Monday, 30 March 2015

Anglican Mission in England

This organisation has a new website. Some extracts will give readers the flavour:

What is AMiE?

The Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) is a mission society that seeks to promote gospel growth in areas covered by the Church of England (principally in England, but also in other parts of Europe) by supporting Anglican churches and individuals both within and outside present Church of England structures.

AMiE came into being as a result of GAFCON and is one of a number of agencies that relates to GAFCON through the FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) UK and Ireland. You can read more about the history of AMiE by clicking here.

A variety of Anglican churches are part of AMiE. Some churches are outside the structures of the Church of England. Others remain within the denomination but are experiencing tensions, whilst others have joined to support them.

AMiE is a registered charity (number 1158679) and has an Executive Committee. Andy Lines is the General Secretary of AMiE and Justin Mote is Chair of the Executive Committee. AMiE, alongside Reform and Church Society, co-sponsor the annual ReNew conference. The AMiE Executive Committee shares the ReNew vision of pioneering, establishing and securing a nation of healthy local Anglican churches.

Who does AMiE seek to serve?

There are four basic categories of those that AMiE seeks to serve:
1. Anglicans within the structures of the Church of England whose mission is constrained by their bishop or diocese.
2. Anglicans within the structures of the Church of England but who are in impaired communion with their bishop or diocese.
3. Anglicans outside the structures of the Church of England.
4. Anglicans within the structures of the Church of England who are currently experiencing few constraints but who wish to express solidarity with those under 1-3 above.

Executive Committee

AMiE is governed by and Executive Committee consisting of:
Revd Justin Mote (Chairman and Director/Trustee)
Revd Canon Andy Lines (General Secretary and Director/Trustee)
Rt Revd John Ellison (Chair of Panel of Bishops)
Revd Paul Perkin (Chair of FCA UK & Ireland)
Revd Richard Coekin
Revd Canon Tim Davies
Mr Dan Leafe
Mr. Brian O’Donoghue (Secretary and Director/Trustee)
Revd Rod Thomas
Revd Canon Dr Chris Sugden
All the members of the Executive are required to hold a ‘complementarian (Equal and Different)’ position on women’s ministry, but AMiE will support all churches who hold to the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 30 March 2015 at 11:02pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Seriously, how is this not against the law of the land?

Posted by: ExRevd on Monday, 30 March 2015 at 11:28pm BST

"...and we are in NO WAY fomenting the sin of schism. Nope, not us!" }-p

Posted by: JCF on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 1:53am BST

"All the members of the Executive are required to hold a ‘complementarian (Equal and Different)’ position on women’s ministry, but AMiE will support all churches who hold to the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration."

Weird! So they are even more extreme than GAFCON itself.

We will "support" you, if you are heretical enough to believe in women priests, but you can't be in our gang in leadership!

Does this mean a woman who believes in the headship of men can be on the committee, but a man who believes in the equality of women cannot? Or does women's "difference" confine them to making the tea and taking the minutes of the meetings - oh, and ironing the shirts of the committee members?

I think we should be told! No women who was a suitable "helpmeet" could be found so far, whatever the case.

Posted by: Iain Baxter on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 2:44am BST

And somehow or other, this rot got through the 'public benefit' test of the Charity Commission so they can rake in the Gift Aid.

Posted by: Laurence Cunnington on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 9:25am BST

And AMiE is supporting church plants financially.

Question: Where does the money come from? Answer: From C of E congregations.

But do they know that their donations are being used by their leaders to support schismatic churches? Of course not, because the whole enterprise, who supports it, and what it actually does, are surrounded with secrecy. It stinks.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/20-february/news/uk/bishop-of-salisbury-investigates-amie-church

Posted by: Simon on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:48am BST

One wonders what the name of Canon Chris Sugden in doing in the list of supporters of AMiE? Is he still also a member of the Church of England General Synod? If so, how can he continue to be considered a bona fide of the C. of E.'s governing body? It just doesn't make sense.

Still, I suppose while the Church of England takes no stand against the incursion of this faux Anglican Church on its doorstep, Sugden may feel quite justified in his duel allegiance.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:49am BST

It saddens me to see folk who claim to be Christians actively promoting schism.

Posted by: Keef on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:55am BST

Were (or are) the reverends on the executive committee priests in the C-of-E and how does that pan out? If you are not 'in communion with' or feel 'obstructed by' your bishop and you wish to do your own thing, why not just leave altogether?

Posted by: Sara MacVane on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 11:38am BST

One immediate and simple action that bishops can take is to remove the licences of those clergy in their dioceses who are on the executive committee (e.g. Rod Thomas & Chris Sugden). They are manifestly breaking their vow of canonical obedience.

Behind all this, of course, is the fact that our senior bishops are not exactly hostile to para-Anglican structures (Welby & Dakin have attended GAFCON conferences; Chartres is establishing links with ACNA congregations in Europe). This is bound to have encouraged this sectarian group to form something like this.

Where will it focus its energy first, I wonder? Southwark, perhaps?

Posted by: James A on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:13pm BST

The Archbishops failed to speak out against border-crossing depradations in other provinces.

So the chickens have now come home to roost in England.

Well played, Cantuar and Ebor.

Posted by: Jeremy on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 12:29pm BST

... Where will it focus its energy first, I wonder? Southwark, perhaps?

It seems that Bishop John Ellison has been active in the Diocese of Salisbury, without any reference to our Diocesan Bishop.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/20-february/news/uk/bishop-of-salisbury-investigates-amie-church

Posted by: Nigel LLoyd on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 2:13pm BST

Unfortunately there was bound to be some degree of realignment following the recent decision on women bishops and other liberal reform. I hope it can be done with grace and dignity, And without constant recourse to the courts, unlike in the USA.

Posted by: Simon on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 2:53pm BST

Couldn't this lot be reined in and brought under the umbrella of the proposed Bishop of Islington?

Posted by: Father David on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 4:39pm BST

Of course, I think this intervention both deeply mischievous and (to some extent) a consequence of both spineless and unprincipled behaviour by our archbishops (what's new?) and (some of) our bishops (what's new?). It's not as if all constituencies within the C of E weren't sufficiently protected. Some of course might adduce the (allegedly) endlessly fissiparous tendencies of Reformed Catholicism or Protestanism post-Reformation. Personally, I think the moral question is of a different and far more serious order: it's between those who act with good will and those who don't. The former have to accept divergency - and this includes the divergency of those with whom they disagree. To that extent, I think that liberal Anglicans - most of whom demand 100% compliance with gay or female justice - bear some responsibility for the present disintegrations, which are very serious.

Posted by: John on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 7:58pm BST

What's wrong with schism? The Anglican communion, with its irreconcilable beliefs, badly needs one. I'd far rather see con-evos in their own clubhouse than imposing their will on everyone else.

Viva separatism!

Posted by: James Byron on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 9:37pm BST

On the subject of perceived disloyalty to one's parent Province; Melbourne, Australia, was the setting for a recent FOCA Meeting with certain African Bishops, promoting the cause of GAFCON and other assorted disaffected Anglicans.

What surprised me was that at least one Bishop (retd.) for my own C hurch of ACANZP was a member reporting in the meeting with obvious relish.

We have been told that a Church divided cannot stand. When will schismatic tendencies be rooted out, in order to proclaim the inclusive Gospel of Christ crucified, risen and glorified?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 12:41am BST

The camel's nose is inside the tent. Next thing you know, Chris Sugden will be the ABC.

Why the CofE is putting up with this nonsense has always been an mystery to me.

Posted by: jnwall on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 12:52am BST

Yes, let them go, it's not as if we believed that they'll be leaving the one, true, church and perish for ever.

Posted by: Lorenzo on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 8:06am BST

"Let them go..." @ Lorenzo. That would be the simple solution (and I think there should be some episcopal/judicial sanction against those who are ordained). However, the archbishops will be very nervous about any 'expulsion' because they will take their money with them. If that happens, who will fund the proposals in RME, the Green Report and all the rest of it?

This has been tacitly encouraged by the machinations of those 'at the top' and it is they who should be sanctioned. The Church of England is now on a downward spiral into little tribes of self-selecting 'people like us' because this is the new orthodoxy.

What are the prospects for a successful CDM complaint against Canterbury and London? If someone tells me how I can go about it, I'll gladly (or should I say 'right gladly'?) make it.

Posted by: Tom Marshall on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:03am BST

"To that extent, I think that liberal Anglicans - most of whom demand 100% compliance with gay or female justice - bear some responsibility for the present disintegrations, which are very serious." John

Let's try the old party game...

To that extent, I think that liberal Anglicans - most of whom demand 100% compliance with racial justice - bear some responsibility for the present disintegrations, which are very serious.

No - never looks good.

Posted by: Laurence Cunnington on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:06am BST

Laurence,

Our starting-points are different - and this makes a difference. You don't give a hoot about the well-being of the C of E - that's your prerogative. I do. Discussion of the particular issues has gone round a million times on TA. Personally, I am 100% in favour of women priests/bishops/archbishops/cardinals/popes and full acceptance of gay relationships in all contexts. But I don't accept that people who don't accept WO or such relationships are necessarily on the same moral level as racists. I think they can be perfectly principled. It's actually rather difficult being a 'Thinking Anglican' - or should be.

Posted by: John on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 2:09pm BST

The rot is breaking out in the Guildford Diocese as well. Parishioners are being asked to sign the "Guildford Declaration" which is very similar to the "Southwark Declaration"

Posted by: BOP on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 5:28pm BST

Thank you for your reply, John. Whilst it's true that I don't give two hoots for the well-being of the CofE, I certainly give one small hoot, for two reasons. Firstly, on a personal level, it pains me to see the Church my husband has devoted so many years to serving behaving in such a way to him and other LGBT clergy and, secondly, as the established Church, everyone in England is a stakeholder in it, and that includes me.

Thank you, too, for saying that you are 100% in favour of women/LGBT people. I think we shall have to agree to disagree that people who are not do so on 'perfectly principled' grounds.

Posted by: Laurence Cunnington on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 5:51pm BST

@Father David - Please don't propagate deliberate misinformation. The Bishop of Islington will not be in any way involved in schismatic activity. He/she will be a full member of the London College of Bishops and has no links to AMiE or GAFCON or any of that stuff. There's no link even with the PEVs. The role description is clear that the postholder works under the authority of the Ordinary in any Diocese in which he/she gives advice or support.

Posted by: Pete Broadbent on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 5:55pm BST

Bishop Pete, I think your comment is a bit harsh on Fr David - I read his comment in almost the opposite sense than the way you imply.

For instance, it's no secret that Richard Coekin's Co-mission church plants don't relate well to Southwark diocese, with a number of 'extra-Anglican' plants south of the river. Perhaps, though, a Bishop of Islington might provide opportunities for those churches to relate to an 'official bishop', operating within the regular C of E fold. This would require the Bishop of Southwark's whole-hearted permission and approval, naturally - which I'm sure he would be only too pleased to provide ;-)

Posted by: Peter K on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 6:39pm BST

Laurence,

I wrote in full knowledge of your circumstances. I have had e-mail contact with your husband. I am 100% in favour of equal marriage, including in churches (I know you didn't want that). I profoundly hope the Archbishop of York loses. With regard to your last sentence, I don't believe that everybody in that category is principled - I am quite sure that many are not - but I think/know/have experienced SOME people in that category who are principled, and it's with them I'm here concerned.

Posted by: John on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 8:03pm BST

Thank you Peter K for reading my comment in the way in which I implied and intended it to be read. I think the Bishop of Willesden, as a Guardian of the Faith, must seriously ask himself why "AMiE or GAFCON or any of that stuff" has arisen in the first place? Far from wishing to "propagate deliberate misinformation" my clear intention was entirely the opposite to what the bishop wrongfully implies.

Posted by: Father David on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 8:55pm BST

Thank you, John.

Posted by: Laurence Cunnington on Thursday, 2 April 2015 at 8:33am BST

Thank you, Laurence. Have a happy Easter.

Posted by: John on Thursday, 2 April 2015 at 12:17pm BST

"Who does AMiE seek to serve?" - themselves, the same as any other parasitic entity.

Posted by: Tim on Thursday, 2 April 2015 at 2:25pm BST

"But I don't accept that people who don't accept WO or such relationships are necessarily on the same moral level as racists."

Surely that's the crux of Laurence's point. Segregationists did not believe they were "on the same moral level" as anti-suffragists, who did not believe they were as bad as apologists for slavery. Turtles all the way down.

Faithful Episcopalians objected to the Episcopal Church's embracing a "divisive, political" agenda of race relations in the 1960s and demanding "100% compliance" of an extra-biblical position. The rhetoric is the same; just plug in the issue du jour. It's like a game of Mad Libs.

Posted by: Geoff McL on Friday, 3 April 2015 at 2:36am BST

The vital contribution GAFCON has made to worldwide Anglicanism is its clear affirmation of the supreme authority of Holy Scripture in Christian faith and morals. This authority is of course upheld in the Church of England's Canon A5 and is faithfully expressed in the Book of Common of Prayer, the Ordinal the 39 Articles of Religion.

The affirmation of the authority of the Bible above tradition, human reason and experience is at the heart of the confessing Anglican stance.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is to be commended for articulating such a confessing Anglican stance in relation to marriage and human sexuality when he said at a recent visit to a Church of England school in Birmingham: “Marriage is between one man and one woman for life and sexual activity should be confined to marriage - that’s in the Church of England’s laws.”

Julian Mann
The Parish Church of the Ascension
Oughtibridge

Posted by: Julian Mann on Friday, 3 April 2015 at 7:46am BST

I am grateful to Julian Mann for confirming that his, and GAFCON's. reading of Scripture doesn't involve using human reason. Disengaging one's brain must be helpful in the spreading of dissension and hatred. Otherwise they might become 'thinking' Anglicans and realise the terrible damage they cause.

Posted by: FrDavidH on Friday, 3 April 2015 at 11:36am BST

Schism is not exactly the greatest of all possible evils - there are some things that are worse even than than open division within the church (and poorly-concealed division might possibly be one of them). But I worry about those Anglicans who are so cavalier about the prospect of visible disunity or - even worse - those who are positively enthusiastic about shutting the door on those with whom they disagree, as if ideological purity were the most essential characteristic of the Church. I fear that liberals are little better than conservatives in this respect. Surely our starting point is and always should be Jesus' prayer that "they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (Jn 17:21). Divisions among Christians may sometimes be necessary, but they should never be welcomed.

Posted by: rjb on Friday, 3 April 2015 at 1:46pm BST

Rjb, that's false equivalence: it's not about kicking out those with whom we disagree, but about refusing to have their beliefs imposed on all. Glib equivalence is not only inaccurate, it enables discrimination.

If Christians promote views like homophobia, the Curse of Ham, or male headship, then separation ought to be welcomed, since those views are harmful and wrong. If the Bible disagrees then the Bible is also wrong. It's the ability to say that underpins liberalism.

Posted by: James Byron on Friday, 3 April 2015 at 9:22pm BST

In his recent statement about the nature of marriage which straightforwardly upheld Canon B30, Archbishop Welby was not rejecting the use of reason in theological reflection. But he was expressing the confessional Anglican stance that the Bible's teaching about the heterosexual nature of marriage trumps the politically correct reasoning that has led to the legal redefinition of marriage.

Confessing Anglicans do not repudiate human reason or church tradition in their rightful place but we do believe they should be subordinate to God's Word written.


Posted by: Julian Mann on Saturday, 4 April 2015 at 9:21am BST

I am grateful that Julian Mann has reiterated what I suggested earlier. We must suspend our 'thinking' and not use human reason when we read the Bible. Otherwise, we might appear to be reasonable people, as opposed to fundamentalist bigots.

Posted by: FrDavidH on Saturday, 4 April 2015 at 12:41pm BST

With respect, the allegation that confessing Anglicans and orthodox Christians generally are unthinking is without foundation. It requires a great deal of prayerful thought to take a counter-cultural stand against triumphant political correctness on the ground of biblical truth.

Posted by: Julian Mann on Sunday, 5 April 2015 at 7:58am BST

Julian Mann is simply saying that a conservative culture from the Global South should be imposed upon more liberal cultures according to his own fundamentalist view of ancient texts. Presumably sending gay people to prison is not counter-cultural in Nigeria, but is based upon biblical 'truth'. How does being a fundamentalist require "a great deal of prayerful thought"?

Posted by: FrDavidH on Sunday, 5 April 2015 at 9:36am BST

I think Julian Mann's 'mix' is not properly Anglican. But although I think this, I don't attach tremendous significance to my claim/accusation, because I think all appeals to 'authority' have to be qualified/contextualised.

What really bothers me is Welby's proclamation - and Julian Mann's endorsement of it - “Marriage is between one man and one woman for life and sexual activity should be confined to marriage - that’s in the Church of England’s laws.” The term 'laws' seems to imply that C of E 'laws' should 'trump' the laws of the UK. But they shouldn't: the state of the UK has responsibilities and duties beyond Christian ones. More 'fundamental' points: is Welby proclaiming that masturbation is contrary to Church of England doctrine? That seems absolutely absurd. More 'fundamentally' still, the real point of such 'proclamations' is absolutely to exclude the gays, but the hypocrisy stinks (sorry, Simon): all these 'Evangelical' proclamations have little or no problem with pre-marital/extra-marital (as long as not adulterous) sexual activity: it's gay sexuality that really turns them off. But I have to say 'turns them on', because there's lots of research now that shows that 'homophobic' males are more turned on by male porn than non-homophobic males. I really, really think Welby should not have said that. I am absolutely sure he said it deliberately. And I think that is one of many reasons why he is an unworthy Archbishop of C.

Posted by: John on Monday, 6 April 2015 at 1:04pm BST

"All the members of the Executive are required to hold a ‘complementarian (Equal and Different)’ position on women’s ministry, but AMiE will support all churches who hold to the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration."

But no requirement on divorce and re-marriage as they have no agreed consensus on what our Lord taught in this area.

Posted by: robert ian williams on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 7:47am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.