The House of Laity will meet on 18 January to discuss a vote of no confidence in their Chairman, Dr Philip Giddings, an honourable man stained by feminist puppets who pretend that they are doing God's work, praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit then ignoring the result if they don't like it. As a former Archbishop of Wales said on first losing the vote to ordain women, it was the work of the devil but the Holy Spirit spoke when the measure succeeded! With senior clerics given to such ridiculous outbursts a lack of confidence in their leadership is hardly without foundation. There are many passages in the Bible providing guidance for the church but trendy clerics tend only to misquote Galatians 3:28 while ignoring passages which they find unhelpful to their cause such as 'the whiles of the devil', blind guides, lost sheep, etc, all which support the orthodox view of Christianity.
His speech against the measure followed directly after Justin Welby’s and therefore I believe directly undermined what the Archbishop elect had said - What was the point in having a debate if the measure was to go through on the nod? The Archbishop elect is not infallible. The departing Archbishop said that members should vote according conscience so shouldn't Abp Rowan also be censured for undermining his successor?
Since it was against it did not support the views of the House of Bishops as a whole - Why should it? The House of Bishops have shown themselves to be in hock to WATCH. They are unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion as a whole and of the bishops of the Apostolic Church.
Speaking as the Chair of our House his speech was instrumental in convincing some of the undecided members of the House to vote against - If the Chair of the House of Laity carried more weight than the Archbishops, bishops and clergy, why is that not the work of the Holy Spirit? The implication in this remark is that other members of the House are mindless idiots awaiting direction.
I believe the speech was therefore a significant contributor to the reputational damage the Church of England is already suffering at the hands of the press, which is also manifest in the comments of the Prime Minister, the emerging reports of withdrawal of financial support, the angry reaction of church members and the disbelief and ridicule expressed by many of our secular friends, all of which I believe will damage the mission of our church - Any 'reputational damage' is solely attributable to the reaction of the ungracious losers who, let us not forget, just scraped the necessary majority for the ordination of women to the priesthood based on assurances given to those who opposed the measure consistent with the view of the Holy Catholic Church.
The failure of the Measure is already giving momentum to the idea that the only likely solution now is a single clause Measure, which would result in a worse outcome for the minority groups than was on offer on Tuesday - How disingenuous can one get? The vote was NOT against women bishops, it was against the watered down 'provision' until it was meaningless, especially when considered against previous assurances. If a single clause measure results from this it will clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of the movement to ordain women from the outset. It is clear that they want to rid Anglicanism of orthodoxy because it is an uncomfortable reminder that the liberal agenda they follow has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with secular fancy.
If the trendies had any honour they would agree provision acceptable to those for whom it is intended. Anything else is a cruel sham which will collapse the whole edifice if not properly addressed: "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
Today comes the news that the Church of England has dropped its prohibition on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops. Drawing ever closer to the failing Episcopal Church in the united States one has to ask how much confidence there can be in the absurd suggestion that the House of Bishops would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate. Read here of the promise made by the bishops of the Church in Wales when the Bill to allow women to be priests was passed. This was passed unanimously among the bishops following coercion, a process which continues today with intimidation of those opposed to the ordination of women. Among the signatories was Rowan Williams, then Bishop of Monmouth, who as Archbishop of Canterbury at least maintained the appearance of caring for all by continuing to appoint Provincial Episcopal Visitors while the then Bishop of Bangor, now the Archbishop of Wales and archliberal Dr Barry Morgan, along with his fellow bishops, has reneged on the undertaking given. Likewise the House of Bishops has reneged on their promise of an honoured place for 'traditionalists' in the Church of England. I suppose on that basis one could say that the bishops are undivided - except that they have excluded themselves from the rest of the Apostolic Church. Promises are made to be broken apparently.