Wycliffe Hall, Governance and Learning from the Past
by Gordon Kuhrt
co-published with the Church of England Newspaper 15th July 2012 by permission
There have clearly been significant problems at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. It has had in the past a fine reputation as an Evangelical theological college which has important links with the University of Oxford. Staff have recently been made redundant because of a serious financial situation, the Principal took a very sudden leave of absence followed by his “stepping down” from the post, and then the Chair of the Council has also resigned saying he could not give the time needed in the present circumstances. This is not the first crisis in recent years. About five years ago, several distinguished staff left in very controversial circumstances, and controversy and litigation ensued. Three former and very distinguished Principals signed a letter expressing their serious disquiet over the situation. There has been substantial expenditure in legal fees and “compensation” payments.
Why has this second crisis developed with such dramatic consequences? Is it because lessons were not learned from the previous episode? I have no special “insider” knowledge of what has been happening, but I do have a range of experience of the general factors that may well be involved. Let me explain. For ten years I was a Bishops’ Inspector of Theological Colleges (in the final period a senior inspector). In that time I shared in an inspection of Wycliffe Hall. Then for the next ten years I was Director of the national Ministry Division which manages the Bishops’ Inspection regime, and carefully studied every report. On retirement from that post, I was a part-time (two days per week) tutor in charge of the preaching programme at Wycliffe for a year, and then continued to have ordinands in our parish for preaching experience. So I have a real affection for and concern about the College.
Each Theological College is governed by a Council. It has been a concern of mine for many years that members of Councils often do not have sufficient understanding of the nature of their responsibilities. They have a major role to ensure the reputation of the institution. If things go badly wrong, attention must be paid to the nature of the governance. I am a vice-chair of CPAS, and currently chair a working-party on the review of our governance. The subject is not of interest to many – that is one reason why so many Christian organisations find themselves in serious trouble.
I have little joy in writing this article with its “raking over” the painful and calamitous troubles. I am prompted to do it because of the understandably sceptical comments of one our younger Evangelical leaders (a Wycliffe graduate) who said to me “I fear the lessons won’t be learnt because it will be seen as better to put the whole sorry mess in the past”. As the famous saying goes “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are compelled to repeat the errors of the past”. The Council members have committed themselves to a “confidentiality agreement” about the details of allegations and behaviour, and no one has breached that agreement in conversation with me. This kind of agreement is very understandable – after all, who (especially Evangelical Christians) wish to wash their dirty linen in public. But the agreement has a very definite downside. It makes it so much more difficult to analyse the problems, and to learn from them. The phrase “brushing the problems under the carpet” comes to mind. So, what can be learned from what is public knowledge? and what can we pray for in this difficult time?
1 The Council (you can find their names on the web-site) have an unavoidable responsibility for the ethos and reputation of the College. It is their obligation to ask searching and probing questions, and not to be “fobbed off” with platitudinous answers. You shouldn’t be a Council member if you are too “soft-skinned”, fearful of being thought stroppy and difficult. Get to the bottom of what’s going on, be “gritty” and tough.
2 Leadership is not just about doing the right thing – it is about doing the right thing in the right way.
So Council members need to have access to staff and students to assess not only what the Principal and senior team are doing but also how it is done.
3 This leads to my final point. The Evangelical world will look closely at the appointment of a new Principal to discover whether Wycliffe is genuinely going to be made a good and generous place for women ordinands. It is easy to have the wool pulled over your eyes on this issue. Do not confuse the number of women independent students (considerable) with the number of women ordinands (very few). The figures for ordinands (with the number of women in brackets) for the last seven years are 65 (12), 74 (16), 78 (17), 65 (9), 56 (4), 62 (5) and 61 (7). It is my understanding (on the basis of considerable evidence) that for over a decade the Wycliffe experience has not been unequivocally gracious to women ordinands. The Council and senior staff seem to have colluded with this ungenerous atmosphere. We need a new Chairman who will grasp this issue in an unequivocal manner. This will need not only a public statement of intent but effective implementation. We will not be fobbed off by reference to distinguished women on the staff or comments from independent students. Decisive action is required. Our prayers are with Dr Philip Giddings the acting chairman.
Can we learn from what has happened?
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Venerable Dr Gordon Kuhrt was formerly Archdeacon of Lewisham and then Director of Ministry for the Archbishops’ Council 1996-2006. He has recently retired to Haddenham, Bucks
Ven Dr Gordon W Kuhrt formerly Archdeacon of Lewisham, and then Director of Ministry for the Archbishops’ Council 1996-2006