House of Laity Meeting, Church House, London
Friday 18th January 2013. 1.30p.m.
Chaired by the Dean of the Arches.
Canon Stephen Barney proposed the motion:
That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House.
In his opening speech Stephen Barney emphasised that this was not a personal issue but one of accountability in the role of Chair, explaining that when Dr Giddings spoke during the debate on women bishops he announced he was speaking as the Chair of the House of Laity, not as an ordinary member of General Synod. Dr Giddings spoke after Justin Welby, the Archbishop Designate, and also in contradiction to the opinions of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. Stephen felt a more statesman-like approach and strategic thinking were required. Dr Giddings did not acknowledge the 'immense responsibilty' to the House of Laity and that the vote was 'on a knife edge'. [Dr Giddings spoke about the minority views only and made no reference to the strength of diocesan voting].
Members raised the following points in favour of the motion:
Dr Giddings is the convenor of Anglican Mainstream, a minority group and associated with GAFCON, so has conflicting interests
he is prejudiced against gays and women, 'demonises gays' and 'denigrates women'
Chair should not speak if representing House of Laity, should listen to all views
he has forfeited trust
he should take note of the Nolan principles
he should be accountable to House of Laity as a whole
he has not been transparent about his views
Sister Anita spoke about the role of an abbot in seeking consensus, not pushing his own view, and leading for the sake of service
he lacks wisdom
he is not seeking the 'common good'
he is standing in the way of the rest of the Church
we need a focus on unity, commitment and finding a solution, he is not credible in speaking to the rest of the world
he does not beleive in gender equality
he does not respect the will of the dioceses
he sends letters to the press on contentious issues signed as the Chair of the House of Laity
his first loyalty is to Anglican Mainstream
we need trust, honesty and faithfulness in a Chairman
he has provided no better way
he grieviously misjudged the situation
we need to go forward
he supports male headship only
Those against said:
Dr Giddings is being made a scapegoat
the motion was vindictive, unnecessary and unworthy and punitive humiliation
he was elected by the House of Laity
he should be able to use his own conscience
free speech is being undermined
supporters of the motion are 'unChristian' [Joanna Monckton]
it was impossible to discern the views of the House of Laity until the debate on women bishops was finished
Archbishop Sentamu chaired the debate and called the speakers
the motion was an expression of anger and frustration
we are showing the world how divided we are
those who represent minorities should be respected
we are 'destroying collegiality' and 'on the slippery road to self destruction' [Chik Tan]
Dr Gidding replied:
He regrets the damage.
Sentamu knew the direction of his speech
he has offered an apology to Justin Welby, who has accepted
at the beginning of his speech he made it clear that there was a substantial majority in favour of women bishops
in his election address he made his role in Anglican Mainstream clear
Stephen Barney replied:
it had been a gracious debate
he had felt himself and Dr Giddings as 'lightening conductors' for others
the question of governance should be raised and Chairs' conduct
there was no sign of a better way
Dr Giddings' election statement was opaque
Dr Giddings had used poor judgement
There was then a proposed move to next business, which would have meant that a vote was not taken and that the motion could not be brought back. This was defeated.
Voting figures were:
In Favour 47 33.6%
Against 80 57.1%
Abstentions 13 9.2%
81 members had asked to speak.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-bishops-church-leader-dr-philip-giddings-wins-confidence-vote-8457955.html
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.of.england.philip.giddings.survives.lay.vote/31482.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3194620.stm
http://www.gazette.ireland.anglican.org/audio/Philipgiddings20052011.html
Although not called to speak I am pleased that this issue has been called to the attention of all those who asked why the debate on women bishops was not successful as it clearly shows the loyalties of the Chair of the House of Laity and those of the majority of the members.
I voted for the motion as I believe a good Chair would reflect the views of all members with evidence.
Accountabilty, honesty, integrity, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership are the seven Nolan principles of public life and I believe these should be applied by all those wishing to represent others or offering themselves for election.
Penny Allen
19/01/13
Friday 18th January 2013. 1.30p.m.
Chaired by the Dean of the Arches.
Canon Stephen Barney proposed the motion:
That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House.
In his opening speech Stephen Barney emphasised that this was not a personal issue but one of accountability in the role of Chair, explaining that when Dr Giddings spoke during the debate on women bishops he announced he was speaking as the Chair of the House of Laity, not as an ordinary member of General Synod. Dr Giddings spoke after Justin Welby, the Archbishop Designate, and also in contradiction to the opinions of the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy. Stephen felt a more statesman-like approach and strategic thinking were required. Dr Giddings did not acknowledge the 'immense responsibilty' to the House of Laity and that the vote was 'on a knife edge'. [Dr Giddings spoke about the minority views only and made no reference to the strength of diocesan voting].
Members raised the following points in favour of the motion:
Dr Giddings is the convenor of Anglican Mainstream, a minority group and associated with GAFCON, so has conflicting interests
he is prejudiced against gays and women, 'demonises gays' and 'denigrates women'
Chair should not speak if representing House of Laity, should listen to all views
he has forfeited trust
he should take note of the Nolan principles
he should be accountable to House of Laity as a whole
he has not been transparent about his views
Sister Anita spoke about the role of an abbot in seeking consensus, not pushing his own view, and leading for the sake of service
he lacks wisdom
he is not seeking the 'common good'
he is standing in the way of the rest of the Church
we need a focus on unity, commitment and finding a solution, he is not credible in speaking to the rest of the world
he does not beleive in gender equality
he does not respect the will of the dioceses
he sends letters to the press on contentious issues signed as the Chair of the House of Laity
his first loyalty is to Anglican Mainstream
we need trust, honesty and faithfulness in a Chairman
he has provided no better way
he grieviously misjudged the situation
we need to go forward
he supports male headship only
Those against said:
Dr Giddings is being made a scapegoat
the motion was vindictive, unnecessary and unworthy and punitive humiliation
he was elected by the House of Laity
he should be able to use his own conscience
free speech is being undermined
supporters of the motion are 'unChristian' [Joanna Monckton]
it was impossible to discern the views of the House of Laity until the debate on women bishops was finished
Archbishop Sentamu chaired the debate and called the speakers
the motion was an expression of anger and frustration
we are showing the world how divided we are
those who represent minorities should be respected
we are 'destroying collegiality' and 'on the slippery road to self destruction' [Chik Tan]
Dr Gidding replied:
He regrets the damage.
Sentamu knew the direction of his speech
he has offered an apology to Justin Welby, who has accepted
at the beginning of his speech he made it clear that there was a substantial majority in favour of women bishops
in his election address he made his role in Anglican Mainstream clear
Stephen Barney replied:
it had been a gracious debate
he had felt himself and Dr Giddings as 'lightening conductors' for others
the question of governance should be raised and Chairs' conduct
there was no sign of a better way
Dr Giddings' election statement was opaque
Dr Giddings had used poor judgement
There was then a proposed move to next business, which would have meant that a vote was not taken and that the motion could not be brought back. This was defeated.
Voting figures were:
In Favour 47 33.6%
Against 80 57.1%
Abstentions 13 9.2%
81 members had asked to speak.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-bishops-church-leader-dr-philip-giddings-wins-confidence-vote-8457955.html
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.of.england.philip.giddings.survives.lay.vote/31482.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3194620.stm
http://www.gazette.ireland.anglican.org/audio/Philipgiddings20052011.html
Although not called to speak I am pleased that this issue has been called to the attention of all those who asked why the debate on women bishops was not successful as it clearly shows the loyalties of the Chair of the House of Laity and those of the majority of the members.
I voted for the motion as I believe a good Chair would reflect the views of all members with evidence.
Accountabilty, honesty, integrity, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership are the seven Nolan principles of public life and I believe these should be applied by all those wishing to represent others or offering themselves for election.
Penny Allen
19/01/13