http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16510
AN INSIDER'S REBUTTAL TO 'AN UNHOLY MESS'
By Tim Smith
Special to Virtueonlinewww.virtueonline.org
Sept. 12, 2012
In the interest of fairness, I invited Tim Smith, a supporter of Bishop Murphy, to write a defense of Bishop Murphy. Readers of VOL can make their own judgments about the facts. VOL's story was written after an intense and long review of the matter. VOL believes, and continues to believe, that the story is accurate.
Asked by David Virtue to respond to his article, 'An Unholy Mess,' I do so out of friendship with David and +Chuck Murphy. Though I have direct, personal knowledge of most of the situations discussed, I mainly respond out of deep conviction that a grievous wrong has been done to Bishop Murphy and the AMiA. I hope to try to help set some of the record straight, realizing that much damage has already been done which may never be rectified.
Simply put, much of what David's anonymous sources declare is downright untrue or in serious error. Some is preposterous. Parts, being grossly inaccurate, are defamatory. Other portions only reflect some of the facts, the whole of which would produce very different understandings. To refute so much in 1,500 words is an impossible task. David and I have been emailing about this; those exchanges approach 12,000 words. Nevertheless, here goes:
ACNA Leadership: To assert Bishop Murphy desired to lead what became the ACNA is absolutely preposterous. Having officed next to +Chuck in the early/mid-2000s, having attended countless meetings with Archbishops Kolini and/or Yong and +Chuck at this pivotal time as Common Cause and then ACNA were formed, such was NEVER discussed. I NEVER witnessed ANYTHING to support this false assertion. Our discussions were about the AMiA being missional and that +Bob should head up a more traditional ACNA. In fact, it was ++Kolini who laid hands on +Bob in Newry, Ireland and commissioned him to do so at a private meeting of about 20 orthodox primates. Since then, I've only heard how relieved +Chuck is that +Bob accepted that role.
Duncan-Murphy: The major differences are in shape of vision and methodology. I believe ++Bob desires a more traditional, diocesan Anglican structure while +Chuck desires something more entrepreneurial, flexible and singularly missional in focus. Why isn't there room in Anglicanism for both precedents? The world is crying for the love of God and the salvation wrought on the Cross by Jesus Christ. It'll take different approaches in our Anglican ethos, just like it takes different denominational 'flavors' here in the USA.
Some of the difficulty arises from the fact that several of the early ACNA leaders have in the past been actively opposed to the AMiA from the First Promise days of 1998 through the consecrations in 2000 (with one now-ACNA bishop actually in Singapore trying to derail it from happening), to discouraging churches and clergy from joining the AMiA (another now-ACNA bishop wanted to come to our church in Mobile to speak against us joining the AMiA, way back in 2000), to criticizing here and abroad our every move, to lobbying to keep the AMiA from participating in international meetings, to trying to lure AMiA congregations into ACNA. These are a few examples reflecting the active and long-standing opposition to the AMiA within early ACNA leadership.
Beyond these comments, I would prefer for ++Bob and +Chuck to address the issues with one another privately.
Bishop Murphy and Higher Authority: Having attended dozens of meetings with +Chuck, ++Kolini and ++Yong, I can think of numerous instances in which +Chuck submitted to their authority, even when such was against his wishes, e.g., timing of assimilating Canadian congregations - our desires were rejected 3-4 times until approval was granted, the consecration of new AMiA bishops - often delayed despite +Chuck's strong pleas, etc. NEVER do I recall an instance when he failed to submit to their authority over him. And that includes his resignation from the Rwandan House of Bishops. He still serves obediently under their authority in the new, expanded framework.
Bishop Murphy's Style of Leadership: Visionary = Absolutely. Persuasive = Yes. Common sense reasoning and wisdom = Yes. But tyrannical = NO... 'Take my ball and run' = NO, except to my knowledge only when the very essence of the Mission was threatened last November (see below). Arrogant = NO... ... though he is an introvert and not a glad-handing, backslapper who schmoozes or coddles people. Comfortable-in-his-own-skin - YES. Inflexible = NO. Gosh, the number of times I've seen him change direction after counsel from others. Out of touch = NO WAY... Hateful = NO ... Show me what words he spoke publically that were hateful and let the reader decide. I don't 'buy' that conclusion by an unnamed whomever.
+Chuck is the consummate processor. He processes many matters with many different people. I can think of over 10+ different types of groups and forums with which he processes matters, responding to what is gleaned from them. He seeks advice and believes, as he often says, 'the best decisions are made when the best minds are in the room.'
Bishop Murphy's mental state: +Chuck is doing remarkably well under the defamatory onslaught on the blogs and media for the past 15 months. There is NOTHING wrong with him, except a broken heart at the false allegations against him and the Mission. Such false allegations are inexcusable, often based on second-hand innuendo.
+Chuck has a good life surrounded by a great lady named Margaret, his three supportive daughters and grandchildren who call him 'Pops,' all living nearby. Oh ... and two crazy dogs. He is trying not to let articles like this one steal his joy in the Lord.
An Unholy Mess: One of the few things about which I agree is the title of David's article. It is an unholy mess.
It is a mess that began in Rwanda, not in the USA. Its roots go back as far as 1996 when ++Kolini was made Archbishop of Rwanda after serving as bishop in the Congo. A current Rwandan bishop has sought the archbishopric every time it has been open, including the last time when he only got one vote, his own. Since then two strong-willed seated Rwandan bishops have worked tried to gain control over the AMiA, deposing +Chuck to replace him with an ally. This ploy went into full operation with the ungodly, long-distance demand in November 2011 for +Chuck to repent or resign, giving him merely 7 days and no face-to-face meeting to respond. He did both ... with a majority of the AMiA bishops resigning also. Since then blogs and other media have been rife with inaccurate and distorted allegations against +Chuck (who - as a matter of principle - admirably follows the example of Jesus and does not defend himself) and against the AMiA. I do not know the motives behind all of these, but there are those who have been out to get him as far back as 2006 per discovery by another AMiA priest and even those for whose churches +Chuck personally raised up to $200,000.
AMiA and the ACNA: Let me be clear: The AMiA did not "withdraw from the ACNA." The AMiA was recently booted out. Why? Ask those who made that decision against the desires of the AMiA, including myself because of ACNA health coverage that my wife, a stroke survivor, needs and now lapses in several months.
It is true that the AMiA in 2010 changed its status from full-fledged member to 'Ministry Partner' as provided in ACNA governance. But that's not "withdrawal." From all accounts, the AMiA was pleased with this partnership role within the ACNA to which the AMiA has reportedly contributed over a $100,000.
Pawleys Paranoia: This is somebody's fantasy ... or maybe desire, but it ain't the way it is. Sure they're concerned and rightfully so with all of the misinformation that has been floated all over the world. However, 'prayerful' and 'dedicated' would be the words I would select to describe them.
David's Closing: The closing plea of David's article ("hope that whoever succeeds Bishop Murphy will be humble enough to ... link hands across a divide that should never have been broken in the first place") was directed to the wrong group. I stand convinced that +Chuck, as gracious as I've witnessed him be in the toughest of circumstances - would be willing to forgive and return as a Ministry Partner in the ACNA.
My Closing:
I'm not a naysayer when it comes to a sovereign God. God birthed the AMiA, and it is God Who will carry it through these difficult times into even broader service in His Kingdom, bearing spiritual fruit that will last throughout eternity.
God is reshaping the AMiA for His purposes. I personally sense that may involve deep prayerfulness throughout; a focus on Holy Spirit giftings and ministry - like the New Testament church; serious effort to help everyone in the Mission Society attract souls to Christ; and convert churches into worship and equipping stations/training centers for everyday ministry ... and not just 'listening centers' on Sunday mornings. Further, the scope will widen internationally.
This age demands a vibrant Anglican Society for Mission and Apostolic Works. To me, David, that is the "greater vision" you reference ... and that God has for the AMiA.
This document was prepared with no input from Bishop Murphy.
The Rev. Dr. Tim Smith is an AMIA priest based in Mobile, Alabama. He worked for Bishop Murphy in Pawleys Island for a number of years.
Attached is a letter written by Rwandan Bishop Alexis with regard to the finances of AMIA and Rwanda. It was supplied by the Rev. Smith. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/2012/Rwanda_AMiA_BishopsMtg_2011.pdf
AN INSIDER'S REBUTTAL TO 'AN UNHOLY MESS'
By Tim Smith
Special to Virtueonlinewww.virtueonline.org
Sept. 12, 2012
In the interest of fairness, I invited Tim Smith, a supporter of Bishop Murphy, to write a defense of Bishop Murphy. Readers of VOL can make their own judgments about the facts. VOL's story was written after an intense and long review of the matter. VOL believes, and continues to believe, that the story is accurate.
Asked by David Virtue to respond to his article, 'An Unholy Mess,' I do so out of friendship with David and +Chuck Murphy. Though I have direct, personal knowledge of most of the situations discussed, I mainly respond out of deep conviction that a grievous wrong has been done to Bishop Murphy and the AMiA. I hope to try to help set some of the record straight, realizing that much damage has already been done which may never be rectified.
Simply put, much of what David's anonymous sources declare is downright untrue or in serious error. Some is preposterous. Parts, being grossly inaccurate, are defamatory. Other portions only reflect some of the facts, the whole of which would produce very different understandings. To refute so much in 1,500 words is an impossible task. David and I have been emailing about this; those exchanges approach 12,000 words. Nevertheless, here goes:
ACNA Leadership: To assert Bishop Murphy desired to lead what became the ACNA is absolutely preposterous. Having officed next to +Chuck in the early/mid-2000s, having attended countless meetings with Archbishops Kolini and/or Yong and +Chuck at this pivotal time as Common Cause and then ACNA were formed, such was NEVER discussed. I NEVER witnessed ANYTHING to support this false assertion. Our discussions were about the AMiA being missional and that +Bob should head up a more traditional ACNA. In fact, it was ++Kolini who laid hands on +Bob in Newry, Ireland and commissioned him to do so at a private meeting of about 20 orthodox primates. Since then, I've only heard how relieved +Chuck is that +Bob accepted that role.
Duncan-Murphy: The major differences are in shape of vision and methodology. I believe ++Bob desires a more traditional, diocesan Anglican structure while +Chuck desires something more entrepreneurial, flexible and singularly missional in focus. Why isn't there room in Anglicanism for both precedents? The world is crying for the love of God and the salvation wrought on the Cross by Jesus Christ. It'll take different approaches in our Anglican ethos, just like it takes different denominational 'flavors' here in the USA.
Some of the difficulty arises from the fact that several of the early ACNA leaders have in the past been actively opposed to the AMiA from the First Promise days of 1998 through the consecrations in 2000 (with one now-ACNA bishop actually in Singapore trying to derail it from happening), to discouraging churches and clergy from joining the AMiA (another now-ACNA bishop wanted to come to our church in Mobile to speak against us joining the AMiA, way back in 2000), to criticizing here and abroad our every move, to lobbying to keep the AMiA from participating in international meetings, to trying to lure AMiA congregations into ACNA. These are a few examples reflecting the active and long-standing opposition to the AMiA within early ACNA leadership.
Beyond these comments, I would prefer for ++Bob and +Chuck to address the issues with one another privately.
Bishop Murphy and Higher Authority: Having attended dozens of meetings with +Chuck, ++Kolini and ++Yong, I can think of numerous instances in which +Chuck submitted to their authority, even when such was against his wishes, e.g., timing of assimilating Canadian congregations - our desires were rejected 3-4 times until approval was granted, the consecration of new AMiA bishops - often delayed despite +Chuck's strong pleas, etc. NEVER do I recall an instance when he failed to submit to their authority over him. And that includes his resignation from the Rwandan House of Bishops. He still serves obediently under their authority in the new, expanded framework.
Bishop Murphy's Style of Leadership: Visionary = Absolutely. Persuasive = Yes. Common sense reasoning and wisdom = Yes. But tyrannical = NO... 'Take my ball and run' = NO, except to my knowledge only when the very essence of the Mission was threatened last November (see below). Arrogant = NO... ... though he is an introvert and not a glad-handing, backslapper who schmoozes or coddles people. Comfortable-in-his-own-skin - YES. Inflexible = NO. Gosh, the number of times I've seen him change direction after counsel from others. Out of touch = NO WAY... Hateful = NO ... Show me what words he spoke publically that were hateful and let the reader decide. I don't 'buy' that conclusion by an unnamed whomever.
+Chuck is the consummate processor. He processes many matters with many different people. I can think of over 10+ different types of groups and forums with which he processes matters, responding to what is gleaned from them. He seeks advice and believes, as he often says, 'the best decisions are made when the best minds are in the room.'
Bishop Murphy's mental state: +Chuck is doing remarkably well under the defamatory onslaught on the blogs and media for the past 15 months. There is NOTHING wrong with him, except a broken heart at the false allegations against him and the Mission. Such false allegations are inexcusable, often based on second-hand innuendo.
+Chuck has a good life surrounded by a great lady named Margaret, his three supportive daughters and grandchildren who call him 'Pops,' all living nearby. Oh ... and two crazy dogs. He is trying not to let articles like this one steal his joy in the Lord.
An Unholy Mess: One of the few things about which I agree is the title of David's article. It is an unholy mess.
It is a mess that began in Rwanda, not in the USA. Its roots go back as far as 1996 when ++Kolini was made Archbishop of Rwanda after serving as bishop in the Congo. A current Rwandan bishop has sought the archbishopric every time it has been open, including the last time when he only got one vote, his own. Since then two strong-willed seated Rwandan bishops have worked tried to gain control over the AMiA, deposing +Chuck to replace him with an ally. This ploy went into full operation with the ungodly, long-distance demand in November 2011 for +Chuck to repent or resign, giving him merely 7 days and no face-to-face meeting to respond. He did both ... with a majority of the AMiA bishops resigning also. Since then blogs and other media have been rife with inaccurate and distorted allegations against +Chuck (who - as a matter of principle - admirably follows the example of Jesus and does not defend himself) and against the AMiA. I do not know the motives behind all of these, but there are those who have been out to get him as far back as 2006 per discovery by another AMiA priest and even those for whose churches +Chuck personally raised up to $200,000.
AMiA and the ACNA: Let me be clear: The AMiA did not "withdraw from the ACNA." The AMiA was recently booted out. Why? Ask those who made that decision against the desires of the AMiA, including myself because of ACNA health coverage that my wife, a stroke survivor, needs and now lapses in several months.
It is true that the AMiA in 2010 changed its status from full-fledged member to 'Ministry Partner' as provided in ACNA governance. But that's not "withdrawal." From all accounts, the AMiA was pleased with this partnership role within the ACNA to which the AMiA has reportedly contributed over a $100,000.
Pawleys Paranoia: This is somebody's fantasy ... or maybe desire, but it ain't the way it is. Sure they're concerned and rightfully so with all of the misinformation that has been floated all over the world. However, 'prayerful' and 'dedicated' would be the words I would select to describe them.
David's Closing: The closing plea of David's article ("hope that whoever succeeds Bishop Murphy will be humble enough to ... link hands across a divide that should never have been broken in the first place") was directed to the wrong group. I stand convinced that +Chuck, as gracious as I've witnessed him be in the toughest of circumstances - would be willing to forgive and return as a Ministry Partner in the ACNA.
My Closing:
I'm not a naysayer when it comes to a sovereign God. God birthed the AMiA, and it is God Who will carry it through these difficult times into even broader service in His Kingdom, bearing spiritual fruit that will last throughout eternity.
God is reshaping the AMiA for His purposes. I personally sense that may involve deep prayerfulness throughout; a focus on Holy Spirit giftings and ministry - like the New Testament church; serious effort to help everyone in the Mission Society attract souls to Christ; and convert churches into worship and equipping stations/training centers for everyday ministry ... and not just 'listening centers' on Sunday mornings. Further, the scope will widen internationally.
This age demands a vibrant Anglican Society for Mission and Apostolic Works. To me, David, that is the "greater vision" you reference ... and that God has for the AMiA.
This document was prepared with no input from Bishop Murphy.
The Rev. Dr. Tim Smith is an AMIA priest based in Mobile, Alabama. He worked for Bishop Murphy in Pawleys Island for a number of years.
Attached is a letter written by Rwandan Bishop Alexis with regard to the finances of AMIA and Rwanda. It was supplied by the Rev. Smith. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/2012/Rwanda_AMiA_BishopsMtg_2011.pdf
1 comment:
From a region like certain Africa--where governance is nearly obsolete or under the domination of the Mohammedan; i am not tempted to claim anything, but the reality that The West is lost...and its reactionaries squandered.
Post a Comment