The departure, through ‘retirement’, of the Bishop of Winchester, is proving to be a dramatic, even traumatic, event in the life of the Diocese. The Anglican Church has always proved well able to mark in a liturgical way a range of events, from the launching of a nuclear submarine to the start of a local hunting season. The recent final service of Bishop Tim Dakin in Winchester Cathedral proved to be a liturgical challenge for those working out how to commemorate a significant moment in the life of a Cathedral and Diocese. Somehow, they were required to do at least two things. There was first the need to note the end of a ten-year episcopal ministry, marked, by all accounts, by extreme stress and unhappiness for many. At the same time the solemnity and dignity of the cathedral setting required that the commemoration was done in a way that did not offend or directly confront anyone with accusations of blame.
What exactly was being marked at evensong on Saturday January 29th when +Dakin laid his bishop’s crosier on the altar and, with high emotion, spoke the Covenant Prayer of John Wesley? I am no longer mine but yours …..let me be employed for you or cast aside… The prayer is one about vocation and surrender for the service of others, including the possibility that the one using the prayer could be let go/dismissed when the need for their services comes to an end. This latter realisation must have been particularly hard for +Dakin to bear. His style of theology and administration had always breathed the supremely confident stance of the evangelical believer who claims to know the will of God at all times. This was proving now not to be true and, because of this loss of control, there was a strong sense of dissonance in his voice. The voice cracked and broke as +Dakin read the words and we wondered whether he could reach the end. The whole episode was a kind of drama and will be pondered by many for what it revealed about the Bishop’s inner state of mind. The form of this part of the service was probably brought together by +Dakin, assisted by the Cathedral Canon with responsibility for liturgy. Alongside this final part of the service, we had listened to the sermon by the preacher, Professor Elisabeth Stuart. She skilfully managed to reveal what the service at its heart was about. It was the end of a season of darkness, now being banished by the light. +Tim was leaving us ….
Winchester is some 300+ miles from where I live, and so I have not had any access to direct sources of information about what people have been saying about the ministry of +Dakin over the past ten years. I have to evaluate what has been going on from publicly available material. This is, in one way, an advantage for me in my role as a commentator. If I had been closer to the action, it would have been hard not to be drawn in to support the detractors or supporters of the Bishop. As with the Wymondham situation, I try very hard to see the problems in an institution from both sides. Here it has, however, proved extremely difficult to find a coherent narrative on which build a convincing defence of the Bishop. The videos of him provided by Youtube give us a strong sense of his rhetorical/theological style. As someone who is sensitised to the use of power in church settings, I found the public speaking demonstrations by the Bishop uncomfortable to watch. There was never, to judge from his style of speaking, any obvious space for any kind of dialogue with another theological position. Rather, the theological vision of +Dakin, particularly as revealed by his on-line performances, felt like a tank driving relentlessly forward, flattening anything or anyone who did not agree. When I learned that Dakin’s vision was that mission should dominate everything undertaken by the diocese, including ministerial training, it set off a shudder inside me. I felt a pang of sympathy for all those individuals in the Diocese brought up to worship in the pastorally aware version of Anglicanism that I and many others still value. A similar feeling happened inside me when I first learned about a small cluster of parishes in the Anglican Sydney diocese in Australia. I believe they are called surplice parishes because they retain some traditional marks of Anglicanism in a sea of parishes overseen by Moore College conservatively trained clergy. All these conservative parishes practise their fundamentalist/complementarian outlook with scant interest for the wider traditions of Anglicanism. One hopes the small cohort of traditionally run Anglican parishes will survive, in spite of successive Archbishops of Sydney insisting that only Moore College alumni can be appointed to serve the parishes of the diocese. Was +Dakin on the way to doing something similar in the Winchester diocese?
One single inconvertible fact about +Dakin’s time as Bishop is that there are currently quite a number of wounded survivors of an abrasive episcopal pastoral ministry. I have no access to actual names or situations, but there seems to be a consensus on this point among all those who comment on the Winchester situation. Cases of bullying, wherever they occur, have a contagious effect. One person’s bullying can cause a collapse of morale in a family, a parish or an entire deanery. The would-be complainants at the Winchester Diocesan Synod last June, knew from their personal acquaintance, some of these traumatised individuals in the diocese. The individual cases of the traumatised were not only those directly affected by the bully’s actions, but others who knew about them. If we leave to one side all the other financial and administrative issues which seem to have played a part in the complaints against the Bishop, we still have this issue of damage and hurt. How does one deal with such things? In the Winchester situation, the moment for reconciliation between perpetrator and victims seems to have long passed. The climax of the service, combining the powerful words of Wesley and the obvious distress of the reader were indeed moving to the hearer. What was really going on for +Dakin? Were we listening to words that convey his deep regret for actions that have caused so much hurt? Quite possibly this liturgical moment in front of the high altar of Winchester was indeed an attempt at such contrition. It may of course have been equally an attempt to use high emotion to win over, even now, members of the Diocese that had been increasingly alienated from his ministry over the years. Another possibility is that the tears were of incomprehension and personal pain. Were the tears, in short, uttered for him or for the many he has wounded by his harmful ministry? The drama of the farewell may have been a combination and confusion of all three. Each reader is invited, after watching the event, to make their own assessment of what was really going on at this point in the service. There are unlikely to be any correct answers.
Looking at the whole episode that unfolded in Winchester last Saturday I am left to wonder whether anything can be lifted from the events of last Saturday and applied to the whole Church. In thinking about the tears shed by the Bishop, I am reminded of the sometimes intense emotional ambiance of reconciliation work undertaken by the Bridge Builders organisation. The Winchester event may have lacked many of the necessary ingredients that would achieve a successful reconciliation for those who have been abused sexually or spiritually. There were, however, some elements which might well play a part in such a liturgical/reconciliation process. Whatever the origin of the cracking voice and the tears that could not be held back, they do form part of a potential, as yet unwritten, future liturgy of remorse and contrition which might bring together those guilty of neglect and abuse and the abused. The early Christian fathers knew about the part of tears in the expression of remorse for sin. Somehow +Dakin’s action in front of the altar may, in fact, be his unwitting offering to the Church. He may be remembered, not for his numerous mission initiatives, but for this simple act of breaking down before the altar of his cathedral. In this act he may have been pointing us paradoxically to something that the whole Church desperately needs to discover and make its own.
I was in the Diocese until a few years ago. I wasn’t on the receiving end of bullying by the bishop himself, though I know a number of colleagues who were, including those hounded out of office. But I was a victim of the toxic culture that the Bishop set in the diocese. From the Senior Staff to the “support” structures there was an institutional dislike of clergy and parish. The tone was set from the top.
Did the Bishop have a moment of remorse on Sunday? Perhaps. I hope so. But from what I know of him, I suspect not. I’m still not sure he entirely understands what the problem that led him here is.
The evensong had actually been planned as the culmination of the Girls’ Choir Open Day. I wonder what they and their families made of this uncomfortable drama at the conclusion of their service? It was certainly a sombre ending to their day.
Very well said.
I’m afraid I have little doubt that the tears were of incomprehension and personal pain. I am not sure if Tim Dakin has ANY understanding of the impact of his ministry in Winchester Diocese. He is the one, after all, who asked his Diocesan Synod to feel sorry for him for the decisions he was making in laying off clergy.
I pray that the lessons learned from the Dakin experience will be enacted across the entire church and not left to rot on a shelf.
I think it significant that Bishop Dakin spun out the drama, and the focus on himself, for what felt an agonisingly long time. This seemed unfair to the girls’ choir whose day it was, and certainly not what would be expected in an act of contrition. It was striking, too, that having so dramatically laid his crosier on the altar, Bishop Dakin had a verger standing by with another crosier for him to take up for the blessing.
Dean Ogle stated at the start that the Bishop would lay down the ceremonial crozier and be given a plain one.
He did indeed ensure the focus was on him, as he did from day one in Winchester. It was all about ‘Tim Dakin, the brand’.
Oh dear. I don’t know the man, and my family worship in Winchester Diocese. And I’m a survivor of bullying. But, for all that, and what has been said above, he was obviously upset, and I’m sorry. And he must have some courage. Let’s let him go, and wish those who may have been his victims well in the future.
People with personality traits such as Dakin has been alleged to possess are often arch-manipulators and accomplished actors.
That was a characteristically thoughtful piece, Stephen.
The video seems ro have disappeared from the Cathedral website as far as I can make out. All other e’songs are there either side of 29th. Anybody got another link?
It was linked today by Peter Owen on the Thinking Anglicans thread ‘Episcopal arrangements for Winchester Diocese’ and it worked at the time. That thread is dated 24th January, and you have to scroll considerably down the page to find it.
Thank you Mr. W, I found it. It is the same as the one above here. The link does no longer work as the video on the YouTube channel of the Cathedral for that event has been made ‘private’ and is no longer available on the platform which live streamed it unlike all other services. It appears the Cathedral or Diocese had second thoughts. Almost makes one paranoid.
I think you can be assured, James, that the spin doctors at Luther Pendragon will not have wanted any underminging of The Brand and requested the Cathedral to remove it – probably on instruction from Dakin himself. After all, there is no room for the admission of failure or vulnerability in the theological construct of Tim Dakin. That is something imposed on others who have outlived their usefulness.
From Stephen Mourant (via editor)
As one closely involved over last 17 years in Winchester diocese, seeing first-hand the devastating effect of sacking noble, good people, because they weren’t his appointees, of being a Channel Islander who knows the detailed back story about the events leading to them now being part of another diocese, of seeing the number of clergy reduce from 174 in 2011 to 115 in 2021(including the loss of the Channel Islands clergy), being one of the sponsors of the motion of no confidence in the diocesan bishop in 2021, and having a spouse who had to walk out from her dream job ( which she did extremely well) for her own sanity of working alongside Mr Dakin, Saturday evening was a relief at last that he has gone.
We wait to see whether evidence provided to Lambeth Palace from a number of people about his abuse of power will be acted upon, or whether it will be buried by the wagons that encircle the elite.
We wait to see if those who were so mistreated will ever get an unambiguous apology, and that the power grab by a measure of deception by Mr Dakin from the diocesan synod, by changing the rules of governance and thereby emasculating scrutiny and accountability, will be properly restored to the people who are the real diocese, not the power group who tried to control everything and impose it without proper debate.
Those who pay the bills want to know how the money is spent and want to be a part of the decision making process, instead of being treated as children who don’t know anything…. No wonder many parishes have either reduced or stopped paying parish share because their clergy have been dispossessed… whilst the Chief Executive (on £90K+ p.a.) got a payoff when he resigned at the end of September 2021 (the result of him realising some of us were not prepared to be fobbed off by untruths.)
The video has probably been removed because Someone didn’t want their humiliation out there online.
I dont know Mr Mourant, but I agree with Stephen’s heartfelt post. As someone who was kicked when he was down in the Diocese, I am glad he is gone, but not glad in the way he went. It would be interesting to see if for all his strategy and plans, and “analysis paralysis”, whether he left a Diocese which had grown numerically and in depth as a result of his leadership?
And taking the video down, and with no mention of anything on the Diocesan Website (he is still Lord Bishop for another 3 days) – is woeful, churlish, and many other things. Perhaps the final alleged NDA was with the Bishop himself?!!!
Many thanks, and I am sorry to read of your experiences. I had more or less finished my worship tour of the diocese by 2016 (the ruin of Ropley – then part of a troubled benefice – aside), and the number of ‘flourishing’ parishes (i.e., churches with good levels of attendance and good age distributions) seemed vanishingly small: this was true of the whole county, which comprises three dioceses. If I were to draw a line between, say, Bournemouth and Yateley, there were only about 3 or 4 ‘healthy’ churches, and perhaps not even as many if I were to draw the line in any other direction.
Given the former wealth of the diocese, the great affluence of most of Hampshire, and the historic weakness of rival denominations, this was telling.
Granted the questions surrounding the appointment of Dr Dakin, I wonder whether it was felt necessary at the time of the last CNC to appoint someone with supposed ‘missionary’ experience to offset this dramatic decline in what ought to be Anglican ‘heartland’ territory.
However, even by 2014 I recall having a long and bleak conversation with a very intelligent priest (who had previously had a high powered career) in the north-west of the diocese, who remarked that the situation was pretty dire and that the diocese was careening in entirely the wrong direction. The question is whether Winchester is especially unique in this regard, as I have had similar conversations with clergy and parish officers in other parts of the country.
Thank you Stephen for your many articles of interest – we in Sydney are ‘Stole Parishes’ – https://www.anglicanstogether.org/
Taking the video down, if that’s the case, is rather worse than leaving it up. It tends to suggest observations made were rather close to the mark.
Presenting one image of ourselves, as we would like others best to see us, carries the risk that they will see something completely different.
Attempts to remove material we posted from the internet are understandable of course, but the action of redaction is becoming pathognomonic of cover-up.
Normally I would e-mail the Dean to ask why the video has been made private, however for good reasons I am not able to at the moment.
I suspect a question at Diocesan Synod regarding the Chief Exec’s payoff might be worthwhile, but may not get very far. It suggests he was asked and paid to leave, rather than simply resigning. If he had simply resigned, would he still have received a payoff?
I gather Professor Elizabeth Stuart’s sermon was an apt and sensitive one well matched to a difficult situation. A pity not to hear or read that
It was an outstanding sermon, well worth hearing. Finely tuned to the bishop’s swan song, though perhaps a little less so for the Girls’ Choir Open Day. I do feel that the girls got a raw deal, with all the attention being focused on the bishop, and the video of their evensong being deleted.
As one form or style of leadership comes to an end the in the diocese of Winchester people have in one regard to wait for a new one to begin as really all the current team can do is hold things together until a new diocesan bishop is appointed. For the sake of the diocese let us hope it is not as long as some people suggest although knowing the speed of the Church of England it probably will be.
The diocese needs a bishop with a proven track record of episcopal pastoral care, a sensitive person with compassion and understanding who can bring people together. A good leader who involves others in the process and shares leadership with them. A person who is accountable for direction and actions taken.
Whatever views people have of Tim Dakin and what he did or did not do, watching Evensong from Winchester Cathedral last Saturday [29th January] it was a very emotional occasion especially for Tim Dakin.
Those responsible for appointing Tim Dakin as Bishop of Winchester must share some of the blame/responsibility for what went wrong. Part of the problem is the process for appointing diocesan bishops in the Church of England and the secrecy surrounding it. Whilst the problems in Winchester might have been extreme, it is not the first diocese to have challenges with a diocesan bishop.
In other Provinces, for instance Kenya, Canada and in the U.S.A candidates are known, and in some instances, they have to submit a statement on YouTube so people can view what the candidates’ priorities would be. It also enables people to feed into the process regarding candidates. Whilst this process in itself does not prevent challenges later on once an appointment has been made, at least it is a more open process in which people have shared in.
Whilst in the UK there are ‘open meetings’ in a vacant diocese with the Archbishops’ and the Prime Ministers Appointment Secretaries these are only about what people consider to be the needs of the diocese. Candidates are not known so comments regarding them cannot be shared.
If research had been undertaken with regard to the Winchester appointment, for instance with Church Army UK & East Africa and C,M.S I think there would have been information raising serious questions regarding the suitability of the candidate.
You raise some interesting points about the appointment process. The Diocesan reps at the time were stacked with evangelicals from the larger churches in what is a deeply rural and “conservative” diocese. But it is also worth noting that under the previous episcopacy of +Scott-Joynt; posts had been cut, there was no real leadership, and the whole place was descending into a rudderless mire. It was a bit like inheriting a school in special measures.
So what do you do.. you appoint someone to fix it! Someone who said all the right things about turning the ship around etc. However, what wasn’t taken into account (in hindsight) was the personality which was needed to do that. What they got was more of a dictator, rather than a leader to take everyone with him.
Many thanks for this, and your similar remarks on TA. I will not rake over the remarks/debates had on this site and elsewhere last year about Dr Dakin’s CNC. However, the general point you make about the need for more openness, and the termination of the vow of secrecy made by CNC members is very salutary.
At present, the attitude towards appointments is not unlike the old saw about sausage making: that it is probably best, when tasting a sausage, not to think of how it was made. That principle may suffice when the sausage tastes delectable, but not so much when it is rancid.
Episcopal appointments were relatively democratic in the early church (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/episcopal-elections-250-600-9780199207473?cc=us&lang=en&), but have become less so thanks to the intrusion of regalian rights.
The last serious review of the method of appointment occurred with the Archbishops’ Commission of 1964-66 (the Howick Commission), which reported in 1965. It was chaired by Lord Howick of Glendale who, as Sir Evelyn Baring, had presided over the brutal repression of the real or imagined Mau Mau ‘campaign’ as governor of Kenya, including the Hola camp and other notorious ‘Gestapo’ incidents; that such a man was given a Church appointment (still less the Garter) makes me shake my head. However, the Commission included some very erudite members, notably the very distinguished medievalist, E. F. Jacob (whose uncle, Edgar, and early influence was bishop of St Albans).
Essentially, Howick recommended that episcopal appointments continue along their pre-existing course, but that more allowance should be given to soundings made by local interests. Therefore, additional ingredients would be added to the sausage, but its preparation would continue behind closed doors. The Chadwick report of 1970 stated that the Church should have the preponderant voice in determining future appointments, as accepted by Callaghan in 1976, largely on Howick terms. The Van Straubanzee report of 1992 recommended that the prime minister cease to have any input whatsoever, a reform largely (but not wholly) accepted by Brown in 2007. The Perry report of 2001 recommended the retention of the post-1976 status quo absent minor tinkering.
Thus, what the prime minister and his/her patronage secretary used to do in private before 1976 was replaced by a CAC (CNC after 2001) which did much the same in private.
Yet since 1976 something very profound has changed. The entire burden of clergy finance, absent that of hierarchs, has fallen upon the laity via parish share, especially since 1995/97. Yes, the Church Commissioners still fund the bishops, but the dioceses are now overwhelmingly dependent on the laity for their incomes. The justification for ‘fixing’ episcopal appointments behind closed doors which might still have carried slight weight before 1995/97 no longer holds.
Perhaps it is now time to return to the custom of the early Church.
Ten to one you get Rosie
On 23rd August 2021, I wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and in that letter, I said:
No doubt you will be setting up a formal inquiry into the Winchester situation with the view to lessons being learnt. It would be good to know who will be chairing the inquiry and the terms of refence so I and others can feed into the process.
It was not until 12th October 2021 that I received a response from Bishop Tim Thornton, who I thought had retired at the end of September. He said to me:
‘I can assure you there will be a lessons learnt review in due course. The situation is still undoing in certain ways so it is not yet quite the right time to start such a Review. I know that Bishop Sarah who has been leading on these matters on behalf of the Archbishop will want to set up a review and am sure there will be opportunity for you to feed in to that.
You raise several questions in your letter to the Church Times and I do want to say that with regard to the issues you mention concerning the Archbishops Secretary for Appointments it is clear from all the paperwork and evidence that the proper process was carried out and there was nothing different about the process for Winchester compared to any other CNC process. Of course who people choose to act as referees and what those referees then write is a different issue altogether.’
Obviously, I agree It is true that candidates choose their own referees, however that does not preclude independent research by those who service the Crown Nominations Commission. As yet I have not heard of a review being set up. My concern is that any review should not only focus on the diocese of Winchester, it should also look at the appointment process for diocesan bishops.
Thank you Philip for this important contribution to the situation – we can only hope and pray that Someone gets hold of this and takes responsibility to do something about it : doing the proper homework before an appointment, asking the right questions of referees, and doing some digging is not the track record of many that I have seen over the last 38 years of ministry.
With regards to the CNC and diocesan Vacancy committee, I think there were some doubts but as I gather some candidates turned it down, he was the last and it was a case of either him or the whole process having to start all over again, so a risk was taken.
2023 is the earliest we were told because the CNC can only do a certain number at a time and there is quite a long list – and they usually work out in advance who will go when, so space out when they will do the enquiry of the people. When someone goes unexpectedly it throws out their diaries.
Lack of accountability of bishops to their synods and people is a very serious issue at this time – when will they learn to be servants of the people, not masters; to remember that their job is to find out what God is doing in each part of the vineyard, support the clergy and laity, and offer help where needed – NOT to come along and demand that everyone follows the latest “bishop fad” of how they are going to “lead the diocese”. The real leaders are the parish priests with their people – God save us from bishops who think they run their dioceses – they don’t.
Due to the secrecy surrounding these appointments it is hard to know the facts!
I had heard that Dakin was the only person approached.
When Michael Scott-Joint was appointed Bishop of Winchester himself said at the time that he knew he was not the first person to be approached. My understanding is that he was the fourth. Obviously, this cannot be confirmed due to the secrecy of the process which I have already mentioned. I remember a diocesan bishop telling me at the time, that during coffee breaks at House of Bishops meetings you avoided George Carey if he was coming in your direction as you knew he was going to ask you to consider Winchester. All this was following a former General Secretary of C.M.S having been Bishop of Winchester.
With regard to an appointment, it is hard to know why people are saying it will be towards the end of 2023 before a person is in post
The Crown Nomination Commission dates so far for this year are: Rochester 17th December 2012 & 27/28 January 2022, Bath & Wells 31st Jan & 28Feb/1 March, Liverpool 16th May & 21/22 June, and Newcastle 7th June & 18/19 July. Winchester should be the next.
Surely Winchester could put their profile together in the first half of this year and the C.N.C could meet in the autumn with a new bishop in post by Easter 2023.
Hi Philip, I can only report what we were told – I think it was either at the informal synod in September 2021 or the Clergy Briefing in late October – I think it may have been both – that there would not be anyone in post till 2023 – although processes can be got under way. But there is rather a lot of debris in the way, like the consequences of reorganising 141 parishes and facing the PCCs who have said clearly (and was quoted at the October clergy briefing by a senior layperson ) “Usually by now we have 89% of the Common Mission Fund (Parish share) paid in; we’ve only had 71% and parishes have said, “you’ve removed our vicar, we’re not paying.” The scandal of making 22 posts and dispossessing about 10 clergy, paying them off at £60K each, paid for by a grant from the Archbishop’s Council of over £500,000, instead of getting money to pay them to remain in post and to tide the diocese over until things returned to more normal times – whilst the Church Commissioners had an excess of income over expenditure of £537m in 2020 cannot be overlooked and brushed under the carpet, as well as the sale of more than 40 clergy houses, which has not even been debated or discussed at diocesan synod but handed as a fait accompli….
Trust in the episcopacy is not exactly high, especially following last year’s lies at the March Synod – which precipitated both the motion of no confidence and the resignation of three people at the centre – bishop, chief executive and bishop’s chaplain… so indeed someone with credibility, who does speak and live the truth, who actually cares about the clergy (who have been so abysmally treated in my view and experience) and who gets out of their hidey-hole and visits and prays with clergy and PCCs alike is going to be hard to find. But in God’s great wisdom and ability to supply what is needed, there’s someone out there whom He is preparing….
Angela Tilby has written about the service in the Church Times.
What has she said? I don’t have a sub to the Church Times, and I suspect others here may not have a sub either..
😀 .That it was good, and moving. I think you can read the odd article without subscribing.
You get two free articles a month, I think. So it’s worth finding out if an article is going to be worth one of your two freebies, before deciding whether to read it online.
The cutting is here – https://meikleriggs.co.uk/archive/CT3.jpg
Thanks for the link. From her comments, it appears Dakin lacked the emotional literacy Stephen refers to in: http://survivingchurch.org/2022/02/04/emotional-atrophy-a-problem-for-the-church/
Thank you.