The Christ Church Oxford saga is one that has come to occupy more and more column inches in the Press and the blogosphere. In summary, it concerns the attempts by a group of dons (or Students as they are called) to remove their head of College, Dean Martyn Percy. Let me first declare a personal interest. I have known Martyn on and off for 25 years since he helped me with a writing project back in the 90s. But what I write here has nothing whatever to do with this passing acquaintance. I also have no inside information about the nature of the charges that are being brought against him. This appears to be something I have in common with Martyn himself as he professes ignorance about what might be going at the heart of the complaint.
My wanting to write this blog commentary is linked to what I know about the anomalous nature of the post of the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. As anyone connected with Oxford knows, the head of arguably the most prestigious of the Oxford colleges is also the Dean of the Cathedral of the Diocese. He is expected to oversee two areas of governance, that of a working Cathedral and a powerful wealthy Oxford college. On the face of it, it would appear to be a near impossible task. The Cathedral part of the post demands a people person, a good manager and someone with a more than basic knowledge of music and liturgy. The College part of the job requires someone who is a politician as well as a competent academic, one who can retain the respect of members of the academic teaching staff. To describe this latter group as academic heavyweights would hardly do justice to their years of experience. Ancient statutes and customs will have given them a sense of privilege and entitlement, well used to exercising power. Each one of them is also a survivor of a long battle to climb up the ranks of academia. The academic world is one where it can be truly said, ‘Many are called but few are chosen’.
The lower echelons of the academic world are littered with individuals who have PhDs but no prospect of a job teaching in a university. There are now, it seems, simply not enough jobs to go round. Those who have ‘made it’ into a tenured post are still challenged by a frantic need to publish in order to enhance their reputation for the next promotion. If, by any chance, an academic aspirant slips off the ladder, even for a brief period, he/she finds it hard to return. There are just too many unread articles in their specialism for them to be able to catch up. Also, moving away from easy access to university libraries is another way of losing connection with the rarefied world of academic respectability.
The number of clergy in the Church of England who have successfully achieved academic ambition alongside administrative/pastoral duties is not very large. A number do obtain doctorates and write books during their ministry but few if any of them are equipped to take on a university teaching role. Even within theology where the Church might be expected to have some ownership, the university system is simply too demanding to use those who have had roles outside the universities. Martyn himself has pointed out the fact that there are now no members of the House of Bishops who have ever taught theology at a major university. His own role as an academically qualified university teacher, as well as working within an Anglican institution such as a cathedral makes him a unique figure in the church.
If the Tribunal at Christ Church does find Martyn guilty and removes him from office, what will be the future? The Statutes require that a Dean who is appointed be an individual in Holy Orders. The field of potential successors must be very small. Let us suppose (and this might be generous) that there are three people who have sufficient academic distinction and experience of the Church to take on Martyn’s role as Christ Church Dean. This potential field would rapidly shrink to zero, once the story of bullying and stress-inducing behaviour leading up to the Tribunal becomes more widely known. Could it be that the complainants are hoping for this scenario to be played out? There may well be in this whole episode a complicated but hidden agenda of removing the Church of England out of the governance of the College. The Church would then be faced with appointing a Dean who, absurdly, was unable to live next to his Cathedral.
Martyn’s situation is then a cause of concern for the entire Church of England. It is hard to see how the status quo will ever return if Martyn is ousted. If the Head of Christ Church Oxford is not a member of the ordained clergy, then the Church of England will have a quite different relationship to one of its cathedrals. There will be an impossibly messy and confused situation. All the assumptions from the past, when church/secular institutions could co-exist seamlessly, may be torn down by this power grab against the Dean of the college.
Martyn Percy is a controversial figure. I happen to admire him not only from personal acquaintance but because he is on board with the concerns of this blog over the support of survivors. Even if I did not respect his position, it still seems of vital importance to call for the church at large to back him strongly. His possible removal will unravel one important, even vital, link between academic critical theology and the Church. The wider Church desperately needs Martyn for his theological skills and insights. He stands for a link between the world of academically rigorous thinking and the concerns of the Church. If that link is broken, the Church will be the poorer for it.
Martyn Percy’s role in the withdrawal of Philip North from his nomination to the See of Sheffield will make some elements of the misogynistic strand of the Church of England very glad to see his downfall. In general I agree, Stephen, with your assessment of the position and its implications. As with all matters of this sort it is hard to know how to respond without some awareness of the charge against him.
Christ Church is not only the cathedral, but also the college chapel, and part of the college buildings. I suppose it’s theoretically possible for the college to change its statutes so that the cathedral dean is no longer the college head, but it really is difficult to see how the deanship could be separated from the college chapel and chaplaincy.
To be honest Christ Church isn’t an ideal cathedral: it’s small and broken up by having the choir and much of the seating in an enclosed section of rows facing each other. That’s lovely for evensong, but tricky for communion and big services like ordinations. But the building is historic and integral to Oxford diocese’s history, and I’m sure they won’t want to give it up.
I really hope this situation is resolved satisfactorily and soon.
Good people get crucified. Just been reading Mark’s version of the gospel journey and the parallels are striking.
Sometimes actions like this rebound.
It may be that the ethos of Christ Church and its governance will be put under scrutiny as much as the record of the Dean, with results that they will not welcome.
I wish him and his family well at this difficult time.
https://modernchurch.org.uk/news/1401-can-the-dons-sack-their-dean-an-interview-with-oxford-expert-gillian-evans-on-martyn-percy-s-predicament This is a link to an interview about Martyn’s predicament. It gives details about the process but no more about the subject of the complaint
Sad to say, some of the answers given in that interview simply do not correspond to the factual provisions of the Christ Church Statutes (2016) published on the Christ Church website and last amended, I think in 2015. There is an appeal procedure open to the Dean, should he need one; that scenario may not arise. I won’t repeat them here, but there is a series of links to the relevant parts of the Statute on the current ‘Thinking Anglicans’ threads.
I will not comment on the current case (I am a former member of Christ Church), but I would note that when college statutes were revised from 1854/56 fellowships were soon laicised to the point where there was often only one or two remaining fellows in orders; clerical control of headships, save at Merton and Trinity Hall, lasted until 1882 (if I remember), and one of the excuses given for dropping the monopoly was the increasing scarcity of eligible ordained fellows. Surprisingly, Trinity Hall now has a clerical head.
There are now only a tiny number of suitable ordained academics, and no dean since Henry Chadwick has been elected to the British Academy, although Eric Heaton was an able Hebraist and John Drury has a reputation as a commentator and author. In the 1980s there was a move to laicise the deanery because of the fear that Mrs Thatcher might appoint Edward Norman, and the wardenship of Keble had also been secularised. The Hebrew chair had been secularised in 1959 when Cuthbert Simpson was made dean (the chief agitator was Godfrey Driver, ironically the son of a clerical holder of the chair, whilst the first two incumbents following secularisation were Church of Scotland ministers). The ecclesiastical history chair was laicised after the death of Peter Hinchliff in 1995 (being succeeded by Henry Mayr-Harting, who is RC), although the current incumbent, Sarah Foot, has just taken orders. The Lady Margaret chair, the oldest of all, was laicised in 2015.
I do think this ‘scandal’ will embolden those who think it is now time to laicise the deanery. There are precedents for lay deans elsewhere in the Church of England, and there is no reason why the spiritual functions of the dean could not be performed by the sub-dean if a future dean were not in orders or even Christian. I should add that some of the holders of the laicised canonries have arguably been no less assiduous attendees at cathedral services than their clerical colleagues. It is increasingly frustrating that Christ Church has to make do with such a small pool of eligible talent for its head of house.
Thank you Froghole for your very well informed comment. If Christ Church were to be laicised, that would in my view be a cause of intellectual impoverishment to the Church as well as causing problems to the running of the Diocese of Oxford. I am relieved that you agree with me that the system at present is not throwing up men/women of the right calibre. I had worried that someone much more in the know was going to say that this assessment of the intellectual paucity of the C/E was off the mark. I revere the memory of Henry Chadwick. His lectures were spell-binding. I have no idea how well he got on with the other ‘Students’ but he was much respected by those he taught and lectured.
I think he was highly respected by the rest of the governing body (he was by no means an unknown quantity, having already held a stall since 1959). However, he was respected for his profound scholarship (he would get through 30 books a week, and about 200 a year on Augustine alone), his prodigious musical talent (in an institution where such gifts were held in especial esteem) and his natural courtesy, but not for his gifts as a leader. He has been described to me as a poor chair of committees and a chronic fence-sitter, which infuriated many. The earthy humour of Simpson and the determination of Heaton were rather preferred by comparison.
You write about the intellectual impoverishment of the Church. I rather fear that ship sailed in the third and fourth quarters of the nineteenth century. When dons had to take orders there was a happy admixture of religion and reason, and one imparted to the provinces when they took parochial cures in the gift of their colleges (usually on marriage). Following statute revision and the laicisation of fellowships (including at TCD) the scholar-parson became increasingly rare (Mandell Creighton complained that when he took orders at Merton everyone, including many of the fellows, presumed him a rogue). It is true that there was a gifted ‘rookery’ at Christ Church even into the 1970s (with the likes of Wiles, Macquarrie, McManners, Demnant, Baelz, etc.), but that is largely past. Since the war it has become decreasingly common for reputable theologians to take orders; for example, the long-serving in-house theological tutor, Mark Edwards (a very able patrologist) is not. They do not take orders, because taking orders may be seen by many academics as unnecessary and/or intellectually disreputable.
The restriction of the deanery to Anglican clerics is, from a practical perspective, an effective bar to scientists and almost the entire academic community (compare the deans of Christ Church with the masters of its sister college at Cambridge, Trinity, a number of whom were/are Nobel laureates). The present incumbent and his predecessor are, essentially, sociologists of religion (and it would be a real push to assert that Christopher Lewis is a heavyweight academic, though he is a fine sportsman, and his naval tailoring was admired). I suspect the clerical monopoly of the deanery is increasingly untenable and its loss, for all that it would be regrettable, would make little difference to the Church.
Christ Church is effectively run by the dean and the two censors (and past censors). Prior to the 1867 Act it was a dictatorship of the dean and chapter. No more (see Judith Curthoys’ history, ‘The Cardinal’s College’ (2015) and, above all, EGW Bill and JFA Mason ‘Christ Church and Reform: 1850-1867’ (1970).
Whilst making no comment about Christ Church, I note simply that there are distinguished academics who are priests but not academic theologians. John Polkinghorne us a highly distinguished academic, ordained a priest and subsequently President (ie head of house) of Queens’ College Cambridge.
Let us assume that a fellowship of the Royal Society or of the British Academy is a reasonable, if often arbitrary, marker of academic distinction. I believe that, at present, there are two clerical FRSs (and John Polkinghorne is 88). The number of clerical FBAs is at a record low, and almost all of them are of pensionable age. This is despite the fact that there are considerably more fellows of both societies than almost ever before. Since the death in 1918 of the last clerical master of Trinity (H M Butler) every master save his great-nephew, Rab, has been FRS or FBA. Since that same point, Christ Church has had no FRS as head and only one FBA (Chadwick), although H J White was a very distinguished scholar (patron of HFD Sparks) and Cuthbert Simpson was a respectable Hebraist. Nine masters of Trinity have been OM or CH since 1918; none at Christ Church. Six have been Nobel laureates at Trinity since that date (or five if you think that the economics prize is not a Nobel); Christ Church has had none. I mention Trinity as a comparator because it is Christ Church’s ‘sister’ foundation.
There simply aren’t anything like enough academics of repute in orders to constitute a decent talent pool. The abolition of clerical fellowships and headships in the nineteenth century (leaving aside the single fellowships tied to chaplaincies and the office of dean of chapel or the strange, though now defunct, survivals at Keble, Oriel, Pembroke and St Peter’s at Oxford and St Catharine’s and Selwyn at Cambridge) was a disaster for the Church – a far greater disaster than many of the reformers realised at the time. Where the colleges led, the schools followed, so the disappearance of the clerical don resulted in the progressive disappearance of the clerical schoolmaster. The Church was, by degrees, denuded of intellectual talent. These changes coincided with the long agricultural depression which eviscerated clerical incomes, meaning that ever less people of ability took orders with the aim of entering parish ministry. They will not come back, barring a miracle.
Froghole, your grasp of this subject is truly impressive.
However, I’m not convinced that academic superstars make the best leaders and managers. In fact, it might be best to let them focus on their academic specialities rather than distracting them with management tasks. The two take very different mindsets, and management has become more and more of a speciality in itself.
Leaders need to be people who can see the big picture, but distinguished academics often earn their plaudits by narrowing their focus so that they know everything there is to know within a very narrow range. Some people can combine both abilities, but not many. Neither does academic ability necessarily imply a well-rounded personality and emotional maturity – which is why spats among academics can be so frequent and nasty. It’s as well that most of them don’t become as public as the present one at Christ Church.
So I agree that there should be a certain standard of education among the clergy, and the Church does need some great minds. But I don’t think those great minds necessarily need to be among the ordained. Still less do they need to be in parish ministry – their gifts can be quite unsuited to that.
Is Christ Church Cathedral owned by the college, or by the diocese? If the latter. surely the diocese would maintain the right to appoint, or have a part in appointing, its dean? If the college wanted a secular head it could then appoint a Master or Warden as other colleges do (or a Mistress?)
If the cathedral is owned by the college and it wanted to become more secular, where would that leave the diocese? Dorchester Abbey would in some ways make a better cathedral, but the diocese won’t want to let go of Christ Church.
And if ownership is shared, then the legal situation would indeed be very complicated. Looks like developments will bear watching.
There is no distinction between cathedral and college. It is never ‘Christ Church College’ because the college is the cathedral and vice versa; it might be better to say that the college is the cathedral. The deanery is in the gift of the crown, although the governing body now has much more of a say.
I do not see why any change to the status of the deanery would affect the position of the cathedral.
The diocese has no say in the administration of the cathedral, although the archdeacon is a residentiary canon (as were the suffragan bishops of Dorchester for a while), and there has been a trend for appointing the DDO to a stall. There were moments in the seventeenth century when bishops were appointed to the deanery, but that was because the bishopric was, like all Henrician sees, pitifully endowed.
A revived diocese of Dorchester might be a possibility, but a remote one since it is only a village.
I wasn’t thinking of a diocese of Dorchester; simply that Dorchester Abbey would make a better cathedral as a building. If the diocese doesn’t own or share the ownership of the cathedral and has no say in its running, that is quite an anomaly for the Church of England. If the deanery were laicised that would make the cathedral even more remote from the diocese whose mother church it is. It doesn’t seem a very satisfactory arrangement, from the Church’s point of view.
However, interesting as this is, it doesn’t help those who are caught in the middle of what seems a messy set-up. I hope for Martyn’s sake that this does not drag on for much longer, and that he is exonerated.
@Froghole, I remember your commenting from CiF. It’s been a while. Good to read your contributions here.
Very many thanks, English Athena. I much appreciate your comments on this excellent site. I rarely comment on CiF, because it is not always the most agreeable forum.
There are two closed churches within walking distance of where I live. One now houses a wines and spirits importer, and the other was demolished and turned into housing.
I guarantee each closed church has a history of power grabs and a record of man’s inhumanity to (wo)man.
Of course few churches would match the architectural quality and intellectual supremacy of Christ Church. Indeed the rather bland (in my opinion) demolished building near me passed away with little mourning, but that’s not the point. Worshipping community was lost. Christ’s church was replaced by Mamon. They lost sight of what they were there for.
Our fascination and deference to the detail of ecclesiastical history is valuable of course, but let’s not forget the bigger picture. The Church of England is in decline:
http://davidkeen.blogspot.com/2018/11/church-of-england-attendance-stats-2017.html
An increasingly unsympathetic society can rightly criticise us for behaving badly. Whilst I fully accept that the higher echelons of Society are intertwined with the Church, those bonds are weakening with every exposed mistake.
Wider society’s toleration for what it increasingly regards as, at best, an irrelevance must surely be in question. It will undoubtedly answer its questions with audit. And tax.
This subject has been debated at great length in two threads on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website.
Sadly, there has been much misunderstanding, speculation and little, if any, consideration by the public media of the Christ Church Statutes (2006) which set out in the clearest language the procedure for ‘Removal of the Dean from Office’.
The procedure is initiated by the (College) Governing Body, but the (Cathedral) Chapter can dissent and apply a virtual veto. Both bodies must agree to an independent tribunal (with members of the Chapter and the Governing Body sitting with the independent chairman). If the complaint is upheld, it is the Governing Body which removes the Dean from office. There is an appeal procedure. Final appeal would be to HM the Queen as Visitor.
As to property matters, the 2006 Statute reserves to the Dean and Chapter (to the exclusion of the Governing Body) all powers in respect of:
(i) the Cathedral Church and its fabric and appurtenances, including the Chapter House; and
(ii) [music and liturgy matters] … …
(iii) the residentiary houses at the date of these Statutes assigned for occupation by the Dean and the Canons together with Cloister House.”
In the interests of accuracy, the Christ Church website lists the Christ Church Statutes (2016). This may be the publication date. They were originally made in 2010 (not 2006 as I stated earlier), and have since been revised twice, in all cases authorised by Her Majesty in her Privy Council.
You say that this has come to occupy “more and more column inches in the Press and the blogosphere.” Actually, at a time when it is almost impossible to keep things out of the Press, and at a time when “sources” leak anything and everything, there us something almost sinister about how little coverage this is getting and how little detail is emerging. It is almost as if there were very powerful forces in play to protect the reputation of Christ Church at all costs, regardless of the impact on Martyn Percy and his family. Even in this thread, how easy it has been to ignore Professor Percy’s plight and instead indulge in esoteric explorations that are of great interest, I agree, but go no further to shaming the “Students” into doing the right thing.
I agree Andrew about the way that information has dried up. You may well be right that this is another example of an institution in self-protect mode. This is one of the themes of the blog that has emerged recently that the institution is very powerful vis a vis the individual. The problem is that as some of the above contributors made clear, the statutes are very complex, making the process messy and incredibly stressful for the family. The whole thing has a bad odour but in the absence of new information which could move the discussion on, there is nothing that can be added at this juncture. I was indeed nervous at ever attempting a post on the topic. I think it was relevant to the blog as you are also suggesting that this dispute is about power. That is at the heart of what this blog is all about.
It’s almost as if a D Notice had been slapped on it. Hmmm. But even in the absence of information, provided there’s nothing defamatory, one can stir the waters so the rubbish comes to the surface and is not allowed to subside unseen?
Albeit that this is an internal independent enquiry (that appears to mean an internal procedure of the ‘House’, the ‘independence’ being provided by the chairman) it has a quasi-judicial status and, to reassure everyone, it must follow the rules of natural justice. We are not hearing any details as the proceedings are sub-judice.
I believe my first post (22 November, above) correctly sets out the procedure in potted form, and to stress, yet again, that the Dean has a right of appeal, if and when needed.
I see Martyn’s support fund has reached £58,790 out of the £60K sought. I hope that Christ Church has taken note that Martyn has a lot of support out there.
One feature of the first report was that meetings had been changed or rearranged at short notice, hence increasing legal costs. It’s not only the financial aspect, of course, of booking a barrister’s time and then finding it not needed and having to re-book. It’s also very wearing emotionally and psychologically. A low-down trick. Of course that could just be disorganisation, but it’s callous (at best) and puts CC in a bad light either way. I hope they’ve stopped doing that since attention was drawn to it.
From the student recruitment point of view, who would opt for Christ Church with such an unhappy atmosphere there? Especially if they were hoping to get involved in the chapel or choir.
And prospective students will be going for interviews in early December.
Might there be ordinary people who are concerned about the governance of the college and what is happening to Martyn Percy to stand outside Christ Church to alert them (and their parents) to the problems and unhappiness there?
It would be a difficult balance to strike between alerting them without unduly unsettling them on an important day in their lives, but if my child had applied there I would want us to know.
One might ask why the student population, usually so vocal in the face of injustice, is not making its voice heard, and why the Oxford Mail isn’t rumbling away at it. If I didn’t know Martyn personally I might indeed think it was a media invention, but clearly it is not. My fear is that £60k, £90k £120k or whatever will always be insufficient because CC will always have more! Apart from the fundraising, therefore, perhaps there is a need for a guerrilla media campaign to up the non-existent column inches
This account might interest you. http://cherwell.org/2018/11/21/christ-church-dean-suspended-over-salary-row/
There doesn’t seem to be anything more recent though.
Right or wrong is no longer enough, if it ever were, to ensure the enduring attention of the great British public.
Successful campaigns to right wrongs take many thousands of hours of concerted and relentless effort.
Efforts must me directed accurately. This includes the appropriate use of social media. Which means employing (I.e. paying) people who understand its curious alchemy. Few people do.
For example big companies have a media budget. Some waste that money on crass and ineffective ideas. Others are successful. It’s not money per se.
A month ago a boy bullied a migrant. Yesterday the video ‘went viral’. Millions watched. £80,000 was raised in one day by an outraged society. The police acted. The school did too. Which came first?
Friday’s edition of the Church Times tells us that
‘THE Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Revd Steven Croft, has been appointed to a panel of independent advisers who will inform the first Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, the Digital Secretary, Jeremy Wright, confirmed on Tuesday.’
Which is strange, given that Bp. Croft is under police investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, following allegations that he failed to act on disclosures of child sexual abuse. The case has received a lot of media attention and Bp. Croft’s own media statements on it are contradictory – to put it nicely. What exactly does it take to make an impact?
When I was at school, occasionally if a teacher was running out of energy, he would get us to swap papers with a neighbour.
We would mark each other’s homework.
Needless to say, and to avoid what otherwise would often prove to be an assault (punishment), there was a tacit agreement mutually to inflate marks. The system was ineffective in improving learning or discipline.
Sound familiar?
Quite Janet!
There’s a post showing on the list for this blog by Matt Ineson that isn’t showing.