By Robin G. Jordan
Anglican Mission Bishop Chuck Murphy and Anglican Mission Canon Kevin Donlon served as members of the Common Cause Governance Task Force that drafted the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America. The two documents contain provisions that were originally intended to accommodate the Anglican Mission such as the minimum age requirement for bishops. The 2008 revision of the Rwandan canons that Canon Donlon drafted established 35 years of age as the minimum age requirement for missionary bishops of Anglican Church of Rwanda. 35 years of age is also the minimum age requirement for auxiliary bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. The canons of the Anglican Church in North America contain other provisions that show the influence of the revised Rwandan canons that Donlon drafted and the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law (1983) upon which Donlon drew heavily in the drafting of the revised canons. This may be seen from a comparison of the three documents.
Like the 2008 revision of the Rwandan canons, the Anglican Church in North America’s canons incorporate doctrine, language, norms, and principles from Roman Catholic canon law. One would have expected the Common Cause Governance Task Force to have made greater use of the canons of Anglican provinces such as the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of the Province of the Southern Cone, the Church of England, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Church in the Province of West Indies, and the Church of Uganda. But it did not.
The ACNA canons’ two primary sources are the canons of the Roman Catholic Church and The Episcopal Church. In drafting the revised Rwandan canons Donlon primarily worked with the same two sources. Due to the indebtedness of the ACNA canons to the Roman Catholic Church’s canons, I can say with a reasonable measure of confidence that the ACNA canons have an Anglo-Catholic/Roman Catholic doctrinal bias.
This bias does not particularly come as a surprise in light of the make-up of what was the Common Cause Partnership. While what Gerald Bray describes as “charismatic, ‘open evangelical’ ritualism appears to dominate the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission, these two ecclesial bodies have influential Anglo-Catholic wings. Their influence appears to be disproportionate to their size. An examination of the ACNA governing documents reveals provisions intended to accommodate the Anglo-Catholics in the Common Cause Partnership as well as to accommodate the Anglican Mission, which at the time the governing documents were drafted was the largest of the Common Cause Partners. It was not foreseen at that time that Bishop Murphy would decide that ministry partnership with the ACNA would serve his interests better than merger with that ecclesial body. Ministry partnership would enable Murphy to retain his control of the Anglican Mission and to preserve the organization that he had built as its chairman. Ministry partnership would also enable Murphy to expand that organization through the enfolding of new congregations into new and existing church planting networks.
The Rwandan Provincial Synod’s adoption of the 2008 revised canons and the Rwandan House of Bishops’ subsequent endorsement and promulgation of the revised canons is more difficult to explain. The Anglican Church of Rwanda was planted by the Church Missionary Society and historically has been evangelical in doctrine and practice. The East African Revival with its emphasis upon the power of Christ’s sacrificial death in relation to the believer began in Rwanda. The Rwandan Primate, however, is a very influential person in the Rwandan Church and his support of the draft revised canons would have greatly facilitated their adoption. The provisions giving the Primate, the archbishops, and the bishops of the province substantial authority would have made the draft canons attractive to the Rwandan bishops. Traditional African society is hierarchical with the traditional ruler or chieftain occupying a prominent position of leadership and influence in society. An examination of the governing documents of a number of African provinces show that African concepts of chieftaincy have influenced their understanding of the role of bishop in the church. Prelatical forms of church government upon the Roman model fit with this understanding. The appeal of these provisions especially if they were highlighted may have caused the Rwandan bishops to overlook the doctrinal changes that Canon Donlon introduced with the revised canons. He swept away the doctrines of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal, and replaced them with the dogmas of the Council of Trent. For example, the provisions of the revised canons relating to the sacraments are taken from the corresponding provisions of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The language has been altered slightly but the doctrine is unaffected.
At the time of their presentation to the Rwandan Provincial Synod and the Rwandan House of Bishops the draft revised canons may not have received as close a scrutiny as they ought to have. The lingua franca spoken in Rwanda is French, not English. Language may have been a problem. The revised Rwandan canons, like the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law, are also lengthy and verbose. They contain provisions that are not typically found in the canons of Anglican provinces. Some sections are well written; others are barely intelligible. The latter give the appearance of hurried adaptation. If the revised canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda are compared with the canons of a neighboring Anglican province, the Church of Uganda, it is evident that a large number of provisions are superfluous. Canon Donlon may have included them because he was seeking to impress Bishop Murphy and the Rwandans. As a consequence the draft revised canons may have received only a cursory reading. Members of the Rwandan Provincial Synod and the Rwanda House of Bishop may have relied upon what they were told was in the draft revised canons and not actually read the document for themselves. The length and verbosity of the revised Rwandan canons do not encourage the reading of their provisions.
The ACNA canons also contain superfluous provisions. At the same time they omit details where more detailed provisions are needed. Two examples that come immediately to mind are the canons regarding the modes of election of bishops and those regarding church discipline.
Both the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Church of Rwanda need to undertake extensive revision of their governing documents. The ACNA needs to address the numerous problem areas in its constitution and canons, to which I have drawn attention elsewhere. The Anglican Church of Rwanda needs to remove a number of superfluous provisions from its canons, rewrite a number of sections to make the language of these sections clearer, purge the Roman Catholic teaching from the canons, and to renew its commitment to the Scriptures and the classic formularies. It needs to revamp the provisions of the canons relating to missionary jurisdictions, giving greater oversight of such jurisdictions to the Rwandan House of Bishops and requiring greater accountability from its missionary bishops. It may wish to consider other changes in these provisions. The bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda are signatories to the GAFCON Statement and The Jerusalem Declaration. The doctrine of the revised Rwandan canons clearly conflicts with the doctrine of The Jerusalem Declaration and the teaching of the Scriptures and the classic formularies that it affirms.
The Anglican Mission needs to rethink its present organization and structure, establish realistic accountability mechanisms at its highest levels, and give its clergy and laity a greater role in the discussion and determination of major issues. A document having origin in the Anglican Mission, defining the Anglican Mission’s relationship with the Anglican Church of Rwanda, modifying the basis for the organization and structure of the Anglican Mission, and altering the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration of Principles, as did the draft revision of the Rwandan canons, should have been carefully examined and thoroughly debated at all levels of the Anglican Mission before it was submitted to the Rwandans. It was not a matter that a single bishop or even a council of bishops should have decided.
All clergy and congregations of the Anglican Mission are stakeholders in that organization, as are the mission partners of the Anglican Mission. They are not employees of a corporation. Without their collaborative efforts and their financial contributions there would be no Anglican Mission.
A number of provisions in the revised Rwandan canons raise serious questions as to whether Canon Donlon in drafting the document and Bishop Murphy in approving the document and recommending it to the Rwandan Primate were acting in the best interest of the Anglican Mission but were rather acting in their own interests. According to the provisions of Article IV of the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration any alteration in the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration dissolves the organization (See my article, “Anglican Mission – Anglican Church of Rwanda Split Holds More Surprises in Store.”) Canon Donlon’s substitution of the dogmas of the Council of Trent for the doctrines of the Anglican formularies in the draft revision in effect altered the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration. The Anglican Mission arguably no longer exists except as a creation of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, a province in which Roman Catholic dogma has replaced Anglican teaching. Bishop Murphy bears full responsibility as lead bishop and chairman of the Anglican Mission for having allowed this to happen.
Whether Bishop Murphy stays at the helm of the Anglican Mission is a determination that the stakeholders in the Anglican Mission will have to make for themselves. Bishop Murphy has in a very real sense betrayed the trust of the clergy, congregations, and mission partners of the Anglican Mission. He has failed to safeguard and defend the historic Anglican principles to which the Solemn Declaration commits the Anglican Mission in order to further his own interests. He has colluded in the subverting of the rule of the plain sense of Scripture and the classic formularies not only in the Anglican Mission but also the Anglican Church of Rwanda, which graciously provided a safe haven to clergy and congregations fleeing the apostasy in The Episcopal Church when other provinces of the Anglican Communion were not prepared to take them in. He has abused the hospitality of the Anglican Church of Rwanda as well as betrayed its trust.
One way forward for the Anglican Mission would be to establish the Anglican Missionary Province of North America that the Anglican Mission was originally supposed to become, create a Missionary Board appointed by its Provincial Synod, and place the Anglican Mission under the oversight of the Missionary Board. The Anglican Mission would continue to plant new congregations, releasing them to the province at a particular stage in their development. The congregations in the Anglican Mission and the congregations in the province would pay an assessment that would be used to fund the Anglican Mission’s church planting efforts.
North America needs an Anglican province that is committed to the Scriptures, the classic formularies, and the Great Commission. God appears to be providing an opportunity for the formation of such a province.
Update:
The Anglican Mission has released a second press release.
In our world of instant communication and Internet dialogue in and through the blogosphere, it is easy for misinformation and misunderstanding to be rapidly disseminated. Recently, a video blog made unsubstantiated and false assertions about the Anglican Mission's relationship with Rwanda, and another statement [separate sources] presented negative commentary about the AM's consideration of a working proposal presented during a recent Anglican Mission Presbyters' retreat. Each of these has generated some blog discussion.
These issues have been publicly addressed in a way that can cause confusion and responding is challenging, as many of those on our mailing list are not aware of the inaccurate reporting and negative commentary. We believe it is important, however, to reassure those who have read blogs and may be concerned or confused and to address the misleading information and personal commentary in a general way. To that end, Archbishop Rwaje and Bishop Murphy have issued a joint statement that you can read below.
This unforeseen situation actually provides us with the opportunity to share some potential developments, which we believe promise a new and rich season of ministry together. The Anglican Mission has been actively engaged in conversations with Rwanda over the last several months, exploring the concept of a Missionary Society designed to formalize what has long been the stated vision of the AM - to be "a mission, nothing more, nothing less." A Missionary Society, focused on the apostolic work of church planting, would provide a stable, long-term framework for what we have been communicating and living from our inception.
Over its 12-year history, the Anglican Mission has been consistent in vision, while being careful not to rush to structure. We have established a pattern of processing and discussing in multiple levels of leadership how best to live into our vision, addressing pros and cons, and determining a plan of action. This approach has marked the in-depth process of considering what a Missionary Society would look like and how it would operate. While no decisions have been made, this concept represents a consistent trajectory and is being discussed widely in an ordered and sequential way internally and with Rwanda. As additional clarity is reached, and an actual proposal is more clearly defined, we intend to develop a format to provide an organized opportunity for clergy and lay representatives from all of our Networks to speak into the "shape" of a proposed Missionary Society. Be assured that as decisions are reached regarding any component of our life together, we will communicate that information to you directly.
Because conversations are ongoing as we seek to discern the will of God and the right way forward through wise counsel and prayer, we cannot state definitively the results of this process, but we can make you aware of the conversations, and with confidence and transparency, refute false rumors and offer a different perspective on negative commentary.
Our hope is that none of us will become distracted from our mission and ministry. We ask you to pray for wisdom and discernment as the Anglican Mission and Rwanda seek God's will and best plan for this missionary movement He has created. We believe our best days are still ahead as we seek to maintain a long obedience in the same direction.
This press release is a clear attempt to not only divert attention away from the legitimate concerns that Dan Claire, Chuck Colson, and Tommy Hinson express in their letter but also to conceal other problem areas that the present scrutiny of the Anglican Mission's dealings with the Anglican Church of Rwanda is likely to expose. It seek to portray Claire, Colson, and Hinson's letter in a negative light and to prejudice Anglican Mission clergy, congregations, and mission partners against them. Its obvious intent is to put its own spin upon the developments that are coming to public attention and to minimize any damage to Bishop Murphy's position in the Anglican Mission that might result from these disclosures. Archbishop Rwaje, on the other hand, appears to be trying to spare the Anglican Church of Rwanda the embarrassment that is likely to come from these revelations.
Related articles:
Anglican Mission and Anglican Church of Rwanda Deny Split
Anglican Mission – Anglican Church of Rwanda Split Holds More Surprises in Store
A Statement from the Archbishop of Rwanda and the Primatial Vicar of the Anglican Mission in the Americas
Anglican Mission and Anglican Church of Rwanda to Sever Ties?
Anglican Mission Spins Break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda
Is the AMiA’s New "Missionary Society” Structure the Best Way Forward?
No Surprise in News of Possible Split Between Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church of Rwanda
No comments:
Post a Comment