Return to Winchester and Dakingate

Today, Saturday 26th June, is proving to be a crunch day in the ongoing saga of Dakingate.  The Daily Mail has today taken its readers back to the facts of the breakdown between Bishop Tim Dakin and some of the clergy and people of the Winchester diocese.  We are reminded that one quarter of the diocesan Synod stand by their intention of passing a vote of no confidence in the bishop.  He has, according to reports, demoralised many clergy and squandered money on an epic scale.  Unusually for a diocesan bishop, +Dakin had himself appointed Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance and this fact has contributed to the dire straits in the current financial situation.  Much of the debilitating expenditure has been brought about by payments to departing clergy and others as part of confidentiality agreements.  The account now being put out is that, effectively, unhappy ex-employees had their silence bought by what were, in all but name, Non-Disclosure Agreements.

At the same time as the release of the Mail story is a detailed account by Gavin Ashenden on his personal blog.  His access to detail, notably around the events that took place in Africa in the early 90s, is very well informed.   I had heard, for example, that young Dakin had been turned down by the Church of England Bishops’ selection conference.  Ashenden has obtained inside knowledge of this, and he reports the detail that Dakin was referred to the so-called Aston scheme.  This was a method of deferring ordination on the grounds that a candidate was not ready and needed a period to be observed and supervised within a parish.  Among many new details, another remarkable disclosure in the well-researched Ashenden piece, is a description of the way that the young Dakin was supported all the way along his way to becoming a bishop.  He had the benefit of the patronage of well-connected friends, especially Lady Brentford. She had served in the role of Second Church Estates Commissioner as well as that of President of the Church Mission Society.  She was also a neighbour and friend of Archbishop Carey.  The adage that it is not what you know but who you know, seems to fit well in this context.

This blog cannot really add any new facts when another blogger, like Ashenden, is so well-resourced with information.  What my reflection here can do is to reframe the present crisis, looking at it in a somewhat different way.  One of the reasons for my taking such an interest in the Dakin story is because it is fundamentally a story about power.   In the first place we note the patronage that allowed Dakin to obtain a place of enormous influence in the Church of England.  The mechanics of his ascension through the ranks of promotion has now been largely explained by Ashenden’s account.  It is not a wholly honourable story.  The episode of the Dakins, father and son, manipulating things in Kenya with local bishops in the early 90s, no doubt aided by Dakin access to foreign donors, does not edify.  Taken together these facts, if true, show us a somewhat seamy side of the work of the Anglican Communion some thirty years ago.

If it was largely the power of patronage that brought +Dakin to his present role, there is another expression of power at work in the story.  This is the misuse of authority that is at the heart of the threatened vote of no confidence by Winchester Diocesan Synod.  The loss of funds by profligate use of the Diocese’ s money is one thing, but the degree of distress caused by bullying behaviour on the part of a bishop is another.  It is this bullying abuse that is at the heart or centre of the story.  To put it another way, the story of Dakingate is a story of power abuse apparently dispersed right across a diocese, impacting individuals, parishes and corporate bodies alike. One person’s misuse of power is another’s pain.  Here, because the power wielded is considerable, the extent and intensity of the pain is all the greater. 

Looking back at my own ministry and the theological and pastoral priorities that I followed, I know that they would not be a good fit in the current Winchester set-up.  One freedom I enjoyed throughout my ministry was the ability to lead a ‘middle of the road’ congregation.  This theological centre was the place that most clergy then occupied.  Most congregations were sufficiently confident in representing Anglican breadth to be able to make space and welcome Christians of both catholic and evangelical backgrounds.  There was no sense of living in a binary universe, where the world was divided into the certainties of Christian ‘truth’ and the ‘false’ teaching of liberals and atheists.

The Winchester diocese, under its strongly evangelical bishop, seems to have found a way of making life difficult for the middle of the road clergy and parishes.  Those parishes which, like mine in the Gloucester diocese, had found it possible to welcome all shades of churchmanship, would find the language of welcome and inclusivity no longer the dominant discourse.  Such liberal parishes would, I imagine, feel rather uncomfortable with mission action plans and slogans like ‘living the mission of Jesus.’  I am still trying to puzzle out what the slogan means.  If parishes in the Winchester which carry the inclusive liberal label do not find favour with their bishop, that must create an uncomfortable situation, and one not easily resolved.  

The second area of tension in the Winchester diocese has been the financial challenge.  The bishop has apparently undertaken some expensive ventures apart from the programme of redundancies.  Setting up an in-house training scheme for new clergy is not a cheap venture.  Whatever extra money has been spent, it will always create problems for parishes struggling with their own financial needs.  The diocese is said to be bankrupt, and the clergy will be under pressure to find new sources of income.  Such new demands for funds will alienate many congregations.  A typical response from the leaders of a ‘mission-centred’ diocese like Winchester, when faced with a financial shortfall, is to declare that the solution is more people in the pews.  The wise parish priest knows that this emphasis of ‘mission’ has to be undertaken with sensitivity and tact and avoid alienating existing congregations.  It is they, the existing members, not wished-for enthusiastic newcomers, who provide the financial ballast for most congregations.   A diocese, run with the help of slogans of doubtful meaning, is not a place which will naturally command the loyalty of church people whose attendance and giving has supported the church over generations.

The interpersonal skills of +Dakin have been called into question.  I can make no comment on this, except to suggest that if he attempts to return to his post without any apparent softening of attitude, that would indicate in him an extraordinary level of insensitivity. To be told, as I am sure he has been, that his management style is a cause of suffering for many individuals, should make him stop short and seek help.  Insensitivity is a possible pointer to sociopathy and if that is the case, then +Dakin presents a safeguarding risk to his whole diocese.  How the Church nationally and locally deals with that risk is yet to be determined.  The solution to this dilemma, whatever it turns out to be, will be a marker for the future.  One thing that the Church has to rediscover is how to deal with power.  It is no longer enough to assume that institutional and personal power is always used responsibly and wisely. Power often corrupts.  We have seen here in numerous blog pieces that, on occasion, church teachings, bible quotations as well as personality flaws can cause individuals to misuse and exploit power.  Understanding how power works in institutions like the Church is desperately important.    If we understand power better, then we can devise systems that prevent it ever becoming a problem, either for the one who has it or for the one who is the target of that power.   To call Dakingate a crisis is no exaggeration.  If the Church cannot deal with the power problem here, appropriately and wisely, then the long-term damage will be devastating.  People will conclude that the Church of England is no longer a safe place.  People who become members will be thought to be at severe risk of harm.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

77 thoughts on “Return to Winchester and Dakingate

  1. I realise that others may not share my view, but this is my stance in relation to Gavin Ashenden’s further intervention, and posted just now on ‘Thinking Anglicans’:

    “If he must comment at all, wouldn’t it be better for Gavin Ashenden to await whatever the official outcome of this sad affair turns out to be? His website isn’t wholly frank about his own priestly ministry, omitting any mention of his joining a church not in communion with the Church of England and being consecrated a bishop in that church whilst ostensibly remaining a priest of the C of E and a Private Chaplain to Her Majesty. Are those facts compatible, and is he an appropriate person to comment on C of E matters?”

    I have posted my comment as questions, and people will have their own answers. I suggest, as usual, that the proper course is to wait and see what is officially decided.

    To expand on the above, I believe that the move to the other denomination not in communion was in 2013 and his C of E resignations were not until 2017.

  2. I disagree, Rowland. Dr Ashenden’s history does not invalidate his power of analytical thought or his insight. For me, what emerges from this sad and murky tale are questions for Mrs Redfern and the CNC.

    1. I agree entirely Stanley. It irks me that some people are dismissive of the value of Gavin Ashenden’s analysis because he is no longer C of E. I equate it with people dismissing Dominic Cummings’ diatribe against Matt Hancock.

      1. It has nothing to do with his no longer being C of E. He was ordained in the Christian Episcopal Church in a ceremony in Canada in 2013, and consecrated a bishop in that church which is neither in communion with the C of E nor a member of the wider Anglican Communion. Nevertheless he did not resign his C of E orders until 2017, also in that period ostensibly remaining a Private Chaplain to her Majesty. He next converted to Roman Catholicism. The point being made was the period 2013 to 2017 and the irregularity and seeming breach of canonical obedience to his ordinary in the C of E, the anomalous position in relation to his chaplaincy to the Queen and the true situations not being made known.

        The question is whether with that background he is a proper person to represent himself as the conscience of the C of E in this matter, and it is not the superficial objection which you have envisaged. I’m aware that Stanley Monkhouse takes a different view, but he did at least do so courteously, and of course there is no analogy with the Dominic Cummings situation. It was a serious comment deserving serious consideration, even if you do not agree.

  3. I was careful to offer my comment as questions, leaving people to express their views, but Gavin Ashenden has no standing whatsoever. It’s a matter for the C of E, not for him. Isn’t the Bishop of London currently investigating? There is bound to be an official announcement soon.

        1. Moving him is not the answer. I would not wish on any parish, deanery, diocese or organisation the trauma that Tim Dakin’s ‘leadership’ results in.

          The honourable thing to do would be for him to retire. Previously he has made it very clear he intends to stay until 70, so there would be some costs in this. But this investment would be worth it to ensure that no-one else endures the level of suffering felt by so many because of his actions.

          1. There can’t be a realistic possibility of TD moving to another diocese. He already occupies the most senior bishopric after London (and Canterbury, of course) in the Southern Province. I have lost count of the number of days, but surely an official announcement should be forthcoming very soon.

  4. Regarding the suggestion of bankruptcy, does anyone have up to date figures to support this notion? Having a brief glance at the last published accounts for December 2019, it appeared to be solvent, but cash was tight.

  5. I understand from the DM report that finance is a major part of the concern of those challenging the Bishop. The word ‘bankrupt’ perhaps should be taken as shorthand for financially-challenged. I would expect the figures for 2021 to be worse but my interests don’t really lie in this direction. Paying quota or parish share is something that many churches can’t or won’t do. You could say that spending money without full accountability (I don’t have the details) is a form of power abuse if that is what is happening. Have a look at the articles on Thinking Anglicans for more details on this.

    1. In financial terms the Church is seeing an overall reduction in numbers, as “PCC Secretary” alludes. Some groups of churches, against the trend, are doing rather better.

      But confining ourselves specifically to this particular diocese, it is hard to pin down any specific information. Published accounts are available as much as 9 months after the financial year end, and thus by late September potentially up to 21 months out of date. It is possible that the DM is in receipt of leaked internal more current management figures.

      “Follow the money” is a useful heuristic to discern what’s going on behind organisational turmoil. There are obvious warning signs from the information presented.

      I’ve noted regularly in parish life, strong distaste for matters financial. But if you get this wrong, you’re in trouble. Being an ostrich is a risky approach. As Stephen points out, parish shares are dipping involuntarily or in some cases, perhaps voluntarily. The macawber principle usually applies. A small deficit causes immediate problems if you run out of cash.

      Cost savings, such as making staff redundant, are an early port of call, to attempt to reduce the deficit. However as most know, there is an up-front cost to redundancy payments. Add to this the immediate costs of non disclosure agreements and legal expenses and you’ve potentially made the immediate crisis much worse. Furthermore, adding the cost of people brought in in an attempt to boost numbers, which sounds like it may have been counterproductive, and there you have it.

      Whatever financial control there was, and whatever misuse of power there was behind the current crisis, other official people will step in once certain parameters are breached.

      People are often uncomfortable about speculation. However, when it comes to the numbers, you HAVE to look ahead. You don’t have the luxury of a neat list of verifiable facts. When we dare to lift our heads out of the sand, most of us are instinctively aware of the need to look ahead and plan.

      This isn’t really about numbers at all, but about trends and about relationships. But the finances are often the thing that will trip you up.

    2. Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 famously describes ‘insolvency’ as not being able to pay debts as they fall due. On that basis, I am not certain that the diocese of Winchester is insolvent, or at least technically insolvent. It is still meeting its commitments, even if its resources are not attenuated. However, this ‘decline and fall’ is arguably part of a process that has been in train for about 150 years: it’s just that we are now approaching the denouement.

      One minor point of fact: Lady Brentford was never second church estates commissioner (Mr Ashenden is in error, though I believe that is a slip). She was third church estates commissioner. The position of third commissioner is, arguably, more important than that of the second commissioner (who is essentially the Commissioners’ spokesperson in the house of commons). The third church estates commissioner heads a number of important committees, such as those relating to the pastoral division, and is probably second only to the first church estates commissioner (and perhaps also the secretary of the Commissioners) as a policymaker within the Commissioners. Some third commissioners, such as Dame Betty Ridley, Margaret Laird, Andrew Mackie, as well as Lady Brentford herself, have been highly influential. In Brentford’s case, this influence will have been amplified by her residence in Lambeth Palace.

      1. Sorry, I should have written ‘even if its resources are increasingly attenuated’.

        Lady Brentford was third church estates commissioner from 1999 to 2005. However, she was also president of the CMS from 1998 to 2007, whilst the bishop of Winchester was secretary-general (Mr Ashenden makes no reference to that fact). I believe that she maintained a flat in Lambeth Palace for some time after she ceased to be part of the Commissioners; although the family are long established in Sussex, she is now resident near Sevenoaks.

      2. Well, I don’t know what a froghole is – apart from a place in Kent.
        But it is certainly emitting some illuminating rays.

    3. What has been so disturbing about today’s headline events is the sense of inevitability they invite. Though Winchester is not alone in embracing the corporate mindset, it is among those most wedded to it. A church that believes growth is delivered by identifying, measuring, and rewarding the kind of ‘performance’ it has already decided will bring success is a new thing. Church, of course, is more usually associated with a different kind of faith.

      Winchester has evidently stopped trusting. And by it’s enthusiastic adoption of business language, strategic planning, and mechanical analysis, has encouraged its own kind of ‘group-think’ that has turned everything familiar on its head. By engaging its clergy in activity much of which probably lies beyond their own sense of ‘calling’ and purpose, it has robbed them of confidence. Looking in from the outside in, this is no longer difficult to see.

      The restructure of oversight arrangements – in particular for financial management – have been designed to concentrate decision making powers in a way that will neutralise challenges to Winchester’s vanity projects. It has effectively removed other influences. To see evidence of this, one has only to compare Winchester’s published accounts with those of other diocese. I compared them with Exeter’s. And it is as much a question of examining the notes to the accounts as understanding the numbers themselves.

      Whilst published accounts are designed to satisfy the statutory rules of accountability, they are also intended to throw light on the activities of the establishment. In Winchester’s case it is a dim light. Where is reference to the activities of the deaneries and any mention of clergy? What is the basis of the income forecast? Why is substantial long term expenditure committed to projects with no visible future means of funding? What is the true pensions funding position? How many more cuts in clergy can the diocese sustain before it implodes completely?

      And before you write off these observations as exaggerated fears, remember the collapses of several very much larger corporations with a hundred times the financial expertise than Winchester. The life of every enterprise is threatened as much (if not more) by hubris as by lack of competence. So to characterise today’s headline events as a fight back by ‘traditionalists’ is to profoundly misunderstand what is going on here.

      1. Can I ask what are the ‘today’s headline events’ that you’re referring to? Have there been new developments re. Winchester?

  6. Sometimes a prompt resignation and sincere apology can, in the fullness of time, enhance a reputation. Obviously people would need to see a change of behaviour in the months and years following this.

  7. Possibly many Dioceses are facing insolvency.  As is the Nation, not to mention the whole “First World”.  Inflation and debt are eating at what people can afford to give – and of course congregations are shrinking fast.
    As Jesus said, the last shall be first – only it seems to be happening BEFORE judgment day.  Some of the wealthiest Dioceses in the country are stony broke – because, I suggest, there are even fewer practising Christians there than in poorer regions.
    But rich or poor, Christians are vanishing nearly as fast as a snowball in hell would, all over the Western Church, and the Eastern one too no doubt.
    We are becoming a Remnant as the Old Testament keeps going on about – and it is to that we must turn, I feel, for help in troubled times.  The New Testament is too full of hope and possibility.  In 2021, many Nations have broken their Covenant with the Almighty and He is just not going to renew it until THEY renew it and repent as an entire Nation.  That day seems an awfully long way off at the moment.  Meantime, no funds are coming in, no young men want to be priests, and trying to attract women priests is going to come up against the same problem soon.  This Nation is not only not Christian, it is ANTI Christian.  If you try to live up to Christian precepts, you are a Pariah – even if you do it ever so humbly and stressing you are a sinner as much as anyone.  You are a Pariah for even trying.
    A local Vicar of six rural Parishes recently tried to pass on a donation of Gideon Bibles to the local rural comprehensive. He was told to take them away, they were not appropriate. That kind of says it all – and this is not a multi-cultural area. Just a heathen one.
    We need to accept this novel state of affairs – it is not actually that new, it has been brewing for some time and now it is almost impossible to ignore – but still some people persist in trying to ignore it.  It is perhaps because it is hard to see the wood for the trees, when you are IN the Church and an active part of it.  Still, the deforestation of the entire wood ought really to be visible by now, even if you are at the centre of the (former) wood.

    1. I’m not convinced there is such a thing as “too” full of hope and possibility. But certainly, Winchester is not the only diocese struggling financially. Let us not lose hope, nor lose sight of the possibilities.

  8. There has been a misunderstanding, I think, here and even more so on ‘Thinking Anglicans’, that I unilaterally support Tim Dakin. I am only concerned with truth and integrity. For further and reliable information, especially about the years in Kenya, may I refer readers to the lengthy post by Clare Amos which has appeared today on TA. That provides information about Tim Dakin and his father’s involvement on which we can place greater reliance for accuracy and fairness.

    1. I didn’t get that impression, Rowland. Just that you were trying to wait and see.

  9. Witnesses don’t always tell the truth. The truth cannot be determined by us, but only by a Court or by the Almighty.
    This is why the ninth commandment is, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”. It was assumed that you would not even begin to meddle in the affairs of anyone who was not your neighbour (i.e. living reasonably close to you, in your town or possibly slightly wider community). So there was no point in banning false witness against non-neighbours. Yet false witness against both neighbours and non-neighbours is the daily currency of the mass media and of the commentariat on the internet.
    Individuals cannot sue everyone who repeats a falsehood about them – it is like trying to catch the wind.
    It is getting to the point that no-one with their wits about them will apply for high office. It is just too risky, as beady envious eyes are on you all the time, not just from Christianophobes, but from other Christians. The media fan the flames – it brings in more readers because humans love pointing accusing fingers at everyone except themselves, it is a very ancient human instinct and very common, that is why there is so much stuff forbidding this in both the Old Testament and the New. It is little better than a couple of old women gossiping over the garden fence, yet it spreads right round the world instantly thanks to the internet, so we should be more careful than ever these days.
    I am not sure what you mean by “you people”. Anyway, it is an arrogant-sounding expression. We are all sinners, high and low, rich and poor. The high-ups don’t have a monopoly on sin. Or on self-righteousness.
    If Victims were quicker to forgive, they would feel a lot better than any pursuit of their Oppressor could achieve. This has been proved by Science, as well as mentioned quite often in the Bible, most notably by Christ on the cross.

  10. I fear the discussion is becoming bad-tempered. I really have not followed the thread in the piece from John or PCC secretary. If you wish to comment please make your remarks shorter and make sure we can all follow the line of thought. O/w they will be removed!

  11. Calm down, John. No one is traducing the victim, nor mindlessly supporting a powerful man. Not here.

  12. I am sorry to say that I have decided to remove some comments which verge on the incomprehensible or are continuing the somewhat bitter note which is not appropriate for this blog. There are suffering people in these situations, so please be gentle in your comments.

    1. I thought my comment, which has been removed, was inoffensive. I pointed out to PCCSecretary that victims don’t always find it easy to forgive. That applies in my current situation which is a daily struggle.

      1. Forgiveness is certainly very difficult for many survivors, and they shouldn’t be rushed or pressured into it. Some theologians believe it isn’t even an issue unless the offender is genuinely repentant and attempting to make amends; I believe this is Jewish thought and would therefore have been the background to Jesus’ teaching on forgiving. There are different kinds or levels of forgiving too, from refraining from demanding vengeance to reconciliation. In cases where there is a power differential between unrepentant offender and offended, reconciliation might be very unwise.

  13. Your reply was indeed inoffensive but it was a response to a strand which was problematic. It no longer had a context so for reasons of comprehension it was removed as well.

  14. “The diocese is said to be bankrupt, and the clergy will be under pressure to find new sources of income. Such new demands for funds will alienate many congregations. A typical response from the leaders of a ‘mission-centred’ diocese like Winchester, when faced with a financial shortfall, is to declare that the solution is more people in the pews. ”

    Neighbouring Portsmouth is also undergoing demands for funds as it is near bankruptcy. There’s a major restructuring exercise to combine parishes under a Team Vicar, and a drive to increase numbers in pews. I quote:

    We’ll need to work on four key areas. They are:

    Creating VISIONARY LEADERS at all levels, enabling others to lead and do;
    Creating TEAMS ON A MISSION, with a clear purpose, the right skills and the right resources;
    Creating KINGDOM-BUILDING DISCIPLES, who will seek to create more disciples, not just churchgoers;
    Ensuring GROWTH-ENABLING STRUCTURES are in place to enable change, serve mission and allow people to take risks.

    My comment: “more disciples, not just churchgoers” is quite frankly insulting. Virtually no one goes to church regularly unless they are committed Christians nowadays.

    There is less direct bullying but there is a clear attempt to impose what the top thinks best on the clergy, who have been tasked with finding their own plans, but which may turn out to be a paper exercise.

    1. You wonder who writes this stuff Tony and tbh whether deep down they believe it themselves and think it will really be a panacea. I am long retired but for clergy of my ilk this sort of language is a real turnoff and must lower morale even further. The leadership of the church seem to think they must be massively upbeat as if the clergy don’t realise things are grim. I wonder if all this will actually staunch decline? I am sure we can make some incremental improvements where we are but its best to face facts. There are probably swathes of rural anglicanism which won’t exist in 10 to 15 years time and there is no easy answer to numerical decline and huge financial problems I fear. I think we need as best we can to soldier on faithfully trusting in the faithfulness of God and at least face up to the situation before us.

      1. Heck, I’m not clergy and I’m put off! It’s posturing! Straight out of some textbook. I was going to say fashionable, but it’s old fashioned. Of course! Cathedrals may very well have people who are not sure about God, because of the music. And the church near us has lovely people who are definitely committed to fundraising and things, but, not being judgemental or anything, not really committed to God.

    2. My wife and I explored the suburban and semi-rural churches in the Portsmouth diocese as we house-hunted, committing multiple weeks to finding out about churches. A few thoughts on the challenges this diocese faces:

      If you want to be in a church with others under 40, let alone under 30, your best bet is to travel into Portsmouth or go to a nonconformist church. Baptist churches are popular. We love the anglican liturgy and so these were not a good fit.

      We were invited to join the “young persons” home group at a church. This was anyone under 55 and after we joined the average age was 45.

      On money, the diocese covers both extremes: poverty and high wealth. In some wealthier areas we heard from the clergy no less that “more disciples, not just churchgoers” is exactly what they need, because people come because it’s social and the done thing. And to put it crudely, these people don’t give generously. I thought old and rich would be an ideal combination for church income (esp legacies) but apparently not.

      In one church the social calendar revolved around St George’s Day, Brexit Day and Last Night of the Proms parties. Needless to say the congregation was retired, wealthy and (with a couple of exceptions) the conservative party at prayer. They could not understand why they weren’t attracting families and younger people.

      Adapting to culture change is another challenge. Outreach that worked in the 1970s when the current congregation were young doesn’t work now, despite their enthusiasm for it.

      For example: a church was keen to attract new “young people”. They invited them to a meal in the church hall at long tables, with an illustrated talk on the history of the church from the vicar. It was like an episode from a Fred Secombe book.

      Another set up a “contemporary worship” service using a home-grown country & western band.

      We met two vicars in their 40s doing superb work to spread the good news about Jesus to the whole community (and make their churches viable). Both were working in poorer communities, under-resourced and trying to grow help within the church. Settling there didn’t work out for us, I hope they succeed before they burn out.

      The excitement of churches getting 3, or 5 or even 10 kids to attend! And the heartbreaking impossibility of committing enough people to do sunday school or youth group or whatever is needed to keep and grow them.

      These challenges are not unique to Portsmouth diocese but I haven’t seen quite the same problems outside the Chichester-Bournemouth stretch of the south. I do wonder if “too comfortable to need God” plays a part. Despite the efforts of the diocese, the churches in Bath & Wells are in the main doing substantially better.

      Portsmouth’s 4 key areas you quote are necessary but I suspect they won’t achieve them for another generation.

      1. This is very interesting. My experience of Portsmouth diocese rather tallies with this, although I am not usually looking for youth worship, and never would have done so. If I can reassure you, it’s the same across most of the country, and the only places that really cater for younger demographics are overwhelmingly evangelical churches in affluent suburbs and dormitory towns.

        As to nonconformist churches, an apt comparison would be the state of the International Presbyterian Church in Liss, at the top end of the diocese, with the Church of England church. The former is heaving with all ages (or at least was in 2012), but the latter is not. Ironically, the former is located in the old parish church of St Peter’s: it may therefore attract those who want to worship in the ancient church as well as those who perceive the IPC to be more attractive in other respects.

        Frankly, I am struggling to think of a single church, absent Burlesdon, which had a critical mass of younger people along a line between Southampton and Warblington or, for that matter, between Southampton and Broadwater (i.e., north Worthing), and I except a successful monthly all age service at Westhampnett. Of course, a large part of Portsmouth diocese is in the IOW, and whilst I saw congregations of creditable size at Bembridge, Brading and Northwood, it was generally as weak as anywhere else in the country.

        Portsmouth diocese was the high point (and end point) of the mania for ‘diocesan extension’ in the early twentieth century, and the brainwave of the highly influential layman and politician, the 2nd earl of Selborne, of Blackmoor. The idea was that small dioceses would be more effective than behemoths like the old diocese of Winchester, which was effectively carved into three, with the creation of Guildford and Portsmouth in 1927. Whilst I have heard Portsmouth described as a happy diocese, at least under bishops Gordon, Bavin and Stevenson, I suspect that financial and other pressures will have made it less so now. Since Winchester and Portsmouth now share certain facilities and functions (as Winchester does with Salisbury), I am not certain whether there is any particular reason why Portsmouth should continue to exist, save only as a pastoral agency.

  15. This issue (and the issue at Christ Church Oxford where the diocese has complained about comments made), highlights the difficulty when trust has been eroded. Does Oxford Diocese have a point that public speculation is damaging? Should we wait for the Diocese of Winchester or another luminary to comment, and so to control the narrative? The phrase ‘deafening silence’ comes to mind. Bartimaeus had to shout all the louder in order to be heard by Jesus.
    By the time things have reached this sort of state, things will be messy and so more complex. The Organisations will have taken legal advice, and many will be using PR firms to manage the issue. Individuals will have been told to be silent and avoid comment.
    But within the mix is the imbalance of power and the misuse of power. When you look through the lens of power, the playing field is not level nor are the sides equal. To develop the metaphor, we are looking at asymmetric warfare, though this is to assume an antagonistic context. Experts in conflict-resolution remind us that you first need to gauge the level of conflict and you do not deal with serious conflict in the same way that you might mediate a lesser conflict, or a less entrenched conflict.
    Controlling the narrative and silencing dissent is one way to win through; wearing others down through attrition is another. Using both is how the powerful often succeed.
    When trust is limited, discussion is defensive, guarded or superficial.
    Our instant world, however clamours for an immediate answer – I have a right to know and to know now!. The proper urgency of the challenge does need to be matched against due process. The difficulty is that the powerful can use due process to delay and even dissemble.
    It is a more dangerous world when trust has gone, and victims remind us that to claim it can be restored is – almost always – to side with the powerful and their interests and to the detriment of the victim and their voice.

    1. Controlling the narrative and silencing dissent is one way to win through; wearing others down through attrition is another. Using both is how the powerful often succeed.

      Thank you, Peter for this and other insights. The playing field of safeguarding events and comment is, as you say, uneven. Luckily the powerful do not get to decide where the power games are played. I am retired, living a long way from Oxford and Winchester but the Internet gives me the ability to make comments on ongoing safeguarding sagas a long way from the action. Battles are being fought with the resources of institutional power, lawyers and PR teams on one side and individuals (survivors and supporters)on the other. This weak and disorganised army which opposes arbitrary and sometimes cruel use of power keeps going because they are cheered on by others. The commenters on this blog are a source of encouragement to me. I do not engage the full power of the powerful, since, being a pensioner, I am not really subject to most of the rules of the institution, here the Church.

  16. There are two distinct forces for staying silent: legal and biblical. Both tend to be misapplied.

    My legal colleagues urge saying nothing. I won’t comment as I’m no expert save to say fair comment appears still to be allowed, with great care.

    Theologically it would be useful to have a succinct summary of how Christians should best respond to the shenanigans we see like the above. I refer to the standard texts oft quoted for example on “not gossiping”.

    There are times where I feel compelled to comment where I fear a miscarriage of justice, not in a strict legal sense, but in a moral or say ethical one.

    I usually hope I’m wrong and this is the personal caveat I place on myself whilst considering comment.

    1. The legal powers to silence, the legal right to silence and the legal advice to be silent / not comment are powerful indeed.
      The theological “force” is I think much more nuanced.
      Within the OT we find Elijah speaking out on behalf of Naboth and against injustice, but Isaiah’s servant is silent in the face of injustice to him.
      Samuel, with the innocence of youth and a couple of mis-remembers, tells Eli what God has said about Eli’s future and we feel the narrator wants us to see this as good. But later when Samuel confronts Saul, the narrator hints that Samuel may have a personal interest to declare, as his sons are not going to succeed him. Nathan speaks out against David; in today’s world David should resign. He does not, but his reign is now marred with failure and tragedy. What do we take from this story – that God continued to uphold David in post, or that he should have stepped aside?
      Jeremiah and Amos both find their prophetic role is one that includes conflict and counter-views. Hananiah and Amaziah are presented as the enemy to be confronted, as are the kings who act unjustly.
      In general, speaking truth to power would seem to be a key OT theme, though the Wisdom tradition seems to advise silence and is generally more conformist.

      A reading of the OT also highlights that there are voices which we do not hear, often women’s voices, and a careful hermeneutic needs to listen to their silences and both acknowledge the author(ity) and question the patriarchal mindset.
      Prophets were not infallible, any more than were kings in their ruling, or priests in their ministry. In fact a reading of the OT highlights just how fallible, how partial and how incomplete are the lives and deeds of even the key characters, though we do our best to simplify them down to make the story easier.
      Rahab is a remarkable theologian and even Saul and Eli have their good qualities. Where there are pantomime villains we should see that this is pantomime mode (eg Haman in Esther).
      Our Anglican history is one built on structural power and structural deference, not least with oaths of obedience and a view of ordination which makes it well-nigh irreversible. But Post-modernism celebrates the opinion of everyone! Social media spreads comments from the house-tops.
      Neither demonising others, nor eulogising them, nor deferring to them with silence is appropriate. Ineed to learn to listen, to speak, and to know when not to speak ..

      1. Thanks for this Peter! I feel you were only just getting started when you were truncated by the 3000 character limit, which is more like 2800. A clerical friend of mine used to complain about Twitter and its original 140 limit, now extended to 280 characters. It’s a challenge to compress important ideas.

  17. What Gavin Ashenden did between 2013 and 2017 has no bearing on the accuracy of what he has written. It is very evident that he has researched the matter thoroughly, and has provided much detail that has not been uncovered by anyone else. His contribution is therefore valuable.

    1. That has already been said on this blog by Stanley Monkhouse, but Clare Amos has supplied some correction on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ – too lengthy to repeat here. Actually, the information about ordination in Nairobi was uncovered by others before publication of Gavin Ashenden’s latest, second article.

      As we should be getting some definite answers in a matter of days it seems strange for people to be bringing up minutiae at almost the eleventh hour – that is, we hope that there will be definite answers by the end of the week.

  18. There is nothing to stop you doing what people do on Twitter. That is to start again and have another 3000 characters. I put the limit in because we used to get sermons from the States on random issues.

  19. Something which I think has not been raised so far about power and control in Dioceses is the structure and organisation of a Diocese. I’m not thinking thinking of the structure of governance in parishes and deaneries but what happens above that. The role of a bishop is essentially as a pastor, teacher and overseer of those working in his or her name and under authority. But how does or should that role sit alongside the other power structures – principally the Diocesan Synod (power defined quite tightly in law), the Diocesan Board of Finance, and the Diocesan Secretary (and admin staff and others)? Education too, I suppose, and we already know that Dioceses will have to make decisions about that very soon. As the Winchester affair probably illustrates well, checks and balances between points of power are not well defined or boundaried as a matter of course. Try drawing a plan of how the power and responsibility works in your Diocese… It’s almost certainly a cat’s cradle.

    1. Certainly in my diocese Mary, Southwark, the Diocesan Secretary is CEO and coordinates and manages all the other powers. As a survivor the Bishops are nothing more to me than weak, impotent men who delegate everything to the DS. She line manages safeguarding, having no training in it, actively denies me the right to speak to the DSA and is data controller for GDPR requests. She even edits the diocesan propaganda newspaper. Everything stops with her and that is quite clever because the only person you can bring a formal complaint to about the DS is the Diocesan Bishop so that isn’t going to go anywhere!

      1. In my Diocese the dIocesan Secretary is also CEO and line manager for safeguarding. He gave police a statement saying that my complaint against my former vicar was baseless and unfounded and my vicar was exonerated. In fact my vicar admitted guilt to some charges and I was told I could prove others at a church tribunal. My vicar was admonished, advice given, and instructed to undergo further safeguarding training. The false evidence was used for my trial which was dropped on the day before going to court. I was made a suspect and had to answer this charge at police interviews under caution, as well as being questioned as to why I reported breaches of safety restrictions. Initially I was charged with harassing the safeguarding advisor by email for reporting breaches the DSA implemented. This charge was later dropped and I was charged with harassing the Board instead. I have since made a formal complaint about the CEO. The Diocese accept the evidence given was false but claim the CEO acted in a private capacity although I remember the police officer saying the charges were brought on behalf of the Board of Finance by the CEO. I pointed out that in that case the data protection laws were broken, because the CEO submitted numerous emails of mine written to national safeguarding, my pso, and others. I also pointed out the CEO would have abused a position of trust to cause serious harm to a vulnerable safeguarding complainant for who he had a duty of care. Because my complaint was closed down I wrote to Trustees. I have just
        received a solicitors letter saying the Diocese will take legal action and report me to police if I write to Diocesan Officers or clergy and have told clergy not to reply to me. They don’t use the word Trustee but who else can they mean?

        1. Good grief, Mary. These people are utterly shameless, and clearly have no fear of judgement. Mind you, I’ve come across that before. How can they claim to believe in God when they do not fear him? “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God”. Hang in there.

          1. Thank you EA. And of course we know many complainants have been silenced by harassment and even abuse from their diocese. I too have wondered if such people have any faith at all. I fear many have lost their faith due to the shenanigans of church hierachy. What has most astonished me at various points in my complaint has been the utter brazeneness of those involved. I then realised that they get away with safeguarding failures and mistreating complainants simply because they can and that this kind of misbehaviour is replicated in other dioceses.

            1. “Utter shamelessness”; “utter brazenness”: there’s an assumption we often make that people in positions of power in church hierarchy will act out their own belief in God in a similar way to us. We are often wrong in this assumption.

              Quite often organisations of any faith or none, “subcontract” or split off the doing of dirty work. The few serious protagonists of unscrupulous deeds are kept well away from the Holy Ones. Blind eyes are turned to the misdeeds. Sometimes they don’t even know what is happening. They certainly don’t want to know. The “trouble makers” are dealt with and the protagonists praised for their effectiveness.

              All deeds have consequences and in this loop system, every time dirty work is done, another lever of power over those who (explicitly or otherwise) ordered it, is gained. Over time, the doers of dirty work can become all-powerful. However, the flaw in this loop is that the original mission can be lost. When you’re not living according to your mission, you’ve no chance of succeeding in it.

              And this is what we’re seeing.

      2. I thought DSAs were supposed to be directly accessible to survivors? Although Southwark does have a dodgy reputation.

        1. Blimey Mary that’s so crap but I recognise a lot of it from my own experience so you aren’t alone. Once you start the legal route they will refuse to talk to you but it sounds like they are anyway so probably no loss there, have you thought about asking them to consider secular mediation? It makes you sound reasonable and proactively seeking a resolution then. I have to say though that Southwark still get up to their nonsense with secular mediators watching, it’s embarrassing I actually find myself apologising for them!

          I have found Safe Spaces really helpful and they offer to advocate too.

          I Seriously hope things change for you soon but I also feel some solidarity with you which is quite nice for me, thank you. Take care.

          As the DSA is line managed by the DS in Southwark that is thought to be OK Janet, and I made a formal complaint about a previous DSA and have paid the price ever since.

          1. Sorry to hear you are suffering too Trish. As you say make a complaint, especially one you can prove, and the Diocese will make you suffer. Can the Diocese be forced to undergo meditation? The Diocese isn’t talking to me and threaten police if I write to them. Ironic that I was the one ending up at the police station. This did not happen to the person posing a risk to me when I reported my abuse to the police. Even witnesses were not spoken to by the police. Yet when the Diocese complained I was made a suspect, the solicitor said my questioning was aggressive, my documentary evidence refuting charges was ignored at interview, and I faced trial having first pleaded not guilty in court. So when the Diocese say they will report me to the police sgain, I am assuming the same treatment will be doled out to me again. I have reported the Diocese to the charity commission as I believe I have the right to complain to them and the Trustees have a responsibility to act. However if the charity commission take no action this will lead the way for other dioceses to do the same.

            1. Your case sounds horrendous Mary, well done for still sounding sane. You are in a difficult place and I am loathe to suggest anything that may inflame the situation for you. Certainly the mediators that I and the diocese meet with told me that if I had gone to them and said that I would like mediation they would have approached the diocese on my behalf. I can’t say if that is normal practice but may be worthwhile doing some research. I think it highly unlikely that the diocese would involve the police then but they may refuse to meet. You do have every right to contact your own locally designated office for safeguarding LADO but the church usually has some of these people at safeguarding meetings so they can rubbish you behind your back.

              I really feel for you the church is so damaging and the line we walk between surviving and not is often very thin.

    2. You are making an extremely important and very much overlooked point. Thank you.

  20. As we wait for other news, I have just read that at the Petertide ordinations at Winchester Cathedral over the forthcoming weekend, of the ordination candidates 26 will be ordained deacons and 17 priests. I’m not sure how those numbers compare with other dioceses, but possibly worthy of note in the context of so much recent criticism.

    Meanwhile liturgy and music in the Cathedral continue to the highest standards, modified only by adjusting to the Covid restrictions.

    1. 16 in total here. It’s an impressive total Rowland. But what if they’ve all been taught the standing in middle of the floor shouting instructions model of management?

  21. A comment has just been posted on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ by the Revd James Pitkin, quoting the Bishop of Southampton, which I interpret to mean that the six weeks period is now extended “to the end of August” while “facilitated conversations are continuing”. The Bishop of Basingstoke is similarly continuing to ‘stand back’ for the extended period “to enable the conversations to run their course”. The Bishop of Southampton + Debbie Sellin remains in charge in the interim.

    1. That has also been announced in the press and Bp Sellin has made a statement, so it’s official. Another two months when, I presume, we will hear nothing more from official sources. All concerned will need our prayers.

  22. Disappointing news for me personally. It will be September at least before I can see my Bishop again because of holidays. In the meantime, I will have turned 70, which probably makes no difference, but does psychologically. Bit cheesed off today.

Comments are closed.