According to the Church Times, the Bishop of Salisbury is investigating a new church plant affiliated with the AMiE:
THE Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam, is seeking clarification about the involvement of the Rt Revd John Ellison at a service of commissioning for a new church in the diocese that is affiliated to the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) .
Christ Church, Salisbury, has been meeting since the summer. Bishop Ellison, chairman of the Panel of Bishops of AMiE, presided at a formal service of thanksgiving and commission on 6 December.A statement from the diocese on Monday said that “No one involved in planting the church has contacted the Bishop, nor is the Diocese aware of any consultation with Churches Together in Salisbury about the need for a church plan.
“Ideally we might want to welcome Christ Church as fellow workers in Christ, but we also wonder why another church explicitly for Anglicans is needed in Salisbury when the broad spectrum of Anglican identities is already catered for.
“The Bishop of Salisbury is seeking clarification about the involvement of Bishop John Ellison in the December service. Bishop Ellison has had to postpone two meetings arranged to discuss this matter due to illness.
All Content © 2017 Episcopal Café
The Church of England has brought this upon itself by not reacting more strongly against border-crossing depredations elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.
“Depredation” seems a tad hyperbolic! What’s been depredated?
There is probably a new Anglican Church because those who feel called it do not feel welcome and or have been pushed out of other Anglican churches. Just because they may not feel welcome in one church doesn’t mean they don’t have the full right to worship, gather, tithe, etc. in a faithful way according to the customs once delivered to the saints.
I would be interested in this *particular* group’s history of (alleged) “do not feel welcome and or have been pushed out of other Anglican churches”. [Not to mention, how their (alleged) “faithful way according to the customs once delivered to the saints” differs from that of the CofE.]
Why not send them an email and see what they share?
And we just got ‘handed our hat’ by the courts in Illinois and South Carolina. In fact, we are being sanctioned for not heeding the decision of the court in Illinois. Personally, I’m sick to damn death of these lawsuits. We continue to spend ENORMOUS amounts of money even after decisions have been decided against us. Fort Worth will not likely go our way either. More money down the toilet! Lets get back to the mission of the church, please!
Amen.
Regarding the new and improved comment policy, I have been known to post more than four comments in a day, but not to the same post unless I have something new to say in that thread.
As to the subject matter at hand, the AMiE is to the CoE as ACNA is to The Episcopal Church. I’m glad to see that the CoE is seeing first hand what we’ve had to deal with in terms of boundary crossings.
What the CoE has yet to deal with is parishes and dioceses taking property. Perhaps that’s just not going to happen because the CoE is a state church. Here we have to rely upon the law as expressed by the Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf, to protect the property of The Episcopal Church from theft. We do that by going to court if need be.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=443&invol=595
Quoting:
Through appropriate reversionary clauses and trust provisions, religious societies can specify what is to happen to church property in the event of a particular contingency, or what religious body will determine the ownership in the event of a schism or doctrinal controversy. In this manner, a religious organization [443 U.S. 595, 604] can ensure that a dispute over the ownership of church property will be resolved in accord with the desires of the members.