Up till now I have avoided writing anything about the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) in this blog. I still have personal contacts with that Church having worked as a Rector in a congregation (charge) on the edge of Edinburgh for 7½ years. In many ways these were the happiest years of my ministry. Having returned to England in retirement, I have wanted to retain the fantasy that things such as bullying and safeguarding problems did not happen in Scotland. When a problem arose last year in the diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, linked to possible power abuse, I hoped in vain that the issue would quickly go away. I was keen to believe that the saga could be resolved in a way that would not disturb my idealised memories of the SEC.
On Saturday last, the 11th of June, the Scottish edition of The Times carried a story which brought up-to-date news of the ongoing saga of Bishop Anne Dyer, the SEC Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney. In summary, the diocese of Aberdeen has been troubled for some time by stories of alleged bullying and abuses of power by the bishop. Bishop Dyer, who had been Warden of Cranmer Hall Durham, was appointed Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney in 2018. The appointment had been complicated by the fact that the normal protocols for choosing a bishop by election had failed to produce an agreed candidate. In such a situation the choice is left to the College of seven Scottish bishops. Up to this point no woman had ever been selected for the office of Bishop in the SEC and there were among the clergy of the diocese a number who objected to such an appointment. The problems that have arisen subsequently are apparently nothing to do with the gender of the bishop but with her management style. Scottish Episcopal dioceses are, by English standards, extremely small (Aberdeen has 48 churches and around 25 clergy). Clergy and bishops meet up far more often would be the case in England. If there are any personal difficulties or clashes, they will become disruptive very quickly.
The immediate cause of a dysfunction in the diocese related to the state of disrepair at St Andrew’s Cathedral in Aberdeen. Without going into overmuch detail, the bishop decided that she would nominate another church in Aberdeen to be a pro-Cathedral, pending some long-term resolution of what should happen to the cathedral building. The whole question of how to merge clergy and congregations seems to have been poorly handled. Great resentment was generated among various stakeholders, including the musicians at both churches. Bishop Dyer’s people skills seem not to have been of the highest and the whole confrontation became serious and very public. One respected senior clergyman in the diocese had his licence removed by the bishop. When this crisis spilled over into the wider church, the College of Bishops asked Professor Iain Torrance to conduct an enquiry and make recommendations as to what should be done. Iain Torrance is a highly respected figure in church and Scottish circles and has acted as Moderator of the Church of Scotland. The report, published in a digest form, seems thorough and professional. One comparison we might make with similar reports in England is that the whole exercise was completed in a few months and the SEC received Torrance’s services without charge. In summary, Torrance concluded that the evidence pointed to the conclusion that Bishop Dyer should be urged to stand down because her position as bishop was ‘irrecoverable’.
The College of Bishops now found itself in a dilemma. Should they accept this report and encourage Bishop Dyer to retire or should they ignore the report and seek some other way forward? It seems that the bishops have placed the Torrance report into a pending file. Earlier this year, the College asked a group of three mediators to try and solve the breakdown of communication between Bishop Dyer and some members of her diocese. Meanwhile the Bishop seems to be working, but the Torrance report hanging over her must lessen her authority. The College of Bishops are in a difficult situation. If the mediation effort that they have set up fails, what other options of resolving this problem are left to them? As in England, bishops are authorities to themselves and there is no other legal authority able to force Bishop Dyer to retire. We need also to remember that it was difficult to find a suitable candidate for bishop last time. Next time, after these ‘local difficulties’, it will be still harder to find an acceptable candidate. The College of Bishops relate to one another as equals. No individual possesses the authority to tell one of their number what to do. Bishop Mark Strange of Moray, Ross and Caithness is the current Primus. His status is that of first among equals, primus inter pares. He does not have the role or authority of an Archbishop
The new information published by the Saturday Times adds another dimension to the story and puts further pressure on Bishop Dyer, and indeed on the College of Bishops. The reported story relates how a lawyer called Peter Murray working in a legal firm called Ledingham Chalmers, took on work for the bishop and the diocese. The story reminds us of the way that sometimes bishops in England, under some sort of pressure or challenges to their authority resort to expensive legal options. The diocese of Aberdeen is, of course, tiny by English standards. Also with each charge responsible for paying and housing its clergy, the sums for which the diocese is responsible are probably small. Without having any figures in front of me, I am guessing that the annual total budget for a diocese in Scotland would seldom exceed £250k. In the years before Bishop Dyer’s appointment in 2018 in, the diocese typically spent £3k a year in legal fees. The Times story centres around the fact that, since Bishop Dyer’s appointment, the diocese of Aberdeen has spent £120k on lawyers at Ledingham Chalmers. Peter Murray, the lawyer named as receiving this largesse, is also a trustee of the diocese and a personal friend and supporter of Bishop. It would appear reasonable to suppose that the vast increase of expenditure was directly connected to the litigious environment that Bishop Dyer’s management style has created. There seem to have been no checks and balances to challenge the way that this money was being expended. Readers of this blog will be familiar with the theme of charitable money being spent to preserve and protect the personal/professional interests of individual bishops and their circle.
In retelling this story about the SEC and the way that, once again, charitable money ends up in the pockets of well to do lawyers protecting institutional interests and reputations, one has a sense of sadness. Lawyers do have a part to play in church management and administration, but one weeps for any situation where churches or dioceses are paying out large sums to legal personnel who fail to observe the highest standards of ethical behaviour. The problems in Aberdeen have now been compounded to a point where it is hard to see how this particular story will have a happy ending. The College of Bishops have placed their trust in a mediation process which will now be more difficult to resolve in the light of these new revelations of financial mismanagement. The Scottish equivalent of the Charity Commission will no doubt be involved, and an investigation ordered. Once again, we will have the unedifying spectacle of a report which will show how the charitable contributions of the faithful have been allowed to pass into the hands of lawyers without any obvious benefit for the public good.
I write this blog post with a sense of sadness and disappointment. Whenever a scandal, sexual or financial, breaks there is always a weakening of trust in the institution involved. The Church of England has seen a steady loosening of trust towards its leaders over recent years. When trust is weakened in this way, the strength and integrity of the whole institution is lessened. I wish I could see a positive outcome for the present SEC crisis. What we really require is some strong inspirational and decisive leadership. This is also required for the Church of England. It is currently hard to see where this will come from. It certainly is not much in evidence at the present time.
Can a leopard change her spots? Is it plausible that a person’s management style will change if we ask nicely?
Perhaps mediation will achieve some sort of compromise on a couple of issues. Perhaps not. But the underlying management style, experience shows, is likely to continue unabated.
Most of us will have had weaknesses in our management styles brought to our attention in one way or another over the years, and it is possible to modify our approach, but only if we want to.
Sometimes, often in fact, the ways we act towards others are embedded in our personality and belief system. These are very hard to change.
In the secular world, many of us know how difficult it is to remove a person from their role, even when grossly unfit for it. There is a minefield of employment law that seems to put you in the wrong if you make the slightest mistake. The results can be very expensive, and lead to compensation for wrongful/unfair dismissal, despite clear evidence of inability to do the job.
The Churches, on the other hand, seem to have evolved structures under which it is almost completely impossible to remove senior personnel. In the SEC , from what Stephen is saying, there is no authority above the bishop in question. The CofE seems to grant a diffuse autonomy and unaccountability to all its bishops too. Although there are archbishops, they don’t seem to have much if any power over the others.
Certainly if I personally were invited to lead an organisation, I couldn’t possibly accept either of the current authority/accountability structures, insofar as I understand them. The job would be impossible. Similarly, I would expect myself to be accountable to a board of directors or trustees, with clear objectives agreed. Obviously we are a million miles away from this.
One way in which our lawyer friends could really lend their expertise, would be to draft a new constitution for the Churches. Of course I’m not pretending this would be an easy task. Far from it. But the current structures are completely unworkable, and without constitutional change, it is difficult to see how much will improve.
With increasing scrutiny from those outside the Churches, for example the press and the Charities Commission, it does appear there are forces in play that may eventually impose such constitutional reconstruction. But don’t hold your breath.
The number of stories of clerics being bullied by their leaders is deeply disturbing and worrying. I wonder if the church has borrowed a list of wanted attributes for the post of Bishop from those looking for a chief whip. I am watching the series House of cards and the saying “put a bit of stick about” comes to mind. If that is how they treat their own, perhaps we should be less surprised at the way survivors are treated for pointing out failures. I did hear from a vicar that many are unhappy with our Bishop and quite a few left for that reason. If the Diocese feels able to bully me and threaten me if I communicate with any clergy and has told them not to communicate with me, I shudder to think what those who are employed as clergy in the Diocese have to put up with. My Diocesan Secretary too kept complaining about the amount of money my complaint has cost the Diocese, and the police officer interviewing me for reporting breaches brought this up in her list of “crimes” I committed. I replied that most if not all of the Diocesan costs could have been saved had personnel adhered to the House of Bishop’s guidelines. I wonder what the total amount of money is that the church has spent in its misguided efforts to cover up failures and misconduct? Whatever it is , it is probably eyewatering high. All that money spent to further bullying, abuse and failures. Meanwhile clerics are suffering abuse from their leaders as are survivors who keep on being retraumatised by the church. Some of us are trying to bring about reform before the church expires by its own efforts. As I write this the Bishops have ganged together to make a public outcry against asylum seekers being sent to Ruanda. I ask them to gang together to make a public outcry against safeguarding failures, their cover up, and the unhealthy leadership styles which result in the bullying of clergy and survivors.
I’m sure there are faults on both sides here; some of the clergy were opposed to Anne from the outset, merely on grounds of her gender. And as one of the first women to be ordained in the C of E, she will have encountered plenty of opposition and discrimination before. That kind of treatment breaks some people, softens others, and turns some into bullies.
It’s sad that there seems to be no way out of this destructive situation.
The Torrance Report is in the public domain and he makes clear that the initial concerns over the new bishop’s gender played no role in the subsequent toxic situation that developed in the diocese. His report is well worth reading (for those who haven’t seen it), since it documents fairly and squarely an utter car crash.
I’ve read the Torrance Report, though it was a while ago. And I’m not exonerating Anne from blame; I knew her a long time ago and she was never a ‘people person’.
But I also know that it was (and sometimes still is) very difficult to be an ordained woman in the C of E in the 80s and 90s, and the scars often get carried forward into future ministry in one form or another. It’s difficult for a person who’s never encountered that kind of discrimination to understand its impact.
For me the point at which it became clear that Anne Dyer’s position was untenable was her clear and explicit insistence that she was entitled to issue orders to charity trustees and override their legal duty to apply their own judgement. Whether or not she understood that her position was legally unsustainable, it was a clear indication that she was not up to the job.
Yes, those who are bullied do sometimes become bullies.
So much happens in our Anglican world that it was a surprise to learn that the report was published less than one year ago – it seems much longer. I recall that some of the discussion at the time was controversial, indeed some was critical. Although originally ‘confidential’, here is the link to the report:
https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Torrance-Review-of-the-Diocese-of-Aberdeen-and-Orkney.pdf
Thanks for this link Rowland. They’ve made a poor appointment here, as her track record at Cranmer Hall would have alerted them.
We must all try to be honest with ourselves here and recognise those positions for which our temperaments are not suited.
The bishops at every stage have screwed-up. At this stage they did indeed initially refuse to provide the report, then caved-in to understandable dismay. Plainly that was because it didn’t suit their narrative that the episode was about a few disaffected clergy angry at the way Mrs D was appointed and/or her being female, rather than the report’s evidencing poor behaviour that, it claimed, existed before her apt (Cranmer). They were evidently embarrassed that the report seemed to vindicate complainants – and made it worse by trying to cover that up.
I’m told by a priest there the mediation imposed by them has failed, as it was highly likely to, because mediation cannot be imposed: all parties have to be willing to engage, and complainants thought this was a window-dressing exercise with a foregone conclusion (ie, regardless of outcome she’s not going). Mediation has to have an end: what happens if we can’t agree to ‘try again’? ‘Nothing’ was the answer. So the whole exercise was undermined at the outset.
Janet: Not according to Torrance is there fault on both sides; and some of the complainants are women. On the evidence, Mrs Dyer’s behaviour is the problem regardless of *why* she might behave so. Her sex seems at best to be a residual component.
It’s too tempting to interpret this as a pro- and anti-women bishop issue, which trivialises it. That’s simply not what the reported evidence reflects. Furthermore, all the Scots bishops are shades of liberal and of course there’s no formal recognition there of those unable to accept women’s ministry, so SEC is prima facie more accepting of women’s ministry than CofE.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/09/anne-dyer-aberdeen-orkney-priests-threaten-quit-over-first-female-bishop
We all want a strong leader who we like, who will lead us where we would like to go, and who likes us! Strong and Leader are two words that need very careful qualification, in the same way that Servant and Leader are too often put together uncritically.
Leadership and unity are also in tension, as the recent letters between the Archbishops here and the Archbishops from the Provinces boycotting Lambeth reveal. Congregation members are not always in unity among each other, nor all with their “leader”, likewise clergy and congregations not in harmony with the bishop and diocese, and bishops likewise not in harmony or agreement with each other, save in uneasy agreements not to rock a boat.
In dioceses like Winchester and Aberdeen, leadership styles have been challenged publicly – it might be helpful to hear of places where significant change has been done well, and to consider how it happened.
When times and situations and finances are changing fast, a pastoral leadership that keeps an eye on grazing sheep has to become a directing leadership which seeks safer or new ground quicker than some would go. There are church leaders who dream of directing change and there are congregations who dream of the greener grass of the past! But the archetype of Old Testament leader, Moses, after the initial burst of successful change (Exodus and giving of Law), remains with a recalcitrant people in the wilderness for 40 years – is that the epitome of faithful leadership or a dire warning of disobedient wasted opportunity and an indictment of Moses’ failure of earlier leadership?
The Diocese website gives accounts to 2015, when the turnover was around £400k. So the Diocese, which is a chaitable trust, has allegedly spent about quarter of its income on lawyers. We seem to have moved away from the notion that trustees keep those things committed to their trust for the purposes they were placed in trust for, towards a notion that the trustees can behave as if they were the legal owners, not merely the stewards, of those things put in their care, and do whatever they like with them. We have already seen this in the squandering of the charitable funds by a clique of trustees at Christ Church and the similar squandering of church funds by the Bishop of Oxford; in both cases on lawyers’ fees. There’s no longer any pretence of serving the original purposes, simply an attitude of this is mine so I can do what I want with it.
Thank you UN for digging out this additional information about the finances. I was guessing and partly basing my guess on what quota we had to pay when I was in Edinburgh (a bigger diocese) to keep the diocese going. Note also the £120k was based on four years bills for lawyers. The average was thus £30k p.a. which was a ten-fold increase on what went before. The problem is that according to the story there was no supervision of this expenditure
I think I may need to add a cautionary note here. Ledingham Chalmers are a substantial firm of solicitors with offices in several regions of Scotland. I have no personal knowledge of them, but in their latest annual ratings ‘Chambers’, the pre-eminent national directory of lawyers, assessed them in the ‘leading’ category. A point I have made previously about payments to lawyers is that it is the client who drives things and runs up the bill. Of course moral issues are involved in all expenditure of charity funds.
It may surprise the uninitiated, but £30k doesn’t actually go very far with a top professional firm, at full charge out rates.
I was thinking that, and if they’ve only been spending £3,000 pa (which would pay for something like a few letters) up to now, they haven’t been spending anywhere near enough on legal services. I can’t believe that sentence has just passed through my mind.
I think so many structures of church and state in the UK have traditionally assumed people will act like ‘gentlemen’, including resigning when appropriate. In an age when the PM can announce it will take a tank to remove him from Downing Street, spending £3k pa on law spells inadequate.
We can only surmise about the reasons why such expensive lawyers are used by the church when most of the people involved in church disputes cannot afford a lawyer. We understand only too well that if you employ a lawyer then the fees will grow as the dispute grows. Why, in those circumstances do Trustees feel able to use charitable funds especially against those who are not employing a lawyer? The lawyers my Diocese used are not cheap, and the Diocesan Registrar is senior partner of the firm. Sounds a bit incestuous to me.
Someone closer to these matters maybe able to tell if there are conflicts of interest.
They use expensive lawyers in the hope that they can use their “muscle” to prevail obviously. And I agree it is inequitable for those unable to afford legal representation, or lacking a bottomless pot of someone else’s money to spend on fees.
But as was pointed out before, having a prestigious client like a national Church, becomes a mixed blessing if said client develops a disreputable reputation. Some firms will quietly “drop” a client in these circumstances. Many such clients don’t take the best advice they are given, but this is still chargeable of course.
The diocese will also have accrued additional legal costs because of the vote to realign by Westhill Community Church following the provincial vote to permit marriage of same-sex couples. The diocese/bishop sought a financial settlement that would soften the blow of losing its largest congregation.
That is indeed a sorry saga! I have been following the story since I read of it in the Church Times, and I am grateful for the pointer to the update in the Times. It seems quite extraordinary that the Bishops should organise a mediator, of status beyond question, and then take no notice at all of his principal recommendation. That his allegiance is to the Church of Scotland compounds the political intensity. They must know how that would be perceived! The only possible explanation – though without confirmation it must count as speculation – is that the Diocesan has refused to go. If that is the case the other Bishops would have been wiser to leave her to it: a spurious solidarity at this point in the saga does nothing at all to inspire confidence in their judgment. As it is the whole business means that the boat sinks ever lower in the water.
Yes. I read the Torrance report as being an unsubtle hint to the bishop from the rest of the church.
Absolutely. Are they so piss weak they’re prepared for the Church to sink even lower, saying nothing publically to encourage her to go – no confidence! – while waiting for their pensions and leaving a diminished Church for others to try to repair? Evidently.
I have no personal knowledge of this situation or of reports I have heard of another bishop who happens to be female in another province. So this is a general point about women in church leadership, which I make as a woman of ’94 and a former incumbent of what was considered a significant parish. Hearing both these stories, I wondered if behaviour which no one would look twice at in a bishop who happened to be male is labelled differently when the bishop happens to be female. Alternatively, if one attempts a less hierarchical style of leadership one is judged to be ‘weak’ and ‘ineffective.’ This point may be irrelevant to the case at hand but I think it is worth making, opposition to women in leadership can be overt and based on particular interpretations of scripture and tradition or less obvious along lines of ‘of course, we would have preferred a man…’. As Janet Fife says in her comment this will have an effect as the years roll on and nothing seems to change.
The many recent instances of problems with methods of leadership in the church point to the urgent need for clear and agreed expectations between the leader and the led at all levels of the church. I nearly suggested a review, but we know how long and how opaque such a process would be in the Church of England.
Janet: The difficulty here is that a number of women priests complained about her, so it’s certainly not obviously a matter of sex. There may be an expectation that women are ‘nicer’ such that those that aren’t are regarded more critically than men – which is speculation – but in my experience women are neither nicer nor nastier in any case.
Employing Occam’s Razor, it’s Mrs Dyer’s behaviour that’s the problem – not least because of the number of complainants – not the complainants’ attitude. And her colleagues in the College have effectively aided and abetted in pisspoor ‘leadership’, leading to considerable discredit. Weak, foolish, incompetent men and a nasty woman.
Marcus, you have misunderstood what I said. I wasn’t denying that she was at fault in her diocese, but wondering about what had caused her to become a bully. Because she wasn’t a bully (or ‘nasty’, as you put it) when I knew her in the 1980s. As I said, people who are bullied sometimes become bullies.
Janet: Well, we can’t possibly know the ‘why’. Some people get a bit of power and go mad with it. Torrance suggests there was a problem with her at Cranmer, too, further suggesting something other than facing some kind of hostility or discrimination.
Good wishes.
Yes, there were problems at Cranmer too. But Anne has faced hostility and discrimination, like almost all of us in the first tranche of women to be ordained. My point is that this kind of treatment has a hardening effect on some people.
There are male clergy, too, who are bullied as curates and then go on to treat their subordinates in the same way.
I guess the question is that of cause and effect: was hostility per her character or ab initio (you suggest the former). In any case, the reason is irrelevant, and if true, visiting her ‘suffering’ on her flock is dysfunctional. I don’t think there can be any ‘understanding’ of poor behaviour because she was possibly mistreated… I appreciate you’re not suggesting this overtly but it seems to be the logic of your line of argument – the why. In the final analysis we cannot know why: perhaps a matter for psychoanalysis…
As you confirm the Cranmer reference – I was going purely on Torrance – that does (as I think T intimated) suggest lack of diligence in selection unless it was thought following enquiry she was victim, not perp. It seems no enquiry was made. She wouldn’t be the first theol coll principal who’s gone awry.
Janet’s right of course. Some of us here present ourselves as if it’s all the other guys’ fault, but many of us who have bullied others, also have been bullied. To be faced with a skilled facilitator or analyst and have our own bullying pointed out to us, is an appalling experience. Certainly I found it so. It has often been completely unconscious. Obviously we are ultimately responsible for our behaviour towards others. There will, in a sense, be mitigating circumstances, in that sometimes, for example, the awful home and school lives we endured, but obviously we are still responsible for our own actions.
I’ve found it to be a continuing and lifetime’s work to extricate myself from actions toward others, words especially, which I may have inherited, but which I reject.
Good for you, bro.
Most of our holidays as children were to Scotland, given its proximity to, but sufficient difference from The North of England. Many were in Aberdeenshire, with a stop for coffee in the iconic Edinburgh en route.
Probably some of my better memories of childhood, I enjoyed equally the rural remoteness and bustling cities.
We always had to go to church up there too, which wasn’t without hazard for us English. Not least of the challenges was to avoid getting halfway through the sibilant “trespasses” in reciting the Lord’s Prayer, only to recall too late, that the Scottish say “debts and debtors”.
Scottish church seemed quite formal and our “Sunday Best” family standing order, seemed to fit in better there. Another hazard was trying to avoid the infectious tendency of my siblings in getting the giggles.
Without exception our hosts welcomed us warmly and turned a blind eye to our foibles and clumsiness. There seemed a basic honesty and integrity to the Scottish church people we met. Perhaps I idolise it.
When you read the Report, the overwhelming sense for me at least was sadness at the grubby, unbecoming squabbling at the heart of the Church. I mean who would want to go to church there?
To some extent it feels as if Scotland may be a decade or two behind the Church in England, but it’s only an impression of course. Let’s hope they grow up rather more quickly than we have done.
I was once a member and trustee of an independent church which has had similar issues with control, bullying and financial mismanagement by the pastor and his wife. Legal bills have exceeded £89k, paid to a law firm where one of the partners has a personal connection. A whistleblower who tried to hold them to account was excommunicated and barred from entering the church.
Stephen: ‘The problems that have arisen subsequently are apparently nothing to do with the gender of the bishop but with her management style.’ Although you’re trying to be kind/tactful, Mrs Dyer’s behaviour, because accounted for by too many, can hardly be attributed to ‘management style’ – a typical ecclesiastical euphemism when speaking of those who are plain nasty. Dysfunction on this scale is not about style but substance. There is something wrong with her behaviour. If we minimise this with euphemism we aid the stasis affecting the situation by treating is as subjective: it’s just one of a number of possible ‘styles’ that more than a few have happened to disagree with. The problem is plainly more fundamental.
Nor would I go along with the notion that the other bishops’ hands are tied by their having no authority over her. They have some moral authority and could have stated publicly that they had no confidence in her, advising her to go. Instead they’ve chosen sides with the coercive use of mediation (as if one can or should mediate with a bully).
Why can’t they initiate a means by which there is a formal democratic process of dismissing a bishop? Vested interest? Why can’t they acknowledge she is unsuitable per investigative report? Because it reflects on them and their determination to lever a woman in and/or lack of humility that they got it wrong?
This is a situation in which we need to call a spade a spade – honesty and candour – if the problem’s to be optimally addressed/