The Anglican Mainstream website carries this editorial (reprinted from New Directions): Special meeting of the House of Laity. It starts:
We are appalled by the news that there is to be a special meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to have a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the House of Laity, Dr Philip Giddings. Dr Giddings spoke up for proper and fair provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. He has been accused of impartiality, a charge not levied against those leaders in other Houses who spoke out firmly in favour of the legislation and indeed in one case against any provision whatsoever for us.
and later continues:
In response to Bishop Jonathan Baker’s fine reflection on the vote in synod the website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has been awash with misconceptions and in some cases simple untruths. Many commentators have become fixated with the idea that there is a See of Ebbsfleet. Given that Ebbsfleet is a suffragan see of the Archbishop of Canterbury and on the official advert declaring a vacancy in the see it was called the See of Ebbsfleet, one wonders why people are getting so irate. It is of course because they dislike what the See of Ebbsfleet and indeed the other Catholic sees stand for. They dislike the sense of coherence around a bishop that has grown up in our constituency. They cannot understand the world in which we operate, supporting one another and meeting together, because we share a common faith and a common vision. [emphasis added]
Unlike the Anglican Mainstream website, we are open for comments.
Erm – he’s been accused of PARTIALITY hasn’t he – ie of furthering the interests of his chosen ‘party’ when he should be impartial?
Did they state clearly that Philip Giddings is Convenor of Anglican Mainstream?
All sees, surely, are Catholic sees.
‘cannot understand the world in which we operate, supporting one another and meeting together, because we share a common faith and a common vision’ Some of us would comment that we do understand the world in which they operate and because it is ‘of the world’ and full of worldly ambition we are prevented from sharing their vision by the power of the Holy Spirit. Why, because it takes the Church of England into a place of impoverishment, disunity, disgrace and dis-empowerment. We have, nevertheless, reason to be thankful for this as in this place of weakness we will re-discover… Read more »
“Dr Giddings spoke up for proper and fair provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. He has been accused of impartiality…”
He “spoke up” for discrimination.
I would accuse him of adhering to the supposed doctrine of “male headship”–a doctrine that the CofE should hasten to disavow.
Open to comments, but not necessarily to their publication.
Futhermore their ‘operation’ has nothing to do with the cure of souls – quite the opposite – it wounds and so we may take pride in becoming the ‘wounded healers’.
I would kind of hope that they ‘shared a faith’ with the whole of the rest of the Church of England, and for the matter with the rest of Christ’s church in all of denominational forms.
According to the C of E website, an audio stream of the debate will be broadcast by Premier Christian Radio, starting at 1.30 pm. Go to http://www.premier.org.uk/synod
“Unlike the Anglican Mainstream website, we are open for comments.”
Open for comments? That’s a joke. You’ve never been open to any of mine.
EDITOR ADDS
We have in the past approved 13 comments from your email address and not published only 2 comments. Not all these comments were using the same pseudonym.
“Unlike the Anglican Mainstream website, we are open for comments.”
My comment disappeared from my last post!
It was simply
“Ouch”
Charity, common sense and justice have prevailed. The house of laity expressed confidence in its chairman.
Yes, I too have been left to “watch this space” over unpublished comments, most recently about the inestimable Dr Giddings who the Church of England so richly deserves.
But to categorise the discussion on the Baker article like this suggests the author of this editorial is away with the fairies, so’s to speak.
Because of the delay in publication on a blog like this you can often see similar comments and replies stack up, the debate was good. Where were the lies?
But the bitterness is palpable, and the vision of the Church desperately sad.
To some, the provisions that “Anglican Mainstream” (obviously a small but vocal minority of CoE) wants looks like they want to be a private club that ministers to their bigotries. I’m thinking about CoE WB in light of South Carolina. There, a schismatic former bishop is trying to do a hostile takeover of the diocese and it forces every parish and parishioner in the diocese, to make a choice and many to make hurtful decisions to leave their home parishes for another. Your CoE proposed “provisions” to discriminate against WBs threaten to similarly force whole parishes one way or the… Read more »
I agree with Sam Korn If there are non-Catholic sees in the Church of England, what sense does the new Bishop of Fulham make of the first Canon?
A 1 Of the Church of England
The Church of England, established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen’s Majesty, belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ; and, as our duty to the said Church of England requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary.
Moderation policy at TA might, itself, be an interesting topic.
However even Yours Truly, vict… experienced in the “What Happened to My TA Comment?!” phenomenon, must concede that this thread is not *that* thread.
***
On-topic:
“It is of course because they dislike what the … Catholic sees stand for.”
I dislike how the anti-OOW crowd has (attempted to) appropriated *solely to itself* the term “Catholic”.
Well, if you read “Catholic” as meaning “discriminating against women,” it’s not that desirable an adjective.
JCF: I dislike how the anti-OOW crowd has (attempted to) appropriated *solely to itself* the term “Catholic”.
Yes. As if. As if Mary Magdalene wasn’t the first Witness to the Resurrection. As if teaching, healing, and hanging out with women wasn’t in violation of laws and cultural norms. As if the female church leaders didn’t exist in the early church. They did. And they are part of the catholic church of all Christians.
If they want to go over to the Roman Catholic church, fine. I’m sure they’ll find their Nirvana there.
By and large I think that no contributor to a blog such as this should need to hide behind a pseudonym, and to use more than one pseudonym seems to me to be deliberately misleading. (Stands well clear of forthcoming explosion).