Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Archdeacon ousted in a very religious coup

Your support helps us to tell the story

Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.

Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.

Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.

Head shot of Louise Thomas

Louise Thomas

Editor

ANDREW BROWN

Religious Affairs Correspondent

The Venerable George Austin, the best-known opponent of women priests in the Church of England, is the victim of a coup mounted against him by two of his fellow archdeacons.

Archdeacon Austin sits in the General Synod, the Church's "parliament'', as representative of the three archdeacons of the diocese of York, but is in danger of being forced out because his colleagues, the Ven Christopher Hawthorn, Arch-deacon of Cleveland, and the Ven Hugh Buckingham, Arch- deacon of the East Riding, have refused to endorse his appointment.

To make matters worse they did not tell Archdeacon Austin of their decision until after the deadline had passed for him to have a second chance of remaining on the Synod - by standing as a candidate for election by all his fellow clergy.

As one of the longest-serving and most powerful politicians on the Synod, he is also a member of the Crown Appointments Commission, the committee that chooses diocesan bishops and appoints to the Church Commissioners. He will be forced to vacate these positions if he is not appointed as representative of the three archdeacons of the diocese of York.

"They ambushed him in a way from which he has no defence," said Fr John Broadhurst, chairman of Forward in Faith, the group that co-ordinates opposition to women priests in the Church of England. "They behaved in a way you wouldn't behave to your worst enemies. It is the sort of thing you would expect in Fleet Street but not in the church of Jesus Christ. The whole thing is disgusting."

Archdeacon Austin caused a national storm by suggesting that the Prince of Wales was unfit to be king because of his admitted adultery.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in