Back in November, Surviving Church carried a piece I wrote about the travails of Wymondham Abbey in the Norwich Diocese. Although I tried as hard as I could to see the dispute from the perspective of the Vicar of Wymondham, my sympathies in the end went to the Bishop of Norwich, Graham Usher. He had inherited an impossible situation and he simply wanted the parish to function normally without further conflict.
To remind my readers of the story in outline. A new Vicar, Catherine Relf-Pennington, was appointed to the living of Wymondham in 2017. The candidate was, unusually, the existing curate who had worked in the parish since 2014. Soon after her appointment, problems and complaints started to emerge. Some were to do with pastoral issues and others to do with the alleged mismanagement of property and finance. Clearly, whether or not the complaints were justified, there were issues to be resolved with the support of outside guidance. The Bishop appointed two Visitors to carry out a formal visitation to the parish. On the basis of their report, he issued a Direction. Some of the sections in this Direction spoke to property issues and finance. However, the most interesting part of the Direction was the Bishop’s requirement that the Vicar offer a public apology to those individuals that she had upset. If this was done, then the Bishop assured the parish that all existing complaints and disciplinary processes would be immediately dropped and the parish would be helped to get back on to an even keel.
The intention that a public apology would resolve all the issues and tensions in the parish always seemed a long shot as a way of successfully resolving the problems in the parish. So it has proved to be. The Vicar and churchwardens have now issued a formal Response to the Bishop’s Directions, on January 17th, and this indicates how great the chasm still is between Bishop and the parish at Wymondham. It is twelve pages long and it is hard to anticipate how the dispute will go on from here. Speaking as a total outsider and forming judgements on the basis of what is in the press and in these formal documents, I have to say that my original preference for the Bishop’s position has now become a total backing. This fact that I believe him to be in the right in what he has said and done does not mean that I am clear what should happen next. There does not appear to be a plan B.
Why do I, as an outsider, now regard the position of the Vicar and churchwardens as not being one worth supporting. In the first place, there are on the church website a number of copies of letters of support for Mother Catherine, as she is called, to the Bishop. I find it uncomfortable that two of these letters are from children of primary age. The fact that a child relates well to an adult is a good thing, but not of great moment when you are trying to establish the nature of the overall pastoral care in a church community. Clearly an adult had to persuade the child to put pen to paper, so the existence of such letters feels contrived and inauthentic.
A second point that comes out of the Response, is that the tone of the whole document is off-putting. It also lacks anything by way of contrition. From beginning to end there is a kind of peevish sense of entitlement and not one concession to the fact that the Bishop, to whom you have sworn canonical obedience, might in any way be justified in his approach. This blog not infrequently suggests that bishops get things wrong, but there is normally an identifiable reason for such failures. Here it is hard to see anything to be gained for Bishop Usher other than the welfare of the people of Wymondham. The issue of the appropriation of the former Vicarage for the use of the suffragan bishop of Thetford has been made to be a cause celebre by those who wish to perpetuate a sense of division between parish and diocese. The affair sounds like a hijack, but I understand that the former Vicar had not lived in the building for some years, and it was in a state of disrepair. It needed considerable financial input from the Diocese to bring it back up to standard. Whatever the precise details of the ‘takeover’, they appear to be far more nuanced and complicated than the simple claim that the Diocese ‘stole’ our property.
To read in the Response that the parish believes that ‘Bishop Alan Winton’s and Bishop Graham’s behaviour in relation to Wymondham is unethical, immoral and self-serving’ comes as a jarring note. It would seem that the Bishop and Diocese had every reason, in the first place, to be alarmed about the finances in the church. It appears that, even according to the Vicar’s admission, there had been an ineffective treasurer presiding over a plethora of accounts and cheerfully running down reserves to pay diocesan quota. This financial disaster zone has to be recognised as the responsibility of every PCC member who, over a number of years, had failed to ask questions or seek clarity over the financial accounts. What was in the Annual Parish Report? It is the job of the Treasurer to make accounts understandable and the PCC members need to expect to be able to understand them. The same applies to every trustee in any charity. I would expect to see somewhere a contrite recognition of a massive failing of all PCC members over the past decade. Instead, we have the rather limp claim that the parish cannot now pay quota because the ex-treasurer, in plain sight, had used up all the reserves.
I have read the rest of the Response and much of it is to do with local issues which the Visitation Report had picked up and which formed part of the Bishop’s Direction. The main thing that the Response does not address in any way is the fact that there are and were unhappy people in the church and town who found the personality of the Vicar difficult and abrasive. Nowhere in the Response is there a hint of contrition or any plan to reach out to those who had complained to the Diocese. Obviously we are not privy to the detail of these complaints, but it is quite clear they have caused massive upset and division within the congregation. The other explanation for the failure to pay quota to the Diocese may simply be that the planned giving totals have dropped, with people voting with their feet.
There are various things that are not possible to discern from reading reports from two sides in an acrimonious dispute, so I returned to the parish website to try and get a feel for the priorities of the parish and its Vicar. While this is only impressionistic, I sense that the Vicar is far more comfortable with contemplative styles of prayer and worship than with other forms. I have no criticism of this kind of Christian practice, but it may clash with the expressed need of many Christians to experience the support of community with all its untidiness. There is evidently, even from the superficial evidence of the website and the documents, a lot to suggest that the Bishop’s evident desire for radical change in the parish is not unjustified. The Response, at the end of the document, finishes with these words ‘Something needs to be done’. Perhaps the Vicar and churchwardens can help work out a constructive way to do things at their end to make the ‘something’ happen.
PCC members failing to ask questions or seek clarity, treasurer running down reserves in plain sight. What about the auditor, those who attend Annual Meeting, Charity Commission.
Why was she appointed? The Bishop obviously failed to see something.
Perhaps the reserves have been run down because: (i) the abbey is a large building which is costly to maintain; and (ii) the DBF has (as I understand it from local sources) increased its demands even during the pandemic.
It is not therefore evident (to me) that any treasurer has behaved irresponsibly or in default of any fiduciary obligations. It is also difficult for any treasurer to meet the claims of the DBF when the burden of diocesan demands has become ever less tolerable relative to the available assets and/or income.
Now there has been a considerable amount of new development in Wymondham in the last three or four years (as elsewhere in Norfolk), and it might be hoped that this has resulted in an increase in attendance. However, most of the new developments are characteristically ‘exurban’ and seem disassociated from the parish; it is therefore likely that they function chiefly as London/Norwich overspill, and there may be little meaningful psychological connection with Wymondham itself, still less with the abbey. There may be a degree of pastoral failure in that, but it might also be inevitable.
There is then the question of why the bishop of Thetford needs a residence in Wymondham; whether the parsonage house could have been let on a repairing lease (or sold), and why (if clergy numbers are continuing to be cut across the diocese) the suffragan see cannot be tied with a benefice.
Although I have not attended any services in Norfolk since the passiontide of 2021, I have visited every parish in the county (a number multiple times), and have attended services at the overwhelming majority of churches. In many places the Church has imploded/evaporated almost completely. Perhaps the rebarbative nature of the exchanges between the incumbent/PCC and the diocesan authorities may be symptomatic of wider anxieties and uncertainties that seem to be afflicting a good part of the diocese, and beyond. PCCs might become more defensive because the diocese *is* wanting to appropriate its asset, and *is* at the same time demanding more cash.
It seems that from their perspective, which is not necessarily irrational, the diocese is grinding salt into the wound. Does the abbey get the subsidies from the Commissioners enjoyed by the cathedral? No it does not. Did the Commissioners grant (rather than lend) the dioceses money during the pandemic? No. Did they help the parishes? No they did not.
These problems are therefore, to some extent, structural. I would query whether the tensions evident in Wymondham are those of the wider Church in microcosm, and specifically the maldistribution of wealth between its tiers. In 1960 Owen Chadwick (buried at Cley next the Sea, where he had a cottage) wrote a delightful book, ‘Victorian Miniature’ based on the quarrels between parson Andrew and squire Boileau at Ketteringham (which borders Wymondham to the east); thus, as per Mark Twain, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Don’t pay if it leaves you broke. I used to be in a parish where the amount requested was more than the annual income! It’s political!
Many thanks. The diocese will say to Wymondham: “if you don’t provide your full parish share, then we will either seek to amalgamate the parish with its neighbours and/or you will not get a full-time stipendiary, or perhaps any stipendiary, at the next vacancy”.
Again, it’s worth noting the context. Immediately to the north and west of Wymondham you have the Barnham Broom & Upper Yare benefice, which comprises 15 churches (plus Coston, which is CCT); a little further to the north you have the Reepham & Wensum benefice, which comprises 14 churches (plus Little Witchingham, which is CCT, and Morton on the Hill, which is NCT). On the other side of the A11, to the south, there is the Upper Tas benefice, which is a mere 8 churches (plus Forncett St Mary, which is vested in a trust, but with monthly services). And so on. Even before the pandemic worship had effectively petered out at a number of churches nearby. No doubt, the Wymondham PCC is anxious about being incorporated into a larger unit, even if the size of the parish, which is cartographically the largest in the diocese (and perhaps surpassed only by Feltwell, Hockwold with Wilton, Methwold and Terrington St Clement in all Norfolk), probably ought to remain a single unit.
People assume (because they keep being told by clergy and others) that if a parish does not get a stipendiary, and a good one, it will likely fade away. This is part of the tendency of many churchgoers to fetishise ‘leadership’. PCCs – who often want a ‘leader’ to dilute their own accountability – will therefore be willing to pay what they can in parish share to propitiate the DBF (and DAC). As with all protection rackets, the ‘suasion’ exerted by the racketeer is to create the fear that if the protection money is no longer paid, the protected party will be left to go to the dogs, or worse. Parish share is not compulsory, but the psychological impact of the suasion exerted in many subtle or unsubtle ways, makes it so in practice. During the pandemic the diocesan authorities were issuing some fairly brisk ‘exhortations’ for increased contributions, even as the central Church authorities enforced rules preventing public worship which (for good or ill) went well beyond government guidelines.
And, of course, the parishes would probably fare perfectly well if the entire diocesan bureaucracy were swept away at a stroke, its administrative and financial functions being consolidated (no doubt more efficiently and cost-effectively) in the Church Commissioners. This will not happen, of course, because the first objective of any diocesan bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself (for its own sake) and to consolidate its power. In this sense, it is no different to any other bureaucracy. You are, of course, right that it is political: the diocese is its own ‘interest’. This unseemly dispute may well conceal various failings, but it is ultimately a clash of competing interests.
Well, true enough. But if you request money people haven’t got, all you get is defaults. Is it just a way of blaming people for what you’ve decided anyway? (Rhetorical question) And not incidentally, aren’t we supposed to be spreading the good news? News in the broader sense is depressing, too!
I usually agree with most of what you say but I fear you have here bought into some rather unreflective assumptions. Remember that parish share is largely used to pay stipendiary clergy in parishes. Without it, how do you and others propose we pay for the clergy we say are indispensible? Nor do I think my colleagues in Diocesan House are so easily replaced. I am open to the idea of regionalised working, taking some functions into a national body etc. but – apart from the fact we are doing some of that already (for example in my area of training) – our overt philosophy as diocesan staff is that we are there to serve the parishes, schools and chaplaincies of the diocese so they can do their job / mission. We are also working hard to enable our small church communities to keeep going and to grow – many are doing really well and better than their bigger suburban neighbours.
I am of course a Norwich DBF employee myself but I am writing here in a personal capacity and trying to be objective. Do come back to worship with us soon – I’d value your impressions of some of our churches (but won’t name them here!)
Many thanks for that, Mr Read. I am not in favour of the abolition of parish share (I am in strong disagreement with the STP proposals on that score, which I feel would prefer affluent parishes and leave the rest to go to the wall).
What I do take issue with is the fact that parish share has absolved the Commissioners of the pre-1995/97 liability for stipends and pensions. This amounts, in my view, to a regressive implicit subsidy of the Commissioners by the parishes; it might have been tolerable for a few years after the Lovelock debacle, but 23/27 years is enough. It was especially maladroit as it coincided with the revolution in weekend timetables (1994).
The main issue for me is the buildings. I would like to see them taken away from the parishes and vested in a national agency which has the economies of scale and bargaining power to procure labour and materials (the cost of which is now rising rapidly) at discounts that PCCs will never, ever achieve. The money to pay for the agency should come from the Commissioners, who now have nearly £10bn. This would, in effect, return to the parishes the money appropriated from them, by which means the Commissioners have been relieved of what was formerly their major burden, and which has permitted their endowment to wax as mightily as it has.
Thus relieved of the buildings there would be infinitely less at stake in the payment of parish share: incumbents and PCCs would be liberated from their major source of liability and could concentrate on their core tasks (clergy presumably did not take orders to become adjuncts to the heritage business). A church like Wymondham would not have to fret about whether it can cover its maintenance expenses and the cost of a stipendiary. It would mean that the tension between the two overheads would be eliminated.
The other part of my plan is to compensate the Commissioners by transferring all diocesan assets (essentially appropriated glebe) to them, and for them to run the Church. Economies of scale would be realised, and the centralised funds would grow more rapidly courtesy of their being consolidated. The dioceses would continue to exist, but only as pastoral agencies. Existing diocesan staff would either TUPE transfer to the Commissioners (and would effectively become branch employees) or to the new buildings agency (where they would become civil servants). Bishops would cease to have to act as amateur CEOs, and could concentrate on their core functions. There would be one safeguarding team instead of so many, for example. Synod should have greater power over the Commissioners and the application of the consolidated funds.
Most importantly, by preserving the buildings for public benefit and Christian witness and worship, the present reach of the Church would be maintained.
Essentially, what I am arguing is that ‘everything must change so that things can stay the same’ (Lampedusa).
I should add that I am especially grateful to the Norwich diocese for the creation of the NDCT, which is an ingenious and imaginative solution.
Although I live in easternmost Kent, I have recently been spending a great deal of time attending services in Lincoln diocese, where (as you may know) all churches are being graded from 1 to 5, with 5 meaning closure. A huge number of churches are in acute risk, especially in a region like South Lindsey, which has already suffered a far higher concentration of losses than anywhere else in England. Lincoln has an equivalent to the NCT, but it has only about 3 vestings. Lincoln urgently needs something like the NDCT, but there is no prospect of it (this seems to be the attitude in other dioceses like Carlisle or Hereford). Other dioceses have much to learn from Norwich.
As I understand it the purpose of the NDCT is to permit 6 or so public services p/a to be able to demonstrate public benefit (for grant purposes) and to cover insurance costs (so that the cost does not fall to entirely the DBF). However, I am afraid that many of the vestings I have encountered do not have this level of worship provision. There are some (e.g., South Pickenham or Wendling) which have about 1 or 2 services p/a, and other (e.g., Bintree) where I have seen nothing advertised for ages (and it is not a negligible settlement like, say, Theddlethorpe). Please could incumbents be exhorted to use these units! I hope a similar exhortation can be applied to certain special cases like Beeston St Lawrence, Great Plumstead, Mattishall Burgh and Thrigby, which are not formally closed, which are overseen locally, and where worship had vanished even well before the pandemic (or Metton and Swafield where Sunday worship appears to have ceased). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a list of NDCT vestings, and understand that there is quite a queue.
It is the justifiably proud boast of the diocese that scarcely any churches have been privatised by conversion to residential use: Crownthorpe (just outside Wymondham) and Knettishall (Suffolk) are the only examples, and it was not just Billa Harrod who assured that outcome, but also enlightened erstwhile diocesan officials, like Maurice Philpott (who also helped save Shimpling and who has done so much for the Saints benefice in Eds & Ips). I very much hope that approach will be maintained.
I should add that the area of greatest concern to me is the Breckland west of the training area. A number of the churches there are desperately vulnerable, and I feel very strongly that the units between Swaffham and Thetford need a great deal more support.
Please accept my apologies for these impertinent (and possibly obsolete) remarks.
I should have written Themelthorpe instead of Theddlethorpe. Apologies.
Also, I ought to have mentioned Langley along with Beeston St Lawrence, Mattishall Burgh, etc.: use by the school has faded almost completely, and there is now scarcely any public worship.
The Vicar says that the Papillon Project trustees are all “wealthy gentlemen of over 70 years “.
However Companies House records suggest that there are currently three Trustees, two of them women
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12171611/officers
Many thanks for mentioning that trust. Just some trivia, given that I have been undertaking a pilgrimage around the country for a number of years. There is a monument to one of the Papillons on the north wall of the nave, quite close to the entrance.
I am from Kent (now between Deal and Dover, and formerly near Edenbridge). The Papillons were/are at Acrise, near Folkestone, as I discovered when I attended church there in 2010. I came across them again in 2011 at another church at Crowhurst, near Bexhill/Hastings, which was a secondary seat of theirs. Then, in 2016, I found that they were also at Wymondham.
This is just an example, one of many, of how ‘everything connects’.
The above link is incorrect.
This is the Trust referred to: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/1016604/charity-overview
The Charity Commission website search facility for “The Papillon Project” revealed the same three names as the Companies House search quoted above. The link itself wasn’t incorrect. The distinction is the correct identity of the body being searched. For details of trustees, the Charity Commission is always the authoritative source.
I believe the correct reference should be to the Reverend William Papillon’s Trust, which seems to have a more relevant brief than the Papillon Project.
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/1016604/full-print
Clearly there were many problems to be addressed in Wymondham. The number of issues alone point to the fact that possibly the parish was not well run. however what about the many parishioners and others in the community who found the vicar abrasive? Should not their issues be given priority? I only wish we had Bishop Graham overseeing our diocese. Our vicar shocked parishioners when he suddenly started bellowing at one parishioner during the course of the service . The parishioner had apparently indicated they could not hear him. One moment the service was going forward as usual, the next parishioners were shocked by unseemly behaviour. On another occasion we had left the church after the service with our vicar, as usual blanking us. We had gone say thirty meters when suddenly our vicar, still robed, made my husband and myself his target, again yelling deliberately at us at the top of his voice, walking towards us. Seeing this my husband stopped guiding me (I am blind), and went forward to meet him in order that any possible confrontation would not happen by me. I was really frightened, not understanding what was happening round me, but this was better than a man in a furious temper possibly giving vent to violence of any kind in front of me. My husband wrote to our Bishop. We did receive a holding response from the Bshhop’s Chaplain but have heard nothing since, and have not heard directly from the Bishop at all. Presumably Bishop Graham would have taken action. Meanwhile our vicar has learned that breaking the code of conduct for clergy like this is apparently all right in our Diocese. Personally, I would like to be protected from hooligan like behaviour when I attend services and also from “abrasive” vicars.
That is awful, and I am very sorry for that: totally unacceptable. Fortunately, I have not encountered that on my travels. However, I was/am blanked as often as not, and I have been treated quite rudely on occasion (I am also periodically treated with suspicion, as if someone dressed in tweed and tie is likely to be ‘casing the joint’). However, I wrote an assessment of the Chichester diocese, which had just about finished touring, which I sent to Martin Warner in the interval between his translation from Whitby to Chichester, and mentioned in passing, and as a generic comment, that some clergy can rather rude. He did not respond with respect to the vast bulk of my letter, but he did express distress at the rudeness; that is actually the only occasion where a bishop has responded personally to a letter I have sent.
I have, however, been specifically condemned twice and at length from the pulpit! The first occasion was over a misunderstanding as to who was reading the lesson, and the second occasion was for reading the wrong version of the right lesson. I was the youngest member of each congregation, and I reasoned that this must be part of the Church’s approach towards youth outreach.
Ouch! Just when you think you’ve reached the bottom!
How awful. I really had no idea this sort of thing went on. I must say this vicar has unnecessarily criticised the churchwarden from the pulpit, but as he has had a go at others, most notably perhaps denigrating the scholarship of Rowan Williams, I genuinely thought he was a one off. Happily no other vicar I have known would have dreamt of behaving as yours did. I’ve been used to the sort of vicar who would take the blame for something he personally did not do, if anyone complained about small mistakes as you describe. I wonder when the behaviour of clergy started to decline like this. As to the main point of the blog my memory was jogged when decades ago our vicar and his family were living in a now totally unsuitable vicarage. They were overjoyed when we sold it off to buy a modern, warm home for them. The parish was only too pleased to house our vicar suitably and get rid off a problematical building. Had the Diocese decided to use it for the Bishop because of its size and provided housing for our vicar we would have been equally pleased. Many parishes got rid of large, draughty, and rambling vicarages long ago. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a parish which allowed its vicarage to fall into real disrepair. We’ve always expected to keep them up to a good standard and would not expect any clergy to put up with conditions we personally would not accept. And we have always felt it important not to dip into reserve s but save them for the inevitable repairs old buildings need.
Many thanks! I suspect that the clergy, like the police, reflect wider society. Church history furnishes a plethora of bad behaviour, so I am not necessarily certain that standards have *necessarily* fallen; indeed, insofar as there are (hopefully…) fewer clergy who are molesters in clerical garb, standards might well have improved.
Also, the profession is very much smaller than it was, so the risk of there being ‘bad apples’ has presumably reduced accordingly (at least statistically; however, the numbers of really good clergy may also have declined proportionately!).
What you have had to endure is something else…
I have family living in the town so have followed this at a distance.
Wymondham Abbey is off to the west side of town, the newest development is on the east. St Remigius, Hethersett may be quicker for people living there to access. There are several other churches in the town centre who have picked up people and for those wanting an HTB style C of E church there is a new plant a short drive away on the west side of Norwich.
Many thanks for these good points.
As you will know, the HTB plant is St Thomas Norwich. Mulbarton (which is also close by) had invested heavily in youth work and in a band. When the plant was established many of the young people deserted Mulbarton for St Thomas. Much of Mulbarton’s investment was therefore wasted. This is another instance of plants not always being very good for local churches, even those local churches which have made a real effort.
Although Hethersett has experimented with outreach and afternoon worship, I felt (perhaps unfairly) that it was not being as well supported as it might be, especially for a village that is almost a town in its own right, and is continuing to grow rapidly. Unlike the abbey, St Remigius is not in the physical heart of the community.
There is also a new estate, also on the B1172, at the west end of the town, and people living in it could also support Morley St Peter (which is also low down the candle).
I genuinely do not understand how anyone could read the Response on the Abbey website and conclude that the Bishop was right. He clearly was and is not, and nor was Sir Mark Hedley. In my opinion, the Bishop is lucky that the Response didn’t come from a solicitor. He has issued Directions which at best were factually inaccurate, because he didn’t bother to check that his information was up to date when he wrote them, or supported with documentation. That is negligence. He has failed to realise or even ask if all the people who were promised an interview had actually received one and thus produced Directions which are inexcusably one-sided and are not based on all available evidence. Again, negligence. He has not properly dealt with the issue of the appropriated vicarage, and whether it was dilapidated is completely irrelevant the law must be followed. One of the letters in support of the vicar makes clear that the account of the appropriation of the vicarage given to the Diocesan Synod was untrue, and senior people in the diocese knew it was untrue. Information which could and should have been taken into account by the Bishop. As for the suggestion that children were pressed to write letters in support, what a patronising attitude to take. Children are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Moreover, if the vicar is so terrible how come she has hugely increased the size of the congregation, to the delight of the local businesses? Evidenced by one of the letters in support and overlooked by the author of this article.
Finally, why was the vicar the only person ordered to apologise if she had been the victim of bullying, and why has the Bishop apparently accepted complaints from people who either are not members of the congregation or do not live in the parish and therefore have no standing? The vicar should not be expected to show contrition if she has done nothing wrong, still less apologise to people who have either bullied her and the PCC or who should have been told they had no standing. She should stand her ground along with the PCC and demand a full public retraction of the Directions and an investigation overseen by the applicable Archbishop. (No, I don’t live in Wymondham or even the same county, but I can read.)
Please, if you are relying on your ability ‘to read’ the documents that you have selected to read, be aware that you may not be seeing the full picture. A huge amount of documentation was made available by appointment to read just recently, I wonder if you had chance to view it?
As someone who does live in the parish, isn’t involved in the dispute, but aware of the issues and having heard both sides of the story from parties involved, I think there are some points around which you are mistaken. I will give just one example (I could pick several): the number of parishioners attending has not increased, it has reduced to extremely low levels. Parishioners of all ages have left the Abbey where they have worshipped, some for many, many years, and are attending churches in surrounding villages/towns, and Norwich. A significant number would like to return, but not while this situation continues. There are residents who have been longstanding worshippers but now unwilling to hold their important life events (christening, wedding, funeral) in their ‘home church’. The number of services has reduced and attendance is at an all time low. So, therefore, have financial contributions from parishioners.
People who happily gave time to volunteer at the Abbey were dismissed in favour of paid alternatives. No organist is currently willing to play, as a result of the situation, which doesn’t help numbers.
As I said, I have heard from both sides. There are ways in which Catherine may have been unfairly treated, which have arisen ‘in defence’. There has certainly been hurt on both sides.
It strikes me that someone devoted to the word of God, with Christianity at the heart of what they are doing, and truly serving their community, might make the apology and try to build bridges in the interests of all involved. A vicar would seem a good role model to teach parishioners about forgiveness.
Current use of the Abbey website to garner support (through a one sided torrent) for continuing the dispute and indeed spreading the issues wider in the ‘public eye’ seems no way to move forward. Whichever side of the argument you feel is more valid, there is a community missing out on the wonderful benefits of attending the Abbey as a peaceful place of worship and celebration. Even if you were considering starting to attend without any history, the current website negativity would be enough to steer you right away.
The current level of toxicity in the whole situation has sadly reached a stage where it is unlikely to be resolved without Catherine moving to a new parish. In any other ‘job’ she would have been dismissed, but there was no route to dismissal of her role. She could have been entitled to raise a grievance, but ultimately, would be very unlikely to have continued in post due to ‘misconduct’.
I hope that for her own benefit, that she may find the strength to leave, and find happiness elsewhere, as the situation is negative for her.
As a regular worshipper at the Abbey during the time of the Fr. Christopher, I can agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. The Abbey was a vibrant place with 4 services every Sunday. 1662 H/C, contemporary mass (for families and young people) 10:30 traditional mass with servers Anglo Catholic style and Evening Prayer (once a month Choral Evensong). There was something for everyone. A fantastic robed choir of around 40, brilliant organists, fund raising groups, (parish share paid in full) flower rotas, stewards manning the desk so that the Abbey could stay open every day usually during daylight hours. Weddings at funerals were a regular occurrence. Monthly parish lunches were well attended. All in all a very happy church family and a wonderful atmosphere of peace and tranquility surrounded the worship during each and everyone of the services. Father Christopher was and still is a wonderful priest who demonstrated the message of the Gospel. The attendance was often in excess of 150 at the 10:30 service and now I understand there is one service attended by around 30 people. Surely the question must be asked as to why this has come about and why has the congregation diminished so much. I am aware of several folk who no longer go to church, others that have gone elsewhere. I hope that Bishop Graham find a way where the congregations both past and present can move forward into a new future of love, hope and reconciliation.
Mr Davies has certainly been keeping the heart of the Heart of Norfolk benefice beating since he ‘retired’.
Apologies, I referred above to Theddlethorpe (I have discovered earlier this week that Theddlethorpe St Helen’s in Lincolnshire is to close); what I should have written of course, was Themelthorpe, which is in Mr Davies’ benefice.
I should add that there has been a massive reduction in service provision in many places since the pandemic. Many benefices which had several services each Sunday are now down to one or two, often reducing many churches to de facto ‘festival’ status. Churches which had several services a day have dropped 8 AM eucharists or evening services. I have attended services several times at they abbey which, like Lynn Minster or Great Yarmouth Minster, almost had the feel of a pro-cathedral (indeed, with Stephen Sealy, who has recently moved to Worcestershire, it had one of the best former cathedral precentors as assistant curate). So I am sorry that provision has declined as it has, but I am perhaps even sorrier that there has been so much decline in provision across the wider Church.
Father Stephen was a wonderful godly priest, and it was a great loss to Wymondham Abbey when he decided to move to another county. The attendance however at the Abbey was already in serious decline well before the pandemic and lockdown. I was saddened to see the 10:30 service attended by only around a third of the pre 2016 days and yes I was still attending the Abbey in early 2020 before the March lockdown. After this the only way to access services was by ‘booking” a ticket. This practise has continued until very recently. I have not been back to the Abbey since 2020 and would only wish to return with many other members of the congregation when this situation has been resolved with love, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Many thanks. He was very kind to me at Canterbury: they worked him to the bone, and he was a precentor’s precentor (as a cathedral of the ‘new foundation’, the precentor is a minor canon). I saw him years later at Sidcup, but know that he was much liked there and at Pembury (his previous benefice). He also helped out at Footscray and North Cray w. Ruxley, which needed some TLC.
I believe that he is now at Little Malvern, which is a truly delectable former priory church (I attended a service there in 2018), although not nearly on the scale of Wymondham.
I agree with you completely about booking tickets. A complete turn-off. Most churches never used it, and had dropped it by the latter part of 2020.
If you have a restriction on numbers, tickets is the only way to go, I’m afraid.
I have been attending worship services at Wymondham Abbey for a few weeks now. So far, I have found the vicar and everyone in the church to be perfectly pleasant.
I have not met the bishop. I have met a couple of people who have issues with the Abbey. I have no personal evidence so far that anyone on any side of this dispute is ‘bad’.
What I have noticed during my life in the church is that there are ‘different Christianities’ in circulation held by people with different values, different principles and different beliefs. This is the case within the Church of England.
I think that the reason for there not being more conflict within Christianity is that these conflicts are often sidestepped by people choosing to attend different churches.
That said, I don’t think that having every twist and turn of these disputes in the newspapers will give anyone want they really want or need.
I think that dialogue would be a good way forward. There may well be solutions to some of these disputes that can satisfy the criteria of both (or more) sides. We won’t know if we don’t try.
I do agree, it would be wonderful to find a positive way forward. I don’t think that the vicar is ready to do so at present. One look at the Abbey website sadly shows this. It seems like a public display of anger, in an inappropriate place.
It is great that the vicar has welcomed you, and I hope that you and any other new attendees will continue to benefit from the pleasant and welcoming side of her nature, never having to experience the negativity that has arisen in her relationship with so many others over time. Hopefully things have moved on in that respect.
Wymondham Abbey is a beautiful building, we are lucky in the town to be blessed with its presence. I hope and pray that it will once again be the centre of a thriving Christian community.
What’s an outsider to think, coming across this story in the national press? For some their reaction will be indifference “ who cares?” For others it will be resignation: here goes another churchy spat, this time bossy vic versus beastly bish. Other reactions could ensue, including guilty prurience of someone else’s drama.
As a Christian, I’m nervous about the appearance of this dispute. It seems tawdry almost. It’s hardly a good reflection on the Church, the Body of Christ. But I’m well aware that Press is often the only way to get justice, albeit a precarious route.
I’m sure Froghole is insightful about this being a microcosm of church life, if I’ve understood him correctly, a small snapshot representative of common issues across the board.
I’m also nervous about taking sides, although it’s almost humanly impossible to avoid this. When we do, we would do well to have the grace to admit we were mistaken, should emerging evidence arise to challenge our initial beliefs.
In truth right or wrong is almost never unilateral. Indeed in asserting our side is 100% in the right, we almost invariably betray our blinkered bias.
No one has yet given the Bishop a reference. I knew him, a bit, a few years ago. ‘Immoral and self serving’ – criticisms fired at him by the vicar – are not the words I would ever use to describe him. From what I read, his efforts to bring about reconciliation have been fair and thoughtful. I hope that will ultimately be recognised by all.
Bishop Graham has made every attempt to resolve this situation. He has been inundated with letters since Catherine became the Vicar in 2017. As the press have reported, the matters at the Abbey have taken up an immense amount of his time. I have met Bishop Graham and found him someone who is determined to ‘act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with his God’. He is a man of integrity and faith who wishes to see this situation at the Abbey resolved as soon as possible for the good of the local and worshipping community. He certainly does not deserve the appalling comments that have been posted about him and other members of the Diocese of Norwich.
The people of Nazeing parish church, Essex where Catherine Relf-Pennington was once the incumbent would surely agree with your judgement, Stephen.