Anglican Mission: Addressing Finances with Rwanda

Cynthia Brust posted this article on the Anglican Mission website.

The Anglican Mission has freely and without compulsion given 10% of the revenue it receives from parish tithes to the support of the Province of Rwanda as part of its 10%-10%-10% principal of giving. In addition, other gifts have been given to the Province of Southeast Asia as well as other global Anglican movements like GAFCON, ACNA, CAPA and Global South Encounters. (see Tithe Gifts to Rwanda chart*)

The method of giving the tithe to Rwanda has always been done in consultation with the Archbishop of Rwanda. Gifts were directed in three ways: (see Anglican Mission Tithe Gifts 2004-2010 chart) 1) a portion of the moneys were sent directly to the Province of Rwanda, 2) Travel related expense for the Province and its leaders were paid directly by the Anglican Mission, as agreed to by the Archbishop, and therefore did not go to Provincial Accounts, 3) Designated support as part of the tithe was paid for or given by the Anglican Mission to assist in cases of special need. (see Designated Support as Part of the Rwandan Tithe chart)

Questions have been posed concerning roughly $1,200,000 that was given by the Anglican Mission but did not go into the Provincial accounts. As addressed above, approximately $800,000 was part of the tithe that paid expenses for the Province directly from the Anglican Mission or was designated to another need.

The remaining $460,000 was a designated gift given to the Anglican Mission for special projects in Rwanda. The donor gave Anglican Mission complete discretion to use this money in support of Rwanda in whatever way it saw fit. In consultation with the Archbishop, these funds went to support items like PEAR Theological College, the Provincial Convention, Diocesan support and the purchase of a provincial vehicle. These were not a part of the Anglican Mission’s tithe to Rwanda and were given over and above the tithe.

*These PDF's may take a moment to load.

A more detailed accounting of funds received and dispersed is warranted. The data supplied in these charts does not preclude the possibility of monies having been raised ostensibly for Rwanda and then siphoned off for other purposes. The data in the charts may satisfy some Anglican mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners, those who would prefer to not know if Bishop Murphy or other AMiA leaders were involved in wrongdoing, but it clearly does not amount to full financial disclosure, which would require a much more detailed accounting of where all moneys went.

These charts go a long way in explaining why the Rwandan bishops sought an explanation from Bishop Murphy. They realized how easily Murphy's finncial officer could mislead them with such charts. Murphy could then claim that he had given them an explanation and they refused to accept it. Murphy can now be expected to claim that he provided Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners with an adequte explanation of how funds raised for Rwanda were used.

The data in these charts, however, is far from an adequate explanation. Murphy gives the appearance of trying to gull the Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners. The Anglican Mission books should be turned over to an independent forensic accounting firm for a thorough audit. Having resigned as Primatial Vicar and therefore as Chairman of the Anglican Mission's Board of Directors and the Anglican Mission's chief executive officer, neither Murphy nor any one working for him should be permitted access to the Anglican Mission's financial records.