Updated Monday evening
Jesmond Parish Church has written a Q and A document about its reasons for the episcopal consecration. This was handed out in church this morning. The full text is copied below the fold.
Today’s Sunday programme on BBC Radio carried an interview with David Holloway, and this was followed by a discussion in which the participants were Gavin Ashenden and Ian Paul. You can hear that by following this link and going forward 32 minutes. The BBC headlines the item as ‘Breakaway Anglican Church’.
Update
Christian Today reports that:
A spokeswoman for John Sentamu told Christian Today: ‘The Archbishop of York has been informed by the Bishop of Newcastle that a minister who holds her licence in that diocese has been made bishop in a ceremony held under the auspices of an overseas Church.
‘All clergy of the Church of England are bound by Canon Law, which forms part of the law of the land.
‘Whilst the facts of the matter are being investigated it is not possible to say how what has happened relates to Canon Law so it would not be appropriate at this point to offer further comment.’
Consecration of New Style Bishops – Q & A
What can we achieve through new style bishops?
The growth of the Church because one of their key roles is to ordain (that is, to authorise and appoint) new ministers who will provide the next generation of ministry in both existing churches and new church plants.
Why are they needed?
Because in the confused Church of today such bishops need to be faithful to 1) the biblical miracles of the virginal conception of Jesus and his Resurrection and empty tomb; 2) the biblical ethic that sex should be reserved for lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage; and 3) the biblical principle that means bishops should be male – all issues in the North East in recent years. So bishops Martin Morrison and John Ellison have helped churches like Jesmond Parish Church, St Oswald’s Walkergate, Christ Church Durham, Holy Trinity Gateshead, St Joseph’s Benwell, and other churches when needed. But they cannot go on for ever!
How will the Church of England grow?
By new English bishops working to a new style of being bishops – that is working primarily to establish new churches. Martin Morrison provides such a model: he continues in his local church, while exercising a wider role to establish new churches and provide external accountability.
How will the Church of England benefit?
The aim is not to create a new denomination. No! This is one small but necessary step on behalf of faithful Church of England ministers and congregations nationwide in our mission to the nation. This is not a step of ‘leaving the Church of England’. It is the theologically liberal bishops and clergy that have ‘left the Church of England’ doctrinally. This is a step to preserve the Church of England’s heritage and mission which we have received.
Could we not have carried on just as we are?
No! We need new style English bishops here ‘on the ground’ to plan for and enable the urgent spread of the gospel nationwide – especially through church planting. And ‘carrying on as we are’ would almost certainly mean biblically faithful ministers finding it increasingly difficult to be ordained and deployed by the current system, as people are ‘filtered out’ according to their views on homosexual practice and the ordination of women.
Will it produce more clergy and growing churches?
Yes, with prayer! For it requires, fundamentally, the ordination and deployment of new ministers who are biblically faithful – which the current system, sadly, can hinder. And we hope that some of those ministers will move into existing Church of England posts as well as new church plants, to contribute to the recovery of the gospel and to further the ministry of men and women for church growth.
The only part of this that really matters is in the second question about male clergy and heterosexual “monogamous” marriage. In the end, it’s about keeping the filthy gays and uppity women away from those decent Christians who believe that the Gospel is really about how to hate and discriminate. We have seen these “puritan” movements endlessly. I never fail to be amazed and what lengths these people will go to in order to keep women and gay people “in their place”. If they could burn witches and stone gays to death, they might be quite happy to do so.… Read more »
It us just so sad. “Those who live in love,live in God and God lives in them “.I like to keep it as simple and as humane as that!! Them/Us and either/or thinking is what feeds division and hate..the world needs more kindness and both/and thinking.Jesus was sooo inclusive and loving.Just so sad that it’s all been distorted..but then I’m just a 76yr old women priest!!!!!
Are they living in cloud cuckoo land? There is nothing to explain how these people can be proper Church of England bishops.
I tuned in part way through the Holloway interview and heard Paul and Ashenden. I presumed that these people must have been preceded by some people still in touch with reality, talking sense. Regrettably, this does not seem to have been the case. I found Holloway’s self-righteous certainty insufferable but, what a great idea! You don’t think much of your appointed bishop (not least because she is of the wrong gender), so you bring in some overseas bishops, from a church with a very dodgy record over apartheid, and get them to consecrate your curate. So your father-in-God is someone… Read more »
I’d far rather this stuff were shunted off to a ghetto of its own making than allowed to infiltrate the hierarchy so it can be imposed on everyone else. Hopefully, they’ll be left to do their thing and take the most vehement con-evos with ’em, allowing the rest of the church to at last welcome all God’s people as equals.
Serious action required from the Church of England authorities here to clarify whether this will be allowed to proceed and whether the new “Bishop of Jesmond” will be allowed to ordain people as Church of England priests. “What can we achieve through new style bishops? The growth of the Church because one of their key roles is to ordain (that is, to authorise and appoint) new ministers who will provide the next generation of ministry in both existing churches and new church plants.” So will these newly ordained ministers be selected for training in accordance with the Church of England… Read more »
I think you captured it, Adam.
The only confusion is Jesmond..where a vicar who believes that re-marriage after divorce is adultery
went to the ” Biblical ” Church of England in South Africa to rescue them. CESA or REACH is very liberal on divorce and re-marriage.
Jesmond has had many years of large congregations…. archbishops want large congregations …. nothing will happen to them…..
“So bishops Martin Morrison and John Ellison have helped churches like Jesmond Parish Church, St Oswald’s Walkergate, Christ Church Durham, Holy Trinity Gateshead, St Joseph’s Benwell, and other churches when needed.”
Partly for curiosity, partly for clarification…
In what ways have these churches been helped by these bishops and on whose authority have the bishops ministered?
Does this new Bishop receive a Church of England stipend?
Do we yet know where the consecration of him as bishop took place – and why is it being kept a secret?
The Church of England General Synod should be called together to discuss the urgent need to assure the ordinary membership of the Church that Jesmond Parish Church is no longer a legitimate part of the Church of England.
Anything less will cause unnecessary speculation as to the validity of the ongoing relationship of the Church to the State and the Monarchy.
No comments, reactions, statements or disciplinary responces (yet?) from ABC or ABY??
Can’t see why Ashenden was fielded..he’s off, though taking a while to go…and where? It would have bèen better to put Paul against Holloway.
I was interested to note that Reach-CESA have distanced themselves from this, just a little. But it needs to meet with measured but effective discipline from the C of E. Since it seems to have been done without the knowledge of GAFCON and AMIE, they and Reach-CESA would be wise to disown it and exercise their own discipline. I wonder if they will?
The arrogance and hubris of Holloway and Pryke is really breath-taking. ‘I thank you that I am not a sinner, like this publican…’
Having heard the conversation on the morning Sunday programme – then watched ITV drama Grantchester in the evening it made me ashamed that I ever belonged to that wing of the church. As Sydney said “The church is the cause of so much suffering.”
Someone who has a firmer grasp on modern church history than I do might be able to clarify this, but I believe this is very much how the Methodists originally got started – not so much in Britain (where they remained within the Church of England for as long as possible), but in the United States where they quickly started appointing their own bishops much to the annoyance of the Anglican authorities in both countries. The aim of that movement was “not to create a new denomination” either, though it inevitably did so when it became clear that the structures… Read more »
Why is all the focus on Evangelicals here (other than the fact that they are the ones driving the agenda)? My wife and I went to Malta on holiday back in the spring. We went to St Paul’s, the Church of England cathedral, which is the Diocese of Europe. The vicar there made it pretty clear that he had very little allegiance to his diocesan bishop. We were not surprised when we heard their Easter service on Radio 4, that prayers were offered for ‘David our Bishop’ (the suffragan) and there was no mention of Dr Robert Innes as the… Read more »
One thinks of those “Anglo-Catholic” bishops of Forward in Faith who kept their C of E titles and salaries while going off to make arrangements in Rome for their defection, then trying to bring congregations with them. Even though they were legitimate C of E bishops, their sense of personal entitlement and their active disloyalty makes one wonder if they had any concept of being Catholic. In this case, the only real difference is that they are openly disloyal and couldn’t care less about the Catholic reasons for Episcopacy. Their motives are almost the same. One wonders why they don’t… Read more »
Yes, rjb, Thomas Coke was “ordained” a Superintendent for Methodist societies by John Wesley in September of 1784, just two months before Scottish Episcopal bishops consecrated Samuel Seabury a bishop. The Evangelicals thus initiated the schism. In 1873, Evangelicals again engineered a schism which resulted in the Reformed Episcopal Church. There were a few other minor Evangelical schisms along the way as well…
Paul Tomkins has a point. Unlike many of the other Tractarians, Dr. Pusey was not overly impressed with bishops…
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
I think that you are wrong, Paul Tomkins, to equate what has happened in Jesmond with Anglo-Catholics requesting alternative episcopal oversight. The latter is a provision put in place by Synod to cater for the perceived needs of that group. I don’t like it either, but it is entirely in order as far as the church’s canons are concerned, and therefore not schismatic. An analogous provision has been put in place for conservative evangelicals in the form of Rod Thomas, +Maidstone, but Jesmond have apparently rejected this in favour of consecrating one of their own, entirely outwith any canonical provision,… Read more »
I wonder if it is time for +Cantuar to don the golden cope with the big miter and using the oldest crosier he can carry excommunicate those clergy who wish to undermine the polity, and discipline in the Church of England.
As others have hinted, I don’t understand why rigorous evangelicals care about Catholic order. I find it hard to believe that their theology encompasses the Apostolic Succession and a Catholic understanding of sacramental assurance, with all its overtones (from an evangelical perspective) of limiting the free grace of God. If Jesmond want one of their number to be able to ordain priests, is there any theological reason at all why they need that person to be consecrated by three bishops in the Apostolic succession? I probably ought to be careful because I’m getting close to questioning why evangelicals are Anglicans… Read more »
It is ugly but is the consecration schismatic? If we recognise the orders of REACH nothing, it is poaching but not schismatic because the orders will be valid. If we don’t recognise the orders, then the consecration as bishop was (in our eyes) void. Either way the consecration isn’t schismatic.
What is schismatic is if the parish is accepting oversight from REACH. That needs addressing.
The Bishops overseeing the vast Diocese in Europe divide it for practical purposes and Italy/Malta are under +David Hamid, who formerly had France, which +Robert Innes now has. Of course people also have predilections…
“Of course people also have predilections…”
Christopher of course they do. That’s human. But the self righteous choosing of your own bishops by simply getting them ordained elsewhere is quite different to a predilection. It’s human as well of course. But it isn’t, shall we say, quite the Anglican way.
After further investigation, I understand that the Diocese in Europe does not operate an ‘Area’ system (like London), so David Hamid is no more and no less the Suffragan Bishop. This does not excuse the ecclesially sloppy and, frankly, insolent behaviour of referring to him as ‘Our Bishop’ when the Diocesan Bishop is canonically the Ordinary for Anglicans in Malta!
Surely the question of whether the C of E recognises these orders is wholly irrelevant? The world is just heaving with bishops whose orders are recognised, but getting yourself ordained by, let’s say, the Holy Father Francis would surely be incompatible with licensed public ministry in the C of E?
Whilst the actions at Jesmond were insultingly disobedient both to Canon Law and to the Bishop of Newcastle in particular, the key issue now is not whether Mr Pryke has recognised (“valid”) episcopal orders, but whether he exercises them. There have been many priests in England (and I suspect not a few in the USA) who have been Anglicans in good standing whilst being bishops in some other body. What is critical is that they have renounced the exercise of such orders. The moment Mr Pryke lays ordaining hands on a candidate for ministry, the Rubicon has been crossed.
A blatant breach of canonical obedience (which is one of the only things clergy sign up to) should surely be dealt with by a suspension of licence pending investigation, rather than the rather pathetic “rabbit in the headlights” response from ++Sentamu. Compare the shoddy treatment of the late great Bishop Michael Perham.
My comment–which I should have thought was clear–pertained to Malta, whose Cathedral is in Bishop Hamid’s region. The Cathedral in Brussels is Bishop Robert’s region. It was a response to that comment, obviously. Have a good day.
“This does not excuse the ecclesially sloppy and, frankly, insolent behaviour of referring to him as ‘Our Bishop’ when the Diocesan Bishop is canonically the Ordinary for Anglicans in Malta!”
I for one wasn’t defending it, but explaining how it might happen. The original comment averred that the Dean had no allegiance to the Bishop Ordinary, and so that seemed to be the relevant point.
I live in the Diocese and don’t care to comment on AC and Evangelical tensions, but would hope people could be generous in their conduct.
“If they could burn witches and stone gays to death, they might be quite happy to do so.” Adam Armstrong
There is no evidence that the people of Jesmond church want women and gay people to be killed. I think this comment goes too far.
With all due respect to crs, there seems to be a need for some basic ecclesiological lessons here. The Cathedral in Malta is NOT Bishop Hamid’s ‘region’ (whatever that means). It is the jurisdiction of the Diocesan Bishop. As Paul Tomkins has said, there is no ‘Area’ system in Europe. To give the impression that it has nothing to do with the Diocesan Bishop is indeed sloppy and insolent. As a ‘catholic’ the incumbent of Malta knows this – and, I suspect, knows what he is doing. I wonder if Bishop Hamid will now correct the Malta incumbent on the… Read more »
@ Kate & al: You seem to be confused re. Legitimate orders and schismatic behaviour. People in schism usually do have legitimate orders. It usually means that take their orders with them or find an outside source to ordain them. The weird thing about all this is the view of episcopal ordination as having some kind of magical property or bestowing them on the one ordained. Bishops (and priests and deacons) do not view their ordinations or the sacraments they celebrate as personal possessions. They come from-and belong to-the Church as a whole. The bishop is raised up and given… Read more »
Quite right, turbulent priest. One possible outcome of this debacle might be that one or more of the clergy of the ‘diocese of Jesmond’ suffers a seizure from laughing too much at the pathetic inadequacy of the institutional response thus far. Holloway has shown himself before to be a wily, legalistic operator, and he must have considered that this would be the likely response, especially given his contemptuous threats to institute reciprocal heresy trials. His bluff must be called, and action taken ‘this day’. If REACH orders being recognised is going to be made a key justification for this outrage,… Read more »
Dear Mr Marshall, I believe you have misunderstood me. The Diocese in Europe, as I mentioned, is enormous and has no analogy in England itself (300 parishes and the largest diocese in the AC). To manage it, two Bishops are in charge. As also noted, for practical purposes they share responsibilities, with the arch-deaconries divided between them. When +David Hamid was given the practical care of France, e.g., he attended the Synod meeting as Bishop. People might fondly refer to him as ‘their Bishop’ for this reason, whatever their attitude toward the Bishop Ordinary. I can see how the Dean… Read more »
Christopher (crs): how does your (modest) point have any bearing on the Jesmond case? What’s the parallel here?
Dear Andrew,
If you read the thread you will see that a commentator wanted to point out that ACs as well as Jesmond types can ignore their Ordinary. The example of Malta was given. My modest point was to agree that people on both sides do have their predilections, but to try to lower the temperature by indicating that the Diocese of Europe does have some peculiarities. Have a good day.
Sorry, crs, you don’t get it, hence Tom Marshall’s suggestion of ecclesiology lessons. What you are describing is not Anglican polity, any more than Jesmond is; and I am curious as to why you are trying to justify an irregular expression of Anglicanism. Since when has a Suffragan Bishop had his (or her) own Cathedral? Come on. I, too, worship in the Diocese in Europe and I can read between the lines. We will indeed see if Bishop Hamid attempts to prick this particular bubble of dysfunction. Or not.
‘Protestant evangelicals using episcopal sacramental ministry this way seem to be manipulating God and the grace of the sacrament of ordination.’ Ordination, in the Church of England, is not a sacrament (see Article XXV). It is a matter of church order. The conservative evangelicals concerned won’t see themselves as manipulating God or getting in on some ‘magic’ (most people of that persuasion holding a functional view of Orders). They will be seeing Pryke’s consecration as a means to an end. Cynical, self-serving, arrogant and schismatic, in my opinion, and should have met with immediate discipline. But not a ‘view of… Read more »
My gosh, what a strident set of responses! Go for it. Shoot out the lights. Make sure +Hamid reprimands Malta+. Whatever.
I have a PTO in France where +Robert is and I have not heard of a sufficiently big issue needing such insistent action, but Sylvia why not make sure the present arrangements for covering such a large region get your necessary memo on correct ecclesiology?
Ne vous inquietez pas.
@Jane Fife: My words about “magical properties” of ordination were sarcastic. Whatever Article XXXV may say, Anglicans see ordination as conferring a special grace to baptize, absolve, bless, and celebrate the Eucharist (for priests) and to Ordain (for bishops.) no article contradicts that. Whether ordination is a sacrament depends on one’s theological position. The “Catholic” view of ordination may be different from the “Protestant” one. If there is no grace conferred, then why bother?
Sylvia — to be fair crs didn’t say that the suffragan bishop had his own cathedral. I nearly made the same comment as you but having re-checked what he had written I didn’t.
What he actually wrote was “… Malta, whose Cathedral is in Bishop Hamid’s region” (crs on Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 2:31pm BST).
Not that the church is Bishop Hamid’s cathedral, but that (physically and geographically) it is within the region to which Bishop Hamid gives his attention.
I must say I have found the hair-trigger responses from people on this thread I do not know surprising. 1. You will search in vain for any direct comment on Jesmond. I happen to share the view of my colleague Andrew Goddard who has written publically. My conservative colleagues opposed Jesmond like actions in the US. 2. Bishop Innes presided at my induction in the Diocese of Europe at my request and also because he was soon to shift his area of attention from Italy/Malta to France. 3. I attended the last Synod meeting at which Bishop David presided as… Read more »
The tangent about the Diocese in Europe seems to have taken on a life of its own, so maybe I could make a small point. Catholic theology sees the priest presiding at the eucharist as the Bishop’s delegate, and hence (I believe) in the Canon of the Mass the diocesan bishop’s name is always included. Some Anglicans have adopted this practice, ensuring that the bishop’s name is mentioned in the intercessions if not in the eucharistic prayer. However, even in many anglo-catholic parishes, this isn’t a universal practice and it is often a bit hit and miss (and depends on… Read more »
An earlier thread on the Jesmond debacle has morphed into a discussion about the history of the American churches, and this one seems to be morphing into a discussion about the polity of the Diocese of Europe. There seems to be fundamental disagreement between crs, Paul Tomkins and other posters about the way the DiE works, and I do not know which interpretation is correct. However, from what has been said, it does sound as if +Hamid has some sort of devolved responsibility for Malta and Italy, with the gracious permission of +Innes, whether or not it has been formalised… Read more »
Adam Armstrong, I apologise for taking your sarcasm seriously. It isn’t always easy to recognise irony and sarcasm in the printed word. Personally I would agree that ordination confers a grace suitable for the office. I found the tour by experience at a time when my theology told me otherwise – isn’t it good when the Holy Spirit proves bigger than one’s theology? However I would not view grace and sacrament as synonyms, grace being a much wider and inclusive thing (thank God). Our Articles do state that the Church of England has but two sacraments, baptism and holy communion.… Read more »
Dear Janet: I do understand your viewpoint as consistent with one held by many evangelical Anglicans. My point was that making Pryke a bishop has an unfortunate tinge of wanting his “episcopal powers” so that certain tasks can be performed outside the norms of the C of E. To be more crass, his task is to ordain more like-minded clergy in the Jesmond mood. He is to “beget” as a sort of ecclesiastical stud animal a new line of clergy. The poor theology behind this is that clergy, i.e. Priests are not churned out of some kind of factory. Their… Read more »
As someone once said to me, Evangelicals may not believe in bishops, but they certainly have no doubts about the power bishops possess.