Is the Chairman of the House of Laity going to chair this single item meeting in which the issue in question is a vote of No Confidence in his chairmanship?
Well, what with a "Right Worshipful" Q.C. chairing this gathering makes it all sound even more like a court of law but I'm still not sure what "crime" Dr. Giddings is being accused of?
I only hope that His "Right Worshipful" forgets his black cap on the 18th and doesn't have to make the solemn pronouncement that Dr. Giddings will be taken from this court to a place of execution where he will be hanged by the neck till dead and "May God have mercy on your soul"
He is having to answer not for any crime, but for his failures of leadership.
Fr David - you forgot the middle bit about 'to a lawful prison'.....:-)
what does failure of leadership actually mean?
Is there any real sense that the vote would have gone a different way if he hadn't spoken against the measure?
Is there any reason to assume that 6 people who had already made up their minds would have voted the other way?
I still do not see this as anything other than scapegoating.
Jeremy, it seems to me that Dr. Giddings displayed admirable leadership skills in his contribution to the women bishops debate especially in the use of his trinitarian mantra - "there must be a better way". Indeed there must be and simply by seeking to get rid of the Chairman of the House of Laity is not a good beginning to seeking the "better way" which his sage leadership suggests.
Father David, I can't put it better than the writer above, who says that the lay chair "wish[ed] for a better way but to ha[d] no idea (or no idea to be admitted) of what that might be."
Erika, anyone who mistakes this motion for scapegoating is truly missing the point, which is simple. The lay chair should represent the overwhelming view of the laity that women bishops should now be ordained.
Erika, I'm glad that I don't have to attend and vote, as I respect Dr. Giddings, having worked for him. But there are, to me, credible arguments in favour of the motion posted here on TA. In the US, we don't always realise the lack of neutrality that chairs on an English model can exhibit. My own bishop (of CO) at the time was taken aback by Rowan Williams' speech on human sexuality at Lambeth '98. Chairs really can have an impact, and if they are in the minority, that can be at least un-, if not anti-, democratic.
that's precisely my point. As far as I'm aware there is not requirement for neutrality. Certainly, the chairs of the other houses weren't neutral.
And the corollary to chair non-neutrality is that the chair who advocates for a minority view is taking a chance.
Such a chair is choosing to run the risk that the majority will then vote to remove the chair.
It's that simple.
Having chosen to take that risk, the chair cannot be heard to complain if the risk assumed indeed does come to pass.
Especially here--where the minority view that the lay chair advocated was that the church should continue to discriminate against women.
What a mast to which to nail one's standard!
Twenty years of talking and waiting. It feels like the meeting on the 18th will be more of the same. It's simple - think of men and women as people, then we can each use our time and talents in the service of God.
After twenty years men and women have to be given absolute equality, no fudges.
Let's put our energies into speaking out against domestic violence, poverty etc not into an outdated debate.
Presumably the Church of England Laity have noted the endemic attitude of Dr.Giddings towards the unencumbered ordination of Women as Bishops; so that they may vote accordingly at the next election.
I presume that your comment about the next election includes all 33 female members of the House of Laity who opposed the Measure.
Many of them supported a provision for those opposed (that you might consider to be an encumbrance), rather than a single clause measure. Yet they do not oppose women bishops in principle. The prospect of electoral retribution against them would appear a tad self-defeating.
I'm not really clear what it means to say you don't oppose women bishops in principle when you have theological objections to them and you determinedly vote against every attempt to allow women to be ordained as bishops.
I'm starting to suspect 'in principle' here is being used as the opposite to 'in practice', ie 'I accept that the C of E has voted for the principle of women being bishops but I am going to fight the implementation of that principle as hard and as long as I can'.
David, Actually, some of the women concerned are definitely opposed in principle to Women Bishops and would quite happily argue those principles. They remain so opposed regardless of provision, or would want provision that fundamentally affect the anglican understanding of episcopal orders. Choosing not to re- elect people is not necessarily retribution, it is reconsidering one's choices and decisions in the light of past events. I think that might also be considered wisdom.
I see that the motion of no confidence in the Chairman was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Laity today.
Perhaps if some folk prayed a little more and politicked a little less, the Church of England would have an impact on the vast number of non-Christians in this country.
It seems that many members of the Synod cannot get over the fact that the Synod prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide their vote on women bishops and then didn't like the outcome. So was God wrong?
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.