Committed to building up Christ's Church in North America and beyond
Pages
▼
Thursday, December 08, 2011
AMiA-Rwanda Break Is Serious Blow to North American-Global South Cooperation
By Robin G. Jordan
This week began with the news that Bishop Chuck Murphy of the Anglican Mission had submitted a letter to the Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje of the Anglican Church of Rwanda in which he states that he and a number of the Anglican Mission bishops under him have resigned from the Rwandan House of Bishops. A perusal of the letter that the Anglican Mission released to the media suggests that it was designed to be more than a letter of resignation but also was intended to influence Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners’ perceptions of what is happening. Having claimed that the Anglican Mission was “embedded” in the Rwandan canons, Bishop Murphy is now claiming that the Anglican Mission was only a “personal prelature,” borrowing an argument taken from the so-called Washington Statement. (For an explanation of a "personal prelature," see the Addendum to my article, "What the Future Holds for the Anglican Mission." )
The Rwandan canons, however, do not require a formal application from a group of faithful Anglicans desiring godly oversight from the Church of Rwanda in order for the Rwandan House of Bishops to establish a missionary jurisdiction or society in their area of the world. For the past three years the Anglican Mission has been operating under the provisions of the 2008 Rwandan canons, particularly Canon 6. The Anglican Mission has been recognized by the Church of Rwanda as a missionary jurisdiction of the Province in North America. Bishop Murphy has been recognized by the Church of Rwanda as the Primatial Vicar of the Primate of Rwanda in North America. He has also represented himself as a Primatial Vicar of the Primate of Rwanda under the provisions of Canon 6 and been exercising the authority of a Primatial Vicar of the Primate of Rwanda under the provisions of the same canon.
Article I of the Canonical Charter for the Ministry of the Anglican Mission in Americas describes the Anglican Mission to be a “a Missionary Jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Rwanda.” Article 3.2 of the Charter recognizes the Primatial Vicar to be “the presiding ecclesiastical authority of the Anglican Mission in the absence of the Primate of Rwanda.” Article 5.3 recognizes the Primatial Vicar to be the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Anglican Mission and the chief executive officer of the Anglican Mission. The claims that Murphy makes in the letter to Archbishop Rwaje are a misrepresentation of the facts.
Further proof of Bishop Murphy’s misrepresentation of the facts is found in the Guiding Principles section of the Network Development Manual (May 23, 2006). It predates the 2008 Rwandan canons by two years. Under the heading “Authority” we read:
As Anglicans we are men and women under authority. In understanding the way in which this authority is manifested within the Mission Networks we begin with the Statement by the Episcopal Church of Rwanda on the creation of AMiA: “The Anglican Mission in America serves as a missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda, under the authority of the Provincial Synod, the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of the Province.”
Under the provisions of Article V of the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration the Anglican Mission ceases to exist if the altered by any means:
Article V. Unalterable Nature of the Solemn Declaration
The teaching of this Church is defined by adherence to the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration, consequently we make no provision for their alteration by addition or subtraction. Should this Solemn Declaration be altered by any means, this Church would thereby cease to exist. Any money or property owned by the Province per se would be returned to the donors or their heirs and where that was not possible it would be sold and given to an orthodox Christian missionary society as soon as possible.
When the Anglican Mission became a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Rwanda under the provisions of Canon 6, the Anglican Mission as it had previously existed was dissolved under the provisions of Article V of the Solemn Declaration. The 2008 Rwandan canons embodied doctrine, language, norms and principles from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law that conflict with the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration and which did away with them. The Anglican Mission as an ecclesiastical organization now only exists as a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Rwanda under the provisions of Canon 6 and the Canonical Charter for the Ministry of the Anglican Mission in Americas.
Since the Anglican Mission’s articles of incorporation and bylaws are not available for examination on its website, it is difficult to say how the Anglican Mission as a secular organization was affected by these changes. Under the provisions of Article 5.3 of the Anglican Mission’s Canonical Charter for Ministry the Primatial Vicar is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the Anglican Mission’s secular organization. If this is reflected in the Anglican Mission’s bylaws, Bishop Murphy can be expected to seek to make changes in the bylaws to retain his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer and to retain control of Anglican Mission’s Board of Directors and its assets and funds.
Under the provisions of Article 8.3 of the Anglican Mission’s Canonical Charter for Ministry the Board of Directors in the event of the dissolution of the Anglican Mission is empowered “to dispose of all the assets to such organizations as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Board of Directors shall determine.” A Murphy-controlled Board of Directors could dispose of the assets to a successor organization established by Murphy, depriving of any benefit from their disposal those networks, churches, and pastors that remain with the Church of Rwanda.
The role of the Board of Directors in the allocation of resources is described in the Financial Responsibility section of the Network Development Manual (May 23, 2006). I have reproduced the entire section because it does not support Bishop Murphy’s statements regarding monies given to the Church of Rwanda. It also shows how the Board of Directors through its control of the purse strings exercises control over the Mission Networks and the congregations and clergy forming the Mission Networks.
All Anglican Mission congregations are expected to participate in the 10-10-10 stewardship model by which individuals give 10% to the church, the church gives 10% to the National Resource Center (“NRC”), and the NRC gives 10% to our international sponsors. Participation in 10-10-10 should be viewed as a floor not a ceiling. It takes substantially more money to support the work of the Anglican Mission than 10-10-10 will provide. Frankly, this is the problem faced by any organization that is growing quickly – revenue lags expense. Although the Anglican Mission has been blessed from its inception by generous donors (individuals and churches) who have given substantial sums, continuing our growth requires that the increasing financial burden be spread across an increasing donor base. Fundraising is an important element of financial responsibility.
Mission Networks are expected to cooperate in the annual budget process in which Mission Network revenue and expense for the upcoming year are estimated. What would constitute a “legitimate Network expense” will vary from Network to Network depending on the individual mission strategy of each. The budgeting process is the time to ask and answer these questions. The Mission Network budgets roll up to the overall Anglican Mission in America budget. As we continue to grow, administering our fiscal dimension is not a trivial task. An accurate budget at all levels is a critical planning tool.
Once a Mission Network is officially recognized, and so long as its congregations are substantially faithful to the 10-10-10 model, approximately one-half of the funds received by the NRC from that Mission Network’s congregations will be reserved for use in Mission Network administered mission projects. Mission Networks must submit Project Plans to the NRC as a first step in funding a mission project. Preparing a Project Plan encourages the participants to think systematically through the project requirements.
A properly written Project Plan will set forth in concise detail the missionary objectives of the project, interim targets that will show if the project is on track, and the timing and amounts of financial, personnel and other resources needed. Project Plans recommended by the Mission Network will be submitted to the Anglican Mission Board of Directors, to allow the Board to effectively plan for resource allocation. The Board reserves the right to require additional explanation if a project appears to be out of sync with the Mission Network’s expressed missionary strategy.
Funding allocated to approved Project Plans will carry over from one fiscal year to the next, so a Mission Network should feel no annual pressure to “use or lose” funds dedicated to agreed upon mission projects. On the other hand, if Mission Network congregation contributions to the NRC fall below projected levels, adjustments to the project budgets may be necessary. Periodic reporting will be required in order for the Network Team and the NRC to ensure that contributions and expenditures are on track. Annual audits of Mission Network accounts will be conducted.
As may be seen from this section of the Network Development Manual, control of the Board of Directors is vital to Murphy’s control of the Anglican Mission. It is also critical to his creation of a successor organization to the Anglican Mission.
The corporate scandals of recent years offer insights into what is happening in the Anglican Mission. In a number of cases the complaints of stockholders and the investigations of regulatory agency brought wrongdoing into the open. As a non-profit organization the Anglican Mission has no stockholders and no stockholders’ meeting. But it does have stakeholders—the congregations, clergy, and mission partners of the Anglican Mission. The Rwandan House of Bishops is the closet thing to a regulatory agency overseeing the Anglican Mission. Murphy’s plan in breaking with the Church of Rwanda is to move out from under the oversight of the Rwandan House of Bishops as much of the Anglican Mission as he can persuade to join him and reorganize it into a successor organization without any real oversight. It is similar to a corporation moving its headquarters to a location outside the United States where there are no regulations, no regulatory agencies and no oversight.
What Bishop Murphy does in next few months and how he tries to spin it will be very revealing as to his character. Congregations and clergy—bishops included—who choose to join Murphy may come to regret their choice. What has happened to date has raises serious questions about Murphy’s commitment to Anglican doctrinal norms and formularies, his honesty, and his trustworthiness. It suggests that Murphy has cynically exploited the Anglican Province of Rwanda, milking the relationship between the Anglican Mission and its “international sponsors” for whatever benefits can be gained from that relationship.
While some in and outside the Anglican Mission may wish to see Bishop Murphy as the aggrieved party, this is clearly not the case. The Rwandans are the ones who rightly have a grievance. They made changes in their canons, believing that they were helping the Anglican Mission only to discover that the new canons they had adopted were a Trojan horse. Murphy and Canon Kevin Donlon had connived together to affect the overthrow of Evangelical Christianity in the Anglican Province of Rwanda. There is no explaining away Bishop Murphy’s culpability in this matter.
The global South now is faced with two threats from North America. One is modernism. The other is a virulent form of retrograde Anglo-Catholicism. Both seek to subvert the Evangelical Christian Faith that the global South Anglican provinces received from the Church of England. Anglicans in Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America now must be on guard against all Anglicans in North America, not fully able to trust them as friends due to the duplicity of Bishop Murphy and his Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs.
The whole affair has spiritual warfare dimensions that must not be overlooked. Through the duplicity of Murphy and Donlon the enemy has struck a blow against the work that God is doing in Africa and North America. The enemy struck this blow in Rwanda where God had begun the East African Revival through which hundreds of thousands of Africans would come to know Jesus Christ and to accept Him as their Savior and Lord. It was the second blow that the enemy struck against this landlocked nation and its Christian community. The enemy struck this blow knowing that God is doing a mighty work that he could not stop but which he could greatly hinder.
In North America the enemy having turned the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States from the teaching of the Scriptures and the true gospel, struck at the Anglican Mission in which God was at work. The enemy struck where the Anglican Mission was the weakest. This included its fragile commitment to given truth in Scripture and the desire of its chairman for greater influence and power.
The enemy struck at the alliance between conservative Anglicans in North America and orthodox Anglicans in the global South. The enemy has sought to cause the greatest hindrance to God’s work in Africa and North America that he can. This includes encouraging conservative North American Anglicans and orthodox global South Anglicans to turn away from the teaching of the Scriptures and the true gospel of salvation by grace by faith in Christ and to put their faith in the teaching of church tradition and a false gospel of good works and sacraments.
The tenor of Bishop Murphy’s resignation letter is no surprise. The theme for this January’s Anglican Winter Mission Conference is the Holy Spirit. To seasoned Anglican Mission watchers like myself, the announcement of this particular theme for the upcoming Winter Conference signaled that Murphy was going to announce a major initiative at that Winter Conference. Murphy uses gatherings like the Winter Conference and Clergy Retreats to generate support for new initiatives and to rally Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners behind these undertakings. The use of the Holy Spirit as the theme of this January’s Winter Conference suggested that that the initiative that would be announced at the gathering would be a big one.
The Anglican Mission is described in its literature as riding on a wave of the Holy Spirit. The choice of theme suggested that Murphy was going to say something to the effect that he and other Anglican Mission leaders had discerned another wave of the Holy Spirit coming—the big wave—and were calling upon the Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners to join them in catching it. It suggested that Murphy was going to announce that the Anglican Mission would be taking a new direction—a direction that he would claim was the work of the Holy Spirit.
A number of Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners are charismatic and see Murphy as the God-anointed leader of the Anglican Mission. They are likely to give credence to such a claim. Due to the prevalence of “three streams” theology in the Anglican Mission with its emphasis upon piety and practice over doctrine, they are open to accepting retrograde Anglo-Catholic beliefs and practices that are likely to be a major part of this initiative—a successor organization to the Anglican Mission.
Plans for this initiative appear to have been in the pipe for some time. This suggests the possibility that Murphy may have even engineered the break with the Church of Rwanda and deliberately provoked the Rwandans.
Whatever happened, the spirit at work does not appear to be the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, not deceitfulness. The Holy Spirit upholds the teaching of the Scriptures and the true gospel and does not replace them with error and superstition. The Holy Spirit does not prompt a man to take advantage of his friends as Murphy has taken advantage of the Rwandans.
I have a suspicion that the AMiA will now reverse itself and decide to become part of the ACNA, while insisting on retaining some sort of autonomy.
Charismatics have no real commitment to Scripture. Instead they put all their emphasis on subjective experientialism and ecstatic leadings of the "Spirit". I've seen this time and again in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. God is saying whatever they want Him to say so they can justify whatever it is they want to do. Like a woman who says, "God told me to get a divorce," Murphy wants to claim divine guidance but it is really nothing more than the depravity of the human soul.
What is more disturbing is the patronizing attitude Murphy has toward the Rwandan house of bishops and the damage done to the Evangelical movement in the Global South. Thank-you for reporting on this issue.
I am an AMiA parishoner living in Asia doing cross cultural work (let the reader understand). It's extremely distressing to me what is happening to my home church community, though I am deeply grateful that my particular church and the surrounding sister churches will almost certainly continue to be loyal to Rwanda.
I appreciate your perspective on these things - particularly with the dearth of real information out here. For most of the priests and laity, this came quite suddenly. It is hugely distracting. I find myself not as focused on my own duties as I should be, but glued to the internet instead. It's hard not to be - these are the people and churches that I love dearly.
My question has to do with this under-reported notion of moving towards "retrograde Anglo Catholicism". That seems utterly bizarre to me, from what I'd seen of Murphy in particular, and the congregations in AMiA most in line with him in general. Not that I dispute it - you seem quite well informed - but it's breaking all my categories.
Various things have bothered me about Murphy's focus, especially at Winter Conference. But the categories I had just don't fit with what you suggest. I grew up evangelical - originally in the Assemblies of God, then attended a PCA Presbyterian High School (taking courses on systematic theology and such), and was very involved in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in college (while attending mega-church non-denominational fellowships). I've been exposed to the entire spectrum of evangelicalism. But I fell in love with Anglican worship and sacramental theology at Church of the Great Shepherd in Wheaton under Lyle Dorsett. This was a time of convergence and spiritual awakening for me - encountering God in the life of the church was, in a sense, a new thing to me (as opposed to almost purely private devotional life, or cerebral reformed theology). I still remember with tears my first Holy Week and Easter Vigil. I felt like I was THERE - in the upper room, at the cross, hiding away in the room, and finally at the empty tomb. I had never been so excited for Christmas as a child as I was for Easter as an adult. And I was poignantly aware that the moment I took Holy Communion was the highlight of my week, during a very very hard time in my early marriage. Those were formative years.
I've been worshiping as an Anglican for ten years now. And I am very passionate about Anglican sacramental theology - how union with Christ brings everything and everyone together. I love the richness of sacramental worship. It has changed my entire spiritual life such that Sunday morning matters to me in a way that it never did in my evangelical upbringing.
Growing to appreciate all this has opened my consciousness to the "great tradition" of the church. I benefit from some of the writings of the fathers, and often gain a lot from reading Orthodox and Catholic writers. I love Chesterton, love David Hart, love Father Stephen's "Glory to God for All Things" blog, am amazed by Flannery O'Connor, etc. I also benefit greatly from the writings of N. T. Wright. I'm sure I'm totally fitting some generational stereotype, but I sure ain't "emergent" in the sense of hating Christendom or Western culture or whatnot.
All that to say - do I strike you as an "Anglo Catholic" who wants to abandon the gospel? I certainly have little sympathy for the Marian focus in much Catholicism (warping the story of the liturgy quite a bit), and tend to admire Catholicism most in aspects it fundamentally shares with Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. But I don't hate Roman Catholicsm. I don't see an evil Catholic under every rock. I abhor the smear campaign against N. T. Wright that he is abandoning the reformation and leading us all to Rome by self-proclaimed representatives of the Reformation. And I would love to see Anglican, Catholics, and Orthodox someday, somehow, by the grace of God, reunited (the ceremonies, of course, held in the Haggai Sophia). 3054AD, perhaps?
Anyway, you see where I'm coming from. Now to Murphy. What I've observed at winter conference is a focus, in the plenary speakers and from Murphy, on church growth topics that I would expect from something like Willow Creek or Saddleback. Murphy said one time (to my horror) that we have a focus on liturgy because it seems to draw in the younger generation(!). As if the connection to the great tradition of the church is a marketing gimmick to suck my generation in (that we might just as quickly discard for something else)!!!??? But the moment I went upstairs to the booths, I saw a huge amount of energy - ministries and whatnot of people so excited and alive about discovering Anglicanism. The disparity between upstairs and downstairs was telling.
Of course I need to be wary of my own heart. I saw myself as more "high church" and the other focus as more "mainstreem evangelical" or "low church". But in the end I was convinced that we need each other. And so the focus in the main talks on things that, frankly seemed to me to be "church as business and marketing" were things I had to endure, because it meant I care about being in relationship with those people. I certainly would have appreciated more focus on things like "the eucharistic community AS mission" or "how to use the senses in liturgy to draw people in to the story of Jesus". My longing was that prolonged exposure to our differences would help us benefit from the strengths of both.
Now, what is the point of all this autobiography? Only that Murphy and his influence has always seemed to me radically "low church" - uninterested in the things I was most excited about Anglicanism for. It seemed to me strange that any of this bigger communion stuff would matter at all to him - like he would be just as happy in some non-denominational mega-church movement. That, I associated about as far away from "Anglo Catholicism" as I could imagine. For my part, I tended to see myself as half-"Anglo-Catholic", in that I really really care about liturgy and the sacraments (and those were things, growing up, associated with Roman Catholicism). Furthermore, the churches I am closest to, who strike me as some of the most sympathetic to Rwanda and wary of Murphy's moves, are also the most "high church". But perhaps I'm really ignorant by what you guys really mean by these terms.
My question in reading your writings is this. I know we Anglicans disagree on a lot. There are Calvinist Anglicans and Wesleyans. There are high church and low church. Some hardly crack the BCP, some use it exclusively. There are all of these things in AMiA. Indeed, it seemed to me that we practically have the entire evangelical spectrum represented somehow in AMiA. But the question is "is it really fair to characterize 'sacramental theology' as one of the key things driving Murphy to tear AMiA apart?" I guess I feel a little friendly fire raining down on my head here, even as I am horrified by what he's doing and find myself squarely on the side of the Rwandans. Please show me where I have misunderstood you.
Oyarsa, I'm wondering why you blog and post anonymously? I do all my posting under my real name as a matter of character and accountability. Although I often fail and get off track into emotivism, the real focus of my ministry is the single axiom, "The Bible IS the Word of God." All other sources of knowledge fail, including modern attempts to recover the apostolic gifts given to the church in the first century.
Also, after reading your three posts I noticed that you came from the Assemblies of God as well. While I admired much of what you had to say in your "testimony" I could not help to notice that all of what you said was directed toward your personal experience as the basis for what you viewed as "true". You never mentioned the Scriptures once.
As I see it this is indeed the problem with the AMiA in particular. Chuck Murphy, like most charismatics, is a pragmatist. He will utilize whatever "works" from the church growth, generic non-denominational paradigm. The trouble with pragmatism is no one can tell if something works beforehand! So pragmatism as a sign of truth is irrational. You can only know if it works afterwards!
Secondly, your admiration of the liturgy is a bit misplaced since Robin has documented that the prayer book in use in the AMiA is in general the 1979 book of alternative services. That book is not theologically faithful to the Evangelical and Reformed nature of the English Reformation or the "official" prayer book of the Anglican communion, being the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
As for experience or the senses being a source of truth, I could point out that other religions have ecstatic and emotional experiences or mystical encounters in the spiritual realm of the soul. But does that prove that the Mormon with the warmed heart has correct doctrine or true religion? I think not. I could give other examples but I think that one makes the point.
As for the Anglo-Catholic focus, which you seem so fond of, I would contend that it is genetically grounded in a misreading of the 39 Articles of Religion, which is one of the Anglican Formularies which all Anglicans are bound to believe as a confession of faith. The English Reformation in the 16th century was at heart a Protestant movement. The Reformers in general claimed that the Bible was the final authority and that the church fathers actually taught the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. As such only the Protestant Reformation could be called "catholic". "Reformed catholicism", therefore, is not some via media between Rome and Geneva. It is rather a re-establishment of the Austinian emphasis of the church fathers as they are to be read and understood via the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures interpret the church fathers and not some additional revelation in church tradition. Sola Scriptura is and was the foundation of Reformed catholicism in the English Reformation.
As for Arminianism, I think history proves that the high church Arminians under Laud were actually precursors to Anglo-Catholicism. Arminianism was flatly rejected at the Synod of Dort and it would appear that Cranmer would have agreed with the five points since he included the theology of Article 17 of the 39 Articles in his 42 Articles, which preceded the 39 Articles.
Basically, when an ecclesiastical organization is built on a foundation other than Holy Scripture and the doctrines taught by Christ in Scripture alone, then the result is devastation at some point along the line. Building on the sand rather than building on the Rock who is Jesus Christ is to invite disaster.
I am no longer a Pentecostal because that movement is full of heterodox teachings that cannot be proved from the Scriptures. I do not believe that the three streams theology is viable for the simple reason that all three streams oppose one another and are in fact incompatible.
I have good reason for anonymity that I've emailed you about. A perceptive reader could guess at the reason from my post. However, I'm aware that anonymity gives a bit of an "unfair advantage" and that I have a certain responsibility that people writing under their real name do not have. If you or Robin think I've crossed the line mentioning Murphy with negative feelings, I am happy for my posts to be deleted, as long as Robin is willing to clarify things to me personally over email (or heck, even if he's not).
I'm not really in a position where I have time to spell out in detail my view of scripture, or why I'm not a Calvinist. I've blogged through much of the Old Testament on my site (though the reflections are a bit dated), so you're free to go there. But my point is that it seems to me that (if what Robin says is accurate) then this is precisely NOT the time to frame this as a "Calvinist Anglican" vs. "Arminian Anglican" or "Anglo-Catholic" vs. "Low-Church Evangelical" fight. These may be issues worth dealing with, but drawing the polarized tribal battle lines here seems quite wrong, when actually there seems to be questions of financial transparency and submission to appropriate spiritual authority and putting ego above the good of the church, etc., that (again, if true) we can ALL agree on. That's the heart of my question to Robin.
O, I would disagree since I believe the genesis of the heterodoxy begins with a wrong theology. Scripture is the final word, not your experiences or your opinions or even your tradition. God's revelation in Holy Scripture is the literal Word of God.
Secondly, I'm not a moderator here. I work independently at my own blog at Reasonable Christian. I do that so as not to be faced with censorship. Fortunately, Robin is fairly open about posting comments. I've had some disagreements degenerate into heated pissing contests here and none of it was banned or deleted.
I try to avoid that sort of thing these days. I prefer to stick to rational and logical reasons for why I have my views. The axiom for true Christianity, however, is summarized in one statement: The Bible IS the Word of God.
I see that you are a fan of C.S. Lewis and have read the Perelandra trilogy. I presume that the “Wonders for Oyarsa” blog is yours and hence the use of “Wonders for Oyarsa.” The issues involved in the break between Bishop Chuck Murphy and the Anglican Province of Rwanda go beyond “questions of financial transparency and submission to appropriate spiritual authority and putting ego above the good of the church.” Murphy may be a pragmatist but his special advisor and assistant, Canon Kevin Donlon, is not. He is an ideologue with an ideologue’s agenda. Murphy by the way has created a special post for Donlon, which is indicative of Donlon’s influence upon him/ It is a post that enables to further his agenda. Here is a description of that post:
Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs The Office of the Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs is a ministry on behalf of the Primatial Vicar of the Primate of Rwanda to promote a greater understanding of the norms of the Church locally, globally and ecumenically. The Canon helps assure that the provisions of canon law and ecclesiological principles are part of the norm Mission as it relates to the Province and the Province as it relates to the wider church. The Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs provides canonical advice, and serves as the canonical and ecclesiastical representative of the Primate and his Vicar as designated by them. The Canon assists in the Primate and the Primatial Vicar as well as members of the Council of Bishops and local parish clergy on ecclesiastical norms and protocols in accord with the tradition of the church. The Reverend Canon Kevin Francis Donlon currently holds this office.
Canon Donlon drafted a set of canons for the Anglican Province of Rwanda at Murphy’s instigation, Murphy approved them, and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, also at Murphy’s instigation, sponsored them in the Rwandan Provincial Synod. Archbishop Kolini used his influence to secure the Rwandan Provincial Synod’s approval of the canons. Kolini also used that influence to secure the Rwandan House of Bishops’ endorsement and promulgation of the canons. The canons introduced sweeping doctrinal and structural changes in the Anglican Province of Rwanda. The Church Missionary Society founded the Anglican Church in Rwanda. The CMS was a missionary society founded by Church of England Evangelicals and the church it found in Rwanda was Evangelical. The canons not only changed the ecclesiastical structures of the Rwandan Church, they also changed its doctrine. They replaced the reformed catholicism of historic Anglicanism with the unreformed Catholicism of Medieval and Roman Catholicism. Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass became the official doctrines of the Rwandan Church. (Cont'd)
The new canons gave Murphy what he wanted—a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure for the Anglican Mission which gave him complete authority over the Anglican Mission in the absence of the Primate of Rwanda. What Donlon gained from the new canons, we are only beginning to learn. I am planning an article which will cover what I have learned to date. Donlon’s long term goal appears to be to move the Anglican Church closer to the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine and structure. He is not the only North American promoting this ideological agenda.
From what I gather, the Rwandans are not happy with the doctrinal changes. They are for the large part Evangelical in doctrine and practice.
I use the term “retrograde Anglo-Catholicism” to describe this movement. I believe that it can be characterized as a movement. I use “retrograde” in the sense of “moving, occurring, or performed in a backward direction” and “tending toward or resulting in a worse or previous state.” It seeks to promote pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrine and practice in Anglican Church and to undo the English Reformation. It would replace the reformed catholicism of historic Anglicanism with the unreformed Catholicism of Medieval and Roman Catholicism, the teaching of the Scriptures with the teaching of church tradition, and the true gospel of salvation by grace by faith in Christ with a false gospel of good works and sacraments. Due to the prevalence of “three streams, one river” theory of Anglican identity in the Anglican Mission, laity and clergy in the Anglican Mission are particularly vulnerable to its influence. As Dr. Gillis Harp has pointed out, this theory of Anglican identity views as differences of emphasis what in actually are major theological difference arising from opposing readings of Scripture.
The GAFCON Theological Resource Group in The Way, the Truth, and the Life identifies this retrograde form of Anglo-Catholicism as represented by the Tractarians and their successors as a major challenge to the authority of the Scriptures and the Anglican formularies in the Anglican Church along with modernism.
In your comment you refer to the Anglican sacramental theology which which you fell in love at the Church of the Great Shepherd, Wheato, where Lyle Dorsett was pastor. I would like to hear more about what Dorsett was teaching? I can be reached at heritageanglicans@gmail.com. I would also be interested in hearing more about worship at the Church of the Great Shepherd.
I saw Chuck Murphy once when I was visiting New Covenant in Winter Springs, Florida. The pastor there is Carl Buffington. New Covenant left the Florida Diocese of The Episcopal Church and had to buy back their property which they had purchased with their own funds. They then united with AMiA, hence the bishop's visit.
Unfortunately, from what I observed the top down administration is characteristic of both Anglo-Catholicism and the charismatic movement. Scripture is loosely interpreted to fit whatever agenda is at hand. It's the allegory method of interpretation common to the pentecostal/charismatic movement.
I at one time considered seeking ordination with AMiA but discovered that they are not as open to evangelicals as they pretend. Basically you are both Anglo-Catholic and charismatic or you're not welcome. Carl Buffington sure wasn't. I was a pariah because I attended the small traditional service in the early morning. There was a lot of peer pressure to attend the more charismatic service later in the morning.
I have a suspicion that the AMiA will now reverse itself and decide to become part of the ACNA, while insisting on retaining some sort of autonomy.
ReplyDeleteCharismatics have no real commitment to Scripture. Instead they put all their emphasis on subjective experientialism and ecstatic leadings of the "Spirit". I've seen this time and again in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. God is saying whatever they want Him to say so they can justify whatever it is they want to do. Like a woman who says, "God told me to get a divorce," Murphy wants to claim divine guidance but it is really nothing more than the depravity of the human soul.
Charlie
What is more disturbing is the patronizing attitude Murphy has toward the Rwandan house of bishops and the damage done to the Evangelical movement in the Global South. Thank-you for reporting on this issue.
ReplyDeleteHello Robin,
ReplyDeleteI am an AMiA parishoner living in Asia doing cross cultural work (let the reader understand). It's extremely distressing to me what is happening to my home church community, though I am deeply grateful that my particular church and the surrounding sister churches will almost certainly continue to be loyal to Rwanda.
I appreciate your perspective on these things - particularly with the dearth of real information out here. For most of the priests and laity, this came quite suddenly. It is hugely distracting. I find myself not as focused on my own duties as I should be, but glued to the internet instead. It's hard not to be - these are the people and churches that I love dearly.
My question has to do with this under-reported notion of moving towards "retrograde Anglo Catholicism". That seems utterly bizarre to me, from what I'd seen of Murphy in particular, and the congregations in AMiA most in line with him in general. Not that I dispute it - you seem quite well informed - but it's breaking all my categories.
Various things have bothered me about Murphy's focus, especially at Winter Conference. But the categories I had just don't fit with what you suggest. I grew up evangelical - originally in the Assemblies of God, then attended a PCA Presbyterian High School (taking courses on systematic theology and such), and was very involved in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in college (while attending mega-church non-denominational fellowships). I've been exposed to the entire spectrum of evangelicalism. But I fell in love with Anglican worship and sacramental theology at Church of the Great Shepherd in Wheaton under Lyle Dorsett. This was a time of convergence and spiritual awakening for me - encountering God in the life of the church was, in a sense, a new thing to me (as opposed to almost purely private devotional life, or cerebral reformed theology). I still remember with tears my first Holy Week and Easter Vigil. I felt like I was THERE - in the upper room, at the cross, hiding away in the room, and finally at the empty tomb. I had never been so excited for Christmas as a child as I was for Easter as an adult. And I was poignantly aware that the moment I took Holy Communion was the highlight of my week, during a very very hard time in my early marriage. Those were formative years.
ReplyDeleteI've been worshiping as an Anglican for ten years now. And I am very passionate about Anglican sacramental theology - how union with Christ brings everything and everyone together. I love the richness of sacramental worship. It has changed my entire spiritual life such that Sunday morning matters to me in a way that it never did in my evangelical upbringing.
Growing to appreciate all this has opened my consciousness to the "great tradition" of the church. I benefit from some of the writings of the fathers, and often gain a lot from reading Orthodox and Catholic writers. I love Chesterton, love David Hart, love Father Stephen's "Glory to God for All Things" blog, am amazed by Flannery O'Connor, etc. I also benefit greatly from the writings of N. T. Wright. I'm sure I'm totally fitting some generational stereotype, but I sure ain't "emergent" in the sense of hating Christendom or Western culture or whatnot.
All that to say - do I strike you as an "Anglo Catholic" who wants to abandon the gospel? I certainly have little sympathy for the Marian focus in much Catholicism (warping the story of the liturgy quite a bit), and tend to admire Catholicism most in aspects it fundamentally shares with Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. But I don't hate Roman Catholicsm. I don't see an evil Catholic under every rock. I abhor the smear campaign against N. T. Wright that he is abandoning the reformation and leading us all to Rome by self-proclaimed representatives of the Reformation. And I would love to see Anglican, Catholics, and Orthodox someday, somehow, by the grace of God, reunited (the ceremonies, of course, held in the Haggai Sophia). 3054AD, perhaps?
Anyway, you see where I'm coming from. Now to Murphy. What I've observed at winter conference is a focus, in the plenary speakers and from Murphy, on church growth topics that I would expect from something like Willow Creek or Saddleback. Murphy said one time (to my horror) that we have a focus on liturgy because it seems to draw in the younger generation(!). As if the connection to the great tradition of the church is a marketing gimmick to suck my generation in (that we might just as quickly discard for something else)!!!??? But the moment I went upstairs to the booths, I saw a huge amount of energy - ministries and whatnot of people so excited and alive about discovering Anglicanism. The disparity between upstairs and downstairs was telling.
ReplyDeleteOf course I need to be wary of my own heart. I saw myself as more "high church" and the other focus as more "mainstreem evangelical" or "low church". But in the end I was convinced that we need each other. And so the focus in the main talks on things that, frankly seemed to me to be "church as business and marketing" were things I had to endure, because it meant I care about being in relationship with those people. I certainly would have appreciated more focus on things like "the eucharistic community AS mission" or "how to use the senses in liturgy to draw people in to the story of Jesus". My longing was that prolonged exposure to our differences would help us benefit from the strengths of both.
Now, what is the point of all this autobiography? Only that Murphy and his influence has always seemed to me radically "low church" - uninterested in the things I was most excited about Anglicanism for. It seemed to me strange that any of this bigger communion stuff would matter at all to him - like he would be just as happy in some non-denominational mega-church movement. That, I associated about as far away from "Anglo Catholicism" as I could imagine. For my part, I tended to see myself as half-"Anglo-Catholic", in that I really really care about liturgy and the sacraments (and those were things, growing up, associated with Roman Catholicism). Furthermore, the churches I am closest to, who strike me as some of the most sympathetic to Rwanda and wary of Murphy's moves, are also the most "high church". But perhaps I'm really ignorant by what you guys really mean by these terms.
My question in reading your writings is this. I know we Anglicans disagree on a lot. There are Calvinist Anglicans and Wesleyans. There are high church and low church. Some hardly crack the BCP, some use it exclusively. There are all of these things in AMiA. Indeed, it seemed to me that we practically have the entire evangelical spectrum represented somehow in AMiA. But the question is "is it really fair to characterize 'sacramental theology' as one of the key things driving Murphy to tear AMiA apart?" I guess I feel a little friendly fire raining down on my head here, even as I am horrified by what he's doing and find myself squarely on the side of the Rwandans. Please show me where I have misunderstood you.
Oyarsa, I'm wondering why you blog and post anonymously? I do all my posting under my real name as a matter of character and accountability. Although I often fail and get off track into emotivism, the real focus of my ministry is the single axiom, "The Bible IS the Word of God." All other sources of knowledge fail, including modern attempts to recover the apostolic gifts given to the church in the first century.
ReplyDeleteAlso, after reading your three posts I noticed that you came from the Assemblies of God as well. While I admired much of what you had to say in your "testimony" I could not help to notice that all of what you said was directed toward your personal experience as the basis for what you viewed as "true". You never mentioned the Scriptures once.
As I see it this is indeed the problem with the AMiA in particular. Chuck Murphy, like most charismatics, is a pragmatist. He will utilize whatever "works" from the church growth, generic non-denominational paradigm. The trouble with pragmatism is no one can tell if something works beforehand! So pragmatism as a sign of truth is irrational. You can only know if it works afterwards!
Secondly, your admiration of the liturgy is a bit misplaced since Robin has documented that the prayer book in use in the AMiA is in general the 1979 book of alternative services. That book is not theologically faithful to the Evangelical and Reformed nature of the English Reformation or the "official" prayer book of the Anglican communion, being the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
As for experience or the senses being a source of truth, I could point out that other religions have ecstatic and emotional experiences or mystical encounters in the spiritual realm of the soul. But does that prove that the Mormon with the warmed heart has correct doctrine or true religion? I think not. I could give other examples but I think that one makes the point.
As for the Anglo-Catholic focus, which you seem so fond of, I would contend that it is genetically grounded in a misreading of the 39 Articles of Religion, which is one of the Anglican Formularies which all Anglicans are bound to believe as a confession of faith. The English Reformation in the 16th century was at heart a Protestant movement. The Reformers in general claimed that the Bible was the final authority and that the church fathers actually taught the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. As such only the Protestant Reformation could be called "catholic". "Reformed catholicism", therefore, is not some via media between Rome and Geneva. It is rather a re-establishment of the Austinian emphasis of the church fathers as they are to be read and understood via the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures interpret the church fathers and not some additional revelation in church tradition. Sola Scriptura is and was the foundation of Reformed catholicism in the English Reformation.
ReplyDeleteAs for Arminianism, I think history proves that the high church Arminians under Laud were actually precursors to Anglo-Catholicism. Arminianism was flatly rejected at the Synod of Dort and it would appear that Cranmer would have agreed with the five points since he included the theology of Article 17 of the 39 Articles in his 42 Articles, which preceded the 39 Articles.
Basically, when an ecclesiastical organization is built on a foundation other than Holy Scripture and the doctrines taught by Christ in Scripture alone, then the result is devastation at some point along the line. Building on the sand rather than building on the Rock who is Jesus Christ is to invite disaster.
I am no longer a Pentecostal because that movement is full of heterodox teachings that cannot be proved from the Scriptures. I do not believe that the three streams theology is viable for the simple reason that all three streams oppose one another and are in fact incompatible.
Sincerely yours,
Charlie
For more on this read my article at:
Robin Jordan: Anglicans Ablaze: The Curse of Trust in Man: Fatal Weaknesses in the Anglican Mission
@Robin Smith This sort of blatant commercialism has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm guessing this is a spam bot?
ReplyDeleteHello Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI have good reason for anonymity that I've emailed you about. A perceptive reader could guess at the reason from my post. However, I'm aware that anonymity gives a bit of an "unfair advantage" and that I have a certain responsibility that people writing under their real name do not have. If you or Robin think I've crossed the line mentioning Murphy with negative feelings, I am happy for my posts to be deleted, as long as Robin is willing to clarify things to me personally over email (or heck, even if he's not).
I'm not really in a position where I have time to spell out in detail my view of scripture, or why I'm not a Calvinist. I've blogged through much of the Old Testament on my site (though the reflections are a bit dated), so you're free to go there. But my point is that it seems to me that (if what Robin says is accurate) then this is precisely NOT the time to frame this as a "Calvinist Anglican" vs. "Arminian Anglican" or "Anglo-Catholic" vs. "Low-Church Evangelical" fight. These may be issues worth dealing with, but drawing the polarized tribal battle lines here seems quite wrong, when actually there seems to be questions of financial transparency and submission to appropriate spiritual authority and putting ego above the good of the church, etc., that (again, if true) we can ALL agree on. That's the heart of my question to Robin.
O, I would disagree since I believe the genesis of the heterodoxy begins with a wrong theology. Scripture is the final word, not your experiences or your opinions or even your tradition. God's revelation in Holy Scripture is the literal Word of God.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'm not a moderator here. I work independently at my own blog at Reasonable Christian. I do that so as not to be faced with censorship. Fortunately, Robin is fairly open about posting comments. I've had some disagreements degenerate into heated pissing contests here and none of it was banned or deleted.
I try to avoid that sort of thing these days. I prefer to stick to rational and logical reasons for why I have my views. The axiom for true Christianity, however, is summarized in one statement: The Bible IS the Word of God.
Wonders for Oyarsa
ReplyDeleteI see that you are a fan of C.S. Lewis and have read the Perelandra trilogy. I presume that the “Wonders for Oyarsa” blog is yours and hence the use of “Wonders for Oyarsa.”
The issues involved in the break between Bishop Chuck Murphy and the Anglican Province of Rwanda go beyond “questions of financial transparency and submission to appropriate spiritual authority and putting ego above the good of the church.” Murphy may be a pragmatist but his special advisor and assistant, Canon Kevin Donlon, is not. He is an ideologue with an ideologue’s agenda. Murphy by the way has created a special post for Donlon, which is indicative of Donlon’s influence upon him/ It is a post that enables to further his agenda. Here is a description of that post:
Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs
The Office of the Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs is a ministry on behalf of the Primatial Vicar of the Primate of Rwanda to promote a greater understanding of the norms of the Church locally, globally and ecumenically. The Canon helps assure that the provisions of canon law and ecclesiological principles are part of the norm Mission as it relates to the Province and the Province as it relates to the wider church. The Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs provides canonical advice, and serves as the canonical and ecclesiastical representative of the Primate and his Vicar as designated by them. The Canon assists in the Primate and the Primatial Vicar as well as members of the Council of Bishops and local parish clergy on ecclesiastical norms and protocols in accord with the tradition of the church. The Reverend Canon Kevin Francis Donlon currently holds this office.
Canon Donlon drafted a set of canons for the Anglican Province of Rwanda at Murphy’s instigation, Murphy approved them, and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, also at Murphy’s instigation, sponsored them in the Rwandan Provincial Synod. Archbishop Kolini used his influence to secure the Rwandan Provincial Synod’s approval of the canons. Kolini also used that influence to secure the Rwandan House of Bishops’ endorsement and promulgation of the canons. The canons introduced sweeping doctrinal and structural changes in the Anglican Province of Rwanda. The Church Missionary Society founded the Anglican Church in Rwanda. The CMS was a missionary society founded by Church of England Evangelicals and the church it found in Rwanda was Evangelical. The canons not only changed the ecclesiastical structures of the Rwandan Church, they also changed its doctrine. They replaced the reformed catholicism of historic Anglicanism with the unreformed Catholicism of Medieval and Roman Catholicism. Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass became the official doctrines of the Rwandan Church. (Cont'd)
The new canons gave Murphy what he wanted—a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure for the Anglican Mission which gave him complete authority over the Anglican Mission in the absence of the Primate of Rwanda. What Donlon gained from the new canons, we are only beginning to learn. I am planning an article which will cover what I have learned to date. Donlon’s long term goal appears to be to move the Anglican Church closer to the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine and structure. He is not the only North American promoting this ideological agenda.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gather, the Rwandans are not happy with the doctrinal changes. They are for the large part Evangelical in doctrine and practice.
I use the term “retrograde Anglo-Catholicism” to describe this movement. I believe that it can be characterized as a movement. I use “retrograde” in the sense of “moving, occurring, or performed in a backward direction” and “tending toward or resulting in a worse or previous state.” It seeks to promote pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrine and practice in Anglican Church and to undo the English Reformation. It would replace the reformed catholicism of historic Anglicanism with the unreformed Catholicism of Medieval and Roman Catholicism, the teaching of the Scriptures with the teaching of church tradition, and the true gospel of salvation by grace by faith in Christ with a false gospel of good works and sacraments. Due to the prevalence of “three streams, one river” theory of Anglican identity in the Anglican Mission, laity and clergy in the Anglican Mission are particularly vulnerable to its influence. As Dr. Gillis Harp has pointed out, this theory of Anglican identity views as differences of emphasis what in actually are major theological difference arising from opposing readings of Scripture.
The GAFCON Theological Resource Group in The Way, the Truth, and the Life identifies this retrograde form of Anglo-Catholicism as represented by the Tractarians and their successors as a major challenge to the authority of the Scriptures and the Anglican formularies in the Anglican Church along with modernism.
In your comment you refer to the Anglican sacramental theology which which you fell in love at the Church of the Great Shepherd, Wheato, where Lyle Dorsett was pastor. I would like to hear more about what Dorsett was teaching? I can be reached at heritageanglicans@gmail.com. I would also be interested in hearing more about worship at the Church of the Great Shepherd.
I saw Chuck Murphy once when I was visiting New Covenant in Winter Springs, Florida. The pastor there is Carl Buffington. New Covenant left the Florida Diocese of The Episcopal Church and had to buy back their property which they had purchased with their own funds. They then united with AMiA, hence the bishop's visit.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, from what I observed the top down administration is characteristic of both Anglo-Catholicism and the charismatic movement. Scripture is loosely interpreted to fit whatever agenda is at hand. It's the allegory method of interpretation common to the pentecostal/charismatic movement.
I at one time considered seeking ordination with AMiA but discovered that they are not as open to evangelicals as they pretend. Basically you are both Anglo-Catholic and charismatic or you're not welcome. Carl Buffington sure wasn't. I was a pariah because I attended the small traditional service in the early morning. There was a lot of peer pressure to attend the more charismatic service later in the morning.
Charlie