Yesterday, the Archbishop of York told General Synod that he wished to “make a small correction to the record.” He chose to make this correction just before he gave his Presidential Address and before many members of Synod had taken their seats.
This is what he said.
“I’d like to make a small correction to the record, um, since the last meeting of the General Synod and following the publication of the Wilkinson Report it has come to my attention that when I spoke in the ISB [Independent Safeguarding Board] debate at the July Synod in 2023 I mistakenly said that the decision by the Archbishop’s Council to terminate the contracts of the two remaining members of the ISB was unanimous.
Actually, the Wilkinson report states of those voting, 11 voted in favour, four voted against and four chose not to vote. I’m sure we will all remember, those of us who were here, it was a heated and difficult session. I spoke incorrectly and since it’s been pointed out to me, I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize and to put the record straight.”
The Archbishop refers to paragraph 567 of the Review of the Independent Safeguarding Board carried out by barrister, Sarah Wilkinson, which states:
“The Archbishops’ Council decided by eleven votes to four (four members did not vote) to proceed with the termination of the ISB contracts on 21 June 2023.”
He also refers to the ISB debate at General Synod in July 2023, which was indeed a “heated and difficult session.” Followers of Anglican Futures may remember the blog that was written at the time, raising concerns in the light of Wade Mullen’s book, “There’s Something Not Right.” As that blog said, “What Synod experienced yesterday had all the marks of a powerful body in damage-limitation mode.”
Sadly, the context and content of this ‘correction’ suggest that this is just more of the same.
First, the context.
This ‘correction’ comes twelve months after the event. Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell has had numerous opportunities to correct the record so it has to be asked, “Why has it taken so long?”
- His original comments appear to have been scripted. The video of the debate shows that the Archbishop had papers in his hand, which he looked at as he said:
“We have proceeded all along in the knowledge that we are working with people of goodwill and in the belief that we do all want the the same thing but we acknowledge that we have failed to get there, um and the decisions that we took in getting here were unanimous.” [1]
- It can thus be assumed that this was not an ‘off the cuff’ comment. At the time it was thought his comments were designed to correct the impression given by the Archbishop of Canterbury the day before, who, when asked how the Archbishops voted in the Council Meeting, had said “Both Archbishops wished to, uh, wait a bit.” [2] In fact, The Church Times had already reported that a Church House spokesperson had confirmed that the decision of the Archbishops’ Council had been unanimous, “quashing suggestions that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had voted against the move.”
- During the question time after the presentation, the Archbishop of York was asked directly about the vote by Rev Robert Thomson and Mr Sam Margrave – both suggested that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who had left Synod to go to his mother’s hospital bed) had lied to Synod. Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell could have used this opportunity to correct his narrative but instead he doubled down, saying, “This was a collective decision and it was a unanimous decision, um as I think has come out there may have been some disagreements around timings um because this was a sensitive issue but but they were not disagreements about the decision itself.” [3]
- In November 2024, Mr Sam Margrave, brought a petition to General Synod calling for the Archbishops to be disciplined – because, based on the view that the vote had been unanimous, he asserted, “Justin Welby implied that he and Stephen Cottrell did not vote for the ISB proposals to disband or remove members, saying they wanted to wait. The Archbishop of York did not contradict the statement.” [4]. Again the Archbishop of York did not choose to correct the record at that time.
- The Wilkinson Review came out in December 2023.
- In February 2024, the Archbishop of York told General Synod, “The Archbishops’ Council had a substantial item discussing the Wilkinson Review.” [5] Later in that session of Synod he went as far as to say, “What I found humbling and helpful about the Wilkinson Report is that it tells us where and how we have gone wrong. It has been sobering to read it and receive it.” [6] Yet, he made no mention of his need to correct the record in the light of paragraph 567.
So, why now? Why do we have this statement at this time.
The answer to that is simple. The Archbishop told Synod “…since it’s been pointed out to me…” According to one of the ISB members, Dame Jasvinder Sanghara, it was pointed out a year ago, so clearly this is not just about knowledge of the error. Instead It appears that the Archbishop is not acting on his own volition, and someone with sufficient power has told him he needs to “correct the record”. Is this why he has also been writing letters to abuse survivors to correct other records?
The Archbishop is acting like a small child, caught red-handed and wanting to get the apology over as quickly and as quietly as possible.
He does not include the apology in his Presidential Address because those words are sent round the world and published on his own website.
He does not wait until Monday morning’s Safeguarding Independence Update because it is likely the the eyes of the safeguarding world will be focused on that debate.
Instead he slips it in, as an aside, before the majority of Synod have arrived and hopes that no one will notice. He slips it in before he can be called out in the “Trust and Trustworthiness” debate or be called to account during Questions.
If the Church Times had not reported his words he may have got away with it.
Yet, it is not just the context of this statement that lacks sincerity. The content also bears all the hallmarks of the ‘faux apology’ the Archbishop of York offered Synod last July.
The Archbishop minimises the problem. It is only a “small correction” that is required. He did not lie to Synod, or mislead Synod, instead he says he “spoke incorrectly” and “mistakenly”. This suggests it was not his decision or his fault.
The Archbishop takes no responsibility for his decision. Instead he reminds Synod that, “It was a heated and difficult session.” He looks for their sympathy and presumes they will excuse him.
The Archbishops takes no responsibility for learning from what happened. There is no explanation about how he came to make this “mistake”. No suggestion that he has realised that he should have checked the minutes of the relevant meeting of Archbishops’ Council before assuring General Synod that the decision had been unanimous.
Finally, the Archbishop takes no reponsibility for the impact of his actions. His words have caused others to accuse Justin Welby of lying, they have damaged the reputation of the Archbishops’ Council and they have added to the mistrust surrounding the House of Bishops. Yet, Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell appears to believe that all he needs to do is “set the record straight.”
It is not good enough.
How can Synod operate properly when they cannot trust the words of an Archbishop? When despite attempts to hold the leadership accountable the spin machine supports the error? When a senior leader only accepts fault when their error is exposed? And when there is no concern at all to consider why mistakes have been made in order to avoid them in the future?
Time is running out and it will take more than a small correction to restore trust in the Church of England and particularly in the Archbishop of York.
