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?
4. 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?
5. 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?

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”.
The only point of any merit is that Giddings used his role of Chair of the House inappropriately, but given the content of his speech, it is very clear that he felt he was representing a minority position. Indeed, Giddings’ speech is interesting in that he at no point mentions his own theological position on the issue (he does mention he voted yes in 1992) but rather his concern for others’.

Lay members of General Synod should reject this motion outright. I think it also behoves supporters of introducing Women Bishops (like I have become this year) to publicly point out how ridiculous and damaging these kind of procedural actions actually are.

Read it all

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

1. driver8 wrote: Completely right. December 21, 11:27 pm | [comment link]

2. MichaelA wrote: Simple common sense from Peter Ould. Philip Giddings believes in women bishops - he simply thought it was a good idea to permit opponents of that idea to remain in the Church of England.  That is his real “crime” in the eyes of fanatics like Stephen Barney. December 22, 5:19 am | [comment link]

3. Pageantmaster [KJS to Coventry] wrote: Well, what a lot of real Stinkers there seem to be coming out of Leicester Cathedral. By the way: His speech against the measure followed directly after Justin Welby’s and therefore I believe directly undermined what the Archbishop elect had said Given that the principal complaint of Mr Barney against Dr Giddings is that he has undermined the Archbishop-designate; been disloyal to Justin Welby in some way, it is incumbent upon Justin Welby to promptly state that he does not regard this as disloyalty or undermining and disavow the use of his name in this complaint.  Justin Welby so far appears to have shown himself as a man of principle in successfully arguing against the excessive interest rates charged to poor people by the loan sharks of ‘payday loans’. If +Justin Welby remains silent and does not have the guts to speak up now to clear up the misuse of his name and speech by Mr Barney to attack Dr Giddings, then perhaps we will have to conclude that he too is a Stinker.  What about it Justin Welby?  Why haven’t we heard from you?  Cat got your tongue? December 22, 6:33 am | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.