Anglican Church in North America Not Far behind
By Robin G. Jordan
The Rwandan bishops’ request for “a better and more transparent accounting of funds” (see “Anglican Mission: What happened to the $1.2?” ) was quite reasonable. It was made under the provisions of a set of canons that Anglican Mission Canon Kevin Donlon drafted at the instigation of his ecclesiastical superior, Anglican Mission Bishop Chuck Murphy, and which Bishop Murphy approved and submitted to Archbishop Emmanuel Kollini, then Primate of Rwanda. Murphy persuaded Archbishop Kollini to use his influence with the Rwanda Provincial Synod and the Rwandan House of Bishops to facilitate the adoption and promulgation of the canons, explaining that a canon law expert had prepared them and they contained provisions needed to make a number of legal changes in the Anglican Mission’s charter.
The canons gave Bishop Murphy far-reaching authority and oversight over the Anglican Mission as the vicar of the Primate of Rwanda and required negligible accountability from him. It gave the Anglican Mission a connection with the Anglican Communion as a missionary jurisdiction of the Church of Rwanda.
The canons also made sweeping changes in the doctrine and structure of the Church of Rwanda. These changes affected the destruction of the Anglican identity of the Church of Rwanda and with it the destruction of the Anglican identity of the Anglican Mission.
This was done unbeknownst to the clergy and people of the Anglican Mission and the Church of Rwanda. Bishop Murphy would maintain the fiction that the Anglican Mission’s Solemn Declaration submitted at Kampala in 1999 continued in force, retaining the annual subscription of Anglican Mission clergy to the Solemn Declaration.
Bishop Murphy’s approval of the draft canons and his subsequent endorsement of them shows his willingness to sacrifice the doctrinal norms and formularies of the Anglican Mission when it served his purposes. The lengths to which Murphy appears to be willing to go for his own self-aggrandizement raise serious questions about his continuance as the head of the Anglican Mission. One can only speculate as to why most of the other Anglican Mission bishops have thrown in their lot with Murphy if this is indeed the case.
Bishop Murphy and Canon Donlon have done inestimable damage to relations between conservative Anglicans in North America and orthodox Anglicans in the global South. They connived to affect the destruction of the orthodox Anglican identity of a global South Anglican province. They have done the devil’s work and have sown seeds of distrust that may last for generations. They have undermined the cooperation of conservative Anglicans in North America and orthodox Anglicans in the global South in the furtherance of the gospel.
It will not be surprising if the GAFCON Primates are led to scrutinize more closely developments in the Anglican Church in North America. Doctrinally and structurally the ACNA is not far behind the Anglican Mission. Under Archbishop Robert Duncan’s leadership the ACNA is narrowing the gap between itself and the Anglican Mission in the areas of doctrine and structure. The ACNA canons, like the Rwandan canons, incorporate doctrine, language, norms, and principles from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The ACNA ordinal countenances Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.
The need for a new orthodox Anglican province in North America has not abated. Indeed it has become even more pressing. It is time for all who are committed to the Scriptures, the Anglican formularies, the Great Commission, and responsible, synodical church government to band together to form such a province. Without it there is no future for biblical Anglicanism in North America—no future at all.
6 comments:
Dear brother: please note that the proper spelling is "Kolini". Respectfully, Mark
Mr. Jordan,
There have already been a number of manifestations of the AM in its relatively short existance. I am thinking of the Anglican Mission, Anglican Mission in America, Anglican Mission in the Americas, and Anglican Mission in Canada, and perhaps there are one or two others under the AM umbrella. As I understand there are jurisdictions that ordain women, and others that do not.
The AM has been characterized as a "personal prelature" of the Primate of Rwanda. Is there any particular impediment to him appointing a new vicar general, and AM proceeding (hopefully with leadership more compatible to the Church in Rwanda)? One assumes that bishop Murphy, et al, intend to form their own church, or challenge Rwanda for the existing AM. But it would seem from an ecclesial point of view, the AM continues to exist, it is just that the recent leadership has resigned, and the AM awaits new appointments.
Any light you could shine on the organization and relationship of the various AM-- Churches would be most appreciated.
Prayers for all in the AM, and for Rwanda and its Primate and HoB.
TJ
The AM is a corporation not a church. Its officers, including, most of all, Chuck Murphy remain in place. They are not presently Anglicans, canonically speaking, because they are not under the oversight of any Province. The Churches and Clergy that have been licensed by the AM corporation are still licensed, however canonically they remain resident in Rwanda unless they, like Murphy and his troop of happy bishops, should choose to renounce their relationship with the Province. In short order there will be a new structure in place to accomodate Rwandan clergy working in the USA.
Keep up the great work Robin! This is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes!
Mark,
I picked up the extra "l" somewhere, in all likelihood from mispelling in articles I have read. I started out using one "l" but concluded that I was not spelling his name correctly. Thanks for drawing it to my attention.
TJ,
At an early stage the AMIA might have accurately been described as a "personal prelature," but as you will see from my latest article, that changed. The AMiA has two organizations, one ecclesiatical and the other secular. The 2008 Rwandan canons and the AMiA's Canonical Charter for Ministry provide the stucture for the ecclesiastical organization. The AMiA articles of incorporation and bylaws provide the structure for the secular organization. I do not posses a copy of the latter. If I had a copy of them, I would provide you with an answer to your question. I anticipate Chuck Murphy will seek to change their provisions and thereby hold onto the assets and funds of the AMiA. What you see happening is what might be described as a hostile takeover of a corporation by members of its own management. Most of the AMiA stakeholders are in the dark about what is going on.
Post a Comment