Pawleys Island, SC (Anglican Dogfight): AMiA's Chuck Murphy Rebuts ACNA's Bob Duncan

PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC: AMIA Leader Responds to Archbishop Duncan's letter
Bishop Murphy blames ACNA Archbishop for holding "inflexible positions" leading to breakdown
Two model system (ACNA and AMIA) could advance work of the kingdon, says Murphy

By Bishop Chuck Murphy
September 8, 2012

Dear Archbishops, Bishops, and Leaders of the Anglican Mission,

We, the Bishops and key Leaders of the Anglican Mission in the Americas greet you in the strong and gracious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May His blessings rest in full measure upon you, your families, and upon your ministries.

We are writing this letter, and providing this documentation, in response to a letter recently written by Archbishop Bob Duncan dated August 20, 2012 to Bishop Nathan Kyamanywa and copied to Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda [see attachment #1]. This letter wrongly presents the Anglican Mission as a divisive and hurtful movement that other jurisdictions should no longer support or become involved with until it "repents" and "reconciles." One week later, on August 28, similar arguments were once again advanced by the Archbishop in a televised interview on Anglican Ink.

We believe that the Archbishop's recent letter, and his interview a week later, make it painfully clear that the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA] is now actively engaged in efforts to isolate and damage the Anglican Mission [AMiA] in the name of North American "unity." We further believe that these efforts demand of us a thoughtful response, along with careful documentation, in an effort to both set the record straight, and encourage a more healthy relationship between the GAFCON/FCA Primates, the ACNA, and the AMiA as we all seek to move forward in our work and in our mission together here in North America and beyond.

Regrettably, rather than acknowledging or affirming the longstanding efforts of the Anglican Mission to join in the building of new coalitions and expressions of unity among orthodox Anglicans in North America, the Archbishop's recent letter portrays the Anglican Mission as exhibiting a pattern of separation and division.

This contention is simply unjustified in view of the fact that the Anglican Mission has repeatedly demonstrated its deep commitment to building both greater unity and more fruitful alliances among the orthodox here in North America by it actions and by its involvements. The Anglican Mission was a founding member of the Common Cause Partnership in June 2006 [see attachment #2], then a founding member of the Federation of Anglican Churches in America {FACA} two months later in August 2006 [see attachment #3]. We served on the Executive Committee responsible for guiding the creation of the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA] in the years leading up to its Inaugural Assembly in Bedford, Texas, and then, of course, became a founding member of the ACNA in 2009. Following the founding of the ACNA, the Chairman of the AMiA wrote a letter to all Anglican Mission clergy requesting financial support from AMiA congregations for the work of the ACNA during its start-up year which produced close to $100,000 for the ACNA. These commitments and investments simply do not support the Archbishop's portrayal of the Anglican Mission as having a history and/or a pattern of being a divisive or "separatist" organization.

In this letter, the Archbishop begins his argument by stating that back in 2010, the Anglican Mission, seeking greater autonomy, separated itself from the jurisdictional affiliation with the ACNA. Actually, in 2010 both the Rwandan House of Bishops and the Anglican Mission, being mindful that in established Anglican church order and polity bishops and clergy have never been permitted to affiliate with more than one jurisdiction at a time, sought to make it clear that the Anglican Mission's jurisdictional affiliation continued to be with Rwanda even as it sought to work in a close and complimentary way with the new ACNA which the Anglican Mission had helped to establish.

In taking the steps to clarify this desire and intention, the AMiA sought to affirm its ongoing connection with the ACNA, not through its earlier "protocol" arrangement, but rather, by formally requesting "Ministry Partner" status with the ACNA as provided for in the "On Ministry Partners" section of the ACNA Canons. The decision to do this was taken during a joint meeting of the entire Rwandan House of Bishops and the Council of Bishops of the AMiA at the 2010 Winter Conference in Greensboro, N.C. [see attachment #4].

Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje was among those voting to take this step to clarify our existing relationship with Rwanda, and to seek official "Ministry Partner" status with the ACNA. Contrary to the assertions in the Archbishop's letter, this action was not motivated by the desire for "greater autonomy." This action was taken merely to clarify our connection with the ACNA as we continued our ten-year jurisdictional affiliation with the Province of Rwanda.

That this action was never about a desire for greater autonomy, but simply greater clarity, is made both clear and explicit in the documents that followed the Rwandan House of Bishop's special Canonical Resolution passed in Greensboro on January 29, 2010. Both the "Report from the Executive Committee of the ACNA" that was released the following month on February 25, 2010 [see attachment #5], and then the "2010 Memorandum of Understanding between the ACNA and the AMiA" released a few months later on May 18, 2010 [see attachment #6], clearly indicate that the intention of the Anglican Mission was not to "separate," but rather to remain connected to the ACNA. The Archbishop's assertion in his recent letter to the leadership in Uganda that "greater autonomy was clearly the aim of the 2010 separation" is simply unwarranted.

Nevertheless, this description of the Anglican Mission as being an organization that repeatedly separates itself from others is continued in the Archbishop's letter when referencing the painful decision of nine of the AMiA bishops to end their membership in the House of Bishops through their voluntary submission to the Canons and Constitution of the Province of Rwanda in December of 2011 [see attachment #7].

This decision, taken only after over six months of ongoing conversations and unexpected tensions with the new leadership in the Rwandan House of Bishops in 2011, was in fact, a very painful and exceptional action, rather than just one more example of a familiar pattern found when dealing with the AMiA. The developing strain in the relationship between the Anglican Mission and the Province of Rwanda that was experienced in 2011 was made even more painful and more destructive by those who deliberately chose to release the letters and correspondence between the Mission and the Province to the press and to the Anglican blogs.

This relentless, ungodly, and destructive behavior made the usual steps and patterns for quiet and private reconciliation and restoration provided for us by Jesus Christ in Matthew 18 utterly impossible, and as a result, all efforts to rebuild the relationship between the PEAR and the AMiA appeared to have failed. It began to appear to all involved that, notwithstanding the fact that Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and Bishop Chuck Murphy had built a very close and fruitful long distance working relationship together during Archbishop Kolini's twelve year tenure as Archbishop of Rwanda, the retirement of Archbishop Kolini in January 2011, along with the retirements of several other PEAR bishops, and several supportive Global South Primates, had begun to bring about changes in the relationship between Rwanda and the Anglican Mission (and now it would even seem between the GAFCON Primates and the Mission), that no one could ever have anticipated or foreseen.

This situation began to change, however, and real progress was made both in the way of reconciliation, and in a commitment by all parties to once again move forward with the specific work and the unique ministries that God had given to both Rwanda and to the Anglican Mission, during two special meetings called for and coordinated under the godly leadership of Archbishop Eliud Wabukala. The first meeting took place in January 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya [see attachment #8].

A few months later the second meeting took place in Johannesburg, South Africa. These two extraordinary meetings were designed to create a genuine and lasting reconciliation between the PEAR and the AMiA. The second meeting in Johannesburg, which even included the participation of the AMiA's three founding Archbishops, led everyone involved to conclude that at last it would now be possible for every one of us to simply move forward with the vital work of mission in North America, in Rwanda, and in the various provinces being overseen by the GAFCON Primates [attachment #9].

The positive outcomes of this second and final reconciliation meeting were then stated and summarized with a promising communiqué by Archbishop Wabukala, dated March 13, 2012, voicing this expectation, and declaring among other things, that "we mutually agree to intentionally release each other to develop our God-given ministries for the advancement of His Kingdom."

Sadly, however, Archbishop Duncan's personal positions, expressed through his personal letters and interviews, make it clear that this new way forward may not now be quite as simple or as straightforward as we had all hoped for and expected as we left our reconciliation talks together in Johannesburg six months ago.

Only two weeks after our return from the Johannesburg reconciliation talks, upon learning that the AMiA had been invited by the Chair of the GAFCON Primates to attend an upcoming GAFCON/FCA Leadership Conference in London, Archbishop Duncan wrote a letter to the Chair of the AMiA informing him that he had "formally objected to Anglican Mission participation" in this London conference. [see attachment #10].

The only reason given for the Archbishop's formal objection was that AMiA inclusion (quote) "on its own terms, and once again without consultation, would be more destructive of long-term reconciliation and right order in the American Province than was acceptable." This line of argument, offered without any further explanation, was puzzling in that the Chair of AMiA was invited to join the GAFCON/FCA Council of Reference and Advisory Board by Bishop Wallace Benn back in 2010. Therefore, we did not understand how, exactly, the invitation extended to the Anglican Mission was being interpreted by Archbishop Duncan as having been "on its own terms," and "once again without prior consultation" with the leadership of the ACNA.

In the months following both the March reconciliation agreements in Johannesburg, and the March 29th objections to the AMiA's inclusion in the GAFCON/FCA Leadership Conference in London, Archbishop Duncan continued to voice objection to any involvement of other Anglican leaders with the work of the Anglican Mission. In May, for example, upon learning that both Archbishops Wabukala of Kenya and Henri Isingoma of Congo had agreed in April to participate in the oversight of the AMiA by serving on its newly created "College of Consultors," both Archbishops were urged by Archbishop Duncan, and several other members of his Cabinet, to step back from these decisions to become involved in the work of the Anglican Mission. These efforts by the Archbishop have been both difficult to understand, and personally hurtful to the Anglican Mission, for it has always been the clear practice of the AMiA to intentionally build and maintain relationships with the larger global Anglican family, even as it has also sought to secure and maintain appropriate Anglican oversight (rather than "greater autonomy") in the exercise of its work of evangelism and church planting in North America. For these reasons, then, we believe that the Archbishop's recent assertions in his letter to Bishop Nathan and Archbishop Orombi that "the fruits of the Anglican Mission in the last two years have been fruits of division for everyone associated with them" are both unwarranted and undeserved.

Sadly, even the "division" that presently exists between the ACNA and the AMiA has been created and maintained by the recent decisions and positions of the present ACNA leadership. Nine months ago (on December 18, 2011), without any prior consultation with the Anglican Mission, the Chair of the AMiA was simply informed by the Archbishop of the ACNA that the resignations of nine of the AMiA bishops from the House of Bishops in Rwanda had effectively ended the AMiA's relationship with the ACNA. [see attachment #11].

Recalling that quite a number of other bishops presently serving within the ACNA had also elected to resign from their previously existing overseas jurisdictions [Uganda, Southern Cone, etc.] without resulting in the severing of their relationships with the ACNA, this action seemed, at the very least, to be inconsistent with the previous practice of the ACNA.

This surprising action, following as it did less than six weeks after an earlier letter to the AMiA from Archbishop Duncan (which was copied to all of the GAFCON Primates), in which he recalled and celebrated our common history and work together over the previous decade, and pleaded with us to find a way to somehow move back fully into the framework of the ACNA, left the AMiA bishops shocked and confused [see attachment #12]. In this earlier November 7th letter sent out to both the AMiA bishops and to the GAFCON Primates, the Archbishop not only reminded us of both Jesus' prayer that His Church might be one, but also recalled the AMiA's longstanding vision to one day work together in North America as a "missionary society" within the ACNA.

Understandably, all of this made the Archbishop's pronouncement only six weeks later (through his email of December 18th), that the AMiA's entire relationship with the ACNA had now been effectively severed especially difficult for any of us to understand. In truth, the determination to officially withdraw the "Ministry Partner" status of the Anglican Mission with the ACNA last December was simply reached and then announced to the AMiA [see attachment #11]. The Mission did not seek this "division" with the ACNA, nor did it request this separation from the very emerging province that it had worked tirelessly to see birthed and established.

While the meeting between the ACNA and the AMiA, which was then held in Archbishop Duncan's office on December 20, 2011, provided that "formal conversations" between the two groups might continue in order to explore a possible way forward in reestablishing a relationship between them [see attachment #13]; sadly, those conversations have now ended in failure, hopefully only for the time being. After over eight (8) months of talks exploring new possibilities and new initiatives between individual dioceses in the ACNA and bishops in the AMiA, the leaders of both the appointed "Task Force," and the various other initiatives being offered by both groups have now been forced to acknowledge failure due to the inflexible positions presently being taken by the Archbishop and his Council [see attachment #14].

The initiatives that had been worked out and agreed to by bishops from both the ACNA and the AMiA have all been objected to and ended by their leadership. Sadly, Archbishop Duncan's recent televised interview on Anglican Ink on August 28th only served to further damage the hope and the promise of new and stronger relationships between the two groups. This interview was especially painful to watch by some of those who had been most intimately and tirelessly involved in both the creation of various initiatives to build new bridges and relationships between the ACNA and the AMIA, and, of course, those who had served together on the official "Task Force" that had been set up by Archbishop Duncan last December [see attachment #15].

In closing, we continue to believe that the work and the mission of the Church is made stronger and more effective when both the familiar jurisdictional model for ordering the Church's life (dioceses, provinces, ACNA, etc), and the less familiar vocational model that is found in the structures of the "missionary society" (CMS, AMIA, etc.) are both fully honored by, and embraced, in the ACNA.

We also remain convinced that these two models for advancing the mission of the Church here in North America and beyond must learn to view one another as truly instruments established by God intended to compliment, rather than compete with, one another in the vital work of evangelism and church planting [see attachment #16]. This position is strongly affirmed and commended by both the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison and the Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers, Jr. in their statements below.

The invaluable mission and presence of AMIA deserves acknowledgement, support, and gratitude. The church's institutional polity of administration, dioceses, and provinces has historically needed the complimentary Celtic mission, conciliar and monastic traditions to witness effectively to the world. The very success of Christian mission builds legitimate institutional responsibilities that too often replace the spontaneous and effective mission from the time of Willibrord (658-739) and Boniface (680-754) the medieval monastic orders to the Anglican missionary societies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The writings of Roland Allen (Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours and The Spontaneous Expansion of the Christian Church) show the extra-institutional aspect of successful missionary endeavors. Paul Valliere's recent Conciliarism: A History of Decision Making in the Church is an eloquent illustration of the myopic tendency toward mission on the part of the best of the institutional/administrative aspect of church polity.

The Anglican Mission in America has demonstrated its effectiveness as perhaps no other Anglican enterprise in the West has done. It has planted a new church every three weeks for well over a decade while the Episcopal Church has lost over a third of its members. It has cooperated with and helped establish the Anglican Church in North America. It is not a divisive element in Anglicanism but a successful and urgently needed mission society that deserves support and encouragement.


*****

The Rt. Rev C. FitzSimons Allison - Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina (Ret.) I write to encourage you to reflect on this letter from the Anglican Mission in the Americas most carefully. I want to underline the conviction, held by many of us, that the Anglican Mission and the Anglican Church in North America should be in partnership, working closely together in the Gospel, seeking the lost.

As you have seen from this brief, detailed and carefully documented letter, written by the Right Reverend Charles H. Murphy, III and his research team, there has been a growing sense of separation between the ACNA and the AMiA from the time when the AMiA moved from membership in the ACNA to "Ministry Partner" status. Looking back, that move has proven to be the beginning of a gradual growing apart. There are differing interpretations as to why this has taken place. You have heard the interpretation of the ACNA through emails and letters and video presentations. It is important that you also hear the story of the events and developments as the AMiA has experienced and understands them, and know what the AMiA as a Missionary Society under multiple jurisdictions has done to seek deepening relationships with the ACNA and faithful Anglican provinces and dioceses of the wider Anglican Communion.

The longer that divisions continue the harder they are to overcome. There can be no doubt that it is now high time for all of us, in North America and beyond, to take fresh resolve to work together to help bring about the partnership and unity in the Gospel and mission between the ACNA and the AMiA that the Lord intends and by His grace He will surely enable. So help us God.


The Rt. Reverend John H. Rodgers Jr. Th.D - A Founding Bishop in the AMIA, Retired. By the grace of Archbishop Duncan, Assisting Bishop in the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

We present all of the above to you, along with the many attachments that have also been included, so that you might not be uninformed when you have to make decisions about supporting the Anglican Mission in the Americas, and so that you will help us in our desire to be at one with the Anglican Church in North America. We thank you for hearing us, for all of the support that you have given us in the past and for your encouragement as we look to the future. May God's will be done, the unity of the Church be restored and the lost be reached.

To God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be all glory, might, dominion and power. Amen.

Office of the Apostolic Vicar
The Right Reverend Charles H. Murphy, III
Apostolic Vicar

____________________________________

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kevin Frances Donlon
Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs

____________________________________

Susan K. Grayson
Chairman's Chief of Staff

____________________________________

The Rt. Rev. Sandy Greene
Missionary Bishop

____________________________________

The Rev. Canon Dr. Allen Hughes
Canon Missioner

____________________________________

The Rt. Rev. Thomas W. Johnston, Jr.
Missionary Bishop

____________________________________

The Rt. Rev. Philip Jones
Member of the Conference of Bishops for the Society

____________________________________

The Rt. Rev. Canon Doc Loomis
Missionary Bishop
____________________________________


The Very Rev. H. G. Miller, III
Rector General

__________________________________

The Very Rev. Canon Mike Murphy
Secretary General of the College of Consultors

___________________________________

Silas Ng
The Rt. Rev. Silas Ng

Hubris, Power Struggles, & Theological Chaos Mark AMiA-ACNA Wars

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16497

AN UNHOLY MESS: Clash of Wills, Power Struggles, & Theological Direction Mark AMIA-ACNA Struggle

AMIA loses her last ecclesiastical lifeboat. Society for Mission and Apostolic Works formed

By David W. Virtuewww.virtueonline.org
Sept. 8, 2012

By any criteria, it has become one of the most disastrous and devastating ecclesiastical battles since the formation of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA) and the later birth of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). It may well be the greatest single spiritual blot on the emerging landscape of North American Anglicanism.

The genesis of this battle between Bishop Charles "Chuck" Murphy, leader of the AMIA, and the Most Rev. Robert Duncan, archbishop of the ACNA, goes back two years. It has escalated to the point that it now involves three African Anglican provinces (Rwanda, Kenya, Congo) and indirectly affects two Primates from the Church of the Province of South East Asia. As a result of the continuing war, positions have so hardened that reconciliation now seems virtually impossible.

The larger war has resulted in archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and laity fighting in localized ecclesiastical battles over who belongs to whom. The walking wounded are too numerous to name and number, and the war is still not over. The fallout continues. The most recent battle over flagship AMIA parish, All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, finds the rector in a pitched battle for his job desiring to take his parish to the ACNA with the bishop and chairman of the AMIA resisting. The Anglican Mission itself hangs in the balance facing an uncertain future. This story can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/99jcxbt

The story has generated over 7,000 hits at the website with even more through VOLs weekly digest and pass-alongs in the blogosphere and around the Anglican Communion. It bespeaks the intensity with which this battle continues to rage and occupy the hearts and minds of orthodox Anglicans everywhere, many of whom paid an enormous price having left The Episcopal Church over its abandonment of biblical faith and morals. Many orthodox Anglicans now feel abandoned, hurt and betrayed by the current confusion and war being waged. The All Saints battle is a microcosm of the larger war. The large number of VOL readers reveals just how important this story has become. Many see the divisions and splits among the newly forming orthodox Anglican jurisdictions as Satan's poisonous hand in the lives of godly men and women caught in the vortex of this ecclesiastical and spiritual storm.

At the forefront of the battle are the personalities, leadership and vision of two men: AMIA chairman and Bishop Chuck Murphy and ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan.

For 12 years, Bishop Murphy has led The Anglican Mission. He is thought highly of by such spiritual luminaries as Archbishops Moses Tay, and Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda and is supported by theologians like TEC bishop C. FitzSimmons Allison (SC ret.) and author/theologian/Bishop Dr. John Rodgers.

Depending on who you talk to, Murphy is either a strong visionary leader who early saw where the Episcopal Church was going and formed the AMIA as a counter to TEC's heretical path, proudly proclaiming his desire to reach America's 130 million unchurched by planting new churches across North America, Many of those same people now believe he has become, over time, a proud, arrogant, stubborn, tyrannical, inflexible man who is mentally unstable and should step down. There is no middle ground. He is either loved or loathed.

On the other side of the ecclesiastical table, sits Archbishop Robert Duncan who suffered greatly at the hands of TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and her House of Bishops when he was the Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh. He emerged battle scarred to form the Anglican Church in North America now five years old, drawing together a body of disparate Anglican jurisdictions something that had never before been achieved. (The 1977 St. Louis Convention saw four breakaway Anglo-Catholic bishops and jurisdictions that now number more than 50.) Today the ACNA can boast nearly 1,000 church plants with over 100,000 Anglican parishioners. Many Anglican jurisdictions affiliated with ACNA hold dual ecclesiastical citizenships with Anglican provinces like Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Uganda. For his theological stance and conciliar skills, he has been recognized by the leading orthodox Primates of the Anglican Communion and sits on the Primates Council of GAFCON. By any reckoning, it is a huge achievement.

Both men have reached the zenith of their respective careers; both will step down in the next two years with no visible successors at this time.

A CLASH OF WILLS

Those who know both men say that there was bound to be a clash of wills, sooner or later. Perhaps because Duncan comes from a strong military background, the two men were bound to butt heads. Others say that the differing DNAs of the AMIA and ACNA could not be reconciled as the AMIA is a "mission" while the is being a fully-fledged province even though it is not officially recognized by the Anglican Communion and its leader the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Anglican Consultative Council. It is, however, recognized by leading Global South African Anglican provinces.

Both groups are driven by evangelistic purpose, church planting and the desire to see God's Kingdom spread throughout North America. It's hard to see how the DNA could be that different; clearly more is going on.

One insider clergyman gave VOL this insight. "A couple of years ago Murphy had a national clergy conference of AM where the theme was 'Pirates'. There was a large blow up of pirates all over the meeting room. Murphy had decided to embrace the term that had been so used against them in the beginning days of First Promise and AM. Most of the clergy voiced serious concern about the image."

So, one is forced to ask, is it really a clash between two men or a clash between two world views of the kind of leadership that is needed to win a war (or in this case the effort of Anglicans in America). Is it a navy or a group of pirates? The clergyman offered up this illustration. "There is a great scene in the movie Patton when Omar Bradley is trying to explain why Eisenhower will be leading the D-Day invasion and not George. Omar says to George 'You are great at winning battles but no good at what it takes to win the war'. Murphy has been great at winning battles, but clearly did not have what it was going to take to win the big picture of bringing such a wide variety of entities together to form the ACNA. There is no indication that George ever accepted Omar's reasoning. Murphy has yet to accept that he wasn't to lead ACNA so rather than be honest with himself and accept that, he needs to blame someone else in order for it to make any sense to him why he is not able to fulfill what he believed was his destiny."

In the early stages, Murphy and his bishops were members of the ACNA College of Bishops, but later he withdrew himself and his mission over differences between himself and Duncan. Murphy made it clear, in withdrawing, that he did not want Duncan talking to his bishops. Was it simply a clash of ideology or was it more one of strong wills between two men as to who should lead the ACNA?

So why did he withdraw AMIA from ACNA? An AMIA priest said that the only reason the leadership in the AM was given was that because they were "embedded" into the Canons of Rwanda, they were not able to be in ACNA. "SHAME on us (the leadership of AM) for having taken him at his word. But we not only didn't do that, we didn't even ask for the specifics of the Canons that would make us in violation if we were part of ACNA. We didn't even read the canons, and Chuck's Council of Bishops later admitted that they had never even read either the Constitution of PEAR (Rwandan House of Bishops) or the Canons or the original Charter of the previous organization known as AM."

Part of the rationale Murphy used last fall to his council of bishops, his network leaders and to his college of presbyters for why they needed to secede from the Province of Rwanda was that overseas oversight was just not working anymore. It came to be known amongst the clergy as the "Out of Africa" doctrine.

"Last Fall Murphy told us that we never had been part of the Constitution of Rwanda, which at the time he was saying was a good thing as far as he was concerned because we could now be a missionary society. He blamed it on 'misunderstanding' in the writing of the Constitution. But that just isn't true," the source told VOL.

LEADERSHIP

Even though it was apparent to most people that Duncan was the natural leader that did not sit well with Murphy who believed, as he was the first out of TEC and the first to begin an Anglican ministry, that he should have been the first Anglican leader.

Time, it was thought, would heal the wounds and their differences. Duncan told friends and co-laborers that he worked hard to heal the breach. However, both men argued and fought whenever their paths crossed in the US and UK. The gulf, in time, only widened between them.

Then came leadership change in the Anglican Province of Rwanda.

When word came down that Rwandan Archbishop Kolini's successor, Onesphorus Rwaje, wanted more accountability from the AMIA's leadership over such issues as money and control over Murphy's insistence on turning the AMIA into a missionary society, it all blew up.

An ecclesiastical eruption between the two men became public with finger pointing and the first of many parishes departed the AMIA for new ecclesiastical pastures. Two AMIA bishops promptly resigned and came under PEAR/USA preferring to remain with the Anglican Province of Rwanda. Later other bishops would ally themselves directly with the Anglican Church in North America.

Murphy wrote a letter accusing the Rwandans of being Egyptians and that he, Moses, would lead the AMiA out of the Egypt of Rwanda into the Promised Land. God he said is "doing a new thing". Bishop Murphy's further remarks about "reverse colonialism" were painfully received in the Rwandan House of Bishops. Murphy later apologized for this remark.

Still others believe that Bishop Murphy's "style" was on a collision course with that of the newly anointed Archbishop Rwaje and that personality differences between the two men made confrontation inevitable. True or not, Murphy burned a bridge that would never be rebuilt. The relationship between the Province of Rwanda and the AMIA collapsed. Murphy told his people that the mission had spent $46 million dollars over its 12 years, but he would not say, nor could an accounting be obtained, about how much of that went to his friend Archbishop Kolini and the Province of Rwanda. Rwaje later told VOL that he would not be blackmailed by money and he would not change his mind - that the AMIA had to come fully under his authority. He gave Murphy six months to make up his mind if he would stay or go.

Rwandan Bishop John Rucyahana put his finger in the pulse of the situation when he wrote VOL saying, "I wrote an open letter to +Chuck calling for him and the House of Bishops in Rwanda to put right the differences that developed in the June 2011 meeting. Indeed, what I predicted has come true. The formation of a missionary society came at a wrong time when Rwanda was transitioning in leadership from ++ Kolini to ++ Rwaje." Reconciliation, however, was not to be. Positions hardened.

REJECTION SLIPS

Following his departure from the Province of Rwanda, Murphy looked to other African provinces for ecclesiastical cover but to no avail.

Murphy sought cover from The Rt. Rev. Nathan Kyamanywa, Bishop of Bunyoro-Kitara Diocese, in the Province of Uganda. Ugandan Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi quickly scotched that forcing Bishop Nathan to withdraw his offer.

AMIA continued to flounder in an ocean of ecclesiastical uncertainty. The mission also changed its name several times without telling its clergy. What began as the Anglican Mission in America became the Anglican Mission in the Americas, and then TheAM leaving people wondering and confused.

In another effort to provide canonical residency to clergy in the AMiA and the Society of Mission and Apostolic Works, Murphy approached Archbishop Henri Isingoma of the Province de I'Eglise Anglicane du Congo. Murphy obtained temporary ecclesiastical refuge from the Congolese Archbishop that technically runs out at the end of October. VOL has been told that a letter is on its way from Isingoma saying that they respectfully decline offering the oversight he sought, citing its relationship with Uganda, and Rwanda. Isingoma and Duncan also sit on the GAFCON Primates Council.

Many have asked why the AMIA leadership chose to announce the formation of the Missionary Society move right after Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini retired and Archbishop Rwaje was on his way in and his feet were still wet. The timing seemed poor.

It should be noted that Bishop Murphy's decision to withdraw from ACNA was based on consultation among the AM Council of Bishops and SE Asian Archbishops Moses Tay, Yong Ping Chung, and African Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini. Interference by these retired archbishops incensed Duncan who believes that once an archbishop or bishop retires, he should stay out of the politics of the church.

UNHOLY MESS

It all became an unholy mess. Murphy withdrew from the ACNA leadership.

When letters and communiques from both sides floated onto the Internet, the blogosphere exploded. Painful internal memos and emails sent to VOL give a picture of a man out of touch with the reality of what he had done, clinging to power even as his ecclesiastical world was, in the words of Archbishop Duncan, "disintegrating."

As the Anglican Mission narrative has played out, one cannot help but think that a certain amount of paranoia now prevails at the Pawleys Island headquarters. Wrote one observer, "The AM narrative to its front line was first that the problem was Archbishop Rwaje and the HOB of Rwanda, now the narrative has shifted to the problem being Archbishop Bob Duncan and to some extent still Bishop Terrell Glenn (the first bishop to leave the AM for PEARUSA). Add to what is happening now at All Saints, Pawleys Island to Robert L. Grafe one is forced to ask, who is the common denominator in all these clashes"?

"I have heard with my own ears public, hateful, painful, even embarrassing demonization of Archbishop Bob from Bishop Murphy," wrote a priest to VOL. "I have yet to hear it in reverse."

In a personal reflection on Anglican TV on the unholy mess, Archbishop Duncan reiterated what he said in Ridgecrest at a recent ACNA Mission's Assembly Conference: the AMIA is "disintegrating" and that the AMIA poses a challenge to unity in North America and a challenge to unity throughout the Confessing Anglican movement, as well as the emerging communion "which is taking the place of the structures we have known."

Duncan praised the AMIA's early vision for being in the forefront of mission with church planting, "They had hit exactly on the right thing. When I called for the building of 1000 churches we built on the trajectory of the Anglican Mission. We worked very hard with the AMIA to structure a province in North America. What we sought was a diocesan cluster or network that looked at a structure that allowed for the freedoms that had been developed there. In time they became more geographical."

Murphy would have none of it, said Duncan. "In 2010 the AMIA ceased to be a jurisdiction. Murphy didn't want to spend his and AMIA's energies building a church; he only wanted to do the mission. But if you are going to be a church then one must follow the Lord's Prayer in John Ch. 17 where Jesus says we must be one. You can't just focus on the mission and build relationships. The thing we tried to do with the AM is for them to be accountable. We wanted them to be a part of the ACNA and their bishops should be chosen and seated in ACNA's College of Bishops. Then the day came when he didn't want me to communicate with his bishops they could only go through him. He then said he didn't want them to communicate directly with the archbishop, only through him." The AMIA's autonomous and independence emerged.

Duncan was particularly disturbed at the continuing interference from former (retired) archbishops from SE Asia and Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini who offered continual cover to Murphy. "Our polity is that when an archbishop ceases to be an archbishop he ceases to be a part of a province actively as an archbishop and must go." That was not the case with Murphy and the AM.

"This is contrary to the good order of the church. We hoped to find a way to work with the AM, but there is no precedence in the Western Church for a dispersed authority found for such a Society for Apostolic Works. When you look at the documents they are not at all Anglican. You can be a member of any church or not. There is nothing particularly Anglican about them. A Primatial vicar is not an Anglican idea."

Duncan recalled how amidst the turbulence Murphy announced that the AMIA was going into the Congo; "He had a sudden arrangement with the Congo, imagine that."

Duncan said the structure of the AM held all power in the hands of one man (Murphy). "As an Apostolic vicar no one really knows what happens or who is accountable to whom. When the Congo had the opportunity to think about it the HOB rejected the idea and only one bishop gave cover. Isingoma offered his province as only temporary cover.

Earlier in April Rwaje, who clearly had jurisdiction, asked AMIA's bishops to declare themselves. "He agreed to give them a window of six months. We in the ACNA agreed to receive those bishops who asked. Bishops Todd Hunter, TJ Johnson and John E. Miller have asked to come into ACNA. Others will follow."

Duncan described the situation as "confusing." When the documents for the Society and Apostolic Works came forward, it became clear that there was a technical accountability of bishops and clergy to ACNA bishops or to bishops in other parts of the world, but there was no real jurisdictional authority. All had been ceded to this apostolic vicar (Murphy).

"We tried to find a pathway forward to partner with the AMIA but confusion reigns. It was impossible. There was no reconciliation. There are more broken relationships than ever," said Duncan.

The archbishop asked for clarity, simplicity and flexibility. "There was no notion of subsidiarity in our dealings. We have tried to be flexible but our being flexible is bringing about more confusion." Duncan said he sent in two of his bishops, one from Canada (Charlie Masters) and the other from Blue Bell, PA (REC Presiding Bishop Leonard Riches) to help work things out but to no avail. "This confusion we are participating in is not helping. Relationships are broken and they are only getting worse. They have been spiraling down since 2010. AMiA doesn't fit the vision laid out to both Kolini and Chuck it all fell on deaf ears."

Duncan delivered his coup de grace.

Duncan told Murphy that if he wanted to be a part of a Mission Society (it is not a jurisdiction), then ACNA could not be a part of the confusion spilling out all over the communion and he could not be participate in the [ACNA] province. "For the good order the church, the ACNA cannot participate in the diminishing confusion. We cannot let them participate in the chaos. As the AMIA reshapes and new generation of leaders emerges perhaps unity will be possible."

Duncan concluded by saying that he hoped the AMIA gets reshaped and that it will want to come back to the ACNA. "We have not changed our vision - we are biblical, missionary and united."

An Anglican leader who has watched the situation unravel said he believes the manner in which Duncan has modeled conciliarity with the [new] Primate of Rwanda will be one of the highlights of his legacy.

To end the confusion, Duncan said that a new diocese was in formation - Western Gulf Coast - that will be under the Rev. Clark Lowenfield, a refugee from the AMIA, who would absorb more of AMIA's congregations.

In their new constitution, AMIA leaders make no mention of any overseas oversight, describing itself simply as a society of mission and apostolic works. You can see it here: http://www.theamia.org/am_cms_media/amia-constitution--adopted.pdf

The sad truth is that the Anglican Mission is fracturing and disintegrating. With less than 100 parishes and six bishops, its long-term survival would seem unsustainable. The Anglican Church in North America is growing and remains the only game in town recognized by leading Global South Anglican Primates. The future clearly belongs to Archbishop Robert Duncan and his successors. All ties with African provinces must at some point cease. One can only hope and pray that whoever succeeds Bishop Murphy will be humble enough to accept that reality and link hands across a divide that should never have broken in the first place.

The Anglican TV interview can be found here: http://www.anglican.tv/content/archbishop-duncan-discusses-amia-crisis

PERSONAL FOOTNOTE: This has been one of the hardest stories this journalist has ever had to write. I have been involved with the AMIA from its inception - over 12 years - attending every winter conference. I have worshipped, heard lectures and sermons, and caught the vision of a movement that was clearly touched by God. Tragically, the pride, hubris and inability of one man to see beyond his own vision for a greater vision, is bringing down the Mission. This is not the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. There is still time to redeem the situation, if wiser heads prevail and full repentance is made.

To read a response to this story from Bishop Murphy click here: http://tinyurl.com/d5lkblu

Anglican TV: ABP Duncan Discusses AMiA Crisis

Archbishop Duncan discusses the AMiA Crisis

Submitted by kkallsen on Thu, 08/30/2012 - 00:43

 

Kevin Kallsen and Archbishop Duncan sit down to an intense interview about how the year-old AMiA crisis is affecting the Anglican Church in North American and international relations with the Global South and GAFCON.

Submitted by kkallsen on Thu, 08/30/2012 - 00:43

02:59

 

Rwanda and AMiA Anglicans to Split

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/rwanda-and-amia-to-go-their-separate-ways-the-church-of-england-newspaper-april-6-2012-p-7/

Rwanda and AMiA to go their separate ways: The Church of England Newspaper, April 6, 2012 p 7. April 11, 2012 

Bishop Chuck Murphy

The Archbishop of Kenya reports that attempts to forge a compromise between the bishops of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Church of Rwanda have failed. In a statement released on 29 March 2012, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala stated that each side wishes the other well as they pursue new opportunities in ministry.

The severing of formal ties between the AMiA and Rwanda after 12 years ends the first sustained “cross border” jurisdictional violation criticized by the Windsor Report – leaving the Church of Nigeria with the only formal overseas-led jurisdiction in North America.

On 13 March 2012 Bishop Chuck Murphy, Bishop John Miller and Canon Mike Murphy of the AMiA, along with the retired primates of Rwanda and South East Asia, Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini and Yong Ping Chung with the Primate of Rwanda, Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and Bishop Laurent Mbanda in Johannesburg to “facilitate relational reconciliation,” a statement from the AMiA said.

The Johannesburg meeting follows upon a January meeting in Nairobi also hosted by Archbishop Wabukala that sought to find a way forward in the rupture between the AMiA’s bishops and the Church of Rwanda. Last year all but two of the AMiA’s bishops quit the African church after the Rwandan House of Bishops pushed for greater financial and organizational accountability of the South Carolina-based jurisdiction.

The split has fractured the AMiA’s 150 congregations. While no numbers have been released by the AMiA, a majority of its congregations appear to have left Bishop Murphy’s oversight—including Bishop Murphy’s former parish and the AMiA’s headquarters, All Saints Church in Pawleys Island, South Carolina.

One faction appears set to join the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a second group has pledged its loyalty to the Church of Rwanda but will seek to operate under the oversight of the ACNA, while a third remains with Bishop Murphy and his bishops. Negotiations to find an accommodation are currently underway between the Murphy faction and the ACNA, however the terms publicly set by Archbishop Duncan include reconciliation between Rwanda and the Murphy group.

In his letter from Johannesburg, Archbishop Wabukala said the two sides stated that they had “done the best” to resolve the situation. However, “we mutually agree to release each other to develop our God-given ministries for the advancement of His Kingdom.”

The parties further agreed not to disparage each other. “We will honor all parties involved by promising not to engage in derogatory or judgmental communication,” the statement said.

The AMiA statement said “Bishop Murphy expressed deep gratitude to Archbishop Wabukala for his leadership and thanksgiving for this new beginning for the Anglican Mission.” A member of the Rwandan House of Bishops contacted by the Church of England Newspaper stated his church would not comment at this time, noting the communiqué spoke for itself.

PEAR USA Inaugural Assembly

H/T to Joel at Living Text, a blog worth following.  See: http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/pear-usa-inaugural-general-assembly-and-other-news/

PEAR USA Inaugural General Assembly and Other News

The Rwandan House of Bishops just issued another letter. The upshot of it is:

• AMiA clergy have more time than AMiA bishops to make a decision about where they are headed. The bishops must decide within weeks (meaning April), while the clergy have until August to decide.
• An Inaugural General Assembly for PEAR USA clergy and laity will occur in August, at which time the charter for the Missionary District will be ratified.
• PEAR is working with ACNA to establish how the new Missionary District will function within ACNA.

Here is the text:

April 10, 2012

Kigali, Rwanda

To the Clergy of Rwanda serving the work of the Gospel in North America: Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus, the Risen Christ and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

We write to clarify some important questions that remain after our March 29 Resolution and April 2 Communiqué.

As a result of our March 29 Resolution, a Missionary District of PEAR in North America has been established. We are currently working with members of the PEAR‐USA Steering Team to create a temporary Charter for Ministry which will define the mission and structure of the Missionary District.

Once we have approved the recommended Charter we will make it available to you. This Charter will be ratified through a proper process at an Inaugural General Assembly (of laity, clergy, and bishops) for the Missionary District which we hope to host in early August.

Members of the PEAR House of Bishops are also working with leaders from ACNA that Archbishop Robert Duncan has appointed and members of the PEAR‐USA Steering Team in the hope of establishing protocols that will govern the Missionary District as a sub‐ jurisdiction of the ACNA.

It is our clear intention that the Missionary District will be the only option for clergy and churches in North America wishing stay canonically resident in PEAR. As the details of the Charter for Ministry and the sub‐jurisdictional protocols become clear, we hope that all North American clergy resident in PEAR, along with their churches, will eventually join the Missionary District. A process of formal affiliation with the Missionary District will be described in the Charter.

Until the Charter is approved, any North American clergy resident in PEAR can affiliate with the Missionary District by a simple declaration of desire and intent. (This declaration should be communicated in writing to the PEARUSA office. They will pass on further instruction for affiliation and participation for both clergy and churches.)

However, we understand that some clergy currently resident and in good standing in PEAR have chosen, with their churches, to begin the process of transferring to dioceses within the ACNA or other Anglican jurisdictions. Bishop Terrell Glenn is coordinating these requests for letters dimissory on my behalf. This process should continue as needed, and we are fully supportive of those moving directly into the ACNA and other Anglican jurisdictions.

We also understand that some clergy and churches may choose to remain affiliated with the Anglican Mission in the Americas. They are free to do so. Again, we will supply those clergy with letters dimissory to another Anglican jurisdiction upon request.

As per our April 2 communiqué, the bishops of the Anglican Mission who resigned in December have been asked to declare the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to which they wish to be translated within the next few weeks. However, we understand that clergy and churches require additional time to make this decision. Therefore, all PEAR clergy in North America must make a clear decision about either affiliating with the Missionary District or transferring directly to the ACNA or another Anglican jurisdiction by August
31, 2012.

In summary, as you come to understand God’s direction for you, please send all requests in writing:

• For those who desire letters dimissory to be sent to a diocese in the ACNA or any other Anglican jurisdiction, to Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, c/o Bishop Terrell____
• For affiliation with the PEAR Missionary District, to Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, c/o the PEARUSA ___

It is important that you are aware of one additional deadline:

We anticipate the Inaugural General Assembly for the Missionary District to take place in early August. The proposed deadline for submitting lay and clergy delegates, which will be explained in the Charter, will be no later than thirty days prior to the General Assembly. Clergy and churches that have not decided to affiliate with the Missionary District at least thirty days prior to the General Assembly will be welcome to attend, but they will not have voice and vote.

We trust that this answers important questions and clarifies the possible directions that lie ahead for you.
You are beloved in the Lord! You remain the focus of our prayers. May God grant you his Spirit in full measure as you continue to proclaim the Gospel of the Risen Lord! Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of PEAR

Status of resigned AMiA Bishops according to the Rwanda HOB

Anglican Ink, a good blog and source of information, is carrying the following story.  This should prove to be interesting.  http://anglicanink.com/article/status-resigned-amia-bishops-according-rwanda-hob

Status of resigned AMiA Bishops according to the Rwanda HOB

Article | April 2, 2012 - 7:50pm

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ:
Greetings in the precious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The House of Bishops met together on March 29, 2012, during which time we seriously and prayerfully considered how to respond to the desire of those in the Anglican Mission in the Americas who wish to disaffiliate from the Province de l’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda (PEAR). Those AMiA missionary bishops who resigned on December 5, 2011 have maintained their credentials in the Province of Rwanda up until now. However, in a meeting of delegates from PEAR and AMiA in Johannesburg earlier this month, they asked to be “released” from the PEAR.

According to our Provincial Canons, there are only three ways that we may “release” clergy affiliated with us:

1. By transferring them to another jurisdiction within the Anglican Communion;
2. By their voluntary renunciation of orders;
3. By formal ecclesiastical discipline.

Today we wrote to those AMiA missionary bishops who resigned and asked that if they wish to continue in episcopal ministry within another Anglican jurisdiction, that they please inform us of that jurisdiction immediately so that we may translate them appropriately.

For the time being, all remaining AMiA clergy continue to have canonical residence within the PEAR. Any clergy who wish to withdraw their credentials are free to do so in writing. We encourage all North American clergy credentialed in the PEAR to join PEARUSA, which is our missionary district in North America, unanimously erected by our House of Bishops in our today’s meeting.


We pray that you will not be distracted from the higher calling of Jesus’ Great Commission. Preach the good news, love the poor, plant healthy churches, and disciple Christ’s flock.

The grace and peace of God be with you all.

Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje

AMiA Back in the Not-So-Flattering News as Schismatics

Anglican breakaway groups confront a new power struggle

February 9, 2012

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/anglican-breakaway-groups-confront-a-new-power-struggle/2012/02/09/gIQA3MCS2Q_story.html

NASHVILLE — The saga of the Anglican Mission in the Americas sounds like the words to an old country song: “Why have you left the one you left me for?”

Founded by breakaway Episcopal priests who left their former denomination because they felt it was too liberal, the Anglican Mission is now in the middle of another ugly church feud.

Last time the fight was over sex and salvation. Now the fight is over money and power, between the Anglican Mission’s U.S. leaders and the overseas Anglican group that adopted them.

“It’s like my mom and dad just told me they are getting a divorce,” said the Rev. Brian Hardin, pastor of the Four Winds Mission in Spring Hill, Tenn., which is a member of the Anglican Mission.

The troubles between the Anglican Mission and its patrons in Rwanda started last year, after former Anglican Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda retired. Kolini had been a friend of American Bishop Chuck Murphy, the head of the Anglican Mission, and had taken a hands-off approach.

In return, the Anglican Mission donated millions to the Rwanda church.

But Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, the new Rwandan leader, and Murphy did not see eye to eye.

Rwandan bishops asked for detailed accounts of how the Anglican Mission was spending its money. And Rwaje also disagreed with a plan to change the Anglican Mission — also known by the acronym AMIA — into a missionary society instead of being part of the Rwandan church.

“There was a change in vision in how the House of Bishops in Rwanda wanted to deal with AMIA,” said Bishop Philip Jones, an AMIA spokesman, and pastor of All Saints Church in Dallas.

Eventually, Murphy was asked to step down, said Jones.
In a letter to Rwaje that accompanied his resignation letter, Murphy compared himself to Moses leading his people out of Egypt in search of the Promised Land. When Murphy quit, Jones and seven other bishops followed.

“I didn’t think we had any other choice,” Jones said.

But not all of their Anglican Mission colleagues agree. Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today magazine and a member of an AMIA congregation, said Murphy has caused a schism in the church.

“This is troubling, first, because it contradicts Jesus’ expressed prayer for the unity of the church,” he wrote on his blog. “Second, it threatens to make a lie of AMIA’s posture when we first left the Episcopal Church.”

Bishop Terrell Glen, a former AMIA leader who remains part of the Church of Rwanda, said Murphy and other American bishops did the wrong thing by bolting. They had taken a vow of obedience to their bishop, he said, and broke it by quitting.

“I don’t believe the archbishop was requiring anything of anyone that we could not submit to,” he said.

For years, leaders of the Anglican Mission and other breakaway Episcopal groups have tried to get the Anglican Communion to recognize them as a legitimate alternative to the Episcopal Church. This latest split shows how difficult that will be, said Jim Naughton, editor of Episcopalcafe.com and a former spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C.

“We don’t know how much staying power they have,” said Naughton.

Naughton also said that the split shows the problem that money plays in the relationship between U.S. church leaders and their African sponsors. Americans have most of the money and they use that money to promote their theological views. That’s the case for both conservatives and liberals, said Naughton.

Dealing with the imbalance of money and power will remain a problem in the future, said the Rev. John McDonald, director of the Stanway Institute for World Mission and Evangelism at the Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa.

“It cannot simply be that Western churches provide funds and African churches then provide the seal of legitimacy or the protective covering of an Anglican province in return,” McDonald said. “It has to be seen as a true partnership.”

Before the break, the Anglican Mission had 152 affiliate churches and another 100 congregations in development. About 20 have decided to leave the group already, said the Rev. Cynthia Brust, an AMIA spokeswoman, and observers say more may follow.
One option is joining the fledgling Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which was founded in 2009 by former Episcopalians and now has about 1,000 churches. ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan, the former Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh, said he’s been in contact with Anglican Mission churches about their future plans and would welcome them into his fold.

He noted that AMIA leaders have excelled at starting new churches and attracting new people to the Christian faith, but sometimes have trouble following rules.

“They are folks who often color outside the lines,” he said.

“Among Anglicans, both truth and order matter. They have not been so good about accountability and the unity of the church.”