Anglican Mainstream

by Andrew Carey, CEN

It was predictable that Philip Giddings would survive the ‘no confidence’ motion in the House of Laity last week. The inadvisable meeting, which cost tens of thousands to stage, was based on the entire nonsense that the elected officers of Synod had a duty to be neutral even when they were not in the chair. This has never been the case in my memory of decades of covering General Synod meetings.

The real reason for opposing Philip Giddings became clear during the meeting as speaker after speaker expressed animosity towards conservative evangelicalism and in particular the Anglican Mainstream grouping of which Mr Giddings is convener.

These rather extreme and illiberal liberals are the equivalent of any so-called ‘fundamentalists’ they profess to deplore. I would prefer illiberal liberals not to hold high office in the Church of England in any capacity but I recognise that the Church of England is a broad church and a certain amount of tolerance comes with the ter ritory of being Anglican. It is a shame that they find it so difficult to concede any such reciprocal generosity.

By Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, AAC International Update

The following first appeared in the January 22, 2013 edition of the American Anglican Council's International Update email. Sign up for this free email here.

On Friday, January 18, the House of Laity debated a motion of "no confidence in the chairman".

We enclose a report by Sarah Finch here as well as the text of Philip Giddings' speech here in response to the debate. The motion was defeated by 80 votes to 47 with 13 abstentions.

Robert Piggott, a BBC Religion correspondent, judged that "Whatever the precise intention, the motion's defeat, by a comfortable margin, not only leaves Dr Giddings secure in his post, but will stiffen the resolve of conservative Evangelicals, and traditionalists on the Church's catholic wing, in their demands for exemptions from serving under women bishops in the future. "

The fact that this motion was supported by a number indicates something significant in our culture which has affected the Church of England. It is the relationship between diversity and commitment.

Read more here

By George Conger, Get Religion

January has been a wonderful month for lovers of Anglican ecclesiastical drama. The resignation of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury at year’s end should have led to a few month’s peace and quiet for the Church of England and the wider Anglican world. I had even thought of taking a vacation this month as little of substance appeared on the radar as of late December.

From Ancient Briton

Unfairly described in the Guardian as the 'controversial head' of the House of Laity, Dr Giddings has become a scapegoat in the wake of the fury expressed by supporters of women bishops because he dared to do what all Synod members should, care for all Anglicans.

Read here

Read also:  House of Laity has confidence in Dr Giddings

Chair, I very much regret that this motion has been brought before us.

I do not think that any of us were prepared for the tsunami of emotion that swept across the church last November. Emotions can sometimes be a powerful force for good – they can show us what needs to be done and then insist that we muster the courage and the determination to do it. 

But emotions – especially anger and frustration- are also dangerous forces in the human psyche. They can drive us into unreason and unleash primitive forces that require catharsis or the search for a victim.

Aristotle was surely right when he warned, ‘Anyone can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person at the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way – that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy’.
Read the rest of this entry »

Church House Friday 18 January – transcribed by AM website

Mr Chairman, I regret that we are having this meeting this afternoon but I understand why and I have no difficulty with the right of members who feel they do not have confidence in an officer to bring such a motion.  I well understand that many members of this House like many outside the House were distressed and angered by the failure of the measure to obtain the required majority in November.  I regret the damage that was caused by all that occurred then.

I continue to believe that, whatever the outcome this afternoon, we need to find a better way of achieving what most of us want, that is to have women bishops without losing those who have conscientious objections to that development. In my speech I did not argue the grounds. I actually cited as my principal illustration a conservative anglo-catholic, not a conservative evangelical.  The point is not whether or not I agree with those objections. The point is that it is our calling as an Anglican church to seek to be comprehensive. It is precisely because they are the minority that we should seek to find a way of encompassing them.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Madeleine Davies and Ed Thornton, Church Times

[...]  But many members of the House of Laity spoke strongly in defence of Dr Giddings. The First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith, said that the motion misunderstood the role of the chair of the House of Laity in debates held by the Synod as a whole. In meetings of the House of Laity, Dr Giddings was obliged to be even-handed; in meetings of the Synod as a whole, he was permitted to say whatever he wished, just like any other member of the Synod.

Audio of the debate here

Report from Sarah Finch, House of Laity member. London Diocese

It would have been fun, in different circumstances, to write a light-hearted sketch about this afternoon’s House of Laity debate, held in Church House, Westminster. But the mood was sombre, and the circumstances surrounding the calling of this extraordinary meeting were worrying.

On 20 November last year, in the General Synod debate on the draft legislation that would bring in women bishops, the Chair of the House of Laity, Dr Philip Giddings, was called to speak. “It is part of my role to ensure that the views of the whole House are heard, particularly on final approval business”, he said.  He then demonstrated that the arrangements proposed in the draft legislation, to make provision for those who were opposed in principle to women bishops, were inadequate.  “Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it.”  He warned Synod that the debate had not been long enough “to gain the consent of those who are opposed and whose consent is essential if we are to remain a united and growing Church committed to mission.”  Several times he referred to the possibility of finding “a better way”. Read the rest of this entry »

From BBC News

by John Bingham, Telegraph

A bitter decade-old row over the appointment of a gay cleric as a bishop was reignited as members of the Church of England’s General Synod held a crisis meeting over the issue of women.

The Synod’s House of Laity was summoned to London on Friday to debate an unprecedented motion of no confidence in its chairman Dr Phillip Giddings over his role in the defeat of moves to allow women to become bishops.

Dr Philip Giddings has been accused of using his position as chair to issue a strong denunciation of the plans, credited by some with helping sway waverers during the knife-edge vote in November.

Although almost three quarters of the General Synod voted for women bishops, it failed to secure the required two thirds majority in the Laity by just six votes.

But during a debate on the confidence motion at Church House in London, Dr Giddings’s role in preventing Jeffery John, who is now the Dean of St Albans, becoming Bishop of Reading in 2003, was drawn back into the spotlight.

Dr Giddings, then a lecturer in politics at Reading University, spearheaded a campaign which forced Jeffery John to stand aside after he was selected to become bishop.

It was one of the most acrimonious moments in modern church history and scarred Rowan Williams’s tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Read here

From Cranmer

Today, Channel 4 News covers the plot to oust Dr Philip Giddings as Chairman of the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England, on the charge of allegedly undermining Bishop Justin Welby over the vote on women bishops. They write: [...]

His Grace read this article with a degree of disquiet, for he knows that all this 'not personal' stuff is a blatant falsehood, and he wondered why such a respected news outlet as C4 had not considered any of the contrary argument, including the reputation and standing of Dr Giddings, and why his ejection as Chairman of the House of Laity would be a grave injustice. But at the bottom of the article, we get this: [...]

So, the article is written by the daughter of the instigator of the motion to remove Dr Giddings from his position.

That must be why there's no mention of this ‘no confidence’ motion being an act of retribution for ‘thwarting’ the combined wills of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, as though those members of the laity who rejected the motion were incapable of discerning for themselves and, like children, were somehow led astray by Dr Giddings' charismatic (but evil) 'ideology'.

Read here

New Directions editorial

We are appalled by the news that there is to be a special meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to have a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the House of Laity, Dr Philip Giddings. Dr Giddings spoke up for proper and fair provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. He has been accused of impartiality, a charge not levied against those leaders in other Houses who spoke out firmly in favour of the legislation and indeed in one case against any provision whatsoever for us.

Dr Giddings is assured of our thanks and our prayers over the coming months. It is sad when a person stands up for a minority and acts in a completely Christian way that he is hounded by his peers and by clergy and bishops. All along we have been told that we need to trust the process of the Synod; sadly it would seem it is one rule for us and one rule for others.

In response to Bishop Jonathan Baker’s fine reflection on the vote in synod the website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has been awash with misconceptions and in some cases simple untruths. Many commentators have become fixated with the idea that there is a See of Ebbsfleet. Given that Ebbsfleet is a suffragan see of the Archbishop of Canterbury and on the official advert declaring a vacancy in the see it was called the See of Ebbsfleet, one wonders why people are getting so irate. It is of course because they dislike what the See of Ebbsfleet and indeed the other Catholic sees stand for. They dislike the sense of coherence around a bishop that has grown up in our constituency. They cannot understand the world in which we operate, supporting one another and meeting together, because we share a common faith and a common vision.

We must continue, in the months ahead, to build up that common life through Forward in Faith, the Catholic Societies and perhaps most importantly The Society. We have a great work to do, a work that must be focused on mission and the building up of the Church. In 1992, when the legislation to ordain women to the priesthood passed by a mere two votes, it was assumed that those of us who were opposed to this innovation would simply disappear. That is not the case; we continue to grow, we continue to foster vocations to the sacred priesthood and we continue to serve the people of God. The failure of the legislation in the Synod has given us time to reflect and to pray and to work for the furtherance of the Gospel with love and understanding. This should not be a time for blame and hatred but for reconciliation and love.

Let us therefore this year, as a constituency, rededicate ourselves to the work of the Church, to the work our constituency has always been so important in doing. Let us continue to have ecumenical conversations and keep the ecumenical project on the map. Let us continue to work and to teach in our parishes and our schools. Let us rededicate ourselves to supporting the religious life and working for vocations to the sacred priesthood.

We must support our local parishes who work with us to further the Catholic faith as we have received it. So this year let us make an extra effort to support the work of the Additional Curates Society, or to go on that pilgrimage we have been meaning to go on for years, or to return to support the patronal festival in the neighbouring parish. Despite what people might say, let us show ourselves to be a viable constituency and loving and caring witness to the Catholic faith.

We must continue to pray for and support our bishops that they will be worthy pastors of the flock and that they will continue to witness to the faith given to us from the Apostles, that they would not be afraid to stand firm in the faith. The coming year and years may not be easy ones for us as a constituency but we must resolve to stay together and to work together so that the faith can be witnessed to, and hope and pray for the day when we can truly get off the political battlefield of synods and synodical wrangling and onto the mission-field to which we are all called. We must continue first and foremost therefore in prayer together and in the celebration of the sacraments. The sacraments must continue to be at the centre of our life together as we seek to further the mission of the church through study, social action and prayer. ND

By David Pocklington, Law & Religion UK

By James Townsend (Hat Tip: Thinking Anglicans)

[...]  In an effort to help push the debate towards a productive and positive outcome, I have surveyed a number of Synod members, hoping to gauge the mood of the House of Laity.

Contrary to the fears of many, I predict a reasonably high turnout of between 75% and 79%. This is extremely positive because it means that the debate will not simply be between friends of Philip Giddings and those ‘out to depose’ him. Rather, we can reasonably say that we have come together as a whole house to discuss our future.

Understandably, many members are unwilling or unable to commit at this stage to which way they are likely to vote. However, of those prepared to indicate their ‘starting’ position, at most 46% are currently minded to support the motion. That means the proposers of the motion must think very carefully about how to achieve the support of a majority from the significant (but not very large) numbers currently undecided.

Perhaps most interesting are the comments of those who are keen to listen to the debate. There is a clear and strong distaste for recriminations or vengefulness. There is, however, a profound commitment to finding a way forward.

Read here

From Cranmer

On 20th November, the muddled legislation by which women would have been able to become bishops was narrowly defeated by the House of Laity. It was not a decisive vote against women, as much of the media reported (and many Anglicans perceive), but a rejection of the particular fudge proposed, which gave cause for doubt in the minds of both liberals and conservatives. As the Bishop of Durham and the next Archbishop of Canterbury said: “The Church has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. It is a question of finding a way that…is the right way forward.”

For some of the traditionalists, the motion failed to offer adequate protection for their consciences; for the progressives, it sustained a distinct male-female disparity in the episcopacy, rendering women bishops inferior in authority to their male counterparts. But as a result of the Synod vote, a plot is afoot to oust the Chairman of the House of Laity Dr Philip Giddings. There is an unprecedented motion of ‘no confidence’ to be debated next week, and Mr Gavin Oldham sets out his reasons for supporting the move:

[...]  It is a shame and cause of great sorrow that someone purporting to represent the progressive liberal wing of the debate on women bishops should seek to smear a traditionalist (who voted in favour of women priests) with the same spirit of extremism which leads to torture, mass murder and war. Biblical literacy is not enhanced by hyperbole: Gavin Oldham is manifestly declaring that those who place obedience to Scripture and Church tradition above progressive reason are influenced by the same evil which leads to human atrocities and appalling maltreatment. What must his view be of the Roman Catholic Church itself if Anglo-Catholics and many Evangelicals are unable to discern such evil?

Mr Oldham desires that the laity should have more influence in the church. In fact, he makes the case for less. His support for the motion against Dr Giddings is based upon nothing more than his desire to lap up everything the heterodox bishops command. The orthodox view is thereby further marginalised, and great swathes of the Anglican family alienated. If this motion succeeds, it will establish beyond doubt that the General Synod is not for purpose.

Read here

Church of England Newspaper

Do we really need this House of Laity debate?

Sir, Whatever views we may have of the stance taken by the chairman of the House of Laity in the recent debate about women being eligible for the episcopate, I hope there will be serious reconsideration about calling a meeting of the House for a censure
motion on one individual. I say that as someone who is sad that the measure failed.

Such meetings do not come free of charge and guess who, in the end, will be footing the considerable bill. Every member will be claiming their travel costs and buildings (even in Church House) cost money to use. If it does happen could your readers be advised as to the cost of this extraordinary, and I feel, extravagant meeting?

The Rt Rev Gavin Reid

Read also:  How Much to Go After Philip Giddings?  by John Richardson

By John Richardson

He may be away from his desk, but I've not yet had a reply from my email to Nicholas Hills, the Secretary to the House of Laity of the General Synod, that I sent almost two weeks ago.

In it, I asked him for a "ball-park figure for the likely cost of the House of Laity meeting in January to consider the vote of 'no confidence' in the Chair, Philip Giddings".

Like I said in the email, it was obviously a busy time (even busier now, I guess), but then it can't be an easy time for Philip either.

A true estimate of the cost must be hard to gauge, given that it will include travel and subsistence, and perhaps even time off work, for all the members. However, there must be some obvious daily costs that one can work out from the usual gatherings of the Synod (a sort of 'total minus the clergy and bishops' would do it, I guess).

Nevertheless, in these days of austerity and the need to reduce unnecessary expenditure, we who are paying for it through our quotas etc surely have a right to ask and to know.

We also have the right to know why this meeting is being called. Below is the email sent to all members of the House of Laity setting out the reasons for which Canon Stephen Barney is calling for this special meeting. Judge for yourself whether you think this is a justifiable reason for taking this course of action.

Read here

Letters to CEN From The Revd Ian Hobbs and Mr Alan Bartley

Sir,

I would put myself on the side of favouring women as Bishops because of the content and trajectory of scripture but I am deeply disturbed by the challenge to Phillip Giddings as Chair of the House of Laity (16 December).

There is a arrogant side to some of General Synod which is determined to put down any voice of questioning or difference within it. They are ignoring those (including me) who want to say ‘yes’ but would share his concern about the way in which dissenters are treated and promises have been broken.

I find this move both disgraceful and distressing. Only the House of Bishops was almost unanimous (and who elected them?). The vote was lost. Get over it and get on with finding a more full-of-God’s grace solution.

The Rev Ian Hobbs

Sir,

“It is the duty of the clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.” (Canon A8 “Of Schisms”). Given this, would it not be more becoming the House of Laity when it meets in January, if it were to pass a motion of no confidence in the House of Bishops rather than in their chairman Dr Philip Giddings (Front page,16 December)? Dr Giddings recognised the primacy of conscience and loyalty to Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church for those opposed to this innovation of consecrating women bishops, and that inadequate provision would harden and formalise our divisions.

Thus he was acting canonically, the same can hardly be said for any who promoted this inequitable and ill-drafted Measure. For let us never forget that the House of Bishops had and used their constitutional right to determine the final form that the ill-drafted legislation came before General Synod. In promoting the legislation, had their Measure passed, they would have failed to protect a loyal minority. They also failed as business managers to judge the mood of General Synod, and are responsible for this failure. What is more, they knew it was a knife-edge decision, but decided to go ahead and gamble with no plans as to how to manage the media frenzy should it, as it did, fail.

Finally, having managed General Synod into disaster, rather than doing their utmost to explain why it was reasonable and honourable to hesitate to get the legislation right, many bishops did the exact opposite and promoted or seconded the media attacks on our Church. If this is not worthy of a vote of no confidence, what is? Is it not incipient clericalism that makes these General Synod sycophants pass over this major failing of the House of Bishops while criticising Dr Giddings acting canonically? But then they also were promoters of this divisive Measure!

But who are these highly motivated and opinionated members of General Synod driving change? Can such people really represent the mainly apathetic and disinterested laity of the Church of England? Dean Stanley thought not, he called such teachers and leaders who might be expected to arise, clergy under another name. What about Ecumenism? We know this innovation will prevent the wider reunion with Rome and Orthodoxy, but what about reunion with Methodists and others? If General Synod reneges on legal assurances given to our minorities only 20 years ago, what weight will minorities in Methodism give to any assurance they are promised? Indeed, what assurance will Methodism have, as a minority in a united Church, that we will honour any assurances and safeguards to respect their ethos and heritage in a reunited Church? What of winning our country to Christ? If we promote a re-engineered Church that moves with the world, we are unlikely to be the Church Christ founded to challenge and move the world.

Alan Bartley

Also some interesting comments on the ultra-liberal Thinking Anglicans website

By Martin Dales, CEN

The General Synod of the Church of England has, unusually, been making the headlines following its vote that rejected a legislative package designed to allow women to become bishops.

The reason that train crash occurred was because of the failure by those who wanted this to happen in not ‘hearing’ the voice of those who needed a continuation of the 20-year-old Act of Synod. The Act provides for people who hold to the traditional beliefs of the Church, which have been practised since the time of Christ, and enables them to be pastorally and spiritually cared for by male clergy and bishops.

If the vote had gone through, that provision would have disappeared and a sizeable minority of the Church of England would have been left with no assurance as to a future in our national church. A promise would have been broken.

Over the last few years in the lead-up to what was meant to be the Final Vote, there were many attempts both in committee and on the floor of the Synod to suggest ways for there to be both women bishops and continued provision for those who, for theological reasons cannot accept the ministry of women.

Time and time again the proponents of this innovation voted these down. A Final Vote requires there to be a two thirds majority in each of the three Houses that make up the General Synod – Bishops, Clergy & Laity – and it was in the House of Laity that it fell.

In fact, over 27 per cent of members of General Synod, including 36 per cent of the House of Laity, voted against the proposals and that included me. It was a situation that was avoidable but, to use the Prime Minister’s words on his return from the failed EU budget talks recently, “It was just not good enough.”

Read the rest of this entry »

By Peter Ould

The text of Canon Stephen Barney’s reasons for the vote of no confidence in Philip Giddings is now public.

[...]  I think this is very poor. Let’s get to the core of what Stephen’s complaints are, bullet by bullet. Each point below is directly related to the bullet in the text above.

1. Philip Giddings disagreed with Justin Welby - How is this possibly a reason to have no confidence in someone?
2. Philip Giddings disagreed with the majority if Bishops – How is this possibly a reason to have no confidence in someone?
3. Philip Giddings convinced some people to vote no – How is this possibly a reason to have no confidence in someone?
   Philip Giddings spoke as “Chair of the House” – This is possibly the only point of merit, but in his speech Giddings specifically referred to his role as Chair for two purposes only. First, to congratulate Justin Welby on his appointment and second, to reflect a minority view which he may or may not hold to. Is it Canon Stephen’s position that the Chair of the House should not try to represent minority positions?
4. Some people in the wider public didn’t like the decision of the Church - So what? How is this possibly a reason to have no confidence in someone unless he and he alone made the decision?
5. There might now be a vote on a Single Clause which will provide poorer provision then Philip Giddings wants – So what? There might not be. One cannot blame Giddings for something that “might happen”.