By Robin G. Jordan
The canons under which Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, Primate of Rwanda, is calling for the resignation of his Primatial Vicar in North America, Anglican Mission Bishop Chuck Murphy, are the same canons that Canon Kevin Donlon, Bishop Murphy’s Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs, drafted at his request and which Murphy approved before he submitted them to Archbishop Emmanuel Kollini. After the Rwandan Provincial Synod adopted them, Murphy endorsed and promulgated them with the other members of the Rwandan House of Bishop. Murphy had no qualms at the doctrinal and structural changes they introduced in the Anglican Church of Rwanda. They gave him the extensive authority over the Anglican Mission that he coveted and required negligible accountability from him. He also had no misgivings at the doctrinal changes that they introduced into the Anglican Mission. He would go on maintaining the fiction that the Solemn Declaration had regulatory force in the Anglican Mission where in fact the canons that he approved and subsequently endorsed and promulgated had altered the doctrinal norms and formularies of the Anglican Mission as found in the Solemn Declaration and the Anglican Mission as a consequence had, under the provisions of the Solemn Declaration, been dissolved.
Bishop Murphy’s world would come crashing down when the Rwandan House of Bishops began to examine the provisions of the canons that their predecessors had endorsed and promulgated. They would discover that the canons Murphy had submitted to Archbishop Kollini, telling him that a canon law expert had prepared them and that they contained provisions needed by the Anglican Mission to make legal changes in its charter, while giving Murphy far-reaching authority over the Anglican Mission, required very little accountability from him. Title I, Canon 6, Section 10 obliged him “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.” Under the provisions of this section the Rwandan House of Bishops, however, could require that report to include an accounting of all funds transmitted to the Church of Rwanda.
The Rwandan bishops would also discover that the Donlon-Murphy canons had introduced sweeping changes in the doctrine of their Province as well as its structure. While claiming no conflict existed between the doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the doctrine of the Church of Rwanda, the canons contained provisions taken from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. These provisions established the dogmas of the Council of Trent as the official doctrine of the Province in key areas such as apostolic succession, the historic episcopate, ordination, and the sacraments. For example, they made the doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass the official doctrine of the Church of Rwanda. The Donlon-Murphy canons incorporated doctrine, norms, and principles from the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law, its Catechism, and its Guide for Catechists as well as language from these sources.
The Church of Rwanda was founded by the Church Missionary Society, which was established in the eighteenth century. CMS was an outgrowth of the eighteenth century Evangelical Revival. It did missionary work not only in East Africa but also in the Pacific Northwest of what is now the United States and Canada. CMS missionaries converted the Nez Pierce Indian tribe to Christianity. In the 1930s the East African Revival would begin in Rwanda and spread to the rest of East Africa. The Church of Rwanda has throughout its history stood in the Evangelical Anglican Tradition with its emphasis upon the gospel of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Its commitment to the preaching, believing, and defending of the gospel lay in part behind its decision at the beginning of this century to provide a home for a group of churches that had become disaffected from the Episcopal Church due to its growing apostasy. This group of churches would form the nucleus of what would become the Anglican Mission. The sweeping doctrinal changes that the Donlon-Murphy canons introduced were a blow against Evangelical Anglicanism and the heart of apostolic teaching in Rwanda.
The Donlon-Murphy canons were also a blow against Evangelical Anglicanism and the gospel in the Anglican Mission. Canon Donlon and Bishop Murphy not only gave the Anglican Mission an ecclesiastical structure based upon that of the Roman Catholic Church but also replaced its Anglican doctrinal norms and formularies with Roman Catholic dogma.
Bishop Murphy did not react well to the Rwandan bishops’ request for an accounting of all funds transmitted to Rwanda. He appears to have realized that the extensive authority over the Anglican Mission that he had enjoyed might be coming to an end if the Anglican Mission remained a missionary jurisdiction of the Church of Rwanda. Murphy’s decision to transform the Anglican Mission into an independent missionary society appears to be motivated by a desire to retain this authority. Canon Donlon’s motivation, on the other hand, appears to be ideological. He apparently wants to preserve the Roman Catholic doctrine and ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Mission.
As a missionary bishop of the Church of Rwanda, Bishop Murphy signed a covenant to obey the Archbishop of the Province and the Constitution of the Province and to conform to its canons. He committed himself to resign from his office of bishop in the time defined by the canons. Under the the office of Primatial Vicar becomes vacant due to death, illness, prolonged absence from the Province, a demonstrated loss of ability to lead, retirement, and translation to another see. Title III.23.7 sets 65 years of age as the mandatory retirement age of a Rwandan bishop. Canon Donlon, in drafting the disciplinary provisions of the Donlon-Murphy canons neglected to include provisions for the inhibition of a bishop, perhaps in anticipation of future conflicts between Murphy and his ecclesiastical superior.
Under the provisions of Title I.6.7 the authority of the Primatial Vicar is delegated to him by the Primate of Rwanda. Since it is delegated authority, it may be withdrawn by the person who delegated the authority. The Primatial Vicar has no authority of his own nor is any authority vested or inherent in his office. He exercises the authority of the Primate of Rwanda as his deputy and agent. If the Primate of Rwanda withdraws the authority that he has delegated to the Primatial Vicar, the Primatial Vicar ceases to be the ecclesiastical superior of the other missionary bishops in the Anglican Mission and they are no longer obliged to obey him.
The Anglican Mission has a secular organization as well as an ecclesiastical organization. Under the provisions of Article 5.3 of the Anglican Mission’s Canonical Charter for Ministry the Primatial Vicar is the chairman of the Anglican Mission’s Board of Directors and is the chief executive officer of the Anglican Mission. If Bishop Murphy ceases to be the Primatial Vicar, either by resignation, retirement, declaration of a vacancy in the office of Primatial Vicar under Title III.23.7's provisions, or loss of delegated authority from the Primate of Rwanda, he also ceases to be the chairman of the Anglican Mission’s Board of Directors.
Those in the Anglican Mission whose impulse is to rally to the defense of Bishop Murphy whom they may see as their embattled leader need to bear one thing in mind. Murphy brought this upon himself. He was not honest with the Rwandans and he was not honest with his own people in the Anglican Mission. If he is truly committed to the best interests of the Anglican Mission, he will step down. While he may retain the confidence of some folks in the Anglican Mission, he has lost the trust of others. He has shown himself to be untrustworthy, not truly committed to what were the doctrinal norms and formularies of the Anglican Mission as found in the Solemn Declaration, and willing to sacrifice them to acquire greater authority and power. If the Anglican Mission is to be effective as an Anglican missionary organization, its leaders must be wholeheartedly committed to the Scriptures, the Anglican formularies, and the Great Commission.
My prayer is that God will help Bishop Murphy to recognize like John the Baptist did that the time has come for him to decrease that Christ may increase. A split in the Anglican Mission over his leadership would do tremendous harm to the organization. He can prevent that from happening. He can make a gracious exit. May God will give him the strength and the courage to make the right choice.
Related article:
Recant or resign, Rwanda tells Chuck Murphy
What Every Church and Every Pastor Considering Affiliation with the Anglican Church in North America Need to Know
What we're seeing here is that AMIA, notwithstanding Donlon and the Rome-like new canons, retains a Protestant flavor, or at least a pioneering flavor. I thought it was brilliant actually for Murphy to describe the move away from the Anglican Communion as like the Exodus from Egypt. Very appropriate and we should embrace it.
ReplyDeleteHudson,
ReplyDeleteIt was not original. He stole it from Bob Duncan who referred to the formation of the ACNA as like the Exodus from Egpt. Murphy is shameless. He has paltered with the truth and sacrificed the doctrinal norms and formularies of the AMiA in order to acquire greater authority and power. I would not confuse Murphy's machinations with the Protestant spirit. The canons that Donlon drafted at Murphy's request and which Murphy approved and submitted to Kollini, asking him to use his influence to obtain their approval, endorsement, and promulgation, represent a major Anglo-Catholic assault upon Evangelical Anglicanism in Rwanda and North America. Murphy's exploitation of the Rwandans for his personal ends is going to do irreperable damage to relations between conservative North American Anglicans and orthodox Global South Anglicans. Murphy is no hero and we should not view him as one. What he has done reflects poorly upon all North American Anglicans and is inexcusable.
Then why did many if not most of the AMIA bishops resign in support of Murphy? I can not help but think that he is well justified in this move. Besides, when would the apostle Paul ever tell the churches he planted that they owed him anything other than their continued loyalty to the Gospel of Christ?
ReplyDeleteHudson,
ReplyDeleteWhat I know about this whole business does not support that conclusion. Murphy has a great deal of experience at manipulating people and their perceptions of himself and what he is doing. For a number of years he has controlled the flow of information between the AMiA and the Church of Rwanda so that each knows only what he wants them to know about each other and developments in their respective ecclesial bodies. Murphy's move is motivated by the reasonable demands of the Rwandan bishops for greater accountability. He was happy to maintain the connection with the Church of Rwanda as long as he able to exploit it to his advantage. The Rwandans finally caught on to what he was doing. They sought to require more accountability from him than an annual report to the Primate of Rwanda. Murphy saw these reasonable demands for greater accountability as leading to the eventual curtailment of his authority as Primatial Vicar. Hence the proposed restructuring of the Anglican Mission with Murphy as Apostolic Vicar and three retired Anglican primates as a college of consultors. Under this scheme Murphy is a vicar of the Apostles. He is their deputy and agent. The college of consultors is purely consultative body and has no authority and oversight over Murphy. He retains all the authority that he enjoyed as the vicar of the Primate of Rwanda but he is accountable only to God and himself.
I have studied the Donlon-Murphy canons extensively. They represent a serious attempt to turn a Anglican province from authentic historic Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism and to do the same thing in the AMiA. The fact that Murphy solicited them, approved them, persuaded Kollini to use his influence to secure their adoption, and then endorsed and promulgated them is alone sufficient reason to call for his removal as the head of the Anglican Mission. If the AMiA does not repudiate Murphy and the doctrinal and structure changes that he introduced with Donlon's connivence, AMiA pastors will not be preaching the gospel and AMiA churches will not be gospel churches.
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?
ReplyDeleteIn 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’.
Forgive me. In all likelihood, I am just thick-headed, but since we agree that the Rome-like canons that Donlon/Murphy drew up for Rwanda are a bad thing, and that AMIA is no longer subject to those canons, why is that not a good thing (notwithstanding the financial irregularities which may have a plausible and excusable explanation) ? Isn't AMIA just starting over with a clean slate? Do you believe that the structures and canons for the new AMIA are already determined? Why is it assumed that the new AMIA will not return to its Solemn Declaration (which I know to be the desire of at least John Rodgers)?
ReplyDeleteHudson,
ReplyDeleteThe restructuring proposal that Kevin Donlon drew up and to which Chuck Murphy appears to be wed would not only make Murphy Apostolic Vicar with near absolute authority over the Anglican Mission, in other words, an Anglican Mission version of the Pope, but would also keep the Rwandan canons as the canons of the Anglican Mission. Donlon has written at least one article which he advocated that the Anglican Communion adopt the canons of the Eastern Catholic Church. This article vanished from the Internet when attention was drawn to it. Donlon is an idealogue intent upon making the Anglican Church more like the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine and structure. From my sources I gather that he has been seeking to move GAFCON in this direction. Subverting the Anglican identity of the Church of Rwanda was a step toward this objective. He was hoping to use the Rwandans to promote his scheme for revamping Anglican ecclesiology with the leaders of GAFCON. As for Murphy, it is all about control and power. Two longstanding criticism of Murphy has been that he runs the Anglican Mission more like a corporation than an ecclesiastical organization. He also does not have a strong commitment to the doctrinal norms and formularies of the Anglican Mission as they were articulated in the Solemn Declaration. He went along with them as long as they served his purposes. Under Murphy's leadership the Anglican Mission has moved away from its original vision, which was to become the Anglican Missionary Province of North America--a new orthodox Anglican province in North America. Under the provisions of the proposed constitution and canons of the AMPNA Murphy would not have enjoyed the extensive authority over the Anglican Mission that he enjoys now. In all likelihood he would not be its head. As long as Murphy is head of the Anglican Mission and Donlon has his ear, there is little likelihood that the Anglican Mission will return to the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration. They both must go for that to happen. There is also the problem of the Anglican Mission clergy who like Murphy are not fully committed to the doctrinal norms and formularies found in the Solemn Declaration. This includes Anglican Mission bishops. It is tempting to buy into Murphy's spin of what happened but it is only spin. Murphy is not above misleading people to achieve his ends. A number of folks in the Anglican Mission will buy into it. The alternative is to face the truth about their long-time leader. It is very human to respond to unsettling news with denial. Murphy can be expected to take advantage of their denial.
Sometimes the taller a tale is the more it is believed. Here the tale is that Murphy has pulled the wool over the eyes of everybody around him, including John Rodgers whom we know to be both competent and fairly Reformed. with a commitment to the Articles and non-prelacy that is stronger than most.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to theology and churchmanship, the worst we're going to find is that Donlon manipulated a pliable Murphy by appealing to his desire to make AMIA all things to all men. Murphy is non-descript, a hapless man with many faces who can be for the "Solemn Declarations" one minute and the Romelike canons the next, and never know the difference. If Murphy gets rid of Donlon, a lot of the problems go away. Maybe that's a big 'if', but the canon lawyer still serves only at the pleasure of his boss.
Hudson,
ReplyDeleteI would caution against minimizing Murphy's role. Murphy has long had a reputation as being obsessed with power. His insistence upon being the sole man at the top and having the last word on major decisions is one of the reasons that we have CANA and had a number of other missionary convocations in North America. While it may be tempting to make Donlon the scapegoat, both men have equally as reprehensible motives. Donlon may have been using Murphy but Murphy was also using Donlon. If it serves his purposes, he will discard Donlon as he has discarded the Church of Rwanda. Murphy is not a heroic figure or a victim and it is a mistake to view him as either.
As for Bishop John Rodgers, he was sidelined by Murphy fairly early in the life of the Anglican Mission. This is why he retired and is now an assistant bishop in the ACNA diocese of Pittburgh, working with Bob Duncan.
The level of hate in your writings is impalpable. You quote things as if you are in an argument with someone and are trying to show them up. The reality is you have no idea what anyone's intentions are, you just know how to abuse the Internet. You and George Conger and a few others are the reason all this has come to pass. Without all of you posting leaked private documents all this would have happened behind closed doors and would probably have been resolved without resignations and quick decisions.
ReplyDeletenicks7777,
ReplyDeleteThere is no hate in my articles despite your characterization of them as hate-filled. if you have read the Gospel of John, you will have read this passage: "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God" (John 3:19-21, ESV)
If you have read the First Epistle of John, you have also read this passage: "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. Butif we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:5-7, ESV).
Villification of those seek to bring into the light what is hidden in darkness is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Any missionary organization that is truly committed to fulfilling the Great Commission must be able to operate openly, transparently, with full disclosure of how decisions are made, by whom they are made, and the circumstance under which they were made.
The willingness of those loyal to Bishop Chuck Murphy to cast aspersions at those who have reported on this story, drawn attention to inconsistencies and missing details, and questioned the veracity of Pawley Island's spin of what is happening raises questions about their spiritual maturity as Christians. It raises questions about the effectiveness of AMiA churches in discipling their members and the effectiveness of AMiA procedures for recruiting, screening, selecting, and training pastors. It ultimately raises questions about the overall effectiveness of the AMiA in planting new churches under Murphy’s leadership since the new churches it is planting do not appear to be producing mature disciples.