A Pastoral Declaration for Ministry in The Anglican Mission in the Americas An Emerging Mission Society: An Analysis

By Robin G. Jordan

In this article I analyze A Pastoral Declaration for Ministry in The Anglican Mission in the Americas An Emerging Mission Society, Canon Kevin Francis Donlon, Bishop Charles “Chuck” Murphy’s Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs, drafted A Pastoral Declaration. The purpose of A Pastoral Declaration is to serve as an interim governing document until Canon Donlon has drafted a Constitution and Statutes for Bishop Murphy’s reimaging of the AMiA.

For those who have not been following the story of Bishop Murphy’s rift with the Anglican Church of Rwanda, relations between Bishop Murphy and Archbishop Onosphore Rwaje, the new Primate of Rwanda, became strained after Archbishop Rwaje refused to support Bishop Murphy’s expansion of the sphere of operations of the AMiA and his own jurisdiction beyond Canada, the United States, and its territories. Murphy would break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda following a meeting with its House of Bishops in June of this year at which the Rwandan bishops requested a meeting with the AMiA Council of Missionary Bishops to develop procedures for greater financial accountability and transparency. He would resign as Primatial Vicar of the Missionary Jurisdiction that the Anglican Church of Rwanda had established in North America but would hold onto the position of chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of the AMiA’s non-profit corporation. The legality and ethicalness of his retention of this position has yet to be determined as the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the non-profit corporation and any changes to these documents have never been posted on the AMiA website and AMiA congregations, clergy, and mission partners have never been provided with the documents and any changes to them.

While A Pastoral Declaration is only supposed to be an interim governing document, it offers insight into the direction which an “emerging missionary society” under the leadership of Bishop Murphy is likely to go.

According to Article 3.2 Bishop Murphy as the Lead Bishop would be the ecclesiastical authority of the “emerging missionary society” on the basis of his appointment by the three retired Primates sponsoring the “emerging missionary society.” The underlying assumption is that these three retired Primates have inherent authority to make such an appointment. Canon. 332 §1 of the 1983 Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law immediately comes to mind.

The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained Bishop.

In the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law used the wording of this canon and the thinking behind it in accounting for the authority of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The same thinking is implicit in Article 3.2.

Article 2.1 states, “From an ecclesiastical perspective the Anglican Mission has pastoral oversight from a team of sponsoring Primates and is governed in the interim time of discernment as a matter of discipline and order by the Constitution and Canons of Anglican Church in North America through a memorandum of agreement dated in 2010 and 2011.” A copy of this memorandum of agreement was not included with A Pastoral Declaration so we have no way of determining for ourselves if this last assertion is indeed true.

Under the provisions of A Pastoral Declaration Bishop Murphy himself, however, is not actually under the oversight of the Primatial Sponsors, as these three retired Primates are termed. According to Article 3.2 Murphy would govern “all spiritual, pastoral, and ecclesiastical matters” of the missionary organization with their counsel and advice. The three retired Primates would function as a council of advice, not as a board of oversight.

Article 3.3 contains this provision. “The College of Mission Bishops is presided over by the Lead Bishop, and in the care and oversight of the emerging mission society on behalf of the Sponsoring Primates.” In its plain and natural sense the phrase “in the care and oversight of the emerging mission society on behalf of the Sponsoring Primates” means that the missionary organization has care and oversight of the College of Mission Bishops for the three retired Primates.

Article 3.3 goes on to assert that the College of Mission Bishops “enjoy a canonical status in the ACNA.” This is perhaps a reference to Title III.7.3 of the ACNA canons:

Ministry Partners may have representatives attend functions or gatherings of the Church upon invitation of the Archbishop, and may attend functions and gatherings of any constituent jurisdiction of the Church upon the invitation of the Bishop with jurisdiction. Representatives of Ministry Partners may have seat and voice as determined by the Archbishop or Bishop with jurisdiction. Ministry Partners may withdraw from affiliation or have their affiliation ended with or without cause.

It certainly cannot be a reference to Title III.3.2:

Archbishops or bishops of other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, who are not otherwise members of the College, may be admitted to the College of Bishops as consultors by vote of the College.

Having resigned from the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s House of Bishops Bishop Murphy and the seven bishops who resigned with him are no longer bishops of a Province of the Anglican Communion.

Article 5.3 states, “The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall serve as Lead Bishop.” Article 9.1 states:

In the event of a vacancy of the office of the Lead Bishop in the absence of a governing constitution, the College of Mission Bishops shall identify and elect one of their members to temporarily serve as the Chair of the College of Episcopal Delegates, the Board of Directors, and all other administrative bodies of the Anglican Mission, until the Sponsoring Primates designates another to the office of Lead Bishop.

We are left to scratch our heads, wondering how the Chairman is to serve as the Lead Bishop (Article 5.3) if the Sponsoring Primates are to appoint the Lead Bishop (Article 3.2; 9.1). These provisions, as they are presently worded, conflict with each other.

A phrase crops up in Article 3.2 that is not mentioned in Article 3.1. This phrase is “College of Episcopal Delegates.” Article 3.1 mentions a “College of Mission Bishops” but no “College of Episcopal Delegates.” This phrase appears again in Article 3.4 and 5.2. Article 3.6 refers to “overseeing Episcopal Delegate;” and Article 6 to “designated Episcopal Delegate.” Articles 6 and 7.2.d contain references to “Episcopal Delegate” and Article 7.2.e to “Episcopal Delegates.” A vestry or board of a congregation requires the approval of the Episcopal Delegates to elect and invite a Rector or Senior Pastor. This is a reference to the process for the selection of a new rector or senior pastor delineated in Article 7.1 of the AMiA Sample Bylaws (11/13/2009). AMiA bishops not only individually but also collectively exercise substantial control over an AMiA church’s choice of a new rector or senior pastor:

(a) A Church within the Anglican Mission in America may not call a Senior Clergy until such time as it has come under the oversight of a Bishop and has fully discussed the matter of calling a Senior Clergy with the overseeing Bishop of the Church. When a Church desires to call a Senior Clergy, it is to enter into a process of assessment in consultation with the Office of Coaching and Consulting Supervision and which is consistent with the policies and direction of the Anglican Mission in America before formally beginning the search process. At the appropriate time, the Church is to consider a list of suggested candidates proposed by the overseeing Bishop of the Church in collaboration with the other bishops of the Anglican Mission. The suggestions of the Bishop are to be considered along with or in addition to any names from the members of the congregation of the Church or other sources. The Leadership Body of the Church may reject all of the suggested names from the Bishop after considering them in good faith; if so and after notifying the Bishop with an explanation of the reason for not pursuing or calling any of the suggested names provided by the Bishop, the Leadership Body may consider other names.

(b) The Leadership Body’s final choice must be communicated to the overseeing Bishop of the Church in writing together with documentation evidencing the qualifications of the candidate. If the final choice for Senior Clergy is not currently a clergy in good standing with the Anglican Mission, then he must be approved for ordination or reception by the Office of Clergy Credentialing. The Bishop in consultation with the Council of Bishops will have at least seven (7) days and up to fifteen (15) days to respond. The overseeing Bishop has the option of approving the proposed name or in consultation with the Council of Bishops rejecting the proposed name. If the name is rejected, the Leadership Body may proceed to consider other candidates.

(c) If any differences over the selection of the Senior Clergy can not be resolved between the overseeing Bishop and the Leadership Body, then the matter is to be taken to the National Leadership Council which will consider the facts from all concerned parties and recommend a course of action. A Bishop will then consult with the Leadership Body to resolve the issue in a satisfactory manner.

Article 7.3 states: “The Rector or Senior Pastor of every congregation is elected and called by the Vestry or Board of that church upon approval of the Episcopal Delegate (Bishop).” This is a reference to the same process.

An episcopal delegate normally refers to the delegate of the ordinary of a diocese in the Roman Catholic Church. For example, in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ogdensburg has an episcopal delegate for religious.

The Episcopal Delegate for Religious serves as a representative of the Bishop of the Diocese to members of Religious Institutes and other forms of Consecrated Life. The Episcopal Delegate for Religious, appointed by the Bishop, serves as his liaison and offers pastoral concern and appropriate resources for religious to enhance their vocation within the Church.

The ministry of the Episcopal Delegate for Religious is primarily one of service: service to the Bishop when acting as his representative; service to members of Consecrated Life in areas essential to their growth; service to the diocese by supporting, in whatever way possible, the vocation to Consecrated Life.

An episcopal delegate may be an auxiliary bishop or a priest.

Nowhere in A Pastoral Declaration do we find any provisions for the appointment or election of new or additional Mission Bishops. But we do find frequent references to Episcopal Delegates and the provisions of Article 9.2.

The Lead Bishop, or another Bishop designated by him, shall see to any pastoral needs within the emerging Mission Society.

A Canonical Charter for the Ministry of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, upon which A Pastoral Declaration is based, spelled out how new or additional Mission Bishops would be chosen.

Article 3.8 under the heading “College of Presbyters” has an interesting provision: “When a College of Mission Bishops is convened, each Network may elect two members (which may include the Network Leader) to represent the Network at the College.”

Canon Donlon who drafted this document also drafted the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law and was involved in the drafting of the ACNA’s constitution and canons. All three documents suffer from similar problems. They contain superfluous provisions. They are poorly worded in some places and missing critical details in other places. They also contain conflicting provisions. They are heavily indebted to the doctrine, language, norms, and principles of the 1983 Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law.

What we may be observing is not the emerging of a new missionary society but rather the emergence of a new denomination. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society is the legal corporation of the Episcopal Church. The use of the phrase “Constitution and Statutes” suggests that possibility.