Anglican Mission Chairman Chuck Murphy Announces Retirement

By Robin G. Jordan

The Christian Post has published a tantalizing article that refers to a letter that Anglican Mission Bishop Thomas “T. J.” Johnston released on Friday. This letter addresses the Anglican Mission’s relationship with the Anglican Church of Rwanda, Bishop Terrell Glenn’s resignation, and Bishop Charles “Chuck” Murphy’s retirement announcement. The first two topics were not news but the third would indeed be news if it could be confirmed. I searched the Internet for further articles on this letter, the text of the letter, and Bishop Murphy’s retirement announcement. I found nothing.

Bishop Murphy has on a number of occasions talked about retiring from the position of chairman of the Anglican Mission but has repeatedly postponed his retirement date. Given the controversy surrounding the recent disclosures involving the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission Murphy’s retirement would be one way that he could preserve his reputation. But in light of his past history, one does well to take a wait and see attitude toward this announcement.

Bishop Murphy’s retirement, however, would not resolve the questions relating to the doctrine and structure of the Anglican Mission, its ongoing relationship with the Anglican Church of Rwanda, and the role of Canon Kevin Donlon in the development of a new structure for the Anglican Mission. The canons that Canon Donlon drafted for the Church of Rwanda and the Rwandan Church’s adoption of which Murphy facilitated moved an Anglican province away from historic Anglicanism in doctrine and structure. Until the Church of Rwanda undertakes the task of revising or replacing them, these canons are binding upon the Rwandan Church and any missionary jurisdiction or missionary society affiliated with that province. While the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration may be Anglican, the official doctrine of the Anglican Mission is now Roman Catholic.

This alteration of doctrine under the provisions of its Solemn Declaration dissolved the Anglican Mission. This raises questions as to whom the assets of the Anglican Mission belong—to the stakeholders who launched the organization, to whatever Christian missionary organization they donate these assets under the Solemn Declaration’s provisions, or the organization that is now using the Anglican Mission name.

If Canon Donlon is involved in the redesign of the structure of the Anglican Mission, one can expect him to seek to preserve in some form the Roman Catholic doctrine and structure that he introduced. At the same time it is difficult to see how the Anglican Mission will be able to claim to be Anglican and to be planting Anglican churches as long as it is Roman Catholic in doctrine and structure.

To be genuinely Anglican the Anglican Mission must be unwaveringly committed to Scripture and the Anglican formularies. It must also be synodical in its form of ecclesiastical governance with its clergy and laity sharing in the government of the Church with its bishops. A centralized hierarchy with all levels of the hierarchy, including bishops at the upper levels of the hierarchy, deriving their authority from a patriarch, pope, or primate at the top of the hierarchy, and the clergy and the laity having at best a consultative role, is not an Anglican form of ecclesiastical governance.

If the Anglican Mission is going to represent itself as Anglican, it must embody Anglican doctrine and practice. If its leaders do not have the will to do away with the Roman Catholic doctrine and structure that the machinations of Bishop Murphy and Canon Donlon imposed upon the organization three years ago, they need to drop “Anglican” from the organization’s name. They need to consider adopting a new name for the organization. The “Rwandan Catholic Mission” might be appropriate.