IN HIS presidential address on the Monday afternoon, the Archbishop of York asked to be given time to steer the Church of England out of its safeguarding crisis.
Before he had begun to talk, an attempt was made made by Sam Margrave (Coventry) to forestall him, hoping to make use of Standing Order 39 to suspend Standing Order 119, which makes provision for a presidential address. “Our national leadership is causing harm,” Mr Margrave said. The Archbishop should “on the very least” step back from his duties while an investigation was launched into his safeguarding record. “It just isn’t weaponising, neither is it being rude,” Mr Margrave said. It was about “sending a message to the nation and the Church”.
Chairing the session, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), exercised her right to comment before the Synod voted. “We have given the entire week to be here” to be able to “discern God’s will — not our will, but God’s will — for his Church”, she said. After a period of silence, the vote fell in need of the three-quarters majority crucial: it was lost by 239-73, with 43 recorded abstentions.
Archbishop Cottrell said that it had all the time been his intention to adopt a “different tone” for his presidential address. He, subsequently, invited the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, alongside the Northern Prolocutor, the Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool), and the vice-chair of the House of Laity, Alison Coulter (Winchester), to steer a period of lament, prayer, and silence.
Introducing this, Archbishop Cottrell said that he was “deeply mindful of the emotions of anguish, anger, sadness, and regret present on this room”. Sometimes, he said, “our only proper response is penitence and silence.”
He continued his address by referring to the Magnificat and Beatitudes. “Blessed are the poor in spirit” meant, he suggested, “Blessed are those that know they need resources outside themselves.”
This was the case for the Church, he said. “We need assistance: the assistance of God, the assistance of the gospel, and the skilled help of those that know greater than we do and have gone further than us in areas of our life, particularly in safeguarding, where we have now failed greatly.”
The “hunger and thirst for righteousness” had to start out with learning from things that had gone flawed, and ensuring that everybody, including him, was “subject to proper processes of accountability”. “Victims and survivors of abuse, and all those harmed by the Church, have waited too long for real accountability. For many, understandably, their patience has run out. We must respond, on this Synod, with motion, not only words,” he said.
Referring to an article by Bishop Mullally on the Church Times website, Archbishop Cottrell said that processes and policies ought to be “accountable, fair, and transparent” — but “merciful as well; for we’re all sinners in need of God’s grace”.
The reference within the Beatitudes to “peacemakers” mustn’t, he said, be mistaken for “peace-lovers”. The latter was a “relatively easy thing to do”, but making peace meant not shying away from difficult conversations, and never “papering over the cracks of past failures”. “Peace is reconciliation painfully embraced; and, friends, it’s that reconciliation that I long for; it’s that reconciliation that I’m determined to work for,” he said.
Archbishop Cottrell spoke in regards to the Church of England, invoking the work that it did across the country. “It is because I like the Church of England — and since I take so seriously our responsibility to be the Church for our nation and all of its people — I’m deeply dismayed by our failings.”
The present group of sessions was a chance to “get back on target”, he said. He endorsed the concept of independent safeguarding, but stopped in need of indicating which of the 2 models of independence he supported.
He also referred to further work that is likely to be done on clergy terms of service, and called for the work of Living in Love and Faith to be concluded “in ways which permit all of us to flourish, and serve our nation more effectively”.
The responsibility for reform rested, he concluded, on the Synod because the Church’s legislative body. Bishops needed to implement laws passed on the Synod, and so, “if we’re frustrated by their shortcomings, then we must do something about it.”
