House of Laity has confidence in Dr Giddings

One would think that Dr Philip Giddings, Chair of the House of Laity, had been guilty of some heinous crime but in fact he has been pilloried simply for speaking the truth, something with which the House of Shame Bishops have shown themselves to be decidedly economical. The motion of no  confidence moved by lay Canon Stephen Barney was suitably rejected by a substantial majority which, using the criteria of the accusers, means that members of the House of Bishops must examine their consciences very carefully.

For readers wondering what Dr Giddings may have said to incur the wrath of the women bishops movement I have copied below an unedited transcript of Dr Giddings’s speech made during the debate on the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708D) at the November 2012 group of sessions of the General Synod. Note particularly the paragraph in bold type [my emphasis]. Had there been no generosity of spirit when Synod accepted the women priests measure there would be no women priests demanding to be bishops but having achieved their aim their promise was rescinded showing a complete absence of Christian charity. As if that were not shame enough, it took the courage of a layman to prick the conscience of Synod because the bishops took as their guide yet another erroneous passage from the Bible and washed their hands of it. 


Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford): I want first, as Chair of the House of Laity, to welcome Bishop Justin as Archbishop-elect and express my very great appreciation for the speech he has just made. Sadly, although I agree with almost everything that he said, I cannot agree with his conclusion.

As Chair of the House of Laity, it is part of my role to ensure that the views of the whole House are heard, particularly on final approval business. Synod already knows that a substantial majority of the House and of laypeople generally are in favour of women bishops and of this draft Measure. Many speeches today are making that point. Therefore, I want to focus on a significant minority of laypeople who are opposed in principle to women bishops and to the content of the Measure before us.

Essentially, I wish to say that it is unwise to go ahead with a Measure dealing with fundamental matters of ministry and doctrine with a significant minority of our Church unable to accept its provisions. I do believe that we can find a better way.

On 7 February this year in Westminster Abbey, representatives of the Church of England and the URC took part in a service of penitence and reconciliation to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of non-conforming ministers in 1662. In November 2003, this Synod endorsed the covenant for unity with the Methodist Church in ‘a spirit of penitence for…our past divisions, believing that we have been impoverished through our separation and that our witness to the gospel has been weakened accordingly’. 

Surely we do not want to make the same mistakes again? Can we not find a better way of taking this historic step of allowing the consecration of women as bishops without unchurching those who cannot in conscience accept it?

Last week I received a letter from a former distinguished lay member of this Synod who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministration of women bishops. He says, ‘All I ask for is a place in that one CofE where I can continue and flourish with integrity and mutual respect, but it is precisely that which this proposed legislation denies me’. I do not agree with his views on sacramental ministry but I do not see why our disagreement requires that one or other of us has no future in the Church of England.

In 1992 I voted in favour of ordaining women to the priesthood but knowing it was unacceptable to many of my fellow Evangelicals because of their understanding of the biblical teaching on headship. I voted for that legislation because it was designed to ensure that those who could not in conscience accept it could remain with us. Today’s legislative package will not achieve that.

Do we really believe that such diversity of opinion no longer exists? Legislation does not remove diversity of opinion. It is diversity. It is not prejudice. It is not simply refusal to accept change. It is solidly theologically based judgement. That is not my view; that was recognized fully in the Rochester report. We may disagree with the dissenting minority but does that mean we have to exclude them from a future in this Church? 

Those who have worked for reconciliation in various areas of life know that you cannot achieve a solution unless all parties agree to and own it. That is the missing piece in this legislative package. Those for whom the provision is intended do not own it.

We have been told that we have debated these matters long enough. Long enough perhaps for those who are in the majority and can impose their will, but not 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. We should not be in this position. We can and should find a better way.

A house divided

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.

Plenty of vitriol has already been spilled on the Thinking Anglicans web site. A couple of guys had a crack at Anglican Mainstream for being 'unrepresentative' claiming that the opinions expressed were neither 'Anglican' nor 'mainstream' when in fact it is these parochial trendies who are unrepresentative of the Anglican Communion, voting their way out of the universal church to which we profess allegiance in our creeds. It would be a disgrace if Dr Giddings were to be removed for telling the truth as he and others see it, especially when his only motive was to care for the 'honoured' minority whom the bishops ignored despite their previous assurances. His Synod speech can be read here. Canon Stephen Barney moves the motion: ‘That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House’. Canon Barney explains his reasons in a paper here. His reasons are ridiculous as indicated:

 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.