Dear Stephen
In our working relationship, I have always sought to be open and honest with you. I have also always sought to follow Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18: if you have an issue with a brother, go to him first privately, and only if he will not listen should you then go to others, and make it public.
That is why I wrote to you and spoke with you about why I could not share Communion with you in 2023. In February 2023, you stated on Radio 4 that ‘we’ now believed that sexual intimacy could take place in any relationship that was permanent, faithful, and stable, which is a clear contradiction of the doctrine of the Church of England, that ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ marriage is between one man and one woman, and that (in repeated statements from the House of Bishops and other bodies over many years) sexual intimacy outside that was sinful.
After a number of conversations, and repeated requests by email, you finally replied, but simply to insist that these two contradictory things were in fact not contradictory—that you did both believe your statement made on Radio 4, and that you also believed the doctrine of the Church.
It felt very much as though you had to say these two things to keep happy two different groups. It would not be acceptable to orthodox Anglicans to have an archbishop who did not believe the doctrine of the Church—but it would not be acceptable to those who want to see change in doctrine for you to withdraw your previous comment. I am not sure either group thinks this is an honest position to hold.
But I am writing this open letter in response to your interview in the Church Times last Friday, since this practice of saying contradictory things was very evident there, and it sets the backdrop against which we meet this week at General Synod.
I found it curious that you quite quickly raised the question of David Tudor. You mention him as an example of the pain of living with a challenging safeguarding situations but being prevented from taking action because of inadequate processes and systems. You have said in public, and said to me in person, that you found the situation ‘intolerable’, and that ‘I did all that I could’.
But both of those are clearly not true. You say that you have ‘no recollection’ of calling him a ‘Rolls Royce priest’, but others recall this clearly. You say that you ‘did not hold him up an exemplar’, but you renewed him as Area Dean not once but twice. Diocesan documentation makes it clear that this was your own decision as bishop, and not something that was delegated. You claim that he was made a canon ‘because of a policy in the diocese’. But that was a policy you yourself introduced (and which your successor in the diocese reversed), and it would not be hard to understand the consequences of it.
Your claims that you ‘beat myself up’ and ‘deeply regret that’ are wholly unconvincing; the facts of what happened are incompatible with the claims you now make, which seem designed to protect your own reputation.
To now claim that this experience means you ‘know better than anyone’ that change is needed is quite incredible—and I suspect many would find it offensive. The idea that your failure to act in relation to David Tudor makes you uniquely qualified to lead change in the Church is extraordinary.
In relation to the bishop of Warrington, Bev Mason, you stated:
“Nobody asked or required the Bishop of Warrington, [and] certainly not me … to take some extended sabbatical leave”, adding that she said “what she needed was space”.
However, Bev herself has now made a public comment contradicting this:
I persistently sought due process to bring this matter to a conclusion. Extended study leave was suggested by the archbishop of York’s office on three occasions as a pastoral response to my formal safeguarding disclosure against the Bishop of Liverpool. At the third suggestion by the Archbishop of York, in mid August 2023, I agreed and commenced the study leave on 7th September 2023.
I understand that you have claimed that these two statements are not contradictory—which I don’t think any normal reader would accept. It seems as though one of you is not telling the truth.
In relation to the CNC process, your Times interview states:
Cottrell said he was “very aware of the power dynamics” of being an archbishop on the committee but said his role as its chairman was “to enable other voices to be heard”.
Yet three different members of that CNC have privately raised concerns that the dynamic was very different, that you used your position as chair and archbishop to push through the appointment of someone whom you had known for many years, whom you had sponsored in ministry, and whom you had appointed both as archdeacon and then as area bishop. One of them felt so strongly about it, that this person decided to share the concerns anonymously in public, believing (with the support of legal advice) that the confidentiality of the process should take second place to the very serious issues involved.
I felt I should come forward with my memories of Liverpool CNC, which has deeply disturbed me. I believe there was an abuse of process…I believe there was bullying of the elected members…[One female committee member] told us she had changed her mind during the rounds of voting. She had laid aside her concerns over safeguarding based on the guidance provided by Stephen Cottrell, and supported by Steven Croft. This appeared to me as evidence of coercion by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft…
It was suggested that the safeguarding issue identified regarding John Perumbalath was a basis to reject the candidate. But Stephen Cottrell urged members to keep him in the process. Steven Croft agreed … I was shocked by this attitude to safeguarding, effectively that a candidate identified as a safeguarding risk is acceptable because Stephen Cottrell says so.
Once again, your own account and the account of this whistleblower cannot both be true. One of you is not telling the truth. Actually, more than that—if what you say is true, than all three of the concerned members must, independently, not be telling the truth, despite the fact that each of them is a respected figure both within and beyond the Church. Others on other CNCs have made similar comments to me in private. Are they all lying?
I am glad that you mention the importance of transparency and accountability. But as archbishop, you have been instrumental in avoiding making the discussions of the House of Bishops over the last two years either transparent or accountable. The minutes of the last year’s meetings have just been made available—but only after repeated requests and huge pressure. And where, still, is the publication of the legal advice which you and others have claimed allows your proposals? ( I have been told that you did help the process of having minutes published—but why now, not two years ago? And why not the legal advice and other papers?)
I am glad, too, that you talk of all the good things that are happening on the ground. What you don’t mention is the extent to which local clergy and laity are discouraged, demoralised, and sometimes even in despair, at the headlines which have repeatedly mentioned both you and Justin.
The problem here is the issue of trust. We had a long, important, and challenging paper at July Synod, which seems to have disappeared from the radar, on the lack of trust there is in the Church—and in particular the lack of trust in senior leadership in the Church. The contradictions in your own statements, the lack of plausibility of your own claims, and the conflict between the claims you make and the claims of others who seem truthful all undermine that trust. How can someone whom people do not trust lead us through change?
This is most evident in your comments about the LLF process. You describe this process as if the outcome is pre-determined—that we will, in time have ‘what we now call a “bespoke service” in church, or a priest getting married to a same-sex partner’. In stating this, you are driving a coach and horses through due process; you are ignoring past legal assessments that either of these things would be ‘indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church’; and you are setting aside the statement made only last month from the episcopal reference group of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that both context and content of services must be considered to ensure there is no departure from doctrine.
You say that you are committed to listening. Well, those of us who do actually believe the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ would like you to listen to this: we find your approach here both autocratic and patronising. Autocratic because you state you are committed to this goal regardless, and patronising because you pat us on the head with language of ‘provision for conscience’ (though I note you don’t make that allowance for future episcopal appointments). It is not our conscience that is the problem; it is yours. You seem determined to continue the splits in the Anglican Communion, and our movement away from the consensus view of the church catholic, whilst all the time talking of unity.
To push through divisive change in a dishonest way and then blame those who point this out as responsible for division is, I think, called ‘gaslighting’ (though the term is bandied about too much). But claiming that the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ is a place where we ‘live together with conscientious disagreement’ is quite disingenuous. You assume that this issue must be a ‘thing indifferent’ (something rejected by the Bishop in Europe as chair of FAOC)—as long as you get your way. This is all about power.
In amongst all this, the comment I found most staggering was this one:
Read it all at Psephizo
