The no confidence motion is a piece of illiberal vindictiveness simply unworthy of even being considered by the House of Laity. Philip Giddings is the Chair of the House; he is entitled to have his own views on the propriety of ordaining women to the episcopate and on whether or not the legislation before the Synod was fit for purpose. He is also charged with representing the views of those who are members of the House of Laity. His speech, if you read it, is measured and thoughtful. (I happen to think he's wrong in the conclusion that he reaches, but that's neither here nor there).

We have had over the years in Synod, Prolocutors (Clergy) and Chairs/Vice Chairs of the House of Laity whose positions on the ordination of women have variously been for and against. They have spoken from that particular viewpoint (David Silk and Norman Russell spring to mind as principled opponents/doubters).

By contrast, the argument in the proposer's paper is politically illiterate, incoherent, naive, and reeks of the sort of liberal intolerance that we have seen all too frequently in recent years within the Anglican Communion. I hope that the House will see sense and send this no confidence motion into the oblivion it deserves.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Provinces • Church of England (CoE) • CoE Bishops

1. MichaelA wrote: +Broadbent is a proponent of women bishops.  But he points out how Stephen Barney’s motion (which he fairly describes as “vindictive”, among other things) does not help the cause of women bishops in CofE. December 22, 5:58 am | [comment link]

---

© 2013 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)