My own personal knowledge of the Winchester Diocese is slight. Apart from once leading a two day residential workshop for the Continuing Ministerial Programme some twenty-five years ago, I have had no other dealings with the Diocese. Nevertheless, I find myself wanting to understand more fully what is behind the announcement several days ago that the Bishop of Winchester is ‘stepping back for six weeks from his duties’.
What can any outsider, like me, hope to uncover about this situation beyond the terse announcement from the Bishop of Southampton? Thanks to the internet, the answer is quite a lot. Two major sources of information are available to us. One is the free and frank discussion by insiders on the website Thinking Anglicans. Supplementing that, there are a variety of fascinating, if sometimes difficult to understand, documents about Diocesan policy that have been produced at various times during +Tim Dakin’s tenure as Bishop. A third source of information on the Diocesan website sets out +Dakin’s own professional and academic background. As some are now questioning whether the original appointment of +Dakin to his present post was justified, it is natural that these qualifications are being examined with close attention. A copy of his doctoral dissertation is available online for inspection for any who wish to read it. This was awarded by Winchester University in 2020.
My starting place for looking at these questions is a document, a job specification for a post in the Winchester Diocese, dated 25th September 2019. It is for a post called a Church Growth Missioner. The post did not appear to be filled at the time. Nevertheless, we have something that would have been read by all would be applicants for the post. It gives those of us on the outside of the diocese a good snapshot as to how the Bishop and his School of Mission saw the progress of his ambitious plans for the Diocese. Backed up by other evidence from internally published documents, we would be right to think that these published ideas are a good summary of the Bishop’s own thinking about what he wanted to see for the priorities for the Winchester Diocese and its parishes.
According to this first document, the Diocesan Synod in 2013 had committed itself to four strategic priorities in its move to becoming a ‘mission-shaped diocese’. In summary, these priorities committed the Diocese to 1) authentic discipleship, 2) a reimagining of the Church, 3) to be agents of social transformation and 4) belonging together in Christ. To undergird this vision the Bishop had summarised the ‘mission of Jesus’ in three words. These were to be passionate, pioneering and prophetic. These ‘P’ words had, I believe, formed the substance of the enthronement sermon given by +Dakin in 2012. Another somewhat curious word appears in the Missioner job description – sodal. The spell check on my computer is querying whether such a word exists, but +Dakin explains that it refers to the aspects of ministry beyond the conventional parish ministry. These are sector ministries, chaplaincy, fresh expressions and new forms of church. Moving a conservative establishment like the Diocese of Winchester to such radical ways of thinking and practice was always likely to be a tough call. The issue is perhaps not whether the Bishop’s ideas and aspirations were right or wrong, but whether it was ever realistic to expect such old and new structures would be able to come together friction free. Can sodal ever be reconciled with ‘modal’, the more conventional methods of parish life and ministry? Just as importantly can a whole diocese receive inspiration from heavily jargonised slogans of questionable meaning such as ‘living the mission of Jesus’? For some years, all the parishes of the Winchester Diocese have been struggling with a further mission initiative, known as Mission Action Plans (MAP). Every benefice, large or small, was required to draw up a local MAP. This would then be updated every few years. My expectation is that all such Diocesan initiatives would have introduced into many parishes an inordinate amount of stress and pressure. Surviving these frequent demands on energy and time would not have left parish priests with much stamina to continue with the day to day pastoral care of their existing congregations.
Churchmanship is thought by some to be at the heart of the present resistance of many senior leaders to the oversight of +Dakin. No doubt a clash between conventional ways of being church and mission-focused ideas originally forged in Africa and elsewhere overseas was likely. But the chief mistake, according to +Dakin’s critics was to expect any church model for growth to be suitable for every situation. That is just not the way the Church of England works. The Church Missionary Society (CMS) where +Dakin had worked as Chief Executive, is a conservative organisation and this, added to the fact that he had little understanding or experience of English parish life, made a culture clash almost inevitable. In Anglicanism, one size can never fit all. Few church leaders would even have attempted such an attempt to lay down a single model of church life for every parish in the diocese. The only other place in the world attempting such a thing is the Diocese of Sydney in Australia. The attempt there has been a cause of much unhappiness. I have no idea whether +Dakin wants all ordinands to be trained locally (Sydney-style), but that would have been a logical next step for a monochrome mission-focussed diocese to take. Reading the documents put out by the diocese gives one no sense of any varieties of churchmanship being celebrated or even tolerated in the parishes. There is no acknowledgement of the gifts that different traditions can make to the whole. I can imagine that more traditional and catholic parishes are feeling under siege under this episcopacy. They would welcome the opportunity to catch their breath during this episcopal ‘stepping back’.
Whenever a public figure is questioned over their ability to do a job, there will always be someone who goes back to look at the appointment process to see if all protocols were followed. It has been widely commented on that +Dakin had no parish experience in the Church of England and that has come to be a important issue in the discussion about his suitability to be appointed as the bishop of a diocese in 2011. A second area of query is his formation and training for the priesthood and his other academic qualifications. There are various breaks in +Dakin’s published CVs which have not been accounted for. His first BA degree is from a University in Plymouth followed by a MTh in 1987. The MTh was obtained from King’s College London and, according to Wikipedia, this was linked to ‘ordination training’. As far as I know the days of ordination training at Kings were long over by 1987. Students who studied at Kings went on elsewhere to complete training. Even if that year in London was counted for full time training, it was a very short period. Most ordination candidates were then required to do at least two years. The missing period between 1987 and 1993 also needs clarification. What was the young Dakin doing at that time? The published account on the Diocesan website refers to him being in Oxford doing doctoral research with no dates given. Did this time of study in any way link with ordination training or formation?
The circumstances of his ordination, already discussed on Thinking Anglicans, need to be explained further. The account that is given suggests that the ordination was in 1993 when he took up the job of Principal of Carlile College in Nairobi. Was this ordination authorised by an English bishop issuing what I believe are called ‘letters dismissary’? Had he passed through an English selection conference which could then be activated in Africa? Was anyone in England involved with his ordination in Africa? The Crockford entry we have, also seems to suggest that the curacy at Nairobi only came into operation the year after he was made Deacon – in 1994. In short, the ‘title parish’ seems only to have been added to the process of his ordination as a kind of afterthought.
The gaps and queries we have about one of the most senior prelates in the Church of England are legitimate. No one is suggesting actual academic fraud but there are outstanding questions that that leave loose ends. Over the next six weeks the question of whether +Dakin is ever to return to his post at Winchester has to be resolved. One would like simultaneously to have these additional queries about his academic and ordination credentials cleared up once and for all. As things stand at present, the suggestion that +Dakin is underqualified and has been over-promoted is hard to argue against. That would also, by implication, cast a finger of blame against unnamed individuals who presided over his episcopal appointment. Was his appointment to Winchester by any chance an expedient to extricate him from his CMS post where, by the accounts of those who knew him then, he was the cause of much unhappiness? Almost all diocesan bishops have first served as suffragans so as to prove their worth before taking on a diocese. Is the failure to observe this convention in this case now a reason never again to break it? The ‘stepping back’ of a diocesan bishop in the face of pressure by his Synod and senior clergy is unprecedented in the history of the Church of England. Is this the beginning of a new calibration of power in the Church? Will power now return to the same Synods who represent the grass roots of the parishes to make autocratic and arbitrary decision making by prelates impossible? There are many possible positive possibilities for the future. The task of reallocating power in the Church will not happen overnight, but, when it happens, we may see something healthier, wiser and more just in our national Church. Let us hope so.
I recall comments on social media as to the excessive length of his CV on the diocesan website, and yet you discern gaps. That’s a classic combination! One is intended perhaps to deflect from the other?
Trot out the “Yes Prime Minister” sketch! Jim Hacker queried the lack of parish experience .
His predecessor John Vernon Taylor, Bishop from 1974 to 1984, (whom I remember very well) had a similar missionary background and the comparison was certainly made when Timothy Dakin was nominated to the see. John Taylor, however, had early parish experience, but he was the first priest to be consecrated directly to Winchester without any prior episcopal appointment since 1595. That was seen as a kind of precedent in Bishop Dakin’s case.
I think it’s necessary to state the extreme pain felt by some of us in the Winchester Diocese. The revelations, principally on ‘Thinking Anglicans’, have come as a great shock. I hope we will be spared superficial comments being made about what is a serious situation for both the Bishop and the Diocese.
This is clearly a turbulent and difficult time for Winchester Diocese for its clergy and parishes, and for Bishop Tim and his family. My prayers are with them and with Bp. Debbie as she runs the diocese for the next 6 weeks.
As Stephen says, there seem to be some oddities in Tim Dakin’s ministerial formation. In the very lengthy description of his background on the diocesan website, Dr. Dakin says the following: ‘I studied Theology in Plymouth, completed a Masters in Theology at King’s College London and then, after further studies and research in Oxford (focussing on practical, pastoral and mission theology), I unexpectedly transferred, as an ordinand, from Oxford to Nairobi Diocese where I was ordained in 1993 and 1994.’
While his Wikipedia entry has: ‘He studied theology and philosophy at University College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 1986. He then trained for ordination at King’s College London, graduating with a Master of Theology (MTh) degree in 1987.’
The diocesan CV implies he began ordination training in Oxford, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Why was he ‘unexpectedly transferred’? How did he manage to spend 3 years researching at Oxford University without obtaining even an MPhil?
I think the very extended biography on the diocesan website, together with the surprising lack of any details at all on the two suffragans, don’t indicate that Dr. Dakin is a team player.
There are clearly a number of questions to be answered about what has been going on in Winchester Diocese, and how the appointment was made.
You’re hurting Rowland, and I sympathise with this. Many of us too have been badly let down by the Anglican Church in one way or another. Fortunately we have the freedom to express this in different ways including apparent levity. I wouldn’t confuse this with finding the situation in the least bit funny at all.
I’ve tried reading through the 180+ comments on “Thinking Anglicans” and find the clubby and often laboured exchanges distinctly off-putting. Stephen’s blog tends to be more incisive and succinct, cutting to the heart of the matter. At least I think so anyway.
People are leaving the Church. Its future is at stake. Will the events at Winchester hasten that process or reverse it?
Reading all of as a newly made Anglican I feel let down to , the Church of Rome under Pope Francis is sorting it self out better than this.
Take care.
Simon
Welcome to the Church of England (assuming you’re in England). If not, welcome to the Anglican Communion.
I don’t think any denomination is better, to be honest. They all have problems, and the Catholic Church has been even worse at dealing with abuse than we have. It has its share of corruption, too.
Newcomers can find it difficult that we’re free to differ, argue, and contend in public, but actually I think that’s healthy. It’s how we reform ourselves.
Having said all that, the Church is in a bad way at present and morale is low. I hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, now on sabbatical, will come back refreshed and with a different perspective, enabling him to tackle some thorny issues.
Yes but at least under Pope Francis he is sorting it a forgiving Pope
Thanks for speaking up Simon
My children worship in Winchester. It’s sad.
Apart from Covid precautions, it was ‘business as normal’ on Sunday at the small church in Winchester where I have until now been a part-time organist. The rector made an announcement, received in silence. Many, if not most, at grass-roots level have been completely unaware of these problems. Appropriate prayers were said in the intercessions.
I contribute to both blogs, as do several others here, and there was no intention to ‘get at’ anyone personally. For my part, I find many of the comments on TA frustrating, rather than ‘clubby’. I agree they are often laboured, exasperatingly so. This is a sad business and, unusually, I’m lost for words.
I can’t be the first to think there is an “l” missing from “sodal”
You’re certainly not!
Anecdotal I know but … an Anglican friend of mine applied for a Missioner’s job in the Diocese about 8 years ago. He came from an Evangelical background and had a good track record; he was excited about the job description. He came back from the interview very troubled as he felt (a) that they really wanted someone from within the Diocese but had to go through the proper motions of advertising; and (b) that there was a fairly slick managerial-type culture in place that he didn’t warm to at all. Needless to say, he didn’t get the job (and, after the interview, didn’t want it).
Point of order: I think that Tim Dakin is following the University of Winchester’s “PhD by publication” pathway. If that is the case, the dissertation at https://cris.winchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/3563203/Tim_Dakin_Final_Submission_of_Pt1_of_PhD_by_Publication.pdf is but the first of ?six substantial pieces of work to be submitted, not a full doctoral thesis.
Further “The headmaster of one of several schools attended by the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Timothy Dakin, the son of a missionary family, advised him to give up any idea of going to university. “You’ll never make it,” he told him.” https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/7-february/features/features/education-his-hat-in-the-ring
A friend of my sister in law has made his living for forty years working in mud science and geology. He has framed the school report that told him he would never make a scientist!
If that’s the case, I wonder where the other 5 pieces of ‘substantial work’ are? Dr. Dakin was awarded his PhD last year.
Do you have a reference for his award, please? His graduation would have been held in his own cathedral, and one might have expected to see a photo. He is styled ‘The Right Reverend Dr Tim Dakin’ in several places, but I can’t find a reference to his research studies or the PhD in any of his various biographies scattered around the Internet.
Crockford lists the following:
Education
Saint Mark & Saint John University College Plymouth BA 1986
Saint Mark & Saint John University College Plymouth Hon MEd 2015
Kings College London MTh 1987
Winchester University PhD 2020
However, information is supplied to Crockford by the relevant diocese and by the clergy who are listed, rather than by the awarding institution.
From the University of Winchester website:
“PhD by Publication
This degree is currently available only to members of staff and to people who have an existing relationship with the University.
The PhD by Publication allows researchers who have a substantial body of published research to gain a PhD on the basis of that research and a contextual statement. The contextual statement is developed under the supervision of a supervisory team. The same requirements of originality and the same definition of research apply to this work as to the PhD thesis.”
+ Tim has a number of published articles going back over the last 3 decades (see Research Gate website). I expect Part 1 as published is his “contextual statement”.
I can find no evidence that his PhD has been awarded.
2020 graduations have been delayed until July 2021, according to the University of Winchester website.
ethos.bl.uk is the place to look for PhD theses. The thesis is downloadable either from ethos or University website.
Timothy Dakin, University of Winchester
Abstract:
This Context Statement reflects on a life shaped by participation in the mission of World Christianity: first as Principal of a mission college for churches in East Africa, then as General Secretary of a European world mission society, and now as a Diocesan Bishop in England. The Statement articulates a Trinitarian and participatory mission paradigm for understanding World Christianity, developed and articulated in a selection of publications written over this 25-year period. This Statement is not an apology for the missionary movement per se; rather it shows that God’s mission, and our participation in it, shapes the fundamental reality and major dimensions of World Christianity. God’s mission is to share his life by making, restoring and recreating us in his image. He has done this supremely in Jesus by the Spirit and invites us to become like him (theosis) by participating in this mission: we have a part to play in God’s Yes to us: our part is to say Yes to him by living his mission. We are an analogy of God’s mission in the daily vocations in which we witness to God who gives us life. At the heart of this mission paradigm is a mission spirituality of receiving and responding: we receive our life, our identity and vocation in Christ by the Spirit, enabling our response of participating in God’s mission. Jesus has come into the far country of the creation that has fallen away from God. Christ comes to take us home: to return all of creation to the Father. In our return journey we discover all that God has given us as participants in his mission. This pilgrimage of response takes us through diverse cultural contexts, the renewal of religious traditions, and the discovery of the plurality of humanity. We are participants in God’s great mission of sharing his life: participating in Christ’s mission by the Spirit.
Supervisor: Messer, Neil ; McCaw, Neil
Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
Thanks – it makes sense now.
Rofl!
I think his academic CV is not as relevant as the fact that this article is appearing on a site which explores abuse in the church.
There is no doubt that the carnage in the diocese is as a result of apparent abuse – whether that be an abuse of power which has turned into mental, emotional, social abuse – that will come out I am sure…. but what does it take to get to this point where it comes to a “Me Too” type of movement of people who have been so fearful, and who now are emboldened to now speak out?
And why such a radio silence that nothing is on any website, or social media outlet. A total news shutdown. Makes me think that they are hiding even more, and utterly “tone deaf” to the concerns of 1000s of parishioners who are now feeling even more marginalised and cut off from their chief pastor.
There is so much more to say, but most importantly now.. Lord, have mercy.
And, at a time when ‘reputation management’ could be key, still nothing on the Diocesan website.
I am not certain that the culture of the CMS over the last 30 or so years has been the best place in which to prepare bishops for the English bench. The pontificate of Michael Nazir-ali in Rochester should have been a sufficient warning: one of the more affluent dioceses in the Church of England was transformed over 15 years from one with a healthy balance sheet into one with a persistent and serious deficit, whilst a large section of the rank and file had become alienated from the diocesan (of course, the emergence of the deficit may have been attributable to other factors, such as the consequences of the Pensions Measure 1997). Dr Dakin was appointed only a short time after Dr Nazir-ali resigned, but it is not evident whether the CNC for Winchester (whose deliberations are secret) considered what had happened in Rochester.
I do know of at least one Diocese, not Rochester, left basically broke. Probably because the Bishop believed God would provide! And of course, that he was always right. The bishop I mean!
Neither the New Oxford Dictionary nor Chambers’ Dictionary lists ‘sodal’ as a word. They do have ‘sodality’, which according to the NOED is ‘a confraternity or association, especially a Roman Catholic religious guide or brotherhood.’ From the Latin ‘sodalis’, ‘comrade’.
It seems, then, that the term is an invention of Dr. Dakin’s; though it’s difficult to see how the root from which it derives can be applied to ‘the aspects of ministry beyond the conventional parish ministry….sector ministries, chaplaincy, fresh expressions and new forms of church’.
I typed sodal into google and it took me to an article with a Church Army pedigree. It has a history in mission studies going back to the 70s. I wish anyone luck in getting to grips with this terminology
I’ve checked the OED (the massive one). There is nothing in the print version, and nor is there anything in the online version (which is updated frequently). It does offer ‘modal’, ‘nodal’, ‘podal’, ‘soda’ and (a propos the great Andrew Brown) ‘sod all’ as alternatives.
Let’s be charitable and suggest that ‘sodal’ is a neologism which has yet to find acceptance with lexicographical community, rather than a new form of religious jargon or episcopal gibberish.
I learned a bit about “modalities“ and “sodalities” while doing some mission studies in the 1980s. The modality is the local church; stable, fixed in place, rooted in the local community, etc; the sodality is a separate organisation of people formed from the modality for the purposes of mission, demanding a higher level of commitment, mobile & flexible.
Is this in any way related to the matter of the Channel Islands parting from the diocese in 2014?
Seemingly not. The Channel Islanders have already transferred their loyalties to the next door Diocese of Salisbury, albeit that the two dioceses share certain administrative functions. Accordingly it is unlikely in the extreme that they have any interest in future happenings in the Winchester Diocese.
Much of the background will be apparent from the current thread on ‘Thinking Anglicans’, now with some 205 comments. The Channel Islands do not figure in any of these.
There is a blogpost by Gavin Ashenden (once SSM in Gouray) detailing his dealings with +Tim and raising some pertinent points for the wider Church context. It’s at https://ashenden.org/2021/05/28/bishops-who-bully-reflections-on-a-safeguarding-scandal/?fbclid=IwAR1S4kdyk8gXEmwqH6K6vb5wxP2xlk7hcSZMAZL-hYMff0riopNrl0z2pLQ
This ground has already been covered. See below, and associated comments!
Well, it happened under the same leadership, and there were serious questions about Bp. Dakin’s handling of the matter.
Not disputed, but the mass of information on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ supports what I said to Roger Button whose question rather implies that he comes fresh to the subject. The Channel Islands are not a current issue.
At the time I felt that Winchester was badly let down by +Richard Chartres and the transfer to Salisbury. Others felt similarly (and said so at General Synod), but I now accept that things could be seen differently.
Sorry Rowland, I was replying to Roger, not disputing your answer.
However, at the heart of both the Channel Islands issue in 2014 and the present crisis is the bishop’s poor management style, and in that sense the two could be said to be related. If the comments on Thinking Anglicans are to be believed, the pattern had already been seen when the then Mr. Dakin was heading up the Church Missionary Society.
The Church needs to begin valuing pastoral skills, which after all are an essential part of both management and mission.
This blog by Gavin Ashenden, published today, gives a long and detailed but clear exposition of the Channel Islands episode and its link to current events in Winchester.
https://ashenden.org/2021/05/28/bishops-who-bully-reflections-on-a-safeguarding-scandal/
Wow! Gulp. So Winchester got saddled with a Bishop who possibly isn’t ordained, but had lots of the right friends. And who basically does a Boris whenever he’s caught out and says he didn’t, even when everyone knows he did. Gobsmacking. This is beyond sad.
Hi Froghole, I agree. We crossed in the post!
Sorry, “possibly is not ordained” is nonsense! Read my reply to Froghole for further insight.
We must all wait patiently for the eventual outcome. There is bound to be one in six weeks’ time, or earlier.
I can’t see your reply to Froghole, but it’s very odd, to say the least, that there’s no record of Dr. Dakin’s ordination. And his own biography on the diocesan website leaves considerable doubt as to whether he had any ordination training.
Froghole’s comment and mine appear to have been taken down. I am waiting for clarification.
Froghole asked me to take down his comment as he thought he had been ‘intemperate’. Yours may have disappeared as being linked to it. I still find anomalies in this programme. It used to send some comments off to spam for no good reason. Please resubmit the point you were making but in the light of the fact that Froghole has withdrawn his comment. There are two reasons for taking down comments apart from request by author. One is for going right off the point and the other is personal remarks aimed at an individual.
I haven’t kept any copy of what I wrote, but my comment was wholly rational, courteous and relevant. It is still relevant to consideration of the article by Gavin Ashenden. I did not refer to Froghole’s views.
Froghole’s subsequent comment, mad e a few minutes ago, appears to have been taken down too.
I must apologise to you and Ms Fife for that. I felt that, on reflection, my remarks were over the top. What I had not realised, when I made my request to Mr Parsons, is that you had both already sent comments in response. You are both very speedy!
However, you had quite rightly pointed out that Mr Ashenden had taken orders in 2013 in another denomination, about four years before he signed the deed resigning his orders. The imbroglio in Jersey blew up in earnest in 2014. You – wisely – counselled caution in relation to this, and the chronology of events.
All I would say in response is that Mr Ashenden was still commenting actively on Anglican affairs between 2013 and 2017, and he appeared to be officiating as an Anglican minister during that period. For instance, and unless my memory is deceiving me (which is not impossible), I heard and saw him preach and officiate at the Chapel Royal in St James’s Palace in February 2016 in his capacity as a chaplain in ordinary. Whether he was officiating regularly by that point is moot, however.
There’s rather more to this than the article you have read might suggest. May I respectfully suggest you read Gavin Ashenden’s Wikipedia page which reveals that he was ordained in 2013 in another church “The Christian Episcopal Church” and had effectively left the C of E long before formally relinquishing his orders in the C of E in 2017. His presence in Jersey was in the former capacity.
I recall his giving a detailed account on the US ‘Anglican Unscripted’ programme of his own peace-making missions to Winchester and Canterbury. I suspect it is still accessible. In that account he said he met the bishop personally. It came as something of a shock to learn subsequently that he had earlier transferred orders to another church. It might account for the brush-offs both at Winchester and Canterbury which he described in the ‘Anglican Unscripted’ episode.
Of course I am not for one moment suggesting that Wikipedia is infallible, and I am trying to stay as neutral as possible in the present distressing situation. As usual, the chronology is crucial. But the above matters are germane when assessing the article linked by Janet Fife.
Many thanks, and you are perfectly right. I am not very happy with what I wrote, and feel it should be removed: and I also apologise for having written it. Mr Ashenden had been making a good many acid remarks about the Church for some time before he resigned his Anglican orders. However, I understood that he was taking Anglican services until not long before his resignation; indeed, unless my memory is mistaken (a distinct possibility) I recall seeing him officiating and preaching at a service at the chapel royal in St James’s Palace in February 2016 in his capacity as a chaplain in ordinary.
I note, from the biog on Gavin Ashenden’s website, that at the time he was asked to mediate in the Jersey case he was a Chaplain to HM the Queen. He also has academic qualifications on the psychology of religion.
Janet, I am not proposing to repeat my earlier comment but respectfully suggest that you read Gavin Ashenden’s CV from his Wikipedia page. Although the accuracy of Wikipedia isn’t guaranteed, anyone who objects to what is said about them can ask for it to be changed and, if necessary, take action to secure that.
As usual, it’s a matter of chronology.
Rowland, I have read it. Gavin Ashenden was house for duty priest in the parish of St Martin de Gouray in Gorey, Jersey (an Anglican parish, then in Winchester Diocese and now Salisbury) from 2012. He was not consecrated a missionary bishop until October 2013, and it wasn’t announced until 2017. In 2013/14 he was still a chaplain to the Queen.
He was not the only person making representations to Lambeth, and they ought to have been taken seriously.
I largely share Father Stanley’s position below. Just to clarify one point from my deleted post, I was quoting what Gavin Ashenden said about himself, and the visits to Winchester and Canterbury as the Channel Islands’ emissary, not what others were saying about him. I will leave to canon lawyers the question whether it is possible to remain a chaplain to the Queen after ordination in another denomination. Announcement of the fact some four years later is hardly mitigation, surely. But I will leave you and this blog in peace.
I enjoyed Froghole’s “over the top” comments, but understand why he requested their removal. I don’t think that what Gavin Ashenden was or was not at the time of the events he describes affects their veracity.
I need to rest from these blogs. What with Sheldon, IICSA, Fletcher, Smyth, Winchester, and more, they are not good for my mental health which is at the moment precarious enough. At this moment I am ashamed of having been a public representative of the C of E, though not ashamed of being a representative of the gospel. I just wish the former would more often, even sometimes, reflect the latter.
So do we all. Have a good break, Stanley.
From Froghole but got cut off somehow In reply to Rowland Wateridge.
Many thanks, and you are perfectly right. I am not very happy with what I wrote, and feel it should be removed: and I also apologise for having written it. Mr Ashenden had been making a good many acid remarks about the Church for some time before he resigned his Anglican orders. However, I understood that he was taking Anglican services until not long before his resignation; indeed, unless my memory is mistaken (a distinct possibility) I recall seeing him officiating and preaching at a service at the chapel royal in St James’s Palace in February 2016 in his capacity as a chaplain in ordinary.
The comment section is not behaving. Our problem are minor compared with those at TA!
I’ve always appreciated the comments on this blog, even and perhaps particularly the salty ones.
However it’s easy to be offended when what’s being discussed matters to us so much. It’s always personal in that sense, as is the desire to improve things.
We each go about the task differently. For some it’s the focus on facts and the avoidance of anything personal. For others it’s about deep theories not easily verifiable in the present. For yet more it’s glibness or gallows humour.
For me I’m glad we’re all different and value the variety, although I could do without the three letter acronyms.
I agree, Steve. I’m sorry Froghole removed his comments.
Steve: May I make this point very briefly which, I hope, will explain my position. No one is impugning Gavin Ashenden’s Christianity. But there is a paradox, and it is a very major paradox, in his questioning the “missing years” 1987 to 1993 in Bishop Dakin’s formation.
As I think we all know, Gavin Ashenden was a Church of England priest and private chaplain to Her Majesty. He is now a Roman Catholic layman. But we are told by Wikipedia – and the information, if incorrect, hasn’t been rectified, that Gavin Ashenden was consecrated a bishop in the Christian Episcopal Church in a ceremony in Canada in 2013. The Christian Episcopal Church isn’t in Communion with Canterbury and for that reason is not listed as a member church of the Anglican Communion. Accordingly Gavin Ashenden has never been a bishop of the Church of England. However he did not resign his Church of England orders as priest and chaplain to Her Majesty until 2017. Whether as a matter of law he could lawfully hold office in both churches at the same time must be a matter for canon lawyers, but I agree with Froghole that it is a moot point.
But my position is that this very large question mark over the validity of his own actions from 2013 to 2017 makes him ill-placed to question what I called Bishop Dakin’s “missing years”. It is a major paradox, and with that background I would not be comfortable in his shoes having written this article.
Regards
Rowland Wateridge
Thanks Rowland. We’ll weigh his testimony taking into consideration the data you provide.
Some fresh information from research today. The Diocese of Oxford newspaper ‘The Door’ for November 1993 includes this under “Our links with Africa”:
“To college in Kenya
“Church Army officer Tim Dakin is leaving Oxford in January to take up a five-year post as principal of Church Army’s training college in Nairobi. Born and brought up in Kenya, Captain Dakin has developed a new course for the college which will prepare African officers for leadership and ministry.
“Tim will be working with Sister Josie Midwinter, who has already been in Kenya for a year after working seven years in Uganda. Her new role will be as Dean of the training college.
“Tim, his wife Sally, a health education officer, and their two-year old daughter Anna, are being supported by the Bishop’s Outreach Fund, but the family will have to raise money for travel and to cover the cost of setting up a new home in Nairobi.”
It’s self-evident from this reliable source that much speculation has been very wide of the mark. Already holding a Church Army rank of Captain in 1993, the role in Nairobi included preparation of candidates for ordination. That, surely, speaks for itself. And, of course, there is bound to be further material elsewhere.
Thank you, Rowland, that’s very interesting. It’s odd that neither of Dr Dakin’s online CVs (Wikipedia and Winchester Diocese) mentions his Church Army training and commissioning. It’s also puzzling that the piece in The Door says he will leave for Nairobi in January 1994, while his CVs state that he was ordained in Kenya in 1993, having interrupted ordination training in England to go to Nairobi.
Agreed, although I have been under the impression that a Church Army background was generally known. One could have picked that up from any number of possible sources. But it will all become clear in the fullness of time. There surely has to be an outcome to all this at the end of the six weeks “stepping back”.
The report in the Oxford Door magazine of November 1993 is not correct.
From 1990 to 2006 I was Chief Secretary of Church Army UK and I can confirm that Tim Dakin did not train with the Church Army in the UK and he was not a commissioned officer. He was commissioned in November 1993 in Nairobi without any Church Army training. Before the end of that year the then Archbishop of Kenya ordained him in All Saints Cathedral Nairobi again without any ministerial training.
Since that time the diocese divided and the cathedral is that of the Archbishop who is also Bishop of All Saints diocese. St Stephen’s church became the cathedral of Nairobi diocese. As Tim was ordained in the Nairobi diocese the record of his ordination are held there and not in All Saint diocese.
Thank you. This comes, frankly, as something of a bombshell after all the speculation. In fact it is so important that it should be given the maximum publicity.
I had assumed that ordination in Nairobi by the Archbishop was a possibility, but could not possibly say this as mere supposition. In my private researches I discovered that the Archbishop died not long after. Also there is an article from around 1993-94 by a Kenyan saying that they were waiting the return of Rev Captain Tim Dakin from Oxford. That was baffling at the time, but it now falls entirely into place in view of what you say.
Many thanks. It seems that Manasses Kuria was archbishop of Kenya and bishop of Nairobi until 1994, and he died in 2005. He presumably ordained Bishop Dakin as deacon in 1993, unless a coadjutor or suffragan stepped in. However, it is not known when exactly he retired in 1994 (he was born on 22 July 1929, so might have retired on or about the same date in 1994; it *seems* that he retired on his ‘due date’, which I imagine might have been his 65th birthday). It is therefore possible that he, or someone else, ordained Bishop Dakin as priest. Indeed, if Bishop Dakin was ordained as deacon in the latter part of 1993, it is relatively more likely that he was ordained as priest in the latter part of 1994, after Kuria had retired.
Unfortunately, it is not evident who was in charge of the Nairobi diocese for between two and three years after Kuria’s retirement. Capt. Johansen notes that there was a schism. The next archbishop, David Gitari (who died in 2013) was not elected until 1996 and did not take up his position until 1997. There is some information online which indicates that he was ‘acting’ leader of the ACK after Kuria’s retirement, although it is not clear what that might have meant, especially for Nairobi. Gitari was bishop of Kirinyaga, which is a small diocese at the southern foot of Mt Kenya, about 110km or so (more than two hours) to the north of Nairobi.
So if Bishop Dakin did not receive priests’ orders from Archbishop Kuria before the latter’s retirement in 1994, it is not quite clear, as yet, who might have priested him: maybe there was a coadjutor or suffragan. This is, of course, more speculation. However, as Capt. Johansen appears to indicate, there may be records at St Stephen’s Nairobi, and hopefully these will clear everything up.
It is possible that others may have more useful information about the Nairobi diocese in the 1990s. And as Dr Amos has rightly noted, we should not assume that records in Kenya will be any less thorough to those in England. If Bishop Dakin received no training it might be argued that he was ordained, at least as priest, to the ‘title’ of his headship of Carlile College, although it is possible that prelates in Kenya may have wide discretion to ordain if they are satisfied that the relevant candidate is a suitable person. Again, others – better informed than myself – may be able to provide information, and I admit freely that I am simply adding to the surfeit of speculation, which may be unhelpful.
I think we ought, on Mr Johanson’s evidence, to gracefully accept that Timothy Dakin was validly ordained a Deacon, and by the Archbishop, no less, of another Province of the Anglican Communion, and desist from nit-picking distinctions between the ordination formalities of the Church of England and those of the Anglican Church of Kenya which we don’t know anyway! Without any research whatsoever, my instinct is that the Archbishop of Kenya would have possessed personal jurisdictional powers to ordain a suitable candidate (as I believe our Cantuar does) and Timothy Dakin did have two UK degrees, one in theology and another including theology. Those might well have satisfied the Archbishop’s requirements. Who are we (and the 600 and more comments on two other ‘Christian’ blogs which we won’t name) to question any of this?
For my part, I am prepared to believe, at least, the likelihood that valid ordination as Priest in Kenya would have followed.
I agree that on Philip Johanson’s evidence we should accept that Dr Dakin was validly ordained priest and deacon. I don’t see that it matters which archbishops and bishops conducted the services. However, I do think that his lack of any Church Army or ordination training is a matter for concern, and should have been picked up before he was appointed bishop. It’s possible that had he been trained for ministry he would have handled the job better.
I’m glad the questions over Bp. Dakin’s ordinations have been resolved, but the lack of clarity in his CVs made those questions almost inevitable. When there are unexplained gaps or inconsistencies in a resume it’s bound to give rise to doubts. Bp. Dakin implied that he had had some ordination training in the UK, and that seems uncertain. As the Archbishop Cranmer blog pointed out, in the Yearbook he claimed to have studied at Christ Church, Oxford, and that too has been questioned. Moreover, why has he omitted to mention that he was commissioned as a Church army captain in Kenya? Surely he isn’t ashamed of that?
The CV of a bishop or any member of the clergy is important. We need to know they are qualified for what they do. When that CV appears to be evasive or even dishonest, it doesn’t give rise to trust.’
If I haven’t made the point here, I have elsewhere that the Archbishop may well have possessed extra-juridical authority which other bishops would not, so it was valid and, indeed, I think important to stress the matter of seniority which should carry weight in all the discussion about this. I agree with Froghole. We owe a considerable debt to Mr Johanson. Discussion, if it can be called that, had reached ugly levels on certain other blogs.
Your last paragraph is most telling I was 17 yrs in Winchester diocese, now retired, and healing is needed with a fresh pastoral vision that supports clergy in their varied roles.
“I am prepared to believe, at least, the likelihood that valid ordination as Priest in Kenya would have followed.”
As am I, and I think that Capt. Johanson’s intervention has been very helpful in clarifying matters. Bishop Dakin was deemed to be a person of good standing in Kenya for the purposes of his ordination, and we must conclude that he is a person of equivalent good standing for English purposes.
I had undertaken a recent review of some of the authorities which I have been able to access (though not, alas, Norman Doe, Mark Hill, etc.), and have concluded – albeit tentatively – that, even if there were any doubts about the validity of his lower orders, his standing as a bishop is indelible: he was incontestably consecrated bishop, and he will remain so for life. As such, if anyone were minded to challenge his authority qua bishop, I am not confident that they would succeed. Bishop Dakin should have the freehold of his see until his resignation, which will be at his discretion (subject to the statutory age limits), save unless he is deprived by his metropolitan. The metropolitical rights of deprivation are wide-ranging, but even the obiter of ‘Lord’ Holt in Lucy v Watson (1695) indicates that there would need to be some form of proportionality in their exercise. This may require more research, of course.
As I see it, therefore, Bishop Dakin can quite easily ignore any vote against him in the diocesan synod, and whether he wishes to remain in office or not will be a matter for him. Yet, whatever allegations are made about his lower orders, I do not see how he can cease to be a bishop, which means that the fretting about his lower orders, or about his qualifications, or about what he did or did not do during particular periods of his life is essentially futile.
A friend of mine has checked the Oxford Diocesan Yearbooks from 1987-94, and Tim Dakin is listed not as a Church Army officer, but as a Lay Reader at St. Aldate’s.
That, I think, is entirely new information. Are there specific dates, or was this for the entire period? Is it in any way incompatible with his Church Army role? The Oxford
Diocese surely knew what it was saying in its newspaper, and there was funding from the Bishop’s Outreach Fund. We are talking of the different era when Richard Harries was Bishop of Oxford.
On TA Clare Amos has suggested how Bishop Dakin might have been ordained deacon in 1993. I suspect there are people in this country who could say more from actual knowledge, but don’t feel that it is their place to do so. Bishop Debbie’s statement is the only official one to date. Everything else has been largely speculation, and some has been inaccurate.
Shouldn’t we all just wait for the outcome of the six weeks?
I’m sure those looking into the concerns arising around the diocese will, in their heart of hearts, ultimately value the data coming up here and elsewhere, even if it makes the task initially more burdensome.
As a former auditor, discrepancies were always the first place to look in sifting through data.
For me personally, swift cooperation got far less scrutiny than putting obstacles in my way. The most effective way to get my attention was a dismissal to either myself or my team. I’ve lost count of the unpleasant things that crawled out from under stones I’d been steered away from.
The matters being discussed here tend to be far more serious than financial misdemeanours I dealt with.
He is listed as a Lay Reader at St Aldates in Oxford, living at 166 Marlborough Road Oxford in the editions for 1990, 1992 and 1993. There was no edition in 1991.
The November 1990 issue of the Door gives him as Lay Reader at St. Matthew’s Grandpont, a daughter church of St. Aldate’s, where John Samways was the cleric.
Neither lists him as a Church Army Captain, or as ordained. There’s an inconsistency between his own account that he was ordained deacon in Kenya in 1993, the Door’s description of him as ‘Church Army Captain’ rather than ‘Rev.’ in November 1993, and the Door’s announcement that the Capt. Dakin would move to Kenya with his family in January 1994.
His own resume doesn’t say much about the Church Army phase of his career, other than to say he was Principal of the CA college in Nairobi. If he had trained for the CA in England, that would have been at Blackheath, London. It’s possible, of course, that he was commissioned into the CA on a visit to Kenya some time over that period, but the statement that he was deaconed in Nairobi in 1993 needs explanation.
Janet, Thank you. The more I think about this makes me certain that there are people in this country who must know some of the answers, but who do not consider it appropriate to intervene publicly. It really must be a situation where we can only wait for an official statement from Winchester or Lambeth, or both.
There are already 77 comments on this thread with much speculation about the ordination – or non-ordination of Bishop Dakin. Doubtless people can be forgiven for missing today’s breaking news in the posts buried in the middle of all the others above, but will surely wish to know that Timothy Dakin was ordained Deacon in the late part of 1993 at Nairobi Cathedral by the Archbishop of Kenya.
Search above for the crucial news in Philip Johanson’s post today at 6.17 am.
“I am prepared to believe, at least, the likelihood that valid ordination as Priest in Kenya would have followed.”
As am I, and I think that Capt. Johanson’s intervention has been very helpful in clarifying matters. Bishop Dakin was deemed to be a person of good standing in Kenya for the purposes of his ordination, and we must conclude that he is a person of equivalent good standing for English purposes.
I had undertaken a recent review of some of the authorities which I have been able to access (though not, alas, Norman Doe, Mark Hill, etc.), and have concluded – albeit tentatively – that, even if there were any doubts about the validity of his lower orders, his standing as a bishop is indelible: he was incontestably consecrated bishop, and he will remain so for life. As such, if anyone were minded to challenge his authority qua bishop, I am not confident that they would succeed. Bishop Dakin should have the freehold of his see until his resignation, which will be at his discretion (subject to the statutory age limits), save unless he is deprived by his metropolitan. The metropolitical rights of deprivation are wide-ranging, but even the obiter of ‘Lord’ Holt CJKB in Lucy v Watson (1695) indicates that there would need to be some form of proportionality in their exercise. This may require more research, of course.
As I see it, therefore, Bishop Dakin can quite easily ignore any vote against him in the diocesan synod, and whether he wishes to remain in office or not will be a matter for him (unless Archbishop Welby has anything to say about it). Yet, whatever allegations are made about his lower orders, I do not see how he can cease to be a bishop, which means that the fretting about his lower orders, or about his qualifications, or about what he did or did not do during particular periods of his life, is essentially futile.
Many thanks for your researches in relation to these matters.
“… fretting about his lower orders, or about his qualifications, or about what he did or did not do during particular periods of his life, is essentially futile.”
… and an unfortunate diversion from the core matters at issue.
Well, establishing the position about valid orders was hardly a diversion. In fact I would put it as absolutely crucial. Nevertheless you are correct that other core matters remain.
Many thanks. I had thought the status of Bishop Dakin’s orders was crucial until the last couple of days, and have since had [some] cause to change my mind. This because I simply cannot find a clear cut statement in the likes of Burn, Phillimore, Cripps, etc. (never mind the canons) which indicates that a person must have deacons’ or priests’ orders in order to become a bishop. Now that might be because those authorities believed it was so obvious that this should be the case that it was not worth mentioning, but it remains the case that they do not call this out as a prerequisite. Nor have I yet found anything explicit in the mass of ecclesiastical legislation that I have looked over, though it is possible that I will need to continue looking.
This is, at least to my mind (which perhaps carries too much antiquarian rubbish), an interesting question, regardless of the controversy at Winchester. As I see it, the act of consecration, is sufficient of itself to make the person so consecrated a bishop forever, whether s/he be in orders or in a lay state when a candidate. That may not be the position according to the doctrines of the Church (indeed, it is almost certainly not the case), but it *might* be the position in terms of ecclesiastical law. In any event, I will need to keep looking.
As far as I can determine, there have been only two instances since the Reformation when a bishop has been deprived: Thomas Watson of St Davids in 1699 (on the decision of Thomas Tenison) for simony, which was subject to an extensive legal process (viz. the judgments of Holt and Somers), and Percy Jocelyn of Clogher in 1822 (on the decision of the metropolitical court of Armagh, i.e., Lord John de la Poer Beresford) for sodomy, which was a summary deprivation. The most obvious case before the Reformation was Reginald Pecock of Chichester in 1457-58 (whose arguments against lollardy backfired catastrophically, resulting in accusations of heresy which were upheld by Thomas Bourchier). As mentioned, the metropolitan has wide powers, but even if Bishop Dakin has alleged faults, these in no way approach the causes of action evident from these past precedents. I do not feel, therefore, than an apparently abrasive or impolitic management style, or a poor financial strategy, are likely to be sufficient grounds for Archibishop Welby to exercise his right to deprive. Moreover – and this is the key point – if archbishops feel that they have the right or obligation to deprive a bishop because s/he is unpopular with a diocesan synod, or because the bishop in question has made strategic (if innocent) mistakes, it will have the most serious consequences for the authority of the episcopate.
The system we have has worked, more or less, because people of prudence and discretion have been made bishops. My disappointment in this case is not so much with Bishop Dakin, as with the CNC process: that is where the real questions must be asked.
I’ve done some digging on Bp Tim’s ‘PhD by Publication.’ It wouldn’t take long to read – the thesis part is 46 (forty six) pages long. (My PhD was 379). Tim’s maaterwork is in the public domain, but for how much longer remains to be seen!
In the bibliography, Dakin cites 19 of his own works (and these are, presumably, the ‘published’ side of the PhD which should form a ‘substantial body of published research’ according to Winchester University’s website.)
Of these 19 pieces, 4 are unpublished, being various reports for diocesan boards.
10 are under 10 (ten) pages long; 1 is 1 (one) page long.
5 are published by CMS, of which Dakin was chief.
1 is in a book which was published by a vanity /subsidy publisher.
Only 2 pieces are possibly published in a peer-reviewed journal, and these amount to a whopping 14 (fourteen) pages.
Hardly a ‘substantial body of research’.
The whole thing seems to me to be bogus. I think the University of Winchester has let this one through ‘on the nod’. I suppose it does help if you are a Governor of the University, and two other Governors are your employees.
Winchester University I feel has some very serious questions to answer. Tim’s PhD, it seems to me, is utterly false.
Well! If I’d know it was that easy, I could have had a PhD years ago.
I think the ‘bogus’ PhD, the over-egged CV, the lack of any information at all on the suffragans, the willingness to be ordained without training, and the readiness to take on a bishopric without any parish experience, matter because they are all indications of narcissism in an advanced form. And narcissists tend to damage everyone around them. It’s the antithesis of the servant leadership Jesus enjoined on his disciples.
I feel sorry for the people of Winchester Diocese.
What Janet said! Massive red flags
While I haven’t read through Dakin’s thesis (and it does, on the face of it, appear rather short), the references you quote only form a very small part of his bibliography which runs to 21 pages and must include about 400 sources. A few which I know caught my eye and are eminently respectable. However one might ask how a busy working Bishop had the time to read them all, although others have successfully combined academic research with a full-time job.
It’s easy to list works in a bibliography and doesn’t prove you’ve read them or even looked at them. In such a short thesis there will hardly have been space for him to quote them all.
I completed my research and thesis while working full time. It was 161 pages, and that was only for an MPhil. I’d already had a book published (DLT) and a number of articles (though not in peer-reviewed journals). I think I’ll apply to Winchester for my PhD.
The references I make are to Dakin’s own works – and these are, presumably, the ‘substantial body of published research’ which should form the major part of his PhD. In total, these amount to some 230 pages of work altogether. Not all are published – as anyone can see, some are papers for Diocesan conferences and appear not to be in the public domain. As to peer-reviewed work, well, it appears to be minimal.
If we were all going to include papers for conferences and unpublished work, we could all be PhDs.
Many thanks. I think that being an effective bishop and being a distinguished scholar are, frankly, mutually exclusive occupations.
I am reminded of A. E. Housman’s lament on the poor state of British classical scholarship after Richard Porson: of (I think) ‘the successive strokes of fate which consigned [Peter Paul] Dobree and [Peter] Elmsley to the grave and [Charles] Blomfield to the bishopric of Chester’.
Or of the frank admissions by William Stubbs, Joseph Lightfoot and Mandell Creighton that they were each lost to scholarship after their respective elevations to Chester, Durham and Peterborough.
It seems to me that you can be a good bishop and a retired scholar, or a retired bishop and a good scholar (Stephen Neill of Tinnevelly/Nellai, Richard Hanson of Clogher, etc.), but if you try to be a bishop and a scholar at the same time you will probably wind up as a hack in both departments.
Having looked over the submissions provided to Winchester University, I feel that if Bishop Dakin had wanted to be known as ‘Dr’, it would have been better for the authorities to hint to the University that, following a pontificate of almost a decade, a honorary DD or LLD would not go amiss, given that it is an erstwhile Church teacher training college. I can think of one instance where the dean of a cathedral which was used by a local university for its graduation ceremonies (the dean having some intellectual pretensions unsupported by any meaningful publication) told the vice-chancellor that the university would no longer be able to use the cathedral if he did not receive an honorary DD. He got one, and quickly.
Norman Sykes has been mentioned on some of the Dakin threads. He deliberately refused to supplicate for an Oxford DD because he considered that his work in early modern ecclesiastical history was not appropriate for that degree, and because it was too easy (even after the rather stringent Headlam reforms). He contented himself with a DLitt, though he received honorary DDs from Edinburgh and Glasgow. Nor did he succumb to the old ruse of incorporating his Oxford degrees when he migrated to Cambridge.
Janet, I’m bound to say that I’m rather bemused that after the avalanche of comments on all aspects of the Bishop of Winchester situation, particularly questioning the validity or non-existence of Tim Dakin’s priestly orders, comments have come in on matters which frankly must count as trivia compared with the most serious of all the issues. Yet the news of the Bishop’s 1993 ordination has met with a virtual wall of silence, for example, one response on TA out of a total of 302 comments on that thread. Are people too embarrassed to say something publicly? Only here on Surviving Church Froghole has addressed the implications in any serious way. I’m genuinely puzzled, possibly prematurely, but I think that after more than 700 comments have been posted on three Christian blogs – largely critical, some overtly hostile – such lack of response is a matter for reflection.
I don’t expect to see wholesale expressions of contrition, but for some, surely, (my own position) surely a sigh of relief.
Rowland, I’m not sure I’m reading the same blog as you. I started knowing almost nothing about “Winchester”. I now see it as “dodgy as owt”.
I can’t see anything to be relieved about. The concerns Stephen carefully started out with appear to be more than justified.
I expect this to continue.
Another blog (and I tried to insert rational comments on it), had this heading: “Was Tim Dakin made Bishop of Winchester without being validly ordained a priest?” Until yesterday there was a spate of conjectural and sometimes malicious comments. There are 327 of them: not all are objectionable, I accept.
A similar situation on Thinking Anglicans, now with 306 comments, although a generally more moderate stance there.
Surviving Church comes off best, and Stephen’s searching questions never cast any doubt on the validity of the Bishop’s ordination.
Do you not see, and share my view, how scandalous it has been to assert a positive case that a Bishop’s orders are fraudulent? That is what some of the comments amounted to. I was hoping to see some retractions. The contra-evidence came as a relief to those of us who could scarcely believe such a scenario was possible.
My posts consistently say that other issues at Winchester remain unresolved. I write with great care, but I fear that in the vast quantity of posts this subject has generated they have not been read fully.
I hope I have explained sufficiently.
Qualifications mean not a huge amount to me unless they are overstated or obtained with unfair advantage. What really does matter to me is how a leader manages his or her people. Plenty of people lead in the Church of England without being ordained at all. That doesn’t bother me per se. However there can be problems if a person is insufficiently experienced and trained for the roles they carry out.
Much speculation could have been avoided by a clearer setting out of the facts around the “stepping aside”. The silence has created a vacuum. 700+ comments are beginning to fill it.
In a recent case of the late Ravi Z, and the eponymous ministry he headed up, doubts were raised by a researcher, S Baugham, as to RZ’s qualifications and conduct. An independent firm of American lawyers investigated and it turned out matters were far worse than I’d originally read. Is this the case here? I fear so.
If someone wanted to question my qualifications I’d be delighted to assist and wouldn’t be offended by the questions at all. But then I’m not claiming anything. In the rest of the real world, qualifications by exam or experience are a given and how effective we are carries more weight and the manner in which we carry out our work with others.
I tend to assume that when someone, after a considerable search, says, aha, there we go, Nairobi etc etc we all accept that is correct. I don’t need to feel relief, I have no horse in this race. But in any case, why was it so hard? All this stuff is supposed to be in the public domain. The investigation is there on record, and the fact that it was needed, too. Plainly, +Tim is what is known as a “difficult” person, but he may not have done anything actually illegal. We will have to wait and see.
Thank you both. I see things differently.
We aren’t taking about qualifications in the conventional civilian sense. We are talking about a priest in holy orders holding the number five episcopate in the Church of England. That can’t be compared with a job in ‘civvy street’.
It’s all too apparent that carefully written posts, intended to be helpful, aren’t being read properly, possibly not at all. Sadly, I take my leave, but nevertheless send best wishes to all Surviving Church regulars.
Oh, Rowland, please don’t stop dropping in. It’s always good to hear other points of view. My children’s church is re-opening after pre-existing this weekend. I hope your church prospers.
Auto correct! Aagh! Re-ordering!
All the questions which need answering would be cleared up with the publication of a minimal amount of paperwork. I have written to Bp Dakin, Abp Welby and Abp Rowan Williams suggesting they do so to clear up this awful mess. Their continued silence is just fuelling speculation.
Other questions that I think needs addressing are
1. The years 1987-1993 are a bit of a CV void. TD claims to have spent these years at Christ Church, Oxford doing research – specifically from 1990 to 1993 developing a training program for the Church Army (according to an article of his in Anvil) . That’s a long time to be involved in ‘research’ at an Oxford College, without taking a degree. Again this could be cleared up with confirmation of his student status from Christ Church or TD.
2. There is a claim that TD was an ordinand studying at King’s College, London, gaining an MTh in 1987. However, King’s had long ceased to be a Training College by the late 1980s. If he were an Ordinand in 1987, by which Diocese was he an Ordinand? This could answered very easily too. If he were an Ordinand in 1987, what was he doing for the next 6 years before he was Ordained in 1993?
The question of being validly ordained Deacon and Priest is perhaps a red herring, as I can discover nothing in the C of E canons nor rubrics suggesting ordination to the diaconate and priesthood is a prerequisite to being consecrated Bishop, odd though that might seem (I might have overlooked something and I welcome any correction!) However it would be highly unusual.
I have just noticed on Bp Tim’s CV (on the Winchester website) that he was 28 when he graduated from Plymouth. What did he do before? Presumably he was 25 when he began his studies there.
I’m already breaking my vow by replying to this. All of this ground has been covered on the Thinking Anglicans blog and, indeed, in earlier posts here. But the sheer volume of material simply means that people haven’t read it or fully taken it in. I’m afraid that to catch up you will have to read it all.
Pastoral issues in the Winchester Diocese remain current, as I conceded to Steve Lewis – and have said countless times. The issue of ordination is resolved, as far as I am concerned, and apparently also to the satisfaction of Froghole – see above on this thread. We both also believe that valid Consecration as Bishop followed.
If it will help, I repeat here a relevant post I made on Thinking Anglicans:
“I don’t know that any of us is qualified to adjudicate on what was acceptable in the Anglican Church of Kenya. I think the fact that the ordination was by the Archbishop is enormously significant. I suspect, without knowing, that the Archbishop could well have possessed personal juridical powers to ordain suitable candidates (as I believe our own Cantuar has) and Timothy Dakin did have two UK degrees, one in theology and another including theology. These might well have satisfied the Archbishop’s requirements. Moreover, Timothy Dakin was not taking up parish ministry in Kenya, and so far as I know never did. He was appointed Principal of Carlile College in 1993 and had already created a training course for evangelism and potential ministry. These diplomas or degrees first awarded in 1995 were validated by one of his English universities. I cannot see that his ordination to an academic post was in any way irregular. It happens in this country!
“He did have parish experience in England before Winchester, but not as an incumbent. There was also an honorary canonry of Coventry Cathedral.
“In any event I am not offering any views about his suitability as Bishop! As I have pointed out earlier, he was not the first priest to be appointed direct to Winchester without any episcopal experience. That honour belongs to his predecessor John Vernon Taylor.”