I'm not sure he understands the difference between the models. The very people he says we should be welcoming (the secular experts on safeguarding) were the ones arguing for option 3. It's about how those experts are employed not whether we need them.
I disagree with the basic premise of this article, as someone who supported Model 4 and voted against +Philip’s amendment. I don’t think this article accurately describes the debate Synod had, nor the underlying causes of the various views expressed.
My main issue with this article is the theological analysis. I don’t think the author provides enough evidence to justify such broad-brush judgements on those who voted for (or against) +Philip’s amendment
Comments
I disagree with the basic premise of this article, as someone who supported Model 4 and voted against +Philip’s amendment. I don’t think this article accurately describes the debate Synod had, nor the underlying causes of the various views expressed.