By Robin G. Jordan
"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV)
The developments in the Anglican Mission that are coming to light point to a number of serious problems affecting the Anglican Mission.
They raise questions as to how genuinely committed is the Anglican Mission leadership to GAFCON, The Jerusalem Declaration, and the tenets of Anglican orthodoxy articulated in that document. Bishop Chuck Murphy attended GAFCON in 2008 and signed the GAFCON Declaration and The Jerusalem Declaration. However, Bishop Murphy endorsed alternative liturgical rites and forms in 2006 and 2008, which did not conform to the doctrinal standards set out in the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration. These doctrinal standards correspond to those that would be affirmed in The Jerusalem Declaration.
Bishop Murphy approved the draft of 2007 Rwandan canons prepared by Canon Kevin Donlon. The draft canons substituted ultra-Catholic doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for the reformed catholic doctrine of the classic formularies and historic Anglicanism in the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission as well as established in both ecclesial bodies ultra-Catholic governance structures modeled closely upon those of the Roman Catholic Church. The doctrinal standards affirmed in the 2007 Rwandan canons are in direct antagonism with those affirmed in The Jerusalem Declaration. Bishop Murphy would subsequently join the other Rwandan bishops in endorsing and promulgating the canons in 2008.
Those who are familiar with the history of the Anglican Mission know that its Solemn Declaration commits that body to the reformed catholic doctrine of the classic formularies and historic Anglicanism. The governance structures envisioned by the proposed constitution and canons submitted in Kampala in 1999 are for most part synodical and typically Anglican. They require accountability from church leaders at all levels.
The ultra-Catholic direction in which Bishop Murphy is taking the Anglican Mission is due in part to the influence of Canon Donlon and in part to Murphy’s desire to expand his control of the Anglican Mission. The reluctance of Anglican Mission clergy and congregations to protest this development at first glance is puzzling. Most of them are charismatic evangelicals. However, the willingness of charismatics to surrender decisions affecting their church and themselves to a leader that they believe to be particularly anointed with the Holy Spirit is one of a number of weaknesses of Pentecostalism. The pronouncements of their church leaders become more authoritative than Scripture. An extreme example of this tendency was the Shepherding Movement, which was an offshoot of the charismatic movement. Church members were pressured into surrendering the control of their lives completely to their church leaders. Those who did not were ostracized. Many abuses would result from church leaders’ misuse of their authority over church members.
The Thirty-Nine Articles with their emphasis upon the authority of Scripture were intended to protect the English Church from this tendency, which was manifest both in sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church and among the sixteenth century Anabaptists.
An examination of the 2007 Rwandan canons shows that Canon Donlon substituted Roman Catholic dogma extensively for Anglican teaching in the canons. At the same time the 2007 Rwandan canons claim no conflicts exists between the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the doctrine of the Province of Rwanda. This is the same claim that John Henry Newman and the Tractarians made. They reinterpreted the Articles in a Roman direction, disconnecting the meaning of the Articles from their historical context and the original intent of their authors. By this subterfuge they neutralized the Articles as a safeguard against the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Donlon appears to have resorted to the same evasion.
The GAFCON Theological Resource Group identify Newman and the Tractarian’s reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles as one of two challenges to the rule of the plain sense of Scripture and its classic formularies in the Anglican Church, which originated in the nineteenth century. The other challenge came from the liberal side in the form of “higher criticism” and modernism (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, pp. 96-97).
It has been long standing complaint that while Anglican Mission pastors are required to annually affirm the Thirty-Nine Articles, few of them actually believe what it teaches. This is not to say that they espouse the ultra-Catholicism of Canon Donlon. But they do not fully accept the Protestant, evangelical, and Reformed positions of the Articles. Their affirmation of the Articles is a formality. It is not ex animo, from the heart.
In his willingness to do away with Anglican teaching to expand his control of the Anglican Mission, Bishop Murphy shows that he is not truly committed to Scripture or the classical formularies. As the GAFCON Theological Resource Group stresses, the authority of the Thirty-Nine Articles comes from their agreement with the teaching of Scripture. The GAFCON Theological Resource Group further stresses that acceptance of the Articles’ authority “is constitutive of Anglican identity” (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 35).
As a bishop Murphy does not enjoy a strong reputation as a spiritual leader and a theologian. He is described as viewing his role more as corporate executive than a church leader and the Anglican Mission more as a corporate venture than an ecclesial body. His preference for the title “chairman” appears to support this description, as does his extensive use of methods borrowed from corporate America.
Bishop Murphy in his speeches at Winter Conferences, in Anglican Mission publications, and on the Anglican Mission web site promotes the “three streams” theology popular in the Anglican Mission. This theology views the differences between Anglo-Catholicism, evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism as differences of emphasis, rather than opposing positions stemming from different readings of Scripture. It encourages the toleration of variations. It has its origins in the charismatic movement. Dr. Gillis Harp has documented its weaknesses in his Mandate article, “Navigating the ‘Three Streams’: Some Second Thoughts about a Popular Typology”
Canon Donlon, on the other hand, champions ultra-Catholic doctrine, order, and practice. This includes the unscriptural belief that bishops are a superior order to other clergy and the laity. God has vested them with supreme power over the church as successors to the apostles. He has shown that he is not beyond resorting to unscrupulous means to promote his ultra-Catholic agenda.
Together these ingredients form a lethal cocktail that will kill the Anglican Mission or permanently cripple it. It will not only simply cease to be Anglican but also it will cease to be Scriptural and doctrinally sound. To borrow a phrase from the East African Revival, the Anglican Mission will be “walking in darkness” instead of “walking in light.” It will have given itself over to false teaching. As the GAFCON Theological Group remind us, holding false teaching will exclude a person from God’s love. “Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (2 John 9) (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism, p. 95). Having forsaken Christ’s teaching, the Anglican Mission will find itself bereft of God’s love.
Our Lord, when he gave the Great Commission to his disciples commanded them to go into the world and to preach the gospel to all creation. He commanded them to go and make disciples of all people groups, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them everything that he had commanded. He told them that they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. He said absolutely nothing about church planting. Planting churches is not the Great Commission. It is a way of fulfilling the Great Commission. It is not the only way.
If Bishop Murphy is not truly committed to Scripture and the classic formularies, as his willingness to disregard them to achieve his own ends suggests, he is not truly committed to the Great Commission. Our Lord did not institute the Lord’s Supper so that he, through the ministry of the priest, offer himself over and over again, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father. Nor did he teach that the faithful are united with his offering. The Thirty-Nine Articles and historic Anglicanism reject the doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass as contrary to God’s Word. They are not what our Lord commanded the disciples to teach. They are, however, what the 1983 Roman Catholic canons and the 2007 Rwandan canons teach. They are what any constitution and statutes drafted by Canon Donlon can be expected to teach. Under this constitution and statutes the Anglican Mission may go on planting churches. But they will not be churches that fulfill the Great Commission. They will be churches that proclaim a false gospel and which do not teach what Christ commanded. The Anglican Mission will be like a tree bearing fruit that poisons whoever tastes it.
The developments in the Anglican Mission provide a lesson to Anglican Christians in and outside that ecclesial body, not unlike the lesson of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. Where the commitment to Scripture and the classical formularies is negligible, an ecclesial body is at high risk of falling into error. It creates the kind of environment in which those who seek to further a particular ideology, which is in conflict with Scripture and the classic formularies, may flourish. If the top leader of the ecclesial body is himself not committed to Scripture and the classic formularies, is primarily motivated by a desire to consolidate and aggrandize his power, and is not subject to any kind of real accountability, he is an easy mark for any ideologue may work his way into the confidence of the top leader and utilize him for his own ends while appearing to help the top leader pursue his ambitions. Ecclesiastical structures that permit this sort of thing to happen are seriously flawed. If they are not replaced, the Anglican Mission can expect to experience more serious problems.
Related articles:
Why Do the Wicked Prosper?
Choices Facing Anglican Mission Clergy and Congregations (Part 1)
Rumors of Anglican Mission – Anglican Church of Rwanda Split Point to Other Serious Problems
I have posted links to more related articles on the emerging developments in the Anglican Mission and its relationship with the Anglican Church of Rwanda after the last two articles in this list of related articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment