A solution for the crisis in the Winchester diocese seems no nearer. We heard yesterday that the stepping back by +Dakin would continue until the end of August so that ‘facilitated conversations’ might continue. We can gather one single certain fact from this statement, namely that +Dakin is not about to resign or retire in the near future. As there seems to be no mechanism for compelling a bishop’s resignation or early retirement in the Church of England, we must assume that, so far, +Dakin is not submitting to any pressure to resign that may have been applied. The very careful choice of words in Bishop Sellin’s statement hints that very senior figures in the Church have been wrestling with the problem, but so far, they have not come up with any solution. Are we witnessing the proverbial irresistible force meeting an immovable object? If such a reality were to exist, we know that there would be a stalemate where nothing moved at all. Nevertheless, there needs to be a resolution of the present crisis for the sake of the Diocese of Winchester, the wider Church and the Bishop himself.
What might be going on? The official line seems to be saying that the process is complicated, and the various stakeholders need extra time to sort out all the issues. We will, of course, never be told what the facilitated conversations are about, but I have here identified three major areas of concern for the Diocese and the wider Church that need to be resolved if the Diocese is ever to return to normal functioning. My personal conclusion is that the explosion at Winchester, now out in the public domain, is of such magnitude that it will never be possible for +Dakin to return to his post. The present pause is, I would guess, a proverbial kicking the can down the road rather the prelude to a new chapter in the life of the Diocese. Even if we know nothing about the content of the conversations, we have witnessed enough material being shared in public to know where the problems are. In this Internet age, it is not possible to hide away in secret when so many people are watching, with large numbers having a personal stake in the outcome.
One of the sad secrets that has come out into the open during the period of the Bishop’s initial ‘stepping back’, is the revelation of just how much suffering has been endured by individuals. Some of these relate to confrontations and alleged bullying by +Dakin but others are to do with loss of posts caused by the various imposed structural changes in the Diocese. It is not too strong to talk about widespread trauma which may take years to heal. When trauma takes place with many individuals in an institution, it is also possible to speak of corporate trauma. Although I am not on the spot, I get the impression that what has been revealed over the past six weeks has shown us a wounded and demoralised collection of people who need a lot of healing. How this might be offered on a corporate level is open for discussion. What is clear from common-sense psychology is that the process can only really start when the focus of the pain has removed himself from the scene. Stories of clergy and their wives ‘spouses’ ‘or husbands’ collapsing in tears through the stress and threats caused by the +Dakin reign, cannot be ignored. The six weeks of the interim episcopacy have unleashed a number of such stories into the public domain, and no doubt there are others which have been internally shared among the clergy and people of the Diocese. One individual story of pain is suffered alone and in silence, but when it is seen to be alongside other similar accounts, that one story gathers power and strength. People are forced to take notice. It is hard, indeed impossible to put this particular genie of widespread trauma back into the bottle.
The second area of difficulty for +Dakin making a smooth return, is the Diocese’s financial black hole. This has not gone away. During +Dakin’s time as bishop, there have been extensive and expensive changes in the training programs run by the Diocese and new educational structures created. As we noted above, individuals have been made redundant and this is always an expensive process. The question of whether all the new structures that have been created for ministerial education are suitable and affordable is one headache to be faced by a future bishop, whether now or in the future. If +Dakin does return, I am sure that one of the conditions will be that he will release all control of diocesan funds into other hands. Difficult decisions will have to be made about what the diocese can actually afford. A slimmed down diocesan structure may not meet with the Bishop’s approval so it is probably best that he is no longer there, potentially to interfere with the necessary pragmatism of financial decision making.
I spoke in my last piece about the interpersonal style of the Bishop. There was the suggestion that many individuals find him difficult to deal with on a personal level. We would, I think, be right in suggesting from the accounts, that many people were in fear of his forceful and somewhat overbearing style. Gentle persuasion and soft words do not seem to be part of his style. When somebody described Winchester as the diocese of North Korea, I assume that they were referring to this style of management, one which stated the task to be done with no time for discussion. I can accept that the facilitated conversations could tackle this personal style and make improvements. The abrasiveness that is reported could well be softened and ameliorated through professional intervention. It might be possible for someone like a retired bishop, acting as a mentor, to bring about such a change. That is perhaps what the Church of England may attempt to put in place. Such a suggestion as a way of softening +Dakin’s style would be improvement but, for the reasons I have set out in this blog, it still would not be sufficient to return him to post. The problems still remain.
The final issue which militates against any smooth return to ministry by +Dakin is to do with the area of his self-insight and intellectual flexibility. Over the weeks, there has been some detailed scrutiny of +Dakin and his theological background. Although we cannot expect all our diocesan bishops to be profound theologians, there are some glaring gaps in Dakin’s theological formation. His written output seems to focus on the single area of mission studies. One would like to see in his writings some evidence of an exposure to the wider theological traditions of Anglicanism and its links with historical Catholicism. The conservative evangelical world in which +Dakin was formed is not known for its sympathy or even tolerance of other traditions. Most evangelicals occupying senior positions in the Church have, in practice, moved on from the hard-edged position of traditional conservative thinking. They learn to appreciate, if not embrace, the broader ideas of Anglicanism. Ideas of infallibility and dogmatic certainty normally become less evident through the process of growing older. This does not seem to have happened with +Dakin. Indeed, some of the abrasiveness of his ideas and manner seems to be the result of a style of conservative Christianity, one that has never been allowed to soften in the light of life and all its experiences.
The problem of finding a solution to the +Dakin conundrum has been deferred but has not gone away. I have tried very hard to imagine a scenario where +Dakin could return and pick up his diocesan ministry. I have imagined the resources of Bridge Builders, the mediation organisation, being applied to the situation. I have imagined a wise retired bishop being wheeled on to act as mentor and guide. Somehow the problems I have outlined, the trauma to be healed, the finances to be restored and the personality to be tamed, all combine to suggest that any return will be harmful to +Dakin himself, the Diocese of Winchester and the entire Church of England. I make no claim that my analysis is the correct one, but the world of the Internet has provided us with sufficient information to allow one blogger to offer what is, I believe, an informed opinion. That is what Surviving Church can do, offer opinions. I hope and pray that a good solution is to be found in the current tragedy that we are witnessing in the Diocese of Winchester.
The Archbishop of the province can make a Visitation, surely? Or can the Crown appoint a Visitor? Or did that go under the CDM?
The Archbishop of Canterbury is on study leave. He could announce an enquiry or visitation when he returns, but by then the situation will have dragged on a long time.
I don’t envy the facilitators their work here.
One way to look at things is to ask what +Dakin wants out of all this. Obviously the current problems are just going to continue if he stays put.
But surely he’d enjoy working in a constituency where his approach was entirely valued? There must be people who share his values and ways of working specifically, and would appreciate an authoritarian leader. Perhaps the facilitation group could work with him to design a constituency for him. Certainly a general eclectic diocesan makeup doesn’t seem to suit him. Neither does his approach appear to be working there.
There is precedent for a bishop being given a portfolio rather than a diocese: Stephen Lowe with Inner Cities; Graham Cray with Fresh Expressions, and the one who was freed up to lead Springboard (I’ve forgotten his name). Perhaps Bp. Dakin would agree to leave Winchester if he was made Bishop for Mission? Then he could work around the country with mission-minded people and churches who like his approach.
I live in Winchester diocese. I think it is fair to say that what we all long for at the moment is closure. Any solution which results in in the dislodging of our bishop is to be welcomed by the vast majority of us (other than defenestration, which is unfortunately precluded).
But the denizens of any diocese include every shade of Anglican – that is the point. No one ‘tendency’ should be allowed to prosper at the expense of the others. Winchester includes lots of Conservative Evangelicals – enough of them, presumably, to select +Dakin in the first place – it was immediately clear to us all that peaceful coexistence is not how he defines ‘mission’ and his target was his own congregations as much as the unreached.
I think Janet Fife’s idea of offering +Dakin an overall brief (such as mission) is a good one and allows saving of face all round. I am personally hoping that +Dakin accepted that he would have to go in the first period of ‘study leave’ and that the purpose of the second is to negotiate an exit plan which allows him to keep his dignity.
Interesting idea Janet. Something similar happened to Bishop Morris Maddocks in the 80s. He was made adviser to the Archbishops on the ministry of healing. No salary was attached to the post so he had to raise the money to pay and house himself on his own. Effectively he was sidelined by the centre, though it was not presented in this way.
I recall Bishop Morris. He helped me personally way back in the day. My impression was that he appeared to be in his element, although I may have been mistaken.
From the Diocese’s point of view, and I’m sure they’ve already thought of this, it would be cheaper to pay (off) the current Bishop. A lump sum would be awkward perhaps, but a reasonable annual retainer (under a suitable guise) would be politically and financially expedient. If you do the maths, it comes to the same thing.
The Church as a whole must be increasingly aware of the damage to her reputation. There’s a financial “stake” there too of course.
I agree about reputational damage. I had coffee with a non-churchgoing friend yesterday. We often talk about religion as she seems to be looking for someting. Her first words to me were ‘ I’m right off religion – so many awful things going on which I read and hear about.’
Says it all, really
Janet suggests that Bp. Dakin be made a “Bishop for Mission” and I can see the logic in that idea. However, it strikes me that Mission is (or ought to be) the task of the whole Church, not just of Evangelicals; so either he’d need to be prepared to get alongside (and speak the language of) other constituencies, and develop a broader understanding of Mission; or else someone else would be better for the job, were it to be created. (Sorry, Janet, if that sounds as if I’m shooting your idea down in flames – that’s certainly not my intent).
My thinking is that it’s a sideways move Bp. Dakin might actually agree to, which wouldn’t involve a loss of face. The whole Church ought equally to be concerned with healing, and with the poor in inner cities, but putting a bishop ‘in charge’ of those areas proved a way of moving prelates who couldn’t be moved elsewhere (let the reader understand). If Bp Dakin took on Mission, those who want to work with him could so, and those who don’t warm to his style or theology need take no notice of him.
The word “mission” has a diverse and broad set of meanings in the C of E in particular. Most people think they are doing it.
I remember attending a cake competition at a neighbouring parish church where the vicar, wearing his black garb, dog collar and Oxfords, went around photographing the exhibits with keen interest, whilst completely ignoring everyone including visitors like us. This would still count as “mission” in some people’s eyes.
In the business world “mission” has broadly been adopted as a concept and generally indicates the specific purpose of the organisation.
More energetic overtly evangelistic efforts toward church mission can include almost a version of “sales targets” and in this case heavy duty training for clergy.
It’s up to him what he wants to do, but we are trying to suggest antidotes to the substantial resistance he is meeting. Remember his tenure is permanent, a luxury unthinkable in other denominations.
I think I see what you mean, but isn’t the picture rather clearer. I came to ministry following a business career largely concerned with what was termed ‘strategic management’. May I please repeat what I have said elsewhere on this site:
‘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 from the outside in, this is no longer difficult to perceive.
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.’
May I ask what headline events you’re referring to? I haven’t heard of any new developments today.
Apologies, Jane. I am speaking about the current events that continue to ‘headline’ within the diocese – the position we face.
Ah. I thought I’d missed a major development today! I continue to hold you all in my prayers. I was born in Winchester – or would have been if the maternity wing of the local hospital hadn’t been full – so the city has a claim on my loyalty. And Alton (my actual birthplace) is within the diocese too.
No need to repeat yourself Robert, as I read your interesting comments first time round.
Oddly enough, and I don’t know if you experience this too, but the “business-ey” concepts the Church tries to “do”, appear to me to be rather dated. Sometimes the theories and methods misapplied, seem decades out of date anyway.
I entirely agree. And I believe they are now regarded as out-of-date within a large part of the business world.
Yes, the church is always behind the times.
A different, and I suppose traditional, slant on mission will be found in a letter published today over on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ written by Fr Andrew Welsby on the eve of his retirement. Well worth reading and I think all of his fifteen ‘bullet points’ – including talking to the checkouts in Tesco’s – count as evangelistic mission. Isn’t the C of E in need of such spiritual leadership and far less bureaucracy ?
Thank you for that steer. What he says recalls a simple truth – that living faith is expressed in wider relationship with the world, by the way we live. There is rather more to it than the institution of Church.
I think the church is afraid of moving away from rigid lines of bureaucracy which provides control over outcomes to a gentler, more inclusive and holistic model.
In May a new survivor engagement officer, Ioannis, took up his post at the NST and last week I was invited to talk to him about survivor engagement by the lead for Partnerships at the NST. My reply was absolutely not, why should I, or my views, be given preference over anyone else’s, let Ioannis introduce himself to the survivor community and invite comments and suggestions from everyone. One way could be through a blog (or a guest post on this one Stephen!) and though it is a bit risky because some very hurting people may verbally attack on the whole I think people would be constructive.
What I am really beginning to loathe in the church is that whether it’s in clergy, laity or now seemingly survivors there is an elitist orientation which supports a power structure that gives advantage to the staus quo of some but marginalises others.
Yes, the Church is very selective about which survivors it engages with, and on what terms. Those survivors are doing an excellent job, but there are plenty more who are not being heard at all.
A blog by Ioannis, with an open invitation to survivors to comment, is an excellent idea.
‘The church is afraid’. Perhaps that part of church experience that took root early in our lives is a very strong influence on our preferences. I don’t think the ‘church’ thinks so much as responds. If you have have ever tried to suggest a new hymn book or a change to service times, you will know how opposed to change we actually are!
“How many Christians does it take to change a lightbulb?” ” Change? CHANGE? “
One Pentecostal to change it and 400 others to cast out the spirit of darkness.
😂! Love it!
I used to have a whole book of ‘Christian’ (i.e. denominational) light bulb jokes. For instance:
How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
3: 1 to read the liturgy, one to handle the elements, and one to pour the sherry.
How many Methodists…?
10: 1 to change the light bulb, 1 to sell the old light bulb, and 8 to organise the potluck supper.
I’ve forgotten most of them, sadly. The usual story – I loaned the book to a friend and never got it back.
Christopher, what an inspired comment!
I shared my concerns about Winchester with my wife last evening. I try (but usually fail) not to burden her. She told me that my perspective on its troubles is (and here she struggled) might be rather ‘obscure’ to most. And that brought the realisation that my rather surprising strength of concern might be founded upon things ‘spiritual’ – not a claim I want to make. But it seems so urgent to me, the we cease trying to do so much in our own strength. Your sparing comment touched a nerve, somehow!
It has just been announced that the Bishop of Winchester is to retire, effective from February 2022.