Committed to building up Christ's Church in North America and beyond
Pages
▼
Thursday, December 15, 2011
What Is at Stake in the Present Crisis in the AMiA
By Robin G. Jordan
How can right and wrong be partners? How can light and darkness live together? How can Christ and the Devil agree? (2 Corinthians 6:14-15, Good News Bible)
Since the story of the strained relations between Bishop Charles “Chuck” Murphy and the Anglican Church of Rwanda became public Pawley Island, the South Carolina headquarters of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, has been seeking to manipulate public perceptions of Bishop Murphy’s role in this rift and present Murphy as innocent of any wrongdoing. Pawley Island, however, is not telling the whole story.
What Pawley Island fails to mention is that the Anglican Church of Rwanda’s House of Bishops had become concerned about the inadequate monitoring of funds coming into Rwanda during the time that Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini was the Primate of Rwanda, to whom the funds had gone and the purposes for which they had been used, and realistic possibility of financial irregularities. Archbishop Kolini had not served in a collegial manner with the other bishops of the Province during his time as Primate. He had limited any question asking and discussion at meetings of the House of Bishops and had expected them to defer to his judgment on all matters. He kept the House of Bishops in the dark regarding what funds were coming into Rwanda, to whom they were going, and how they were being used.
Under the provisions of Canon 6 the House of Bishops, however, in the absence of any guidelines adopted by the Provincial Synod, has authority to determine the manner in which the Primatial Vicar of the AMiA makes his annual report to the Primate of Rwanda upon the status of the AMiA. They may require that the report should be made at a meeting of the Rwandan House of Bishops in their presence; that the Primatial Vicar produce detailed financial records documenting monies raised and for what purpose and monies disbursed, to whom, and for what purpose, including monies donated by mission partners; and that he answer their questions relating to finances and other matters of concern to them.
At the June 2011 meeting with Bishop Murphy the House of Bishops excluded H. Miller and Kevin Donlon from the meeting out of concern that they might monopolize the meeting and divert it from its original purpose, which was to learn what Murphy himself knew about funds sent to Rwanda, to whom they were sent, and the purposes for which they were used. The Rwandan bishops were surprised at Murphy’s reaction to their subsequent request for a meeting between the Rwandan House of Bishops and the AMiA Council of Missionary Bishops to establish future procedures for financial accountability and transparency.
Bishop Murphy has in the past shown himself as less than tactful in dealing with others and has not exhibited the qualities that one might expect in a bishop and a church leader. Earlier in his career Murphy reportedly lost his temper with Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina who was his bishop at the time.
Under Article 5.3 of the Canonical Charter for Ministry of the Anglican Mission in the Americas the Primatial Vicar of the AMiA’s ecclesiastical organization is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Anglican Mission’s secular organization. Murphy cannot resign the first office and legally retain the second office unless the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Anglican Mission’s non-profit corporation were changed before his resignation as Primatial Vicar or were never changed at the time of the adoption of the charter. If either is the case, it strongly suggests that Murphy had planned the break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda before his meeting with the Rwandan House of Bishops and his portrayal of himself and Pawley Island’s portrayal of him as the aggrieved party is a misrepresentation of the facts, as is their portrayal of his break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda as provoked by the Rwandan Bishops.
The AMiA under Bishop Murphy’s leadership has never posted the articles of incorporation and bylaws of its non-profit corporation on its Internet website. Most AMiA laity, clergy, and mission partners have never had an opportunity to examine these documents. They have not been apprised of any changes made in the documents, when, by whom, and why. They have no idea how the AMiA Board of Directors is chosen, how long its members serve, and other important details related to its operation.
Title I.7.5 of the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law does not prevent legal title to property utilized by an AMiA congregation being vested in this non-profit corporation:
Legal title to all property utilized by local congregations shall be indefeasibly vested in the local congregation, or in a corporation owned and controlled by the local congregation [Emphasis added], or in one or more trustees of one or more charitable land trusts that are appointed or elected by the local congregation and hold the local church property in trust for the benefit of the local congregation.
A number of AMiA congregations in development have been required to turn over legal title to property utilized by them to this non-profit corporation.
Bishop Murphy had wanted to expand the sphere of operation of the AMiA and his jurisdiction to outside of Canada, the United States, and its territories. Archbishop Onosphore Rwaje, however, had not supported this expansion. This did not sit very well with Murphy who is not known for tolerating anything coming between him and the fulfillment of his ambition.
Murphy’s proposed restructuring of the AMiA would enable him to expand the AMiA’s sphere of operation and his jurisdiction beyond Canada, the United States, and its territories. Instead of being a missionary organization targeted at the unchurched population of North America, the AMiA would be international in scope. Bishop Murphy’s break with Anglican Church of Rwanda shows that he is willing to expose the AMiA to the trauma of a church split in order to achieve his ambition.
Bishop Murphy took an oath of canonical obedience to the Primate of Rwanda as metropolitan of the Province. The authority that he exercised as Primatial Vicar was delegated authority that came from the Primate of Rwanda under the provisions of Canon 6. Archbishop Rwaje as the Primate of Rwanda and metropolitan of the Province had every right as his ecclesiastical superior to direct him to desist from unilaterally taking the AMiA out of the oversight of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.
Title I.6.2(b) of the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law states:
Provincial House of Bishops may establish a Missionary Jurisdiction or Society in any area of the world in which faithful Anglicans are in need of, and petition for, godly oversight from this Province. A Missionary Jurisdiction shall be organized under such conditions and agreements not inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of this Church, as shall be approved by the House of Bishops in Synod.
Title I.6.2(d) further states:
A Missionary Jurisdiction or Society may be transferred by the House of Bishops to become a mission effort of another Anglican Province, or to become a constituent member of an autonomous Province in communion with this Province; or, with the consent of the House of Bishops, it may be erected as an extra–provincial Diocese.
Under the provisions of these subsections of Canon 6 the AMiA Council of Bishops could have negotiated a change in the conditions and agreements under which the AMiA was organized as a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda or the transfer of the AMiA to another Anglican province or its reorganization as an extra-provincial Diocese of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. There was no need for Bishop Murphy to have broken with the Anglican Church of Rwanda if dissatisfaction with the Anglican Church of Rwanda as a provincial home for the AMiA had been the real issue. But as previously noted, Murphy’s ambition is to expand the AMiA’s sphere of operation and with it his jurisdiction.
Bishop Murphy’s break with Anglican Church of Rwanda boils down to his unwillingness to accept the reasonable oversight of a competent ecclesiastical authority that requires accountability in finances and other matters to that authority as well as the submission of long-term plans to the same authority for review and approval. Consequently any Anglican province that takes over sponsorship of a missionary organization under Murphy’s leadership can anticipate difficulties in these areas.
Those loyal to Murphy have shamelessly demonstrated a willingness to cast aspersions at the Rwandan bishops, portray them in a most negative light, and to appeal to prejudices against their former Africans sponsors. They have vilified George Conger and others who have sought to dig deeper into this story and to bring the truth to light.
A number of the most vociferous detractors of the Rwandan bishops have little personal knowledge of Anglican Church of Rwanda but are employing questionable second hand information supplied them by AMiA leaders loyal to Bishop Murphy. They are firing the gun while these leaders provide them with the bullets.
The willingness of those who have thrown in their lot with Murphy to attack the Rwandan bishops and to poison minds against them reflects poorly upon them as Christians but also upon the whole Christian community. It gives non-Christians another reason to dismiss the gospel and Christianity.
Their vilification of the Rwandan bishops is also a warning to any Anglican province of the kind of treatment that they can expect should they provide a provincial home to any missionary organization under Bishop Murphy’s leadership.
The congregations and clergy of the AMiA are canonically resident in the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Their canonical residence in that Province did not cease with the resignation of Bishop Murphy and the other AMiA bishops who resided with him. With their resignation the oversight of these bishops over the congregations and clergy of the AMiA did, however, cease.
As for Bishop Murphy’s claim that he retains the office of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the AMiA’s non-profit corporation, this claim must be subject to a close public scrutiny. This means that all pertinent documents relating to the non-profit corporation must be made public—the articles of incorporation and the bylaws and all amendments to these documents from the time the corporation was first registered to the present. It must be ascertained by all parties with an interest in this matter, including the Rwandan bishops and the media, whether Murphy’s claim is not only legal but also and even more importantly ethical and moral. God will not bless any missionary organization whose leader retained his position through legal chicanery. The Holy Spirit will be sorely grieved.
Disclosure of these documents must precede any meeting of clergy and congregational representatives to determine the future of the AMiA. Full opportunity should be given for the public examination and discussion of the documents and further inquiry into unanswered questions.
At the present time Bishop Murphy is urging AMIA clergy to attend the 2012 Winter Conference to discuss their options. But it can be expected that such a meeting would be carefully orchestrated to produce the results that Murphy desires—endorsement of his break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda and his proposed restructuring of the Anglican Mission. This endorsement will be hailed to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Any AMiA clergy who come to this meeting seeking answers to their questions and do not rally behind Murphy’s latest initiative will be shown the door.
The Anglican Church of Rwanda’s House of Bishops has appointed Bishops Thaddeus Barnum and Terrell Glen to oversee the congregations and clergy of the AMiA. It is Bishops Barnum and Glen who should be presiding over any meeting of AMiA clergy and congregational representatives to decide the future of the Anglican Mission.
God, as the apostle Paul wrote the church in Philippi, works in us, both to will and to work for what is pleasing to him. (Philippians 2:13). What pleases God involves more than proclaiming the gospel, making disciples, baptizing them, instructing them, and enfolding them in churches. It involves how we go about these tasks. We must do them in a way that is pleasing to God.
Doing things ostensibly for God but in a way that would displease him is not God working in us. Concealing what we have done and misrepresenting what others have done is also not God at work in us. As the apostle John wrote in his Gospel, “he who does what is honest and right comes to the light, in order that his actions may be plainly shown to have been done in God (John 3:21, Weymouth New Testament). He does not hire public relations professionals to spin his actions or the actions of others. He does not seek to manipulate public perceptions of himself. This is what, to use an old-fashioned term, a “worldling” might do. For example, a corporate executive faced with the loss of his job might try to market himself as indispensable to the corporation to its board of directors, stockholders, and customers. But it is not what a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ would do.
The Anglican Mission in Americas has not operated with complete openness and transparency, not just in the area of finances but in all areas under the leadership of Bishop Murphy. Critical information pertaining to the operation of the AMiA was withheld from Anglican Mission congregations, clergy, and mission partners. There is clear need for full public disclosure of the legal documents of the AMiA’s non-profit corporation, including any and all changes in its articles of incorporation and bylaws; the decisions and policies of the non-profit corporation’s Board of Directors; and its financial records. As this information is disclosed, the need for additional information may become evident.
If the Anglican Mission is to have fellowship with God and to serve him, the Anglican Mission and its leaders must walk in the light—just as God is in the light. They cannot claim to have fellowship with God and to be his servants, and at the same time walk in the darkness (1 John 1.6-7). God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him. (1 John 1:5). Light has nothing to do with darkness; Christ has nothing to do with Belial (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). At stake is more than who will lead the AMiA and what shape it will take but the whole spiritual foundation of the Anglican Mission and its relationship with God.
"Murphy’s proposed restructuring of the AMiA would enable him to expand the AMiA’s sphere of operation and his jurisdiction beyond Canada, the United States, and its territories. Instead of being a missionary organization targeted at the unchurched population of North America, the AMiA would be international in scope. Bishop Murphy’s break with Anglican Church of Rwanda shows that he is willing to expose the AMiA to the trauma of a church split in order to achieve his ambition."
If true, it points to almost an alternate communion being set up.
I sympathize with the fact that many good, faithful members of AMiA churches are indeed hurting (and possibly worried) after these recent events, but I respectful disagree that this hurt is a good cause for silence.
Pain sometimes has to be worked through while it is fresh, or it will scab over and linger, to become chronic or to erupt more dangerously later.
Robin may or may not be speaking accurately, but he is speaking things which are being spoken. IF they are untrue, his speaking them publicly allows a chance to confront them with counter evidence which is lacking in a whisper campaign, and if some of it is true, it is best to see oneself honestly in the mirror when trying to discern what God wants of us.
I liken the events to a physical building demolition. Yes, some will come simply to take joy in destruction and laugh as another of man's edifices falls, but others come with a sense of might-have-been and may-yet-be, not seeking to celebrate destruction, but lamenting something they could have loved, or looking forward to something new that may come from this destruction.
The desire to insulate ourselves from those simply enjoying a collapse must not prevent us from hearing and learning from the others of good heart, even if they mention some of the same things.
It explains why Chuck Murphy wants to transform the AMiA from a missionary jurisdiction to a missionary society. A missionary jurisdiction extends over a particular territory, in the case of the AMiA, over Canada and the United States and its territories, including Puerto Rico. A missionary society, on the other hand, may have missions all around the world. The Church Missionary Society had missions not only in East Africa but also Canada and the Pacific North West.
If one looks at the proposed restructuring of the AMiA, it is really not that of a missionary society even though missionary society is used to describe the restructured organization. Historically Anglican missionary societies have been overseen by a board or its equivalent and in countries were the missionary society is active, missionary conferences made up of missions in a particular country have been established. A college of consultors is not a board. It is a purely consultative body.
It also explains why Murphy describes the AMiA as a “personal prelature.” A personal prelature has no territory.
From what I gather Kevin Donlon was planning to use the Anglican Church of Rwanda as a model of the revamped Anglican ecclesiology that he has been promoting. Instead of the Anglican Church of Rwanda the restructured AMiA now may become the model.
Some folks are hoping that Bob Duncan will give the AMIA a new provincial home in the ACNA. But if Duncan was to do that, it would affect his relationship with the African Primates and in turn the ACNA’s relationship with them. While Murphy’s break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda may play well with a segment of the AMiA and its supporters, it does not with the African Primates.
From what I gather Murphy does not share authority well. This may explain in part why the Anglican Mission chose ministry partner status when its special protocol with the ACNA came up for renegotiation. Duncan placed the Green House Church Planting Network under his own personal oversight. Under Canon 6 of the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law Murphy as the vicar of the Primate of Rwanda exercised primatial authority in the AMiA in the absence of the Primate. His ecclesiastical superior was in Kilgali, not in Pittsburgh. I cannot see Murphy playing second fiddle to Duncan.
There is a very real possibility of the AMiA developing into what was described on another website as “a three streams continuing church.” There has always been the possibility that the Anglican Mission might become a new denomination.
Yes indeed Robin, very fascinating. They weren't kidding when they mentioned Jesuits! In my mind, this is almost a paralell Anglican Communion:
1. Murphy as head honcho of whatever title. 2. Canon law copyright Kevin Donlon. 3. Women's ordination copyright Rev. Brust et al. 4. Churches anywhere in the world can affiliate with the Anglican Mission in the World (AMiW?). 5. A college of consultors consisting of friendly former Primates. 6. Probably an attempt to steer GAFCON down the Donlon road towards an "Ius Commune Anglicanae."
It would be one thing if Canon Donlon made his proposals in public and opened up a multi-faceted debate on his (odd) vision of Anglicanism. Let others weigh in and come to consensus over time. Instead, he has foisted this code on Rwanda and AMiA, worked behind the scenes in GAFCON, and never (as far as I can tell) asked for feedback on his ideas. All very Laudian. Same with women's ordination - when did that debate take place?
My approval is not required before a comment is posted. I occasionally remove a post—spam, poster-deleted comments, multiple postings of the same comment, extremely derogatory comments, that sort of thing. My spam filter occasionally mistakes legitimate comments for spam.
I have a social work background. The kind of work I did involved conducting investigations, collecting evidence, making case assessments, developing case plans, preparing court letters, giving testimony in court, and so on. The client population with which I worked was part voluntary and part involuntary. Some clients were cooperative; others, hostile. Most fell somewhere in between.
In a few cases the client was self-referred. Self-referred client recognized the existence of a problem, even if they did not always recognize its extent or its seriousness. The non-self-referred clients very often were in denial at the most basic level—the existence of a problem.
Most of the clients were in crisis. They were faced with a problem that they could not resolve on their own, the loss of custody of a child, and even a prison sentence. Crises, however, provide opportunities and motivation for healthy change. Once the crisis has past and the client has achieved a new homeostasis, or balance, the likelihood of healthy change is negligible.
This is true for organizations. Unless the full extent of the problem and its seriousness is exposed and recognized, whatever changes are made are likely to prove ineffectual.
Problems do not go away if they are ignored. They grow worse. The Anglican Mission does not have just one problem. It has a whole complex of problems that it needs to address. The model of governance that has been implemented in the Anglican Mission has serious flaws. These flaws are observable not only in the Anglican Mission but also in other ecclesiastical organizations that use a similar model. The way the Anglican Mission deals with these problems will definitely impact its future.
What Kevin Donlon is promoting is not really a vision of Anglicanism. Rather it might be more accurately characterized as a form of Independent Catholicism—close to Roman Catholicism in doctrine and structure but without the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility. In the authority that it gives to the chief bishop of a province, it is close to Eastern Orthodoxy. As you drew to my attention, Donlon has advocated the Anglican Communion’s adoption of the canons of the Eastern Catholic Church.
In the nineteenth century Edward Bouvrie Pusey, a leader of the Tractarian movement, claimed that the Anglican Church was the third great branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Anglicanism was the third stream of Catholicism. In the nineteenth century Pusey’s views were labeled “Puseyism.” Donlon’s views and Pusey’s views have a lot in common.
What initially appears to be incongruent is the acceptance of the ordination of women. However a number of liberal Independent Catholic churches and charismatic Congruence churches do accept women’s ordination. The espousing of pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic beliefs and practices and women’s ordination does suggest a very fragile commitment to given truth in Scripture.
Without getting personal with you and I really don't mean to do that, it seems from your voluminous book of information that you wrote about yourself, that although you may not mean it, you sound like someone who is bitter at any priest that you can strike because you were not allowed to become a priest. I will give you every benefit of doubt but it is too obvious to me, given all your investigative background, that you are very one-sided in all of this.
My point in all of this is simple. None of us can look into this (at this point) and know or presupposition what really transpired. I happen to know many of the people on both sides very well and I can tell you that documents that are not in public view at the moment and may never be in clear view do not support your findings.
I am by no means on either side.
I am just saddened, confused and hurt by all of it because I have great friends woven throughout the entire fabric of all of this. As an example, I will share one thing with you for sure. Any time that Bp John R and ArBp Kolini take a different stance, which they seem to have taken, there is truth in the middle. Why, because if ever there were two Christian brothers who love and respect each other, these two men absolutely do in every way. The fact that they are at opposite ends on parts of this makes me know that you and anyone else who decides to arm-chair quarterback this one does not know the entire situation, period.
With great respect for all, I look forward to the day when it all is behind us. We have so many needs, we don't need more muck-raking. This whole situation is polarized enough at the moment and needs simple prayer as the Lord works it out in ways that we cannot work it out for ourselves, seemingly.
(I will ask your forgiveness if my assessment about personal desire to be a priest and the resulting envy or bitterness towards that position is incorrect. It only seems that way as I read your writings. You come across as if you want us to recognize your overall great wisdom and knowledge, which I am sure is not your intent.)
In suggesting that I have negative motives for writing my series on the AMiA--deep seated resentment against all clergy--aren't you attempting to influence other readers' perceptions of myself and trying to persuade them to dismiss what I write as prejudiced? While that my not be your intention, it certinly appears to be what are you are doing. I can go to a number of websites on the Internet where folks in the AMiA are doing this sort of thing rather than face up to the truth about the AMiA. The AMiA has serious longstanding problems and they need to be addressed. Denying their existence, their extent, and seriousness is not the way to remedy them. While I can understand why these folks may be defensive, they do need to face up to the truth.
If your leaders are telling you that there are documents that do not support what I am saying, then the onus is upon them to make these documents public. It is not sufficient to claim that such documents exist. They must produce the documents along with all other pertinent documents for examination so that it can be determined whether the documents actually do not support what I am saying. All the pertinent documents together may tell a different story.
I am privy to much more information than I publish on the Internet. This information has been provided to me in confidence and therefore I am not at liberty to devulge it. I have been investigating certain developments in the AMiA for a number of years. I have a better picture of what is going on than most people, including yourself. So please do not suggest that I am prejudiced and misinformed.
What is at issue is not just the doctrine, leadership, sphere of operation, and structure of the AMiA but its entire spiritual foundation.
You wrote the information about yourself. So, my influence is not necessary, nor my intent. I simply came to an uneducated conclusion based on what I read in your bio.
And, with regards to the following bold statement:
"I have a better picture of what is going on than most people, including yourself."
"How can you be so sure?"
This is another one of those statements that you cannot possibly prove. Although I agree with you as your picture being greater than mine, you will never win any argument such as this.
And, having made many trips for extended periods of time in Rwanda over a lot of years, I know the personalities pretty well (surely not as well as you, I am sure, however), so many of my observations and information sources come from a somewhat different perspective perhaps.
In any event, I think we are getting into a "tit for tat" that is useless to all. Once again, I simply know that AMIA and all organizations go through pain processes, which is normal and no, they don't all have to be outed by any one person, as all-knowing as you seem to present yourself to be. Let the Lord do His pruning in His time and in His way!
We just don't need more muck-raking right now, was all I intended to say in the first place and many times since.
The Lord knows every single heart in all of this and in due time, He will make the difference, not the fact that it was all filtered through this one or that one, regardless of who knows what.
The full disclosure of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the AMiA non-profit corporation and all changes to these records, the decisions and policies of the Board of Directors, and detailed financial records is not going to hurt the AMiA if they show that none of its leaders are guilty of any misconduct. If, however, they do reveal that some leaders have engaged in misconduct, they will also show what needs to be done to prevent that from happening again.
The AMiA has serious longstanding problems as I said earlier. Folks like yourself do not want recognize their existence, much less their extent and seriousness. Everything you said in your last post are the kinds of things that I have over the years heard people say when they are in a state of denial. They are try to explain away, reinterpret, or otherwise fend off anything that threatens to alter their perceptions of a particular situation. They attack the person brings a problem to their attention or try to draw them into pointless arguments.
Problems do not vanish if we close our eyes and refuse to admit that they exist. Their existence is not tied to our willingness to recognize their existence. Problems that are not addressed or adequately dealt with grow worse. Indeed, denying their existence can compound and exacerbate them.
A healthy response is to recognize the existence of a problem, acknowledge its extent and seriousness, and to take steps to correct it. This may require doing things differently from the way that they have been done, introducing greater openness, transparency, and accountability at all levels in the AMiA.
There at this point in time a high risk of the AMiA becoming a cult. There are all kinds of red flags that cannot be ignored. Indeed your own readiness to dismiss as muck-raking legitimate concerns is itself a red flag.
If this were a secular situation, I would readily agree with you on many points you bring. But, this is God's work and His situation and long before you, me, or blogs or the internet, He was in charge, and He will handle this as well in a less in-your-face way than you propose.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your in-your-face demeanor in this and other of your writings are not the Christian way, in my opinion.
If you know even ArBp Kolini like I do, as an example, you would give pause to some of your sharp tongue. If you know Bp John like I do, and as stated earlier, know the love and respect these two incredible men have for each other, you would have to also know that there are two sides and to even dishonor either of them, by using such a strong totally outrageous term as "cult" in any context relating to anything they would be a part of only shows how truly off track you really are.
I do happen to know a lot about cults and you need to tread lightly when you use that term if you want to salvage any credibility at all as you continue your diatribes.
As previously stated, when Bp John and ArBp Kolini take different stances on any issue, be careful to find the middle, regardless of whatever else is going on. I live in PI and have been to Africa many times and spent much time here and abroad with the both of them, and if there is a way through, I believe God will honor them and others who have faithfully served His purposes in all of this. They may not have the titles any more, but they certainly have the respect and credibility to find God's will in all of this and implement it in the right way, along with others who are not on the firing line, such as +Murphy.
It is OK to discuss, but better to sometimes let go and let God. +Murphy is not the only player here and does not have the power that you ascribe to him anywhere near what you would try to portray.
There are many strong people present in all of this but time is needed to let God be in charge of the situation right now without all the drama that you would like to foster and see unfold immediately. In my opinion, we don't need an alarmist such as yourself, we can see the picture more clearly as we go, but we can only go so fast.
I am kinda tired of arm-wrestling with you on this and this will be my last post on this issue. I think we just see things from a different perspective and may God richly bless you in every way!
You are entitled to your own views. You may see our discussion as a contest. I do not see it that way at all. I personally believe that you are not facing up to a number of serious longstanding problems in the AMIA that if they are not addressed, will keep it from operating in God's will. It will simply become a human endeavor, not the work of the Holy Spirit. There are spiritual dimensions to this matter but I do not believe that you have an adequate grasp of them. How well you say you know these people and how long you say that you have lived and worked in Rwanda do not qualify you as an expert if that is what you are trying to claim. Rather they suggest that you have a particular investment in how others interpret what is happening. You want them to buy into how you interpret it and thereby support your perceptions of what is happening. This includes joining you in not facing up to the serious longstanding problems in the AMiA. Admitting the existence of these problems means admitting that you are wrong in your estimation of the AMiA and its leaders. You are obviously not prepared to do that. Therefore you want others to buy into your interpretation of what is happing and you want people like myself to dissist from challenging that interpretation and offering a different view of what is happening, a view that reveals the AMiA to be an organization with serious longstanding problems. The Scriptures tell us that God called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. We cannot claim to have fellowship with him if we do not live in the light. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. He told them that the evil one is the father of lies. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote that the evil one is capable of blinding people so they do not see the truth. Those who do not face up to the truth make his task easier.
The London Communique confirms what I have been saying: "Living out this model within our Anglican context allows us to be a mission…nothing more, nothing less in North America and beyond. The communique also provides confirmation that Bishop Murphy went to London not just to consult with Tay, Kolini, and Chung but to present them with a concrete proposal in the form of A Pastoral Declaration for Ministry in The Anglican Mission in the Americas An Emerging Mission Society, which was subsequently posted on the AMiA website.
This is fascinating:
ReplyDelete"Murphy’s proposed restructuring of the AMiA would enable him to expand the AMiA’s sphere of operation and his jurisdiction beyond Canada, the United States, and its territories. Instead of being a missionary organization targeted at the unchurched population of North America, the AMiA would be international in scope. Bishop Murphy’s break with Anglican Church of Rwanda shows that he is willing to expose the AMiA to the trauma of a church split in order to achieve his ambition."
If true, it points to almost an alternate communion being set up.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, you are making a lot of suppositions of intent when you don't really know all the facts.
We are all hurting from the recent events and this kind of muck-raking it not helpful.
Respectfully submitted if printed at all. We will see if you even print this.
Ben
Ben;
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with the fact that many good, faithful members of AMiA churches are indeed hurting (and possibly worried) after these recent events, but I respectful disagree that this hurt is a good cause for silence.
Pain sometimes has to be worked through while it is fresh, or it will scab over and linger, to become chronic or to erupt more dangerously later.
Robin may or may not be speaking accurately, but he is speaking things which are being spoken. IF they are untrue, his speaking them publicly allows a chance to confront them with counter evidence which is lacking in a whisper campaign, and if some of it is true, it is best to see oneself honestly in the mirror when trying to discern what God wants of us.
I liken the events to a physical building demolition. Yes, some will come simply to take joy in destruction and laugh as another of man's edifices falls, but others come with a sense of might-have-been and may-yet-be, not seeking to celebrate destruction, but lamenting something they could have loved, or looking forward to something new that may come from this destruction.
The desire to insulate ourselves from those simply enjoying a collapse must not prevent us from hearing and learning from the others of good heart, even if they mention some of the same things.
God bless and keep you through these trials;
Teilhard Lewis.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteIt explains why Chuck Murphy wants to transform the AMiA from a missionary jurisdiction to a missionary society. A missionary jurisdiction extends over a particular territory, in the case of the AMiA, over Canada and the United States and its territories, including Puerto Rico. A missionary society, on the other hand, may have missions all around the world. The Church Missionary Society had missions not only in East Africa but also Canada and the Pacific North West.
If one looks at the proposed restructuring of the AMiA, it is really not that of a missionary society even though missionary society is used to describe the restructured organization. Historically Anglican missionary societies have been overseen by a board or its equivalent and in countries were the missionary society is active, missionary conferences made up of missions in a particular country have been established. A college of consultors is not a board. It is a purely consultative body.
It also explains why Murphy describes the AMiA as a “personal prelature.” A personal prelature has no territory.
From what I gather Kevin Donlon was planning to use the Anglican Church of Rwanda as a model of the revamped Anglican ecclesiology that he has been promoting. Instead of the Anglican Church of Rwanda the restructured AMiA now may become the model.
Some folks are hoping that Bob Duncan will give the AMIA a new provincial home in the ACNA. But if Duncan was to do that, it would affect his relationship with the African Primates and in turn the ACNA’s relationship with them. While Murphy’s break with the Anglican Church of Rwanda may play well with a segment of the AMiA and its supporters, it does not with the African Primates.
From what I gather Murphy does not share authority well. This may explain in part why the Anglican Mission chose ministry partner status when its special protocol with the ACNA came up for renegotiation. Duncan placed the Green House Church Planting Network under his own personal oversight. Under Canon 6 of the 2008 Anglican Church of Rwanda’s Code of Canon Law Murphy as the vicar of the Primate of Rwanda exercised primatial authority in the AMiA in the absence of the Primate. His ecclesiastical superior was in Kilgali, not in Pittsburgh. I cannot see Murphy playing second fiddle to Duncan.
There is a very real possibility of the AMiA developing into what was described on another website as “a three streams continuing church.” There has always been the possibility that the Anglican Mission might become a new denomination.
Yes indeed Robin, very fascinating. They weren't kidding when they mentioned Jesuits! In my mind, this is almost a paralell Anglican Communion:
ReplyDelete1. Murphy as head honcho of whatever title.
2. Canon law copyright Kevin Donlon.
3. Women's ordination copyright Rev. Brust et al.
4. Churches anywhere in the world can affiliate with the Anglican Mission in the World (AMiW?).
5. A college of consultors consisting of friendly former Primates.
6. Probably an attempt to steer GAFCON down the Donlon road towards an "Ius Commune Anglicanae."
It would be one thing if Canon Donlon made his proposals in public and opened up a multi-faceted debate on his (odd) vision of Anglicanism. Let others weigh in and come to consensus over time. Instead, he has foisted this code on Rwanda and AMiA, worked behind the scenes in GAFCON, and never (as far as I can tell) asked for feedback on his ideas. All very Laudian. Same with women's ordination - when did that debate take place?
Ben,
ReplyDeleteMy approval is not required before a comment is posted. I occasionally remove a post—spam, poster-deleted comments, multiple postings of the same comment, extremely derogatory comments, that sort of thing. My spam filter occasionally mistakes legitimate comments for spam.
I have a social work background. The kind of work I did involved conducting investigations, collecting evidence, making case assessments, developing case plans, preparing court letters, giving testimony in court, and so on. The client population with which I worked was part voluntary and part involuntary. Some clients were cooperative; others, hostile. Most fell somewhere in between.
In a few cases the client was self-referred. Self-referred client recognized the existence of a problem, even if they did not always recognize its extent or its seriousness. The non-self-referred clients very often were in denial at the most basic level—the existence of a problem.
Most of the clients were in crisis. They were faced with a problem that they could not resolve on their own, the loss of custody of a child, and even a prison sentence. Crises, however, provide opportunities and motivation for healthy change. Once the crisis has past and the client has achieved a new homeostasis, or balance, the likelihood of healthy change is negligible.
This is true for organizations. Unless the full extent of the problem and its seriousness is exposed and recognized, whatever changes are made are likely to prove ineffectual.
Problems do not go away if they are ignored. They grow worse. The Anglican Mission does not have just one problem. It has a whole complex of problems that it needs to address. The model of governance that has been implemented in the Anglican Mission has serious flaws. These flaws are observable not only in the Anglican Mission but also in other ecclesiastical organizations that use a similar model. The way the Anglican Mission deals with these problems will definitely impact its future.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteWhat Kevin Donlon is promoting is not really a vision of Anglicanism. Rather it might be more accurately characterized as a form of Independent Catholicism—close to Roman Catholicism in doctrine and structure but without the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility. In the authority that it gives to the chief bishop of a province, it is close to Eastern Orthodoxy. As you drew to my attention, Donlon has advocated the Anglican Communion’s adoption of the canons of the Eastern Catholic Church.
In the nineteenth century Edward Bouvrie Pusey, a leader of the Tractarian movement, claimed that the Anglican Church was the third great branch of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Anglicanism was the third stream of Catholicism. In the nineteenth century Pusey’s views were labeled “Puseyism.” Donlon’s views and Pusey’s views have a lot in common.
What initially appears to be incongruent is the acceptance of the ordination of women. However a number of liberal Independent Catholic churches and charismatic Congruence churches do accept women’s ordination. The espousing of pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic beliefs and practices and women’s ordination does suggest a very fragile commitment to given truth in Scripture.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteWithout getting personal with you and I really don't mean to do that, it seems from your voluminous book of information that you wrote about yourself, that although you may not mean it, you sound like someone who is bitter at any priest that you can strike because you were not allowed to become a priest. I will give you every benefit of doubt but it is too obvious to me, given all your investigative background, that you are very one-sided in all of this.
My point in all of this is simple. None of us can look into this (at this point) and know or presupposition what really transpired. I happen to know many of the people on both sides very well and I can tell you that documents that are not in public view at the moment and may never be in clear view do not support your findings.
I am by no means on either side.
I am just saddened, confused and hurt by all of it because I have great friends woven throughout the entire fabric of all of this. As an example, I will share one thing with you for sure. Any time that Bp John R and ArBp Kolini take a different stance, which they seem to have taken, there is truth in the middle. Why, because if ever there were two Christian brothers who love and respect each other, these two men absolutely do in every way. The fact that they are at opposite ends on parts of this makes me know that you and anyone else who decides to arm-chair quarterback this one does not know the entire situation, period.
With great respect for all, I look forward to the day when it all is behind us. We have so many needs, we don't need more muck-raking. This whole situation is polarized enough at the moment and needs simple prayer as the Lord works it out in ways that we cannot work it out for ourselves, seemingly.
(I will ask your forgiveness if my assessment about personal desire to be a priest and the resulting envy or bitterness towards that position is incorrect. It only seems that way as I read your writings. You come across as if you want us to recognize your overall great wisdom and knowledge, which I am sure is not your intent.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteIn suggesting that I have negative motives for writing my series on the AMiA--deep seated resentment against all clergy--aren't you attempting to influence other readers' perceptions of myself and trying to persuade them to dismiss what I write as prejudiced? While that my not be your intention, it certinly appears to be what are you are doing. I can go to a number of websites on the Internet where folks in the AMiA are doing this sort of thing rather than face up to the truth about the AMiA. The AMiA has serious longstanding problems and they need to be addressed. Denying their existence, their extent, and seriousness is not the way to remedy them. While I can understand why these folks may be defensive, they do need to face up to the truth.
If your leaders are telling you that there are documents that do not support what I am saying, then the onus is upon them to make these documents public. It is not sufficient to claim that such documents exist. They must produce the documents along with all other pertinent documents for examination so that it can be determined whether the documents actually do not support what I am saying. All the pertinent documents together may tell a different story.
I am privy to much more information than I publish on the Internet. This information has been provided to me in confidence and therefore I am not at liberty to devulge it. I have been investigating certain developments in the AMiA for a number of years. I have a better picture of what is going on than most people, including yourself. So please do not suggest that I am prejudiced and misinformed.
What is at issue is not just the doctrine, leadership, sphere of operation, and structure of the AMiA but its entire spiritual foundation.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote the information about yourself. So, my influence is not necessary, nor my intent. I simply came to an uneducated conclusion based on what I read in your bio.
And, with regards to the following bold statement:
"I have a better picture of what is going on than most people, including yourself."
"How can you be so sure?"
This is another one of those statements that you cannot possibly prove. Although I agree with you as your picture being greater than mine, you will never win any argument such as this.
And, having made many trips for extended periods of time in Rwanda over a lot of years, I know the personalities pretty well (surely not as well as you, I am sure, however), so many of my observations and information sources come from a somewhat different perspective perhaps.
In any event, I think we are getting into a "tit for tat" that is useless to all. Once again, I simply know that AMIA and all organizations go through pain processes, which is normal and no, they don't all have to be outed by any one person, as all-knowing as you seem to present yourself to be. Let the Lord do His pruning in His time and in His way!
We just don't need more muck-raking right now, was all I intended to say in the first place and many times since.
The Lord knows every single heart in all of this and in due time, He will make the difference, not the fact that it was all filtered through this one or that one, regardless of who knows what.
Enough said from me already!
Ben,
ReplyDeleteThe full disclosure of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the AMiA non-profit corporation and all changes to these records, the decisions and policies of the Board of Directors, and detailed financial records is not going to hurt the AMiA if they show that none of its leaders are guilty of any misconduct. If, however, they do reveal that some leaders have engaged in misconduct, they will also show what needs to be done to prevent that from happening again.
The AMiA has serious longstanding problems as I said earlier. Folks like yourself do not want recognize their existence, much less their extent and seriousness. Everything you said in your last post are the kinds of things that I have over the years heard people say when they are in a state of denial. They are try to explain away, reinterpret, or otherwise fend off anything that threatens to alter their perceptions of a particular situation. They attack the person brings a problem to their attention or try to draw them into pointless arguments.
Problems do not vanish if we close our eyes and refuse to admit that they exist. Their existence is not tied to our willingness to recognize their existence. Problems that are not addressed or adequately dealt with grow worse. Indeed, denying their existence can compound and exacerbate them.
A healthy response is to recognize the existence of a problem, acknowledge its extent and seriousness, and to take steps to correct it. This may require doing things differently from the way that they have been done, introducing greater openness, transparency, and accountability at all levels in the AMiA.
There at this point in time a high risk of the AMiA becoming a cult. There are all kinds of red flags that cannot be ignored. Indeed your own readiness to dismiss as muck-raking legitimate concerns is itself a red flag.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteIf this were a secular situation, I would readily agree with you on many points you bring. But, this is God's work and His situation and long before you, me, or blogs or the internet, He was in charge, and He will handle this as well in a less in-your-face way than you propose.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your in-your-face demeanor in this and other of your writings are not the Christian way, in my opinion.
If you know even ArBp Kolini like I do, as an example, you would give pause to some of your sharp tongue. If you know Bp John like I do, and as stated earlier, know the love and respect these two incredible men have for each other, you would have to also know that there are two sides and to even dishonor either of them, by using such a strong totally outrageous term as "cult" in any context relating to anything they would be a part of only shows how truly off track you really are.
I do happen to know a lot about cults and you need to tread lightly when you use that term if you want to salvage any credibility at all as you continue your diatribes.
As previously stated, when Bp John and ArBp Kolini take different stances on any issue, be careful to find the middle, regardless of whatever else is going on. I live in PI and have been to Africa many times and spent much time here and abroad with the both of them, and if there is a way through, I believe God will honor them and others who have faithfully served His purposes in all of this. They may not have the titles any more, but they certainly have the respect and credibility to find God's will in all of this and implement it in the right way, along with others who are not on the firing line, such as
+Murphy.
It is OK to discuss, but better to sometimes let go and let God. +Murphy is not the only player here and does not have the power that you ascribe to him anywhere near what you would try to portray.
There are many strong people present in all of this but time is needed to let God be in charge of the situation right now without all the drama that you would like to foster and see unfold immediately. In my opinion, we don't need an alarmist such as yourself, we can see the picture more clearly as we go, but we can only go so fast.
I am kinda tired of arm-wrestling with you on this and this will be my last post on this issue. I think we just see things from a different perspective and may God richly bless you in every way!
Respectfully,
Ben,
ReplyDeleteYou are entitled to your own views. You may see our discussion as a contest. I do not see it that way at all. I personally believe that you are not facing up to a number of serious longstanding problems in the AMIA that if they are not addressed, will keep it from operating in God's will. It will simply become a human endeavor, not the work of the Holy Spirit. There are spiritual dimensions to this matter but I do not believe that you have an adequate grasp of them. How well you say you know these people and how long you say that you have lived and worked in Rwanda do not qualify you as an expert if that is what you are trying to claim. Rather they suggest that you have a particular investment in how others interpret what is happening. You want them to buy into how you interpret it and thereby support your perceptions of what is happening. This includes joining you in not facing up to the serious longstanding problems in the AMiA. Admitting the existence of these problems means admitting that you are wrong in your estimation of the AMiA and its leaders. You are obviously not prepared to do that. Therefore you want others to buy into your interpretation of what is happing and you want people like myself to dissist from challenging that interpretation and offering a different view of what is happening, a view that reveals the AMiA to be an organization with serious longstanding problems. The Scriptures tell us that God called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. We cannot claim to have fellowship with him if we do not live in the light. Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. He told them that the evil one is the father of lies. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote that the evil one is capable of blinding people so they do not see the truth. Those who do not face up to the truth make his task easier.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteThe London Communique confirms what I have been saying: "Living out this model within our Anglican context allows us to be a mission…nothing more, nothing less in North America and beyond. The communique also provides confirmation that Bishop Murphy went to London not just to consult with Tay, Kolini, and Chung but to present them with a concrete proposal in the form of
A Pastoral Declaration for Ministry in The Anglican Mission in the Americas An Emerging Mission Society, which was subsequently posted on the AMiA website.
I noticed that too Robin. Any group would be crazy to give them that kind of charter.
ReplyDelete