Today, Saturday 26^th June, is proving to be a crunch day in the ongoing saga of Dakingate.  The Daily Mail has today taken its readers back to the facts of the breakdown between Bishop Tim Dakin and some of the clergy and people of the Winchester diocese.  We are reminded that one quarter of the diocesan Synod stand by their intention of passing a vote of no confidence in the bishop.  He has, according to reports, demoralised many clergy and squandered money on an epic scale.  Unusually for a diocesan bishop, +Dakin had himself appointed Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance and this fact has contributed to the dire straits in the current financial situation.  Much of the debilitating expenditure has been brought about by payments to departing clergy and others as part of confidentiality agreements.  The account now being put out is that, effectively, unhappy ex-employees had their silence bought by what were, in all but name, Non-Disclosure Agreements.

At the same time as the release of the Mail story is a detailed account by Gavin Ashenden on his personal blog.  His access to detail, notably around the events that took place in Africa in the early 90s, is very well informed.   I had heard, for example, that young Dakin had been turned down by the Church of England Bishops’ selection conference.  Ashenden has obtained inside knowledge of this, and he reports the detail that Dakin was referred to the so-called Aston scheme.  This was a method of deferring ordination on the grounds that a candidate was not ready and needed a period to be observed and supervised within a parish.  Among many new details, another remarkable disclosure in the well-researched Ashenden piece, is a description of the way that the young Dakin was supported all the way along his way to becoming a bishop.  He had the benefit of the patronage of well-connected friends, especially Lady Brentford. She had served in the role of Second Church Estates Commissioner as well as that of President of the Church Mission Society.  She was also a neighbour and friend of Archbishop Carey.  The adage that it is not what you know but who you know, seems to fit well in this context.

This blog cannot really add any new facts when another blogger, like Ashenden, is so well-resourced with information.  What my reflection here can do is to reframe the present crisis, looking at it in a somewhat different way.  One of the reasons for my taking such an interest in the Dakin story is because it is fundamentally a story about power.   In the first place we note the patronage that allowed Dakin to obtain a place of enormous influence in the Church of England.  The mechanics of his ascension through the ranks of promotion has now been largely explained by Ashenden’s account.  It is not a wholly honourable story.  The episode of the Dakins, father and son, manipulating things in Kenya with local bishops in the early 90s, no doubt aided by Dakin access to foreign donors, does not edify.  Taken together these facts, if true, show us a somewhat seamy side of the work of the Anglican Communion some thirty years ago.

If it was largely the power of patronage that brought +Dakin to his present role, there is another expression of power at work in the story.  This is the misuse of authority that is at the heart of the threatened vote of no confidence by Winchester Diocesan Synod.  The loss of funds by profligate use of the Diocese’ s money is one thing, but the degree of distress caused by bullying behaviour on the part of a bishop is another.  It is this bullying abuse that is at the heart or centre of the story.  To put it another way, the story of Dakingate is a story of power abuse apparently dispersed right across a diocese, impacting individuals, parishes and corporate bodies alike. One person’s misuse of power is another’s pain.  Here, because the power wielded is considerable, the extent and intensity of the pain is all the greater. 

Looking back at my own ministry and the theological and pastoral priorities that I followed, I know that they would not be a good fit in the current Winchester set-up.  One freedom I enjoyed throughout my ministry was the ability to lead a ‘middle of the road’ congregation.  This theological centre was the place that most clergy then occupied.  Most congregations were sufficiently confident in representing Anglican breadth to be able to make space and welcome Christians of both catholic and evangelical backgrounds.  There was no sense of living in a binary universe, where the world was divided into the certainties of Christian ‘truth’ and the ‘false’ teaching of liberals and atheists.

The Winchester diocese, under its strongly evangelical bishop, seems to have found a way of making life difficult for the middle of the road clergy and parishes.  Those parishes which, like mine in the Gloucester diocese, had found it possible to welcome all shades of churchmanship, would find the language of welcome and inclusivity no longer the dominant discourse.  Such liberal parishes would, I imagine, feel rather uncomfortable with mission action plans and slogans like ‘living the mission of Jesus.’  I am still trying to puzzle out what the slogan means.  If parishes in the Winchester which carry the inclusive liberal label do not find favour with their bishop, that must create an uncomfortable situation, and one not easily resolved.  

The second area of tension in the Winchester diocese has been the financial challenge.  The bishop has apparently undertaken some expensive ventures apart from the programme of redundancies.  Setting up an in-house training scheme for new clergy is not a cheap venture.  Whatever extra money has been spent, it will always create problems for parishes struggling with their own financial needs.  The diocese is said to be bankrupt, and the clergy will be under pressure to find new sources of income.  Such new demands for funds will alienate many congregations.  A typical response from the leaders of a ‘mission-centred’ diocese like Winchester, when faced with a financial shortfall, is to declare that the solution is more people in the pews.  The wise parish priest knows that this emphasis of ‘mission’ has to be undertaken with sensitivity and tact and avoid alienating existing congregations.  It is they, the existing members, not wished-for enthusiastic newcomers, who provide the financial ballast for most congregations.   A diocese, run with the help of slogans of doubtful meaning, is not a place which will naturally command the loyalty of church people whose attendance and giving has supported the church over generations.

The interpersonal skills of +Dakin have been called into question.  I can make no comment on this, except to suggest that if he attempts to return to his post without any apparent softening of attitude, that would indicate in him an extraordinary level of insensitivity. To be told, as I am sure he has been, that his management style is a cause of suffering for many individuals, should make him stop short and seek help.  Insensitivity is a possible pointer to sociopathy and if that is the case, then +Dakin presents a safeguarding risk to his whole diocese.  How the Church nationally and locally deals with that risk is yet to be determined.  The solution to this dilemma, whatever it turns out to be, will be a marker for the future.  One thing that the Church has to rediscover is how to deal with power.  It is no longer enough to assume that institutional and personal power is always used responsibly and wisely. Power often corrupts.  We have seen here in numerous blog pieces that, on occasion, church teachings, bible quotations as well as personality flaws can cause individuals to misuse and exploit power.  Understanding how power works in institutions like the Church is desperately important.    If we understand power better, then we can devise systems that prevent it ever becoming a problem, either for the one who has it or for the one who is the target of that power.   To call Dakingate a crisis is no exaggeration.  If the Church cannot deal with the power problem here, appropriately and wisely, then the long-term damage will be devastating.  People will conclude that the Church of England is no longer a safe place.  People who become members will be thought to be at severe risk of harm.

The Surviving Church blog has attempted to offer both summary and comment on many of the reports that have appeared on the topic of power abuse in the Church of England.  At times this has proved a near-impossible task.  In March, with the release of the thirtyone:eight report on Jonathan Fletcher, another report of equal interest and importance was largely overlooked by SC.  This was the redacted independent Review produced for the Scripture Union (SU) by Gill Camina, an independent safeguarding consultant.  She was commissioned to examine the response of the SU to the John Smyth affair.  On Monday 21^st June, a new statement from the SU has been released which seeks to criticise the Camina Review.  Superficially it seems to give a reader the impression that much of the commissioned Review has been discredited.   But, even if we are to agree with every counterclaim by the SU about the original Review, we can still find a great deal of real value and insight in the original research and questioning undertaken by Camina.  While it is impossible here to respond to all the detailed points raised by SU’s ‘counter-attack’, we are still left with a great deal of valuable material from the original report which SU is not trying to discredit.  The main points of the Review still need to be responded to.  These challenge the culture and integrity within parts of the administration of both organisations, the Scripture Union and the sponsors of Smyth, the Iwerne Trust, now known as the Titus Trust.  The Camina Review, even in its redacted form, also gives us a great deal of valuable insight into the history of both groups and their ways of working.  The Review sheds light on the way that two charities set about the task of responding to the grim episode of the Smyth abuse which affected so many, directly and indirectly.

In summary, the Camina Review, in a redacted form, reveals first of all how the knowledge of John Smyth’s nefarious activities between 1979-82 was not shared with individuals within the SU network.  It first became known among senior Iwerne leaders after the Ruston Report was prepared in early 1982.   The SU might have expected to receive information at that time as the SU was the main parent body of the Iwerne Camps, though the Iwerne Trust provided salaries for some Camp Officers.  This lack of communication between Iwerne officers and the SU Trustees body was a serious matter.  Technically and legally, all the Iwerne Camps were held under the auspices of the SU.  There was meant to be a relationship of oversight of the Iwerne Trust by the SU, but in practice this was not followed since the then Iwerne Trust had for some time effectively broken away from the parent body.

How did the SU and Iwerne ever come into an association? The original link was through the founder of the Iwerne camps, E J. H.Nash, who had been employed by the SU to run camps back in the 30s.  Under him the Iwerne project grew substantially, and, in the process, it became self-financing with its own accounts and trustees.  The relationship with the SU continued, not least for administrative reasons. In legal terminology, the SU was an ‘incorporated body’ which for many years the Iwerne Trust was not.  Legally this meant that the SU had the necessary administrative structures to employ individuals.  The situation for many years was that the leaders of Iwerne Camps were the employees of SU, while being firmly being loyal to an independent organisation, the Iwerne Trust.  The SU trustees at times had expressed unhappiness with this arm’s length relationship but it suited the Iwerne Trust.  Also, the SU officers seem to have found it difficult to stand up to ‘the highly educated and powerfully confident Iwerne staff’.  This was in spite of the fact that Iwerne had developed its own ethos, somewhat different from that of the SU.   To summarise, Iwerne was using the SU link as a flag of convenience.

In spite of the firm and jealous independence of Iwerne from the SU, there were overlaps, with the same individuals belonging to both organisations. This became a greater problem the closer to the present we reach. John Smyth himself was a trustee of SU from 1971 to 1979 but this had not apparently, even in retrospect, created a safeguarding risk.  When the scandal around Smyth broke in 1982 and a report made (the Ruston report), only a heavily redacted version was shared with the General Director of the SU.   From the testimony gathered by Camina, there is evidence that there ‘was not full and open disclosure of the facts’.  While the General Director SU was not comfortable with the situation, no real effort was made to find out the full details from the Iwerne Trust.  The other SU trustees were told nothing. 

Meanwhile the Camina Review reminds the reader of other horrific aspects of Smyth’s abuse which have not yet been fully explored.  There was among the other Iwerne leaders a tendency ‘to minimise the severity and scale of the abuse and (they) have still found it possible to justify failures to report and to protect.’  Further, ‘Victim blaming by those linked with the case, in the face of widespread rumours, is widely evidenced in recordings and documents shared with the Reviewer’.  Translating these alarming sentences into simple English, we hear the claim that Smyth was allowed to create as well be part of an overall environment at Iwerne which was toxic and harmful.  

During  the 90s, the Iwerne Trust formally changed its status to become a fully independent body, henceforth known as the Titus Trust.  In 2014, the SU were informed, finally, by Titus of non-recent abuse disclosures.  This information was shared with all the SU trustees.  It became apparent that although SU had not run the camps, there had still been an historic failure of oversight of the Iwerne Trust and its camps.  It was not as if SU had no understanding or experience of running activities for young people and the need for good protocols for their protection and welfare.  SU always had had the power to terminate their relationship with Iwerne, especially when it had been clear that Iwerne was being tardy in responding to requests for information. There was a sense throughout the period before 2014 that neither organisation saw the welfare of Iwerne young people as the focus of their concern.   The focus was on the reputation and flourishing of the organisations themselves.

In 2014, when information began to flow from the Iwerne camps to the SU and to the statutory bodies, including the police, Camina judged the initial actions of the SU to be timely and appropriate.    She was less impressed with what took place after that date.  The June 21^st SU response document contains a number of counterclaims that strongly contest Camina’s accounts of what went on at this time.  The claimed errors are seen to be detrimental to the work of Titus and James Stileman, its operations director at the time. It is quite difficult to make real sense of what is being discussed.  What does come over from Camina’s Review is severe, and so far uncontested, criticism for the then National Director of SU for a number of serious failings.  These are to do with weak professional behaviour, poor communication and record keeping.   Part of the problem is that this Director, an enthusiastic ex-Iwerne camper, was apparently more concerned in preserving the reputation of his former institution, the Iwerne network.  This seemed of greater importance than the reputation of the organisation he now worked for in the present, i.e. the SU.  In the early stages there were, on his part, some extraordinary lapses of ‘curiosity’ or apparent interest in finding out what were the real facts over Smyth’s misbehaviour.  The simple interpretation of what was going on through these lapses of communication, was that the Director simply did not want to know or hear anything that might impugn the integrity of Iwerne.  Not to see or hear anything, gave the Director the excuse that he needed for sharing only limited information with the Trustees of SU.  By keeping them in the dark he was seeking to control the narrative and protect Titus.  Titus had dirty secrets and the SU Director’s job seems to been to sanitise those secrets as far as possible by keeping them away from the SU Trustees.  One particular and extraordinary failing took place after the Smyth television programme in February 2017.  The Director told his Trustees that he had immediately forwarded information about another victim to the police.  The Reviewer tried to get details of this, but the police had no record of any report nor was any information to be found in the SU archives.  The Reviewer was also constantly finding examples of individuals ‘assuming’ that verbal assurances of documents being handed on were correct.  There was an assumption of good faith but little in the way of checking as to whether paperwork and reports reached their destinations.     The current June 21^st SU response document responding critically to the Camina Review, makes no mention of these serious criticisms of its then General Director.  The quibbling about who released which report to whom pales into relative insignificance when stood alongside the failures of ‘curiosity’ and high-grade professional bungling of the SU General Director.  There is no doubt that he alone could have done much to bring Smyth to justice earlier if he had shown a little more professional integrity in his role. 

Titus Trust and the SU both come in for serious criticisms from Camina.  If the outsider can summarise those criticisms which apply to both sides, it is that each seemed, overall, to place the needs of their respective organisation above the needs of the individuals wounded by Smyth.  The June 21st response to the Review by the current SU trustees focusses on apparent inaccuracies in the report over relatively minor details.  The most striking feature of the 4 page response is its failure to engage with the chief criticisms that are stated or implied in the Review.  These centre on the fact that individuals and institutions hid information and failed to show compassion for victims (here and in Africa).  This is still a major finding of this whole Review.  One commentator has claimed that the response by the SU to the Camina Review has somehow vindicated the SU from all the accusations in the Review.  All that the comments from the June 21^st response document succeed in doing is, from my perspective, to throw sand in the eyes of the reader.  The original Camina Review is a powerful and courageous attempt to hold two organisations to account.  An individual who writes such conclusions in a Report is likely to see their work criticised and challenged.  This is what seems to have happened.  It does not, however, devalue the overall thrust of the Review.   I hope that the Review will be read by those who wish to understand more about the institutional aspects of the Smyth scandal.   The original Review may have had flaws and even inaccuracies, but overall I am impressed. It is a worthy addition to the library of documents written by genuine independent researchers into the murky world of individual and institutional abuse within the Church.  

The original Executive Summary  https://content.scriptureunion.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/Executive_Summary_of_SU_John_Smyth_Independent_Case_Review_March_2021.pdf

Scripture Union’s Response on June 21^st 2021 https://content.scriptureunion.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Statement_21-06-21_0.pdf

One of the strange phenomena coming out of the United States is what is known as vaccine refusal among conservative Christians. In a recent survey, a full 26% declared that they will not in any circumstances receive vaccination against Covid.  Another 28% are hesitant. These figures exist in spite of the fact that many conservative Christian leaders, including hard-core evangelical Trump loyalists like Robert Jeffress and Franklin Graham, have received the jab and encourage their followers to follow suit.  Other evangelical leaders are more reluctant to encourage their congregations to take the jab as they fear that such an expressed preference would suggest to their congregations that they are going liberal in some way. The figures indicate a further problem, namely divisions within congregations and families. There are many cases of younger Christians refusing to let their children visit their unvaccinated grandparents. This has not only caused tension and upset in families, but planned weddings and other family gatherings have been thrown into uncertainty by these inter-family disputes.

It would be wrong to suggest that anti-vaxxers are all conservative Christians, but some certainly are. It is hard for us in the UK to understand why this issue should have become politicised or to understand why there should be any link between the act of refusing vaccination and conservative Christian beliefs. Some Christians may perhaps feel that to receive vaccination is to stop depending on the protection of God against Covid infection.  Clearly there is more to it than this.  Evidently, among many conservative Christians, there is a widespread problem of suspicion directed against all authority figures, especially the national government. Conspiracy theories will also always be popular among groups which feel they are in some way persecuted and the object of attack from those who disagree with them.

There is, however, one fascinating additional theory about the mentality of conservative Christian groups opposing vaccination.  This appears in an online article in a magazine called Religion Dispatches. The article starts with the observation that Christians from the ultra-right-wing world of conservative Christianity hold a number of beliefs, Christian and political, with no sense of ever being in the wrong.  When an individual has such a strong sense of the truth of all their beliefs, it is but a small step to always seeing the world as if from a heavily defended bunker.  The attitude that says ‘whoever is not with us is against us’, is very common among conservative Christians.  It is a small step from aggressively defending an ‘infallible’ and non-negotiable point of view to becoming routinely paranoid in every dealing with the outside world beyond the group. There are a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to glorify the experience of a Christian when meeting persecution of any kind. ‘Blessed are you when men reproach you and persecute you’.   It is, of course, debatable whether these words of Jesus should be held to apply to Christians who are making what appears to be a political stand over vaccination, but one thing is clearly true.  Conservative Christians seem to need to have enemies, and indeed they become energised in the process of identifying and defending themselves against them.  In the ongoing Oxford saga of a group of clergy and dons trying to rid themselves of their Dean, the attempt is made to identify opponents, at the same time shutting out what they are saying. In practice, any attempt to close down dissident voices makes those voices still louder. Also the credibility of anyone demonstrating paranoid behaviour is inevitably lessened in the eyes of those who look on.

In the political realm, the ability to identify and name enemies, whether they be immigrants, Jews or people of a different colour, has always served authoritarian leaders well.  Many dictators have gone further. Declaring war on named enemies is a way of hanging on to political power.   Everyone has to rally round to fight off this ‘enemy’ in the name of the quasi-religion, known as patriotism. 

Conservative Christianity, in its links with ultra-right-wing political ideologies, has often been successful at identifying and obtaining benefit and prestige by being good at ‘enemy-naming’.   In the political sphere, we have, arguably, been caught in a similar dynamic by having Brexit presented to us as some kind of liberation movement. Many people seem to have voted to leave the EU based on what they were against. This same dynamic of teaching congregations which groups and individuals that ‘we are against’ still goes on.  In a recent blog post, I drew attention to the way that the churchwardens at St Helen’s Bishopsgate have named individuals as being opponents for daring to suggest that their Rector might have done more to protect the church from the predations of Smyth and Fletcher.  Quite often a church is drawing considerable amounts of energy from the intensity of its hatred for those who disagree with its leaders and its overall theological position.

I have on this blog written about the way that the bogeymen for conservatives change over the decades. In times past, the enemies of true Christians were the proponents of contraception. They then became the supporters of abortion reform. More recently conservative Christians have settled on ‘hating’ supporters of the gay/trans-phobic cause. An opposition to vaccination appears, in America at any rate, to be merely the most recent in a series of issues which conservative Christians are expected to oppose.  The very fact of opposing something seems to create energy and strong feelings among those who do it.  Superficially this energy seems to be spiritual in nature, somehow revealing a fervour of commitment.  In reality, when it is examined, it is nothing of the sort.  It is the effervescence of the excited crowd which has the lasting power and solidity of candy floss. 

As I reflected on this opposition mentality among conservative Christians, I began to wonder whether it is the experience of opposing something that appeals to this group, rather than the cause which is being opposed. If their perceived enemies, the amorphous group they sometimes describe as liberals, support a moral or political point of view, then that same position needs to be opposed.  Clear lines of demarcation need to be maintained with those who are ‘not us’.  What we are seeing here is what I would suggest is a kind of persecution addiction, one which enables a strong sense of identity. The bunker mentality seems to energise and strengthen those who hold to it. It is as though the words of Jesus have been changed to the following. ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you oppose all the things that your enemies approve of.’

All those who have read the Stella Gibbons’ novel, Cold Comfort Farm, will remember the vivid description of a religious group called the Quivering Brethren. At all the services held by this group, the preacher would work on the members to bring them to a pitch of quivering fear.  This was done by his vivid descriptions of the burnings and the pains of Hell. The preacher concerned was one of the extraordinary characters who lived at the farm at the centre of the story.  Flora, the heroine of the novel, arranged for him to buy a van and go round the country preaching his message of Hell.  ‘I will tell them about burning in Hell’ the preacher declared, as he had discovered that fear worked as a way of filling the building.  There was a sense in which this experience of fear was, paradoxically, quite enjoyable. This account of the Quivering Brethren is completely fictional. One does, nevertheless, wonder sometimes whether many church leaders like to keep their congregations in a place of uncertainty, with the occasional mention of Hell to spice up what might otherwise be a rather dull observance of Christian faith. The additional belief that your church and its leaders are being ‘persecuted’ because you are against something that everyone else accepts (like vaccination), gives a certain frisson and flavour to your church life. I am reminded of the church door which had the words inscribed over them. ‘Be of good cheer I have overcome the world’.  A church member who read those words would be encouraged to believe that he or she was always stronger, wiser and more competent than those outside.  The very fact of taking a different side from everyone else on vaccination may be one way of maintaining a smug enjoyable feeling of superiority over the opinions of the mass of the population.

Most of my readers will agree with me that it is unacceptable to declare as enemies those who work hard to help humanity. There is no possible reason for opposing vaccination unless evidence appears that seems to indicate a health risk. To be against it because it is the position of people you do not like, is an act of irrationality.   Thankfully this position is not common in this country.  There are, as we have indicated, other widely held beliefs which are opposed because they suggest, for some Christians, a failure of faith, or because liberals support them. In America we are told of a widespread antipathy against scientific thinking because it is thought to be ‘against’ the world view of Scripture.   This kind of thinking is typically found in the textbooks of those who use ‘Christian’ material to home-school their children.  Swathes of young people are being taught to think, or not to think, because of dogmatic beliefs extracted from religious texts.  Most of us accept that while there are differences of opinion in science and other areas of knowledge, little can be achieved by closing a debate down.  It is always worth having a debate as long as both sides will be heard fairly and openly. The only reason for avoiding such a debate is when the circumstances suggest I will not be heard because I come from a different place in my presuppositions. Sadly, there are many debates which are non-debates precisely for this reason. One party uses social or political power to shut down what the other group are saying.  In some cases it is the liberal establishment closing things down; in other cases, it is the conservative authoritarian approach that refuses to allow proper discussion. As a thinking Christian I need to be on the alert for both forms of intellectual tyranny. Sadly, we live in a world where this kind of fascistic thinking is not unusual.

When I was at school studying Greek at A level, I was required to read some of the literature collectively known as Greek tragedy.  While our sixth form class was not expected to read all of the plays in our two years of study, we were confronted with enough of the genre to be exposed to a new range of human emotions.  The plays of Euripides and Sophocles were initiating us into things like betrayal, despair, utter abandonment and suicide.  I remember the moment when the form master presented us with a new word, catharsis.  No one had ever heard of it, but he explained to us that the word summed up all that was being experienced by watching one of the incredibly sombre plays by one of the master tragedians.  Catharsis was a kind of cleansing the emotions.  You felt strong emotion in the process of an identification with the main characters of the play.  At the same time there was a strong sense of pity for their fate. There were no happy endings on offer. In other words, going to the theatre was meant to be a kind of emotional work-out for every member of the audience.  Although the audience emerged from the play feeling somewhat exhausted from the emotional battering, at least there was no lasting harm because it was, after all, a play. The emotional battering that exhausts survivors, victims and to a lesser extent their supporters, is, alas, no fiction. The depths of loss, tragedy and despair is a daily reality that inserts itself into their daily lives.

One saying which I picked up from those days in the classical sixth was the tag ‘those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad’.  There is in the saying an uncomfortable link with the tragedy of suicide and what leads people to make such a dreadful decision.   Suicide is not a comfortable subject to speak or write about and this post is only tangentially about taking one’s own life.  What I am concerned with here are the situations of despair and emptiness that occur in people’s lives and are sometimes the precursor to a consideration of suicide. The thought comes to an individual that the act of removing oneself from this life is somehow a solution to all their problems.  Often these are to do with the emotions which overwhelm them, feelings of shame, guilt and despair. 

Two things have brought me to this reflection about despair and the way that some people have to endure incredibly bleak experiences in life, often through no fault of their own.   The first thing that has happened is that I have been looking up my reading of seven years ago on shunning and ostracism.  Then there are recent events in Lincoln and Oxford of shunning practice. Shunning or ostracism is a very powerful tool of control by authoritarian or cultic groups.  Once the group has successfully incorporated a new member and given them a firm sense of belonging in the group, any threat to remove the benefits of that belonging at a stroke is a strong deterrent factor to prevent any rocking of the boat.  Ostracism is the unspoken threat that applies to everyone.  When applied, it is saying to someone that you do not belong here any longer.  It also goes further than that, in telling the would-be leaver that they no longer even exist.  It is as though the place they had occupied has been expunged from existence and memory.  This message is a brutal one to hear, especially if the group has formed the sum total of the individual’s social and religious life.  The more enmeshed an individual is in a group, the greater the impact of being excluded.  It is not difficult to see that this kind of cruel exclusion is a prelude to a sense of darkness and even despair.

Many Christians base a large part of their social life on the things they do in and around church.  Their best friendships are linked with the church community and spiritually and socially their sense of self-worth is bound up with what happens with their local Christian membership.   Clergy are not immune from these kinds of bonds of spiritual and social depth.  A clergyman may have devoted his entire life to the congregation and any sudden rift from that congregation will have potentially devastating results.  Anyone who, in a church context, wishes to exercise power for whatever reason, knows how dedicated members are vulnerable to the threat of having all their experience of self-esteem removed at a stroke.  The shunner or the one who has the power to push an individual into the outer darkness of spiritual and social isolation, has real effective power over the life and well-being of another.  

In the Church of England, shunning and ostracism are practised but, for the most part, we do not see them administered by individuals.  Shunning is normally an institutional activity when it occurs.  The Church of England has one particular legal structure with the power to shun and exclude individuals.  We call them core-groups.  Not every core group will exercise its power to shun or suspend members of the Church, but they have this power to do so as part of the CDM process.  Sometimes we see the cruelty of this action towards its victims when shunning is employed with what feels like ruthless efficiency.   The Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral has just been exonerated after 789 days suspension.  He has been declared not guilty of the offence and the charges against him have been dropped by Church and state.  Nothing has been said about the terrible state of purgatory he and his wife have endured.  All the social and spiritual bonds with people in Lincoln had been ripped apart for two long years.  Suicide was one option considered by Overend and his wife and the mental scars will live with them for ever.  Dean Percy has also been driven to a mental breakdown through the treatment he has suffered.  Treatment of this kind can never be shown to serve the cause of justice.

Ostracism or shunning is a form of punishment that is cruel, inhuman and can be designated as a form of psychological torture.  To consider shunning as a necessary or reasonable part of any disciplinary process, especially when it is allowed to drag out for months and years, is perverse.  The Church of England has published its own list of the extensive range of behaviours that we can call abuse.  https://www.churchofengland.org/media/11803 Under psychological abuse the church document mentions a whole series of behaviours, some of  which the Overends and the Percys would recognise as having been used against them by their persecutors as part of a shunning process    Blaming • Controlling • Pressurising and coercion • Intimidation and causing fear • Ignoring the person • Not giving the person a chance to express their views • Lack of love or affection • Making someone feel worthless • Lack of privacy or choice • Causing/forcing isolation / withdrawal from family/friends and support networks.  The CDM process is supposed to offer support to an accused individual but, in practice, the Church closes down totally in the face of any accusations against an individual.  Even if they are guilty of some misdemeanour, does it serve any therapeutic purpose or the cause of justice to put an individual in such a terrible place?  The practisers of shunning probably give very little thought as to whether therapeutic purposes are ever served through this activity.  All they are interested in is to shut out the dissident, the awkward voice so that the power of leaders could be preserved in peace.  But, the forceful sundering of an individual from his/her place of belonging is something that is unimaginably cruel.   Not to recognise just how devastatingly cruel shunning behaviour is, betrays a complete absence of imagination.

In one part of its operations, the Church is helping its members to become more aware of abuse as a way, presumably, of outlawing such behaviour.  At the same time the Church in other parts of its operations is doing the complete opposite.  Its disciplinary processes are using precisely the same abuse techniques against individual members even before they have been found guilty of any offence. Surely I am not the only person to notice the absurdity of the situation?  The Church condemns abuse of all kinds, but it preserves the right, when it suits, to abuse its own members, using some of the same psychological tools.  At least three of these practices are linked to shunning.   Whatever is the precise end in sight for the church institution, the Overends, the Percys and others have all experienced the cruel effects of shunning.  I mention three elements of shunning that are identified by the Church as constituting abuse.  Making someone feel worthless – lack of love or affection – Causing/forcing isolation/withdrawal from family/friends and support networks.  It is about time that Church is called out for using these same techniques of cruel abuse against its members, the ones it wishes to oppose.  It is what we see currently in Oxford and recently in Lincoln.  Justice has a place in every institution and there will always be a need to hold people to account.  Can it, however, ever be right to use shunning/abuse on individuals?    I dare say that the Overends and the Percys would have plenty to say on the topic of a chronic failure of the Church’s justice system.  The time for reform is now – not five years down the line when more lives will have been destroyed in the name of a justice being administered by a group of managerial unimaginative Church functionaries.

‘Nothing justifies violence or coercion. Christian relationships are to be marked by love, gentleness and respect.’  These are words uttered by the new Archbishop of Sydney in Australia, Kanishka Raffel, but they could be spoken by a Christian leader anywhere in the world.  I begin this blog post with something completely unremarkable and obvious for a Christian.  It is, however, quite hard to find to find these qualities in some sections of the Church.  To illustrate my point, that violence stalks the Church in some places, I draw attention to some recent episodes that haunt our imaginations (or at least they do mine).

The first episode is the fear-laden culture that thirtyone-eight claimed to have found in its investigation of Jonathan Fletcher.  This fear that the report drew attention to, was the generalised atmosphere that pervaded the entire constituency where Fletcher held influence.  This inhibited people coming forward to say what they knew.  I have it on good authority that something similar has been found in the John Smyth enquiry.  Few of the witnesses have come forward with any degree of enthusiasm, even though they might have seen evil or worse still, suffered grievously at the hands of Smyth.  It seems that a fear of what might happen if they came forward, was the overriding concern that still motivates their actions.  This appears far stronger than any desire for truth and justice. 

We need to pause here while we ponder the link between violence and fear.  The word violence implies the potential threat, not only of having to endure physical mistreatment. There may also be the threat of receiving other debilitating experiences like shame, the destruction of self-esteem and total demoralisation.  The sharp word, the put-down phrase and the outburst of anger are all potentially tools of violence, effective in different ways of controlling people and ensuring their silence. In a way I feel no anger for anyone, as in the Fletcher enquiry, who fails to come forward after being subjugated by such non-physical violence.  It is also possible to be motivated by fear without realising that this fear exists.  It is a fear that may have become normative in the environment you inhabit.  It is only when you are asked questions about what you know that a sense of irrational fear and protectiveness towards your abusive mentors might kick in.  It might also dawn upon you at the same time, that what you had always thought of as respect and reverence, was in fact simply fear.  The Fletcher/Smyth culture seems to have been full of violence in this sense.  Many people who held these two characters in awe were also afraid of them.  The followers lived with a kind of dread about what one of those two, or their supporters, might do.  For a long period, there was this threat of violence which could undermine the safety and well-being of any who had the temerity to challenge such leaders or even their memory.    

When we extend the meaning of this word violence to include all these forms of threat and coercion, we can claim to see this widely in operation in the Oxford Percy case.  When words like troll are used against supporters of Percy, the visible hand of stronger threatening and bullying behaviour is not far away.  Who would ever have thought that anyone would find it necessary to block the gentle Angela Tilby for saying what everyone else is thinking about the car crash at Christ Church? The case against Percy seems entirely in the hands of individuals who have some interest in removing him from his post. Everyone else is appalled at the public display of injustice and violence against the Dean. I am still looking to find a single individual, without any personal stake in the confused nexus of cathedral and college, who supports the brutal campaign against Percy.  In all the months of persecution, no one has come up with a solid accusation of moral failing, apart from the hair-touching allegation.  The pattern for every other case of sexual abuse offender I have ever looked at, is that a perpetrator is almost never a one-off offender.  There is a pattern of misbehaviour over months and years.  No such pattern has emerged for Percy, and he is certainly not, as one of his accusers has suggested, a second Peter Ball. 

Actions of actual violence towards the Dean can be seen in the absurd over the top inhibitions placed on him by unnamed lawyers.  As Gilo has said these restrictions might be considered suitable for a notorious sex-offender like Worboys were he ever to be let out on bail.  Applied to the Dean they are acts of violence, even torture.  I have been reading up my notes for a lecture on shunning to be given, by me, to at an online conference in Chester in September.  The literature on the topic suggests that the instigators aim to deprive an individual of normal human contact.  This is a form of torture contributing, as in Percy’s case, to breakdown.  In some cases, this kind of cruel inhumane treatment leads to suicide.  The failure of Church leaders, the NST and the Diocese of Oxford to identify, or even notice, the utter barbarity that has been going on at Christ Church for over two years is extraordinary.  Is there some corporate madness going on at Christ Church that has infected so many other clergy and church leaders to collude with utterly ruthless and cruel behaviour?  From the outside these acts of violence are completely incomprehensible.  No justifying explanation has been offered at any point to indicate what might really be going on.  We on the outside are left to suspect that somewhere the Dean has threatened powerful vested interests.  It will probably have something to do with endowments or professional jealousies.  Dean Percy is the sort of person to question and challenge the status quo and the sense of entitlement that powerful people hold tightly to themselves.  The longer the dispute goes on, the more one is suspicious of the motives of those who have put so much effort to get rid of him.

The words violence and torture are not words that we ever expect to use in the context of church life.  But once we decouple their association with waterboarding and the rack, we see that they are proper words to use for any action which is designed solely to engender fear.  Many Christians in fact live within environments where fear is a dominant fact of life.  It may be found among followers of abusive charismatic leaders; it may be experienced by hard-pressed parish priests where the parish is failing to fit in with the vision of the diocese. Because of this, combined with financial shortfall, there is threat of redundancy, a scenario apparently encountered in the Diocese of Winchester.  Continuing fear may exist among the victims of a sexual abuser, or those who are accused, often unjustly, of being an abuser.  Fear, threat and coercion are sadly used as deliberate weapons to undermine and destroy others.  Somehow the Church has failed to notice how much that this is going on today.

The Archbishop of Sydney will not see this post, but if he were to see it, I would plead with him to understand how much violence and torture already exists in our churches.  It may not be the physical kind, but it appears as a violence engendering fear and utter demoralisation.  It is just as deadly to whomever has to face and endure it.  Perhaps one of the tasks of this blog is to help a few people to become more actively sensitised to the existence of the church violence that affects so many people.  Some are the victims of exploitative behaviour by abusers.  Others are the victims of persecution by institutions.  All are victims of the abuse of power.  Each one is precious in the sight of God and need his protection as well as ours as far as we can give it.

A flurry of activity has occurred recently on the St Helen’s Bishopsgate website.  This comes about as the Church authorities there respond to criticisms that their Rector, William Taylor, had held back over what he knew of John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher.  To remind my readers, Jonathan Fletcher was the subject of an investigation by 31:8, the safeguarding organisation.  31:8, in their investigation, which appeared last month, reported that Fletcher had a wide influence in the con evo world and that some of this personal power was used abusively and destructively against individuals.  John Smyth is still being investigated by Keith Makin, but the broad outlines of his story are known.  For around four years between 1978 and 1982, Smyth possessed a cult-like hold over a group of young men, including the young Taylor who was a student in Cambridge after attending Eton. He was the subject of three episodes of beating in the garden shed in Winchester in the summer and winter of 1981.

The open letter to the congregation from the St Helen’s churchwardens strongly refutes the claim that their Rector knew anything untoward about the abusive behaviour of Jonathan Fletcher until February 2019.  They appeal to the findings of a law firm, Edward Connor Solicitors, who had investigated whether or not Taylor had knowledge of Fletcher’s activities at an earlier period. They concluded that he did not. A parallel pattern of complete ignorance of the facts is also reported for Archbishop Welby in respect of John Smyth before late 2013. Some of the speculation which had led onlookers to a contrary conclusion was built on the fact that both Taylor and Welby were moving in circles of people who definitely did know.  In Taylor’s case there is also an acknowledged bond of friendship with Fletcher. There is in addition a widely reported claim that Fletcher was ‘marched off’ a Iwerne camp in the summer of 2017.  Such an event could not have happened unless there was authority from leaders within the constituency approving the action.  Rumours are also bound to proliferate over the fact Taylor has said almost nothing in public about the known facts of the Fletcher scandal during the period from June 2019 – June 2021.  Silence by a prominent leader, who knows an accused person following the revelation of a public scandal, is not a good look.   Taylor has known Fletcher since his school days through the Iwerne network and, in addition, Taylor has also been the de-facto leader of the whole conservative Christian constituency since around 2013.   We might also have expected some open expressions of regret and apology from him in June 2019 when the Daily Telegraph story first broke.  It is hardly surprising that some people have come to believe that this silence from him and other conservative leaders are attempts to bury scandal from public view.  Two years is long time to wait for a public response to a major church scandal by one of its notable leaders and spokesmen.  

The new revelation in the churchwardens’ letter is that Taylor was, as a young adult, a victim of John Smyth’s beatings and its accompanying theology (he refers to it as a cult). This evokes for me the image of a personality with two stages of self-expression.  The first personality is that of the young man, the victim and sufferer of Smyth’s malevolent intentions.  The other personality is the one that appears at the point when the influence of Smyth is finally overcome.  At this point the moral awareness and responsibility of the young Taylor changes to being that of an active responsible agent.  Anyone looking on would have felt deep compassion for the first young personality, still under the thrall of Smyth.  In the straight jacket of pain and corrupt Christian ideas, Taylor was, for a time at any rate, a victim of something toxic and horrible.  But the young Taylor seems to have passed through that victim period as well as can be expected.   After five years in the army, he was able to proceed to ordination training and ordination.   At some point Taylor adopted the new personality which we can describe as that of the survivor rather than the victim.  Only he can say when that moment may have occurred.   When in a state of victimhood, the focus would have been on raw survival and his own healing.  All his moral decisions would rightly have promoted his own well-being.  As part of the process of recovery, Taylor would first have had to process the toxic teaching of his one-time mentor/abuser, especially in the light of the new pastoral responsibilities for the spiritual health of others.  One awareness that would now belong to him was an understanding of the dangers of the cultic bond that had been forged between him and Smyth.   Once Taylor had completed his transition from victim to survivor, we now would hope to see him giving real attention to stop what had happened to him happening to anyone else.  This is where the story is incomplete.  We are left with a series of questions.  I know nothing of Taylor’s actual record in the safeguarding realm, but I am aware of occasions when his potential influence might have radically changed the Smyth story.  On his appointment as Rector of St Helen’s Bishopsgate in 1998, Taylor obtained a position of great influence in the Church of England and within the con evo constituency.  Subsequent organisational changes in that network have been driven by him personally.  I understand that the ReNew constituency has come into being largely as the result of his vision and energy.     Since the retirement of Jonathan Fletcher in 2013, Taylor has been considered by many as the most influential individual in the conservative Anglican network. My questions to Taylor are the following.

1. Did you suspect back in the 80s and since that that there might have been, apart from yourself, other survivors and victims of Smyth that needed help?
2.  Did it at any stage worry you that those who enabled Smyth to go to Africa and allowing him to live there, were putting the lives and souls of young men in physical and spiritual danger?  Did you have any knowledge of the financial arrangements (the Colmans) that enabled the Smyth family to disappear from Britain?
3. Why did you not help us bring this all to light sooner – there was no necessity to “ out yourself” ? indeed I understand that some who knew or strongly suspected your victim status were very very careful to respect your privacy.

The letter from the churchwardens of St Helens is designed to make us feel compassion for Taylor as a Smyth victim.  I, however, have indicated that I see two separate personalities for Taylor. One is indeed the Smyth victim aged late teens and early twenties. For him I have compassion and sadness at what he had to endure at the hands of John Smyth. But there is another persona for Taylor. Here is the Taylor more or less fully recovered from the early bad experiences and now able to accept the privileges and responsibilities of power and leadership. While he may still be referred to as a survivor of Smyth, one cannot treat him any more with kid gloves when there are aspects of the use of his power that need to be challenged in the present.  This Smyth survivor is, we trust, recovered from the spiritual and emotional battering he received 40 years ago.  We must be allowed to ask these direct questions because he is now a powerful adult leader with the capacity to make a difference.  The questions are being asked by an individual who believes that the current abuse trials of the Church of England could have been dealt with far better if everyone, Archbishops downwards, had listened to their consciences rather than fighting to protect reputations and institutions.  Since the Channel 4 programme in Feb 2017 about John Smyth, there have been a chorus of voices asking questions.  It has taken a long time for institutional silence to give way to the beginnings of accountability and openness.  William Taylor and St Helen’s are an influential part of the whole and they must not only do the right thing but be seen to be doing the right thing.   The accusations of secrecy and dishonesty can be levelled at every part of the Church.  It is not merely a con evo problem.  It is rather a problem for all institutions.  As long as institutional secrecy and dishonesty pervade the Church, the process of continued healing for abuse will be halted and hindered.  No one wishes that.  William Taylor, who was once an abuse victim, has clear and vital responsibilities for leadership in this safeguarding task.  He is a church leader, and we need his leadership in theisvital area of church life.

The judgement by Dame Sarah Asplin should have marked the end of at least one major strand in the Percy affair at Christ Church Oxford.  It was meant to be the conclusion of the CDM process first initiated by Canon Graham Ward against the Dean back on November 5^th 2020.  This process began as a response to an incident of alleged ‘sexual harassment’ on October 4^th, by Percy against a Ms X in the vestry    The process had been handed over to the Bishop of Birmingham as the Bishop of Oxford believed himself unable to oversee the process on the grounds of existing involvement.  Two things have hindered any move to completion following Dame Sarah’s judgement.  First there has been absolutely no comment coming from the sponsors or enablers of the CDM process to say that the process is complete and that they accept the judgement.  We had always felt that silence throughout the process was particularly unfortunate in respect of the Bishop of Oxford.  At the beginning of the whole episode, at the time when a group of senior CC members were attempting to remove the Dean, we heard little in the way of support from Bishop Steven Croft.  As Dean Percy is the Dean of the Diocese of Oxford Cathedral, some measure of solidarity or support might have been expected from this source.  But as time has gone on, the complete absence of any supportive comment from the Diocesan Bishop has changed the nature of this pervading silence.  Earlier it could be interpreted as indicating neutrality.  Now the same silence feels like active hostility.  To say nothing by way of comment to the ruling by Dame Sarah is particularly indicative that Bishop Croft’s sympathies are not supportive of his Cathedral’s Dean. 

This suggested hostility of the Bishop of Oxford towards the Dean is an unfortunate scenario, to put it mildly.  Bishop Croft cannot, because of this, ever act as a mediator between the College and Dean.  The recent failure to say anything supportive, even after the Asplin judgement, shows that the Bishop is likely, in fact,  to be in active sympathy with the Dean’s enemies in the College.  This one-sideness is no doubt helped by the fact that lawyers acting for both the College and Diocese come from the same firm, Winckworth Sherwood.  This firm has received fees, totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds, from one or other of these sources to harass and persecute the Dean. 

The Asplin judgement has not halted the College’s intention to proceed with its own tribunal.  In a recent public statement, it has referred to the judgement as an assessment which had no bearing on the College’s determination to carry out its own processes.  This summary dismissal of the judgement of a high court judge seems high-handed.  In my last post I mentioned the possible involvement of the Charity Commission.  They had expressed unease at the quantity of money being spent on a case which was far from charitable in intention.  In spite of the College finding senior lawyers to offer their opinions about the legitimacy of the various legal steps being taken to get rid of the Dean, the Dame Sarah judgement cannot be so easily dismissed.  The other glaring issue is how a tribunal set up by the College can command respect for its processes when two of the members are appointed from within the College.  One of them is to represent the Cathedral constituency of the foundation.   I understand that the Archdeacon of Oxford, the Venerable Jonathan Chaffey, has been nominated.  Here lies a further problem.  The Archdeacon is one of the members of the Cathedral Chapter involved in overseeing the recent CDM process against Dean Percy.  If the Archdeacon has been part of the hostile, now discredited, attack on the Dean through the CDM, it would seem that he should be unable to offer himself in a quasi-judicial role in this other case.  The conduct of the College so far, in the five separate attempts to rid themselves of the Dean, means that they seem to have developed a nonchalant disregard for the rules of process.  What is a mere judgement by a High Court Judge when you control the assets (totalling a half billion) of a venerable institution with links to the monarchy?  The overall demeanour of the Christ Church senior members towards a single vulnerable individual has been hard to understand.  The College was founded with a charitable and Christian purpose and these qualities have become almost entirely invisible in recent years.  From the outside, Christ Church seems to stand for the values of bullying, chronic insensitivity to pain, cruelty and the abuse of power.  Any compassion that might have been shown to a suffering individual and his family has apparently been entirely absent.  Whatever else the eye-wateringly expensive tribunal may seek to achieve, it will not succeed in persuading anyone looking on that the College or Chapter is behaving either charitably or in any way with Christian values. 

Quite apart from the fate of Dean Percy, we need to have regard for the for the fate of the College, its reputation in the University and among the university institutions across the country.  The campaign against the Dean has had an obsessive quality which does little to attract or create admiration among those who look on.  If the dons succeed in destroying and removing their Dean, who will praise or congratulate them for this?  Even if somewhere in the ongoing programme of persecution, a sliver of justification exists, it is certainly invisible to the onlooker.  The same failure to exercise any form of Christian compassion or understanding can be laid at the feet of the senior hierarchy of the Oxford diocese.  The problem for the church is that relationships and institutional dynamics have become so corrupted by these examples of poor behaviour that the whole institution will take years to recover.  Are we to see no resignations or apologies after the highest legal authority trashed the enormous act of hate, vitriol and bullying against a single individual in the CDM process?  There are many caught up in that act of crowd madness.  Reputations have been shredded by the incomprehensible rush to judgment and persecution.  How long will the toxicity take to clear in the Cathedral chapter?  Ten years ?  Fifteen?  Certainly, no other institution will be in a hurry to employ existing members of this group, when the values of normal ethics have been so thoroughly turned upside down and forgotten.  This is not about a story about a defenceless young woman facing up to power and a sex-mad Dean.  No, the story started several years before.  The causes of the persecution are not all available to us but we can surmise a saga of professional jealousy with the preservation of privilege and power all playing their part.  Whatever the origin of Percygate, it is not edifying or a good advertisement for Christian values.  In the middle of all the recrimination against the Dean, it has been forgotten that Ms X showed a Christian willingness to meet the Dean and resolve the issue between them. This was forbidden by those who needed her testimony to add to the accusation against him. All those who have stoked up the story and cause so much institutional as well as individual damage have much to answer for.  The judgement of history will not be kind to the perpetrators of such terrifying institutional bullying and cruelty. 

It is entirely disproportionate that this matter should be referred to a tribunal.   With these and other similar words, Dame Sarah Asplin, the President of Tribunals and the most senior legal voice in the Church of England, delivered her verdict on the Martyn Percy affair.  The legal effect of this judgement is that process of the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure has been killed stone dead.   When and how all the existing Kafkaesque prohibitions imposed by the church lawyers against Dean Percy will be lifted, remains to be seen.

The CDM against the Christ Church Dean has been dragged out over seven months, backed by several members of the Chapter at the Cathedral, two diocesan bishops and other senior advisers and church officials. The effect of heaping so much in the way of blame and calumny on one person has created an environment of tension, toxicity and hatred in a relatively small institution.  The church authorities who backed the CDM should, by the norms of natural justice, face a day of reckoning.  The public have watched the horror of so much institutional loathing being poured out on to Percy.  Every single person involved in this calculated organised torture should have to do something to help mitigate the poison that has spread so far within the Church around Oxford.   If there is no sign of remorse or regret for this behaviour, the implicated church authorities are going to symbolise psychological bullying in the eyes of many.  It has taken a top legal mind to see the obvious.  Whatever was said or done in the vestry on that October Sunday, the alleged offense does not merit a tribunal.  Such a response ‘is entirely disproportionate’.

What happens next?  Clearly the Church CDM proceedings against the Dean have nowhere to go.  The Core Group will have nothing further to discuss and the entire CDM process and the sanctions they imposed should be allowed to fade away.  Quite how the Church authorities, the Bishops, the National Safeguarding Team and the local safeguarding group who allowed this accusation to get so far will explain things, remains to be seen.  Perhaps the silver lining is that the whole CDM process discussed in an earlier blog, will be further undermined and discredited in the eyes of reasonable people, inside and beyond the Church.  If this Christ Church nonsense reflects the workings of the church justice system, then we definitely deserve something better.

But, of course, Dean Percy still faces another legal process, the tribunal being set up by the College to judge whether his actions are ‘immoral, scandalous or (of a) disgraceful nature’.  This tribunal has an independent judge appointed and two internal assessors.  Clearly the two internal assessors could outvote the independent chairman Rachel Crasnow QC.  We can hope that Dame Sarah Asplin’s existing assessment will carry some weight in this other process.  In which universe can it be claimed that touching someone’s hair in a non-sexual manner is immoral disgraceful behaviour.   On the side of natural justice is also the fact that the Charity Commission is watching.   They have already served notice back in January that they dislike the fact that Christ Church trustees have been spending exorbitant sums of money on this vendetta against the Dean.  If they regard the next tribunal process as in any way falling outsides the College’s charitable purposes, the individual trustees will be expected to be personally liable for the cost.  Each trustee could be required to pay around £56,000 to the case if the CC deem it necessary.  It may be that the independent judge will take a similar view to Dame Sarah and declare the proposed punishment of the Dean disproportionate to the alleged offense.  Even if she was outvoted by the internal assessors, that fact would be noted by the Commission.  Can the College really claim that charitable money is being expended for charitable purposes with these tribunals against the Dean?  The Church has also just spent vast sums on its own CDM process and now the College wants to repeat their first tribunal process.  The total spent in 2018 came to millions.

The judgement of Dame Sarah Asplin is an important step towards justice for Dean Percy and the rediscovery of common sense in a college in Oxford in crisis.   We are possibly looking at the end of the beginning in the process.  Many institutions and individuals are effectively on trial in the Percy affair. Reputations are being put at risk for decades to come. It is not just the Cathedral that has suffered a blow to its reputation; it is also the Diocese of Oxford, its safeguarding team and the NST.  The integrities of a range of individuals, from clergy, within and beyond the Cathedral, to a number of disgruntled dons, are being put under close examination.  Already the judgement by Dame Asplin has exposed the disproportionate reactions by those who were involved in the CDM process.  The inhibitions against the Dean in the name of preserving the safety of the College community, have been so absurd as to discredit and devalue the whole process.  This is not the time to go back over this long-lasting saga.  Clearly my readers will long ago have made up their mind as to whether Martyn is a ‘sex-pest’ or the grossly wronged persecuted victim of vindictive misbehaviour. 

What can we hope for?  We can hope that attempts by the Church of England to incriminate Dean Percy will cease immediately and that a little shame may descend on at least some of those who have ‘bigged-up’ what is, even to take the worst interpretation, hardly a serious sexual assault.  All the elements of vindictiveness need to be challenged.  The Church, in spite of its teaching, is, however, not good at saying sorry.  The second thing we can hope for is that the second tribunal set up by the College against its Dean may be seen to be a potential threat to the financial well-being of the trustees.  The Charity Commission may become, like the Chair of Tribunals, the purveyor of reason, common sense and proportionate dealing within the ugliness of an internal dispute within a college.  It is unlikely that the path forward will be smooth, but we do dare hope, one day, for peace and justice to descend on this corner of the Church and one embattled college in Oxford,

In many ways, the final 30 years of the 20^th century were a golden age to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Various issues affecting the profession had found resolution during that time. The first was a levelling up of stipends so that the wide anomalies of pay that had existed in pre-war years no longer prevailed. A second privilege was for the beneficed clergy to have had the security of the freehold. This meant that, assuming that no criminal activity was involved, most difficulties or challenges could be resolved by simply patiently sitting it out. The word ‘living’ meant precisely that. One could stay in a parish right up to the age of retirement. Decent pensions had been established so that many clergy would go on to live useful lives after retirement, free of poverty.   The old system of secure tenure, needless to say, had incubated abuses of various kinds.   Incompetence or immorality which did not break the law of the land might be hidden and never dealt with. Freehold allowed an eminently unsuitable clergyman to remain in his vicarage without doing any work and obtaining a full salary.  Anthony Trollope recounts the 16 year sojourn in Italy of Canon Stanhope for ‘health reasons’.  If you were determined to be idle and give your life to collecting butterflies or alcohol consumption, there was very little the system could do about it.

The relatively recent reforms of clergy freehold regulations have given us the system of Common Tenure. Although the wide-ranging privileges pertaining to freehold have been modified, the clergy of the Church of England still enjoy a great deal of employment protection.  Gross idleness still exists and there are stories of clergy who have so completely alienated their congregations that they preside over an empty church on a Sunday morning. The Common Tenure system does not find it simple or easy to cope swiftly with a situation of pastoral breakdown. There are regulations in place to resolve these situations, but quite often everyone sits around waiting for an upcoming compulsory retirement. It is still very difficult to move on an Anglican clergyman, as long they are innocent of any criminal behaviour.

Back in 2003 the church introduced the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) and this came into effect in 2006.  This was to allow the Church to operate a streamlined system of holding clergy accountable in the event of malfeasance.  It would also provide mechanisms for any complaints against the clergy to be heard beyond the parish where he/she worked.  The alleged offences did not have to be criminal in nature.  This Measure came into effect in 2006.  Overall, the CDM has not done a great deal to make the system better for all parties.  It has in fact done much to undermine the sense of security that the clergy used to enjoy.  Complaints under CDM rules are allocated to internal processes within a diocese.  The most serious cases come before the diocesan bishop who acts as both judge and jury in some cases. Archdeacons and church lawyers have a part to play in the quasi-legal decisions that emerge from these processes.   In spite of some revisions to the Measure in 2016, the Sheldon Trust, based in Exeter, still reports massive stress and unhappiness caused by this legislation. If the clergy of my generation enjoyed too much in the way of legal protection against complainants, then the clergy of this generation have on occasion become vulnerable to harassment and even persecution through the exercise of this Measure.

In the past week the Sheldon document entitled ‘I was handed over to the dogs’: lived experience, clerical trauma and the handling of complaints against clergy in the Church of England, has appeared. This is a harrowing document, and, in many ways, it could be sufficient on its own to put off an ordinand from pursuing his/her vocation. It speaks about the lived experience of stress, uncertainty and life changing fear that can come to anyone who has had to enter the legal processes of the CDM. The current document is also presented as a response to the central Church seeking to replace the old legislation of 2003/2016. Up till this point Sheldon has regarded itself as a partner with the Church in redrafting this legislation and offering its expertise in helping the Church find a replacement for what has gone before. The point has been reached where the Trust no longer feels able to continue this partnership. The gulf of understanding between the two parties has become so wide that the Trust no longer wants to give energy to this process of reform because of the way the Church is conducting this process. In short, the Sheldon Trust is saying to the Church (my precis) ‘we tried to help you but your response to the research we have offered to share with you has been feeble.  We have given a lot of time trying to show what an utter monster the CDM has become. If you don’t want to listen then you have to accept that we have to withdraw from the process of cooperation and advice.  Our research showed that your legislation just been a source of cruelty and terrible pain for many of your clergy.  The vast majority of CDM victims are found to be innocent of any moral failure but they still made to pass through a crucible of life-changing pain. You have received our analysis of what is wrong.   You will now have to carry on a reform of the process on your own’.

The Church of England, in short, is being left to make huge changes in its legislation to deal with disciplinary matters connected with the clergy. There have been many accounts of the way the CDMs issued against the clergy have functioned. Two descriptions well sums up the process, inconsistent and devoid of compassion.  Some CDM processes have spawned the tortured institution of core groups.  It has, however, been noticed on many occasions that few of these core groups are deployed against the bishops themselves. There is, as far as I know, currently no shortage of CDMs in the system somewhere, lodged against bishops.  The protocols of the CDM generally does not find it easy to scrutinise the behaviour of senior clergy and so, in most cases, these CDMs of bishops etc seems to be automatically dismissed when they reach the attention of an Archbishop. What the Church is being asked to do in creating a new structure for legislation is indeed massive. The Church of England needs the data gathered by the Sheldon Trust and the collective wisdom amassed by their listening work with over-stressed clergy.  These are among those who have experienced real trauma over the years following the arrival of the CDM.  It is hard to know whether the Church has the human and organisational resources to produce a new model to replace the CDM failure.  The House of Bishops has already agreed that the CDM process is not fit for purpose.  In spite of this, it does nothing to halt the notorious Kafkaesque process being played out at Christchurch Oxford. The recent revelations by Private Eye about the restrictions being imposed on the Dean under CDM protocols are grotesque.

How do we see the future of the CDM process or its replacement? The answer is that the labour and time required to create such a new process is enormous. A group of people, with the combined skills of theology, law and pastoral common sense, would need to spend a couple of years working out how the whole process of clergy discipline can be reimagined. Do we have these resources? We probably do, but the people I have spoken with, suggest that we need this work to be done by a completely new set of church officials.  The original authors and current overseers of the CDM legislation need to be swept aside.  Someone, or better, a group, needs fresh ideas about the best ways to resolve conflict in parishes, while recognising that a system of discipline for clergy is still needed. The Sheldon reports suggest that many complaints have nothing to do with bullying or abuse, but frequently centre on issues of churchmanship. We need perhaps also a new breed of bishops which can get to the heart of such disputes between clergy and laity because they understand the pastoral needs of both sides.   In saying this, we are returning to a familiar cry.  Give us bishops who are pastors to their clergy rather than judges over them.

I should finish this piece with a brief reflection on the enormously difficult task that faces anyone with authority in the Church having to sort out the problems of the Diocese of Winchester. If Bishop Dakin is unable to agree to whatever is proposed to solve the crisis, the conflict could become very difficult.  A diocesan bishop in the House of Lords, even after a public challenge of this kind, still has a great deal of legal clout in the Church.  No individual or group at present oversees the bishop of a diocese, and no one is entrusted with the authority to question his/her decisions.  The fact of a Diocesan Synod opposing its bishop is, I believe, unprecedented and the ramifications are wide.  Church law does not seem to allow for a diocesan bishop to be guilty of anything untoward and there are no obvious precedents.  The Bishop Ball case is not a precedent since the current complaints about +Dakin are not about criminal behaviour.  CDMs against bishops normally seem to fail, no doubt, on the assumption that bishops are always above unworthy or unethical behaviour.   The CDM process failed to anticipate bishops ever coming under scrutiny. Rules and sanctions are for the ‘lower’ clergy. The solution to what has been called by some as Dakingate, is at present unknowable. Whatever happens to bring an end to the current tension, it will require a great deal of money and the attention of legal fixers in somewhat the same way as the Channel Islands breakdown. One has to ask in this situation whether all the right skills are available to the Church at the centre.  Do we have the resources of law, pastoral skill and insight that can resolve these dramatic and catastrophic disruptions to the system?

It is ironic that these two major areas of church life which require so much in the way of leadership and technical and legal skill should be taking place during the sabbatical of the Archbishop of Canterbury. One hopes and prays that wise heads will prevail and that we as a Church will come through. Wisdom in high places is what is required, and we pray that it may be found.

My own personal knowledge of the Winchester Diocese is slight.  Apart from once leading a two day residential workshop for the Continuing Ministerial Programme some twenty-five years ago, I have had no other dealings with the Diocese.  Nevertheless, I find myself wanting to understand more fully what is behind the announcement several days ago that the Bishop of Winchester is ‘stepping back for six weeks from his duties’. 

What can any outsider, like me, hope to uncover about this situation beyond the terse announcement from the Bishop of Southampton?   Thanks to the internet, the answer is quite a lot.  Two major sources of information are available to us.  One is the free and frank discussion by insiders on the website Thinking Anglicans.  Supplementing that, there are a variety of fascinating, if sometimes difficult to understand, documents about Diocesan policy that have been produced at various times during +Tim Dakin’s tenure as Bishop.  A third source of information on the Diocesan website sets out +Dakin’s own professional and academic background.  As some are now questioning whether the original appointment of +Dakin to his present post was justified, it is natural that these qualifications are being examined with close attention.  A copy of his doctoral dissertation is available online for inspection for any who wish to read it.  This was awarded by Winchester University in 2020.

My starting place for looking at these questions is a document, a job specification for a post in the Winchester Diocese, dated 25^th September 2019.  It is for a post called a Church Growth Missioner. The post did not appear to be filled at the time.  Nevertheless, we have something that would have been read by all would be applicants for the post.  It gives those of us on the outside of the diocese a good snapshot as to how the Bishop and his School of Mission saw the progress of his ambitious plans for the Diocese.  Backed up by other evidence from internally published documents, we would be right to think that these published ideas are a good summary of the Bishop’s own thinking about what he wanted to see for the priorities for the Winchester Diocese and its parishes. 

According to this first document, the Diocesan Synod in 2013 had committed itself to four strategic priorities in its move to becoming a ‘mission-shaped diocese’.  In summary, these priorities committed the Diocese to 1) authentic discipleship, 2) a reimagining of the Church, 3) to be agents of social transformation and 4) belonging together in Christ.  To undergird this vision the Bishop had summarised the ‘mission of Jesus’ in three words.  These were to be passionate, pioneering and prophetic.  These ‘P’ words had, I believe, formed the substance of the enthronement sermon given by +Dakin in 2012.  Another somewhat curious word appears in the Missioner job description – sodal.  The spell check on my computer is querying whether such a word exists, but +Dakin explains that it refers to the aspects of ministry beyond the conventional parish ministry.  These are sector ministries, chaplaincy, fresh expressions and new forms of church.  Moving a conservative establishment like the Diocese of Winchester to such radical ways of thinking and practice was always likely to be a tough call.  The issue is perhaps not whether the Bishop’s ideas and aspirations were right or wrong, but whether it was ever realistic to expect such old and new structures would be able to come together friction free.  Can sodal ever be reconciled with ‘modal’, the more conventional methods of parish life and ministry?  Just as importantly can a whole diocese receive inspiration from heavily jargonised slogans of questionable meaning such as ‘living the mission of Jesus’?  For some years, all the parishes of the Winchester Diocese have been struggling with a further mission initiative, known as Mission Action Plans (MAP).  Every benefice, large or small, was required to draw up a local MAP.  This would then be updated every few years.  My expectation is that all such Diocesan initiatives would have introduced into many parishes an inordinate amount of stress and pressure.  Surviving these frequent demands on energy and time would not have left parish priests with much stamina to continue with the day to day pastoral care of their existing congregations.

Churchmanship is thought by some to be at the heart of the present resistance of many senior leaders to the oversight of +Dakin.  No doubt a clash between conventional ways of being church and mission-focused ideas originally forged in Africa and elsewhere overseas was likely.  But the chief mistake, according to +Dakin’s critics was to expect any church model for growth to be suitable for every situation.  That is just not the way the Church of England works.  The Church Missionary Society (CMS) where +Dakin had worked as Chief Executive, is a conservative organisation and this, added to the fact that he had little understanding or experience of English parish life, made a culture clash almost inevitable. In Anglicanism, one size can never fit all.  Few church leaders would even have attempted such an attempt to lay down a single model of church life for every parish in the diocese.  The only other place in the world attempting such a thing is the Diocese of Sydney in Australia.  The attempt there has been a cause of much unhappiness.  I have no idea whether +Dakin wants all ordinands to be trained locally (Sydney-style), but that would have been a logical next step for a monochrome mission-focussed diocese to take.  Reading the documents put out by the diocese gives one no sense of any varieties of churchmanship being celebrated or even tolerated in the parishes.  There is no acknowledgement of the gifts that different traditions can make to the whole.  I can imagine that more traditional and catholic parishes are feeling under siege under this episcopacy.  They would welcome the opportunity to catch their breath during this episcopal ‘stepping back’.

Whenever a public figure is questioned over their ability to do a job, there will always be someone who goes back to look at the appointment process to see if all protocols were followed.  It has been widely commented on that +Dakin had no parish experience in the Church of England and that has come to be a important issue in the discussion about his suitability to be appointed as the bishop of a diocese in 2011.  A second area of query is his formation and training for the priesthood and his other academic qualifications.   There are various breaks in +Dakin’s published CVs which have not been accounted for.  His first BA degree is from a University in Plymouth followed by a MTh in 1987.  The MTh was obtained from King’s College London and, according to Wikipedia, this was linked to ‘ordination training’.  As far as I know the days of ordination training at Kings were long over by 1987.  Students who studied at Kings went on elsewhere to complete training.  Even if that year in London was counted for full time training, it was a very short period.  Most ordination candidates were then required to do at least two years.  The missing period between 1987 and 1993 also needs clarification.  What was the young Dakin doing at that time?  The published account on the Diocesan website refers to him being in Oxford doing doctoral research with no dates given. Did this time of study in any way link with ordination training or formation? 

The circumstances of his ordination, already discussed on Thinking Anglicans, need to be explained further.  The account that is given suggests that the ordination was in 1993 when he took up the job of Principal of Carlile College in Nairobi.  Was this ordination authorised by an English bishop issuing what I believe are called ‘letters dismissary’?  Had he passed through an English selection conference which could then be activated in Africa? Was anyone in England involved with his ordination in Africa?  The Crockford entry we have, also seems to suggest that the curacy at Nairobi only came into operation the year after he was made Deacon – in 1994.  In short, the ‘title parish’ seems only to have been added to the process of his ordination as a kind of afterthought.

The gaps and queries we have about one of the most senior prelates in the Church of England are legitimate.  No one is suggesting actual academic fraud but there are outstanding questions that that leave loose ends.   Over the next six weeks the question of whether +Dakin is ever to return to his post at Winchester has to be resolved.  One would like simultaneously to have these additional queries about his academic and ordination credentials cleared up once and for all.  As things stand at present, the suggestion that +Dakin is underqualified and has been over-promoted is hard to argue against.  That would also, by implication, cast a finger of blame against unnamed individuals who presided over his episcopal appointment. Was his appointment to Winchester by any chance an expedient to extricate him from his CMS post where, by the accounts of those who knew him then, he was the cause of much unhappiness?  Almost all diocesan bishops have first served as suffragans so as to prove their worth before taking on a diocese.   Is the failure to observe this convention in this case now a reason never again to break it?  The ‘stepping back’ of a diocesan bishop in the face of pressure by his Synod and senior clergy is unprecedented in the history of the Church of England.   Is this the beginning of a new calibration of power in the Church?  Will power now return to the same Synods who represent the grass roots of the parishes to make autocratic and arbitrary decision making by prelates impossible?  There are many possible positive possibilities for the future.  The task of reallocating power in the Church will not happen overnight, but, when it happens, we may see something healthier, wiser and more just in our national Church.  Let us hope so.