Anglican Mission: What happened to the $1.2 million dollars?

An Anglicans Ablaze reader posted this comment in response to the article, "AMiA Bishops Break with Rwanda."

No one familiar with the history of +Murphy and the AMiA has trouble understanding what Chuck is doing. He has always wanted to be free to follow the unique 'vision' of a 'reformed, charismatic, evangelical, Catholic Church'. That required he have ecclesiastical legitimacy through a Province, yet total freedom. Where did it all fall apart?

In 2009 it came to the attention of the Rwanda HOB that for several years the financial statements of the AMiA showed about $300k per annum given to PEAR under the tithing arrangement. The financial reports of the Province of Rwanda showed only $100k per year coming into the PEAR. There was another $400k given to 'the Province' that never arrived in the Provincial Accounts. The 'missing' monies total $1.2million. Abp. Kolini did not provide any answers. The new Archbishop was installed & the Dean of PEAR wrote, formally asking for an accounting since they were at the AMiA Winter Conference. The Dean was referred to H+ Exec Director of the AM. Incredibly, H said the Dean, did not have the authority to ask for that information; only the Archbishop could ask for such an accounting.

The Rwandan HOB was curious about why such information should be hid. They wanted to know why - if all of this money never went into the Provincial bank account -whose bank account WAS it wired to? In May '10 there was a letter asking +Murphy to provide a full accounting at the Rwanda June HOB.

+Murphy now says he brought H. Miller to provide the required accounting and H. was not allowed to attend the meeting. The fact is that the Rwandan Bishops wanted straightforward answers and discussion among bishops. They did not want any ‘non-bishops’ taking over a HOB meeting.

Bishop Murphy’s says that he didn't bring the documentation to the HOB in June because he needed H. there to explain it. So he just left all that exculpatory data in his hotel. Does anyone think that +Murphy and H+ had not spent countless hours discussing how they would explain these financial anomalies? He could have told the HOB whose account the $1.2M had been deposited into. To diffuse the situation the Rwanda HOB graciously said they would be willing to overlook the embarrassing missing funds if Bishop Murphy would agree to provide a better, more transparent means of accounting for the future. He did not agree to that except in the most general and non-committal terms. The HOB passed a resolution that the AMiA Bishops should be called to a general meeting of all Bishops in Sept. ‘11 to discuss more collegial ways of working together. At this point +Murphy stormed out of the meeting. Later he wrote a disrespectful letter to the HOB telling them that they had wasted his time and money and that he would not ask the AM bishops to go to Rwanda.

Those familiar with Murphy and his leadership style and his dogged perseverance trying to attain his goals we cannot be surprised that he makes this move to maintain his independence. What we are surprised and terribly saddened by is to see that he doesn't seem to care that there are clergy and saints in many of the AMiA churches who didn't realize that Murphy's relationship and respect for Rwanda was always a fiction. Many of these priests and people have a deep affection for Rwanda and her clergy who have ministered to them over the years.

It is sad that Chuck Murphy is willing to rip asunder all of these illusions and relationships and let people see that it was always just politics. The Rwandans are also shocked that after risking, and for many losing, very much to support the AMiA that Murphy and most of the other Bishops are throwing them under the bus rather than provide an honest accounting of funds. We should all take a moment, especially AMiA bishops and ask this question… Why did Chuck Murphy feel compelled to rush out and resign so precipitously? It could be that he wanted a fait accompli, to get as many people as possible committed to this course before they had the opportunity to be exposed to ‘the rest of the story’.

This comment raises a number of questions such as whether Bishop Murphy was raising funds ostensibly to help the Rwandans and then syphoning off a part of these funds for other purposes. The Rwandan bishops' request for a better, more transparent means of financial accounting was quite reasonable. It falls well within the provisions of Title I.6.10 of the 2008 Rwandan canons:

The Primatial Vicar exercising his authority in the missionary jurisdiction of the Province is obliged to make a report every year to the Primate about the status of the jurisdiction committed to him, according to the manner established by the House of Bishops or Provincial Synod of the Province[Emphasis added].

"Status" is a broad term and includes funds raised and dispersed and the purposes for which they were raised and dispursed.

Bishop Murphy has a history of manipulating information for his own purposes, telling the Anglican Mission one thing and the Church of Rwanda another. His letter of resignation is evidence of his paltering with the truth, having previously claimed that the Anglican Mission was "embedded" in the Rwandan canons, which it must not be forgotten, originated in the Anglican Mission. It is quite conceivable that Donlon provided Murphy with an escape hatch in case things did not go as they had planned, and the Rwandans caught on to what they were doing. As I noted elsewhere, Donlon omitted any provision for the inhibition of a bishop in Title IV of the 2008 Rwandan canons.