Further Implications of Recent Disclosures Involving the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission

By Robin G. Jordan

The 2008 Rwandan canons show how easily devastating changes can be introduced into an Anglican province. We have seen such changes introduced into the Episcopal Church over several decades. In the Anglican Church of Rwanda they were introduced almost overnight through a change in the provincial canons. The new canons not altered the governance structures of the province but also the doctrine of the province. The province went from being Anglican in teaching to Roman Catholic. The doctrinal changes were not minor ones. They affect primary matters, including the nature of justification and salvation.

How could this happen? After all, the Church of Rwanda was an African province with strong bishops, a characteristic of African provinces. Have not strong bishops been touted in the last few years as a safeguard against what happened in the Episcopal Church? If the bishops of the Episcopal Church had been stronger, goes the argument, what happened in the Episcopal Church would not have happened. Therefore we must have strong bishops in the new North American province, in the Anglican Church of North America.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the role that bishops have played in developments in the Episcopal Church and blames the House of Deputies and the laity for these developments. However, the reality is that bishops are largely responsible for what has happened in the Episcopal Church. They sent practicing homosexuals to seminary, ordained practicing homosexuals, confirmed the election of two practicing homosexual to the episcopate, authorized the blessing of same sex unions, and are promoting gay marriage. If the bishops had been stronger, the changes that they introduced would have moved more quickly.

In the Church of Rwanda the Primate, the chief bishop of the province, exercises considerable influence, as do the Primates of other African provinces. The Primate is the metropolitan of the province and has metropolitical jurisdiction over the province. The other bishops of the province take an oath of obedience to the Primate as its metropolitan.

The role of bishop in African provinces has to some degree been shaped by the values of traditional African society and the experience of European colonialism. The traditional African society is hierarchical with the traditional ruler at the top of the hierarchy. A common pattern is replicated at all levels, an authoritative leader with a body of advisers with whom he consults on serious matters. This pattern has been carried over into the structures of a number of African provinces. During the colonial period European governors and commissioners were appointed to govern a region of Africa claimed by a European power and to promote the interests of the European power claiming the region. The governor was typically advised by a council of Europeans farming or mining the region. Later on this council was given limited legislative powers. Toward the end of the colonial period consultative bodies composed of native Africans were also established as a part of the transition to independence and self-government. Rwanda and neighboring Burundi were for many years a colony of Belgium, known as Ruanda-Urundi.

The GAFCON Theological Resource Group defines the role of bishop as follows:

Bishops are called to be the chief pastor in their diocese, to teach the Christian faith, to banish error, live a godly life and be gentle with the flock, properly to administer the sacraments, and to lead in mission. Bishops uniquely are to ordain and send out others in ordained ministry. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 49)

This definition of the episcopal role is based upon the classic Anglican Ordinal, which The Jerusalem Declaration upholds as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

In an Anglican province where the Primate exercises considerable influence and the ecclesiastical culture discourages the other provincial bishops from actively opposing any initiative of the Primate, what those who champion strong bishops and even prelacy in the new North American province argue is the greatest strength of African episcopacy is actually its greatest weakness. Suborn the Primate of such a province in some way and the doctrine, governance structures, and values of the entire province can be subverted. The liberal leaders of the Episcopal Church recognized this weakness of African episcopacy when they enthroned the former Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, upon a visit to the United States. Their objective was to appeal to Archbishop Akinola’s vanity and exploit this weakness for their own purposes. Archbishop Akinola, however, saw through their scheme.

Archbishop Emmanuel Kollini, however, does not appear to have seen through the scheme of Anglican Mission Bishop Chuck Murphy and Anglican Mission Canon Kevin Donlon. Archbishop Kollini had worked with Bishop Murphy for a number of years and had come to trust him. With Kollini backing the new canons, the Rwandan Provincial Synod approved them and the Rwandan House of Bishops endorsed and promulgated them. From what I gather the Rwandan Provincial Synod and the Rwandan House of Bishops did not closely examine the new canons. With Canon Donlon’s newest proposals, Bishop Murphy is seeking to further exploit Kollini along with two other retired Primates who have supported the Anglican Mission from its founding.

How do these development affect the Anglican Church in North America? The unpleasant truth is that the ACNA is not going to escape unaffected. First, it has damaged the trust that has developed between orthodox Anglicans in Africa and the rest of the global South and conservative Anglicans in North America. It has shown orthodox Anglicans in the global South that they must be wary of conservative Anglicans in North America as they must be cautious in their dealings with liberal Episcopalians.

Second, it is going to raise questions in the minds of orthodox Anglicans in the global South regarding how committed conservative Anglicans in North America are to GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration, if developments in the ACNA have not raised these questions already. They will be asking themselves whether conservative North American Anglicans are really committed to the Scriptures, the classic formularies, and the Great Commission.

Third, it is also going to raise questions in the minds of evangelicals who have been working with Anglo-Catholics whether they can really work together. Some Anglo-Catholics clearly have their own agenda and may be utilizing the present co-belligerence against liberalism for their own ends. Their objective is not only to arrest the growth of modernism but also to promote the spread of ultra-Catholic ideology. The fanciful, ahistorical reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles in the direction of Rome, evidenced in the 2008 Rwandan canons, the GAFCON Theological Resource Group’s The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future identifies as a major challenge to the authority of Scripture and the classic formularies (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, p. 97).

Fourth, the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America show the influence of the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s 2008 Code of Canon Law and the Roman Catholic Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is the primary source of the Rwandan canons. This includes doctrine, norms, and principles as well as language. Bishop Murphy and Canon Donlon served on the Common Cause Governance Task Force that drafted the ACNA governing documents.

The ACNA Provincial Assembly is modeled upon the Anglican Mission’s Winter Conference, which plays no role in the ecclesiastical governance of the Anglican Mission. The ACNA Provincial Assembly’s role in the governance of the ACNA is limited to ratification of amendments to the constitution and changes in the canons. The ACNA Provincial Council has circumvented this provision of the ACNA constitution by acquiescing to the establishment of new governance structures in the ACNA, e.g., Dean of the Province, Archbishop’s Cabinet, without adopting canons authorizing these structures as required by the ACNA constitution. The Archbishop’s Cabinet is a Roman Catholic governance structure and has taken over the role of the ACNA Executive Committee.

The minimum age requirement of 35 for ACNA bishops comes from the minimum age requirement for Rwandan missionary bishops, which in turn comes the minimum age requirement for Roman Catholic bishops. The second ACNA mode of selection of bishops is modeled upon the Rwandan mode of episcopal selection, which shows the influence of Roman Catholic models and Roman Catholic norms and principles of ecclesiastical governance.

The doctrinal view of bishops and apostolic succession expressed in the ACNA canons comes from the Roman Catholic Church’s canons, as do the doctrinal views of the sacraments. The rites of confirmation, matrimony, and ordination are classified as sacraments. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are implied to operate automatically, that is, ex opere operato, and do not require the presence of a vital faith.

More recently, the ACNA College of Bishops usurped the authority of the Provincial Council in matters affecting the worship and liturgy of the ACNA and authorized an ordinal that countenances pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices in the ACNA. The Anglican reformers rejected these doctrines and practices on solid Scriptural grounds; their reintroduction is a disregard of Scripture and a rejection of historic Anglican principles.

The irony of what has been happening in the Anglican Church of Rwanda, the Anglican Mission, and the Anglican Church in North America is that it has been going on in full view of Anglicans in and outside of North America and only a few people appear to have been paying attention. Even fewer people have been willing to recognize the problematic nature of what has been happening, its extent, and its seriousness. It points to the flawed thinking that underlies the present organization and structure of the Anglican Church in North America.

The ACNA is only a step or two behind the Anglican Mission. Its organization and structure are top-heavy. There is few if any safeguards and checks and balances and there is negligible accountability. Scripture and the classic formularies take a backseat to the tradition and consensus of the pre-Reformation Medieval and the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Churches. There is a clear and continuing need in North America for an orthodox Anglican province committed to Scripture; the classic formularies; the Great Commission; and responsible, synodical church government.