in 2014 called Applying Equality Law in Practice: Guidance for Catholics and Catholic Organisations. Both of these documents root their understanding of equality in this account of divine love and gift. Drawing on the language of the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, the 2005 document states that all human beings ‘have the same nature and origin and, being redeemed by Christ, they enjoy the same divine calling and destiny’.
29
The 2014 policy opens with the following: We share a common humanity. Every human person, created and loved by God, is a member of one human family. Each of us, created in [God's] image and likeness, is of equal worth in [God's] sight, and each has an intrinsic dignity which can never be taken away. This belief, and the respect due to each person that flows from this belief, should especially be reflected and lived out in the practice of Catholic organisations and institutions.
30
To posit dignity as principle and practice, it is necessary to continually ask the question of affliction: to inquire as to its presence, meaning and its overcoming. To refuse to ask questions about suffering and affliction is to deny dignity … To ask the dignity question is to do something that is implicitly necessary to our nature and to the excellence for which we are made.
33
Thus, as Ilo writes, this understanding of who humans are in relation to God and each other obliges us to establish ‘a new world where fellow-feeling and concern for the good of others stem from our appreciation of our common origin and destiny’. 35 He explains that ‘solidarity’ is the appropriate response to this belief. 36 What is distinctive about the CST approach to solidarity is that love—what the CST tradition calls caritas—is seen as the root of authentic solidarity. We are called to solidarity with others because of who we all are, namely, creatures who are lovingly created and redeemed by God and who are therefore our equal and dignified kin. 37 Our love for our kin—that is, the whole human family—and our care for their dignity is a response to, and participation in, God's love for them and us. As Rowlands describes, within CST there is a ‘transcendent and covenantal basis to human solidarity’. 38 Solidarity is not just a practical attitude or collaboration based upon a common socio-political interest or cause. More fundamentally, it is a way of living rooted in our divinely ordained vocation to loving kinship, care and communion. 39 As Pope Francis writes in Fratelli Tutti, ‘our love for others, for who they are, moves us to seek the best for their lives’. 40 Hence, John Paul II argues that solidarity is not just motivated by feelings of ‘distress’, pity, or ‘compassion’ at another person's suffering. 41 Rather, in his own words, it is ‘a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say the good of all and each individual because we are all really responsible for all’. 42 It is a commitment to foster the social and structural conditions which enable the divine gifts of equality and dignity to be lived out in practice so that all can flourish according to the divine will.
Within the canon of CST, racism is regarded as something that perpetuates situations of inequality and indignity and is therefore an affront to God's will. The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes argues that ‘every type of discrimination’ needs to be ‘overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent’. 43 Consequently, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales argues that Catholic organisations must ensure that no one is discriminated against or disadvantaged in the workplace due to their race or ethnicity. 44 As their policy on equality and diversity makes clear, a Catholic theological vision of equality leads the Bishops’ Conference to promote and defend the right of all people in Catholic organisations to be free from discrimination. Notably, the document discusses discrimination both in terms of direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, as does the document released in 2014. 45 Here, therefore, the approach recommended to bring about a situation of equality correlates to that first image with which we began, where the praxis of equality involves sameness of treatment as everyone is regarded as having the right to non-discrimination.
The CST tradition, however, also goes beyond this understanding of the praxis of equality meaning sameness of treatment. In the document released in 2014, the Bishops’ conference presents ‘positive action’ as a good to which Catholic organisations should be committed based on the need to respect the dignity and unique contribution of all. The document asserts that: Positive action allows an employer to overcome difficulties for those with protected characteristics, or to help and encourage those with protected characteristics to apply for positions where persons with the protected characteristic are under-represented.
46
This expansion of the praxis of equality beyond sameness of treatment is most explicitly found, however, in the CST principle of the option for the poor. In CST, ‘the poor’ is an expansive category which includes not just those who experience socio-economic poverty, but also all those who experience marginalisation and exclusion—those who Pope Francis calls ‘hidden exiles’. 48 When speaking about those ‘hidden exiles’ who find themselves at the peripheries of society, Pope Francis argues that Christians need to prioritise addressing the situations which prevent these ‘hidden exiles’ ‘from being fully enfranchised’. 49 He includes within this category of ‘hidden exiles’ the elderly, those who are disabled, and those who experience racism. This, however, is not merely a theology of saviourism. Instead, Francis argues that each of these ‘hidden exiles’ themselves have ‘a unique contribution’ to make for ‘the common good’. 50 This suggests that creating a situation in which marginalised individuals are enabled to participate fully benefits everyone and is necessary for society as a whole to flourish.
There is a long history of thinking around the ‘preferential option for the poor’ within the Catholic tradition. A particularly pertinent quotation from the canon of CST, which is worth quoting in full, is the following: Various forms of discrimination continually reappear—ethnic cultural, religious, political and so on. In fact, human rights are still too often disregarded, if not scoffed at, or else they receive only formal recognition. In many cases legislation does not keep up with real situations. Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equity. In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an overemphasis of equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.
51
Within a Catholic theological register, therefore, equality should always be read in conjunction with the principles of solidarity, justice, the common good, and the option for the poor. The theological account of equality within CST remains a rich and fruitful resource that faith-based organisations can draw on to work out their own particular strategies regarding EDI. This is because it is rooted in an understanding of who God is and who we are as human beings located in an ongoing story of creation and salvation.
Of course, CST does not go far enough in its analysis of institutional or systemic racism as theologians such as Bryan Massingale have shown.
52
Even in their analysis of ‘positive action’ as an organisational strategy to overcome existing disadvantage, the documents of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference do not attend to how the ‘social-cultural epistemological privilege’ of whiteness or the ‘white gaze’ can function within organisational recruitment practices and lead to a bias regarding what expertise looks like and what it means to be well-qualified.
53
Indeed, following UK law, the Bishops’ Conference argues that, when positive action is taken, ‘it must … be shown that the applicant possessing the [protected] characteristic is at least as equally well-qualified as any rival candidates for the role’.
54
As the report by Bond argues, however, a form of ‘credentialism’ can often be found operating in the sector which can put people from the so-called Global South in a position of disadvantage.
55
This is because degrees from academic institutions in the ‘Global North’ are seen as holding greater merit and therefore are favoured as evidence of being well-qualified. Bond's research found that: university degrees from institutions in low-middle income countries were not as equally valued as those from western academic institutions. This form of credentialism—the valuing of knowledge and expertise only if accompanied by specific forms of status such as elite universities—was pervasive.
56
Despite these limitations, however, hopefully what these examples have demonstrated is how within CST a theological understanding of equality does not always lead to a practice of treating everyone exactly the same. Whether the praxis of equality which has historically been operant within Christian organisations in the sector accurately reflects this theology of equality is another matter entirely. It might, therefore, be argued that this sector-wide shift from speaking about equality to using the language of equity is a prophetic move calling these organisations back to the commitment to equality which CST actually ought to promote.
The Praxis of Equality
The question to which theological exploration of equality gives rise, therefore, is whether a focus on equity enables organisations to enact the theological commitment to equality in nature and dignity expressed above? Although equity spotlights systemic disadvantage and brings the principle of solidarity to the forefront of organisational thinking, it is not inevitable that this will lead to the praxis of equality in its fullest theological sense. What, then, might the implications of the theology of equality articulated above be for praxis? As discussed earlier in this article, the problem to which an emphasis on equality is addressed is the injustice of discrimination. Justice features heavily within conversations on EDI, and this is appropriate not only because discrimination is ultimately rooted in injustice, but also because justice is a deeply theological concept and, as demonstrated above, one prominent within CST.
As noted earlier, within the EDI-related policies of organisations with a basis in Christian theology, the concept of justice is often intertwined with those of equality and equity. Indeed, many draw on the concept with reference to their overall vision for the world, as well as their calls to challenge unjust systems and structures. There are variations of the cartoon discussed in the introduction that include depictions of justice. In these, justice is often portrayed as the removal of the fence separating the three people from the sports match, symbolising the removal of systemic barriers and sources of inequality that have hindered the possibility of equal outcomes for all. Nevertheless, we would argue that this image still does not adequately represent the vision of equality that CST promotes.
It is helpful at this juncture to turn again to the work of Douglas, whose theological perspective on justice is particularly insightful. Douglas sees justice as something intended to be experienced by all in this life. 57 She draws on Daniel Day Williams to make the point that ‘God's justice means a restoration of the sacred dignity of all people … The profound meaning of God's preferential option for freedom is seen in God's solidarity with the crucified class’. 58 Importantly, Douglas draws attention to the situated nature of perspectives, which means that how one even conceives of justice and envisages its practical outworking is rooted in inequality. Conceptualisations of justice—and, we would add, equity—are presently controlled by a ‘white moral imaginary’, which demarcates their boundaries, and faith communities have an important role to play in ‘re-setting’ this imaginary. 59 According to Douglas, it needs to be opened up to the promises of the future, that is, of ‘God's just future’, 60 which demands an ‘expanded imagination’ of justice for the here and now. 61 Bringing Douglas's ideas to bear on praxis within the international development sector calls for openness in relation to outcomes, and how justice in this regard—in other words, equal outcomes—are envisaged. As Douglas writes, a future defined by God's justice is ‘a future in which the sacred humanity of each person is honored and respected. It is this transcendent vision that has inspired Black people's persistent fight for freedom and expanded their imagination of what justice can look like’. 62 This is also something that equality, when understood in its best theological sense, enables.
Speaking about the need for liberation, and to be guided by God's justice rather than the white moral imaginary, Douglas appeals to the work of James Cone, who underscores the importance of the ‘freedom to be’. Cone goes on to explain that ‘the image of heaven [that is, the ‘world to come’] served functionally to liberate the black mind from the existing values of white society, enabling black slaves to think their own thoughts and do their own things’. 63 It is this possibility of thinking one's own thoughts and doing one's own things that is critical for our present discussion. Justice is a state in which the equal being of all is a reality; that is, justice is a state where the equality of all is actualised. Equality is not just something we are or have, but something we do. To use the language of Rowlands, it is simultaneously ‘intrinsic and performative’, transformative and teleological. 64
An alternative image that depicts what this might look like within an organisational context can be found in Shrehan Lynch and Lee Sullivan's article ‘Visualising Social Justice Terminology in PE’. 65 The image is a visualisation of key terms discussed in Pedagogies of Social Justice in Physical Education by Lynch et al., and while the authors are discussing liberation, the image has important parallels with justice as described here. 66 An athletics running track is presented in the image, but while one student is using this, two others are playing tennis inside the track, another is dancing to music alongside the running track, and so forth. While every image will have its limitations, what is important about this particular one is the diversity of outcomes it presents. The picture is described as ‘liberation’, but according to our definition here, it could also be referred to as ‘justice’. The fence from the image discussed at the outset is nowhere to be seen. Rather than watching a sports match from a distance, people are free to define the terms of their participation, and to what end. While they might want to watch the games from a distance by standing on boxes, they could also choose to engage in other ways.
Bringing this back to an organisational context, it means that the aim of such organising must be a reality not only where barriers are removed, but where the terms of the discussion and the definition of outcomes are shaped by all. To do otherwise would be to risk a scenario where although equal outcomes appear to have been enabled, they have in fact been determined by the privileged within society rather than the marginalised. Put differently, a situation might arise that neglects the preferential option for the poor and thus falls short of true equality. Within the international development sector, which many would argue has been built on a ‘white moral imaginary’, this means ensuring that marginalised peoples have the potential not only to shape programmes, policies and practices, but also to influence organisational structures, visions and strategies; in other words, not only questions related to the ‘how’, but also the ‘what’ and the ‘why’. 67
Concluding Remarks
In summary, then, this article has addressed the question of how theological understandings of equality and equity can be brought together with understandings operant within the UK-based charitable sector to positively shape organisational practice. Understandably, theological reflection unearths a broader and more holistic definition of equality than that operating within the charitable sector. Our focus, however, has been primarily on organisations whose practice is rooted in Christian theology. The focus on equity within this sphere of activity has no doubt arisen in response to the limited ways equality is interpreted within organisational contexts. Nevertheless, the argument that has been advanced here is that if the move from equity to equality is adopted by such organisations without critical reflection on the theological implications of doing so, there is a risk that equity is divorced from the theological foundations of equality, ironically losing its radical nature in the process. Organisational practice can be positively shaped when equity is understood as part of the outworking of the theological principle of equality. In a similar vein, an expanded imagination of justice and what this might look like in the present is also needed. It is essential that disadvantage, discrimination and injustice are addressed, but to what end? To enable truly equal outcomes—God's just future—for our present time, and for all people, Christian organising must go beyond the provision of boxes and fences to realise the freedom to be.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Lincoln Theological Institute, University of Manchester.
