See also Bishop John Ellison Interviewed in 2009 and 2010
The Bishop of Salisbury has initiated a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure against the Hon. Assistant Bishop of Winchester, the Rt. Rev. John Ellison, for violating ecclesiastical law.
Bishop Ellison, the former Bishop of Paraguay, is alleged to have exercised episcopal jurisdiction over a church within the geographic boundaries of the Diocese of Salisbury without the permission of the Rt. Rev. Nicholas Holtam when he participated in a service of Thanksgiving last year at Christ Church Salisbury — a congregation of the Anglican Mission in England.
In an interview broadcast last week with Anglican TV, the former Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. Peter Jensen confirmed “the Bishop of Salisbury has delivered a disciplinary note to Bishop John Ellison” and charged him with violating the ecclesiastical boundaries of his diocese.
In their communique released at the close of their London meeting on 18 April 2015 the GAFCON primates gave Bishop Ellison their full backing, denouncing the “unjust and uncharitable charges brought against him by the Bishop of Salisbury.”
Read it all. For more background about the controversial Bishop of Salisbury and the way the CofE House of Bishops changed the rules on divorce to enable him to be appointed see:
Sunday Telegraph: Divorced bishops to be permitted for first time by Church of England, June 6, 2010
Pageantmaster””Comments on the Southwark Bishop Candidates, July 6, 2010
”˜Rising star’ made Bishop of Salisbury, April 12, 2011
John Richardson””Bishops married to divorcees ”˜pose serious challenge to traditionalist Anglicans,’ April 13, 2011
([London] Times) Bishop of Salisbury Openly Supports Same Sex Marriage, February 3, 2012
The Bishop of Salisbury””Marriage and same-sex relationships, February 24, 2012
Peter Ould responds to the Bishop of Salisbury””Nick Holtam’s Case for Polygamy, May 30, 2013
Bishop Holtam of Salisbury Congratulates and Prays for Same-Sex Couples Getting Married, March 29, 2014
Pray for Bishop Ellison and his family that the Lord will uphold them, while the forces of darkness gnash their teeth and howl.
And pray that the Lord’s purpose will be fulfilled. There is not a lot that the CofE can do to him, and this may precipitate further action by the Renew movement in England, e.g. consecrating bishops outside of the CofE to minister to Anglican congregations there.
Prayers for Bishop Ellison.
One is inclined to point out that if there were any actual discipline in the CoE, a person like Holtam would never have been made a priest, much less a bishop. Given the choice, it is obvious that +Ellison is a bishop, and Holtam is not. Should the HoB side with Holtam, it will only succeed in distancing itself further from the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
So participating in a service of thanksgiving is evil border crossing? Holtham could hardly make his need for power and disrespect for others more clear.
One would have thought this situation would have been resolved in the upcoming “facilitated conversations” and that the ABoC would have admonished Holtam not to take such rash measures. The lack of any recognition by Canterbury that Holtam has overstepped demonstrates what a sham those “conversations” will be. While awaiting the conversations, traditional bishops hands are tied when it comes to disciplining those (like Holtam) in open violation of the canons in regards to gay marriage and heresy, while Holtam and other revisionists are free to persecute orthodox within their dioceses.
The more members of the CoE deny they are just like TEC, the more they are just like TEC. Same rules apply.
If Welby isn’t more careful, he will find KJS sitting in his chair after she retires from TEC, and he will be walking around his own cathedral with his mitre tucked under his arm.
I have a different take on this.
As in TECusa, the leaders are going to force bishops and clergy to [i]choose[/i] in what place they practice their jurisdiction — in the COE or out of it.
Admittedly, orthodox Anglicans who have left TEC wish to set up competing Anglican entities over against TEC. In fact, they want TEC to go out of business [and understandably so!] TEC national leaders were never going to allow their own leaders to function across-competitive lines.
I expect ultimately that the COE leaders won’t allow that either.
Why would you want your leaders to support the competition, especially within entities directly competing against a COE diocese? Like it or not, the AMiE church is in competition with the COE diocese of Salisbury.
In TECusa it was always about recognizing and attempting to stamp out the competition.
Q. In the CoE, a Clergy Discipline Measure should be issued when which of the following occurs:
(a) Mohammed was proclaimed as the chosen one (Westminster Abbey, Cramner thread below).
(b) a clergy member campaigned for unbiblical ordination practices and provided a platform for the schismatic VGR.
(c) a clergy member campaigned for unbiblical marriage practices in conflict with church teaching.
(d) a clergy member participated in a Christian Thanksgiving service for those unable to accept a diocese’s rejection of biblical teaching, and only remotely likely to darken the door of a church in that diocese.
Anybody know if Bishop Ellison participated in sacramental acts at the service [ie, presided over Eucharist]. Over here across the ocean that’s the biggie.
“I have a different take on this. As in TECusa, the leaders are going to force bishops and clergy to choose in what place they practice their jurisdiction—in the COE or out of it.”
They may well do so, but I doubt this is part of it.
I can’t see any sign so far that CofE hierarchy is behind the lodging of this complaint or welcomes it. And that is not surprising, because what is the upside? Only warning other bishops not to give oversight to non-CofE congregations, which will probably never happen again anyway – AMiE’s next move is obvious, in fact has already been foreshadowed (see: http://anglicanmainstream.org/flurry-in-salisbury-shows-amie-needs-to-consecrate-its-own-bishops/).
On the downside, this will give publicity to what +Ellison is doing, and earn him some sympathy among conservative evangelicals in CofE (most of whom are not on board with AMiE in a practical sense – YET).
That is presumably why CofE took no action when +Ellison did exactly the same thing in Dio Worcester more than a year ago: http://anglicanmainstream.org/leo-davison-appointed-as-rector-of-christ-church-wyre-forest/
Also, the last time clergy disciplinary provisions were engaged over border-crossing, the CofE hierarchy dumped the liberal bishop on his backside: In 2005 the bishop of Southwark revoked the licence of an evangelical priest who organised ordination by a foreign bishop of three ordinands. The priest appealed, ++Williams referred it to a committee headed by the conservative Bishop of Winchester, who gave the priest back his licence. More recently, three evangelical ordinands were sent from Southwark to Kenya to be ordained. ABC had a whinge to AB Kenya, and the matter was let rest. +Southwark just had to accept it, yet again.
It will be interesting to see how CofE hierarchy responds this time. Maybe they will sustain the complaint, although I think they will find a way to neuter it. My impression is that Gafcon is ready for a fight, and won’t be sorry at the publicity gained if +Ellison has his licence revoked. In turn, CofE will be considering whether Gafcon may have done this deliberately in Nick Holtam’s diocese in order to provoke such a reaction.
The real danger for evangelicals in CofE is not from this, but from the measures designed to encourage evangelical congregations (particularly the large wealthy ones) to accept liberal clergy, or have them quietly infiltrated in. At present these have been resisted, but how long can that last – 10 years, 20, 30?
Just like the U.S. where it is “morally wrong” to keep illegal immigrants from crossing a man made border, but it is a moral duty to keep a bishop, priest, or deacon from crossing another man made border.
The GAFCON primates are so much more polite and restrained than I would be. Which is one of many reasons why they are Anglican primates and I am not.
What words shall we use for the likes of +Holtam? Jerk? Bully? Heretic? Fool? Enemy of the Gospel? Wolf in sheep’s clothing? All apply. But setting such castigations aside, what do such ominous rumbles and grumbles from the far left mean?
Here I tend to agree with Sarah. Things are heating up in England, and they are bound to get worse, much worse, in the months and years to come. +Holtam, and his “progressive” ilk, can rant and rave all they like, but the AMiE is here to stay.
This angry tirade from +Holtam illustrates how the CoE is a “house divided against itself.” As such, it cannot stand. And it won’t. The intolerance of illiberal Liberals like Hotam would be comical if it weren’t so serious. Ridiculous, yes, but still dangerous.
Isn’t +Graham Kings a suffragan in the Salisbury diocese? Poor guy. Can you imagine working under such a horrific boss?
David Handy+
(Uncouth American)
Am I the only one surprised at the deafening silence from English liberal blogs about this? Thinking Anglicans is the main one, and it has no mention at all, even though they posted three articles on the Gafcon primates meeting.
Perhaps they are just working on an article. Nothing to do but wait and see I suppose.
Well, that is interesting. I have just checked the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff. Lo and behold, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s correspondence secretary seems to have grown a department under himself and is not only the gatekeeper for the Archbishop’s correspondence and so diary keeper, but is also listed:
I expect CDM Officer means Clergy Discipline Measure Officer which means that he is the first port of call for all incoming reports under the Clergy Discipline Measure including Bishop Nick Holtam’s Clergy Discipline Measure complaint lodged against Bishop John Ellison.
That would be the ‘Correspondence Secretary and CDM Officer,’ Andrew Nunn, the gay activist against whom complaints of bias and over-reaching himself speaking for the Archbishop of Canterbury were made last year. Something smells very off at Lambeth Palace and raises question marks over the way the Bishop of Salisbury’s complaint has been accepted and dealt with.
Stinkier and stinkier rotten Lambeth Palace and its incumbent appears to be.
I would just like to add that on some level the Anglican Church, as the State Church, is a creature of Parliament. It seems that much of what is opposed here is also a matter of Government policy.