Anglican Ink: Recant or resign, Rwanda tells Chuck Murphy

Just processing and discussing in multiple levels of leadership here, nothing much to see.
Perhaps the Rwandans are actually affirming Bishop Murphy’s leadership in this letter, if we simply read it more carefully.

I always thought it would end this way, ever since the AMiA leadership decided to walk apart from the ACNA, who will undoubtedly reap a harvest of congregations, clergy, and laity from whatever the AMiA morphs into next.

RE: “I always thought it would end this way, ever since the AMiA leadership decided to walk apart from the ACNA . . . “

I have a different take on this.  The AMiA was never a member of ACNA though they were a part of Common Cause and helped—as did other Anglican entities—dream up ACNA.  Of course, lots of other entities were a part of *the original* Common Cause discussions too, including several Continuing groups.  The AMiA was no different, and I thought it understandable and a position of integrity for them not to join, just as I did the APA [remember them?].  In fact had they joined they would have exported their theology and ecclesiology into the ACNA—and the ACNA already has their own stuff to deal with anyway, not to want any more.

The AMiA had a very clear mission and identity, a rather certain leader, and a provincial connection since 2000.  Why should they toss all of that up in the air and join ACNA.

A similar situation would be if the Diocese of South Carolina were to be booted out of TEC.  My hope—and belief—is that they would not join ACNA, nor should they feel they must.  The Diocese of South Carolina would be far stronger, far more stable, far more unified—and far more attractive to others—were they to remain an island for the coming years that the Anglican chaos rips through the Americas and through the rest of the provinces.

RE: “I must admit that I’m not a big fan of the AMiA’s decision to leave the ACNA as formal members and question the direction they seem to be heading.”

Yet this is the direction they were always headed in.  This *is* the AMiA—it’s never been “collegial” or “synodical” except in extraordinarily redefined ways.

I’m not saying the above in order to *defend* the AMiA.  I did some early exploration back in late 2003 [as I did with numerous—literally dozens] of other Anglican entities, along with many other Protestant denominations, along with the RCs as well.  And after some research I recognized I didn’t want to be a part of the AMiA for these and other reasons.  They just don’t have the organizational identity that I wish to be a part of.

But it’s no use for we conservative Anglicans to gasp and hold our hands to our heads and call for the lavender water when this is precisely who they have been for the past 11 years without “shadow of turning.”  I should add that—if people wanted to find these things out, they had but to ask, since the Underground Railroad was rocketing right along back in 2003 too.

It’s just that—for whatever reasons—conservative Anglicans seem to place a high priority on clueless naivete and ignorance.

Sounds harsh I know—but having watched we TECans, and then the departing TECans, and then more of the staying TECans—it’s just how we are.

Sarah, I believe that the AMiA was a part of the ACNA up until the Provincial Council meeting in 2010 when they asked to be recognized as a Mission Partner, rather than a full member of the ACNA. I have my notes on the vote somewhere (more easily said than found) but I was at the meeting and voted against their making the move.

Hi Ann—I think you’re right.

RE: “The direction their leadership is taking . . . “

Well, my riff wasn’t in regards to the word “seems” but the words “heading.”  I don’t think any of this is new—I look at their brief period as “member” of ACNA as rather the odd blip, rather than their hurried and predictable decision to seek partnership status and continue as an independent organization, which is how they’ve always lived [despite the provincial connection].  They’d always been clear that they were going to be “dual committed”—which meant their position as “member” in ACNA was somewhat . . . odd . . .  That in itself was not well integrated into ACNA.

At any rate, I have no interest in asserting that you in particular were “surprised” or not.  As far as others—I’m content with my own observations of various threads and am happy that others can observe and read as well.  People can interpret their observations as they please.

Hey A Senior Priest—just to follow up since AMiA was a member and you were correct . . .

“I always thought it would end this way, ever since the AMiA leadership decided to walk apart from the ACNA, who will undoubtedly reap a harvest of congregations, clergy, and laity from whatever the AMiA morphs into next.”

Did you ever see the AMiA as wholly committed to ACNA?

I don’t see that their eventual bowing out of ACNA membership as any kind of sign of AMiA’s being intrinsically flawed or suspect [though I didn’t approve of plenty about the organization.]

I do think there will be plenty of toing and froing amongst Anglican clergy/parishes/laity, though—both to and from various Anglican entities. 

I could also see—at some point if SC were to be booted—parishes elsewhere in the US coming under its direct oversight.

This will be a fascinating decade, for sure.

The lack of submitting the financial information is a huge red flag.  The books shd certainly be available to the overseeing party, in this case the Rwandan HOB.  Covering those books wd result in strain.  An obedient child away from home who does something wrong, esp if it’s on purpose, finds a barrier between himself and his parents.  The longer the barrier is ignored or denied, the worse it gets.

Humility and repentance are necessary for AMiA’s survival;  discipline wd be as important with the humility and repentance as it wd be w/o them.  A different form, but important in either case.

This is a serious issue.  The suggestion that it was somehow the inevitable end for the Anglican Mission strikes me as a harsh judgment on a lot of brave orthodox Anglicans.  We need to lift all of the Rwanda and AMiA leadership up in prayer as their actions will have a great impact on the lives of many people as well as the witness of the gospel in many places.  May God bring mercy and reconciliation.

I agree with Bill, reconciliation would be a good thing…I pray that the leadership in the Anglican Mission and in Rwanda can find a way forward that strengthens their bonds with each other and with ACNA as well.

BillK,  I don’t take the previous posters as suggesting that the inevitable end is this apparent problem between Bishop Murphy and the Bishops of Rwanda, but rather that the desire of the AMiA is to be independent in their vision, strategy and as an organization.  How many people are really surprised that they want to go their own way?  I’m not, but who knows I may be alone.

I certainly hope Bishop Murphy will submit to the authority of the Rwandan HOB. That the African primates have a much more serious polity and demand obedience of one of their bishops in their House cannot be something new to the AMiA leaders.

It appears one cannot be a “cafeteria Rwandan Bishop”.  You take the years of Provencial cover and support and in return you’re expected to honor your vows of obedience and collegiality in the Rwandan House of Bishops.

To refuse to honor this request can be seen as a slap in the face to African Primates who have befriended conservative American Anglicans in their time of trouble.

#9 (and others), re: financial accountability.

AMiA is now a part of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability:

http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=18589

I do believe, however, that membership is relatively recent, dating only to 2010.

Jerry, The stated polity of AMiA, at least until a few weeks ago, was that it was under the authority of the Rwanda HOB.  Certainly, AMiA has had a pioneering spirit and was roundly criticized at first by the very leaders who would later follow AMiA’s example in declaring independence from TEC.  However, when under the authority of Rwanda, it is less “independent” than ACNA.  Thank God that the Rwanda takes its oversight authority so seriously and has clearly stated its expectations (I don’t see a cultural communication problem) and extended an opportunity for reconciliation.  Even the most independently minded leader must submit himself to proper authority and be accountable for his actions.  This is an opportunity for a great Christian man to extend his witness and place Christian unity and personal humility above his own plans.  Because of all the publicity, however, this may be a very difficult even painful task.  God bless them all with his mercy and courage.

Steve,
Being part of ECFA doesn’t mean that AMiA has accounted for where the money went. The question isn’t did the money go to somewhere in Rwanda, the question is where did it go? There has been no accounting of that according to what we know. ECFA isn’t going to help on that front.

At the very least, we know now we cannot trust the Anglican Mission press office which has displayed varying degrees of deceit, slander, and hypocrisy. Sad thing to say about the public voice of a Christian church.

I would much rather see unity among all Anglican jurisdictions outside TEC and the ACofC, and I hope this divisiveness will end quickly.  We don’t need it, we shouldn’t have to go through this, and the sooner we put this behind us and move on, the better.  If it means that some group has to surrender some of its autonomy for the good of all, then so be it.

It is my hope that Bishop Murphy does not wait all the way to 12/12 to respond to the Rwandan HoB.

The Province de l’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda has been extraordinarily gracious to us in the AMiA.  They are very truly our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

Are we on the LORD’s side?  Are we all ardent followers of Jesus Christ? Does the power of the Holy Spirit inhabit our labor for God and His people? Are we one in the LORD???

We should never let adiaphora polity issues bring a halt to the missio Dei.

Aren’t we to:

*Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness
*Love the LORD our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength
*Love our neighbors as ourselves
*Pray and not give up
*Go, make, baptize, teach
?

Then, let’s get on with it!! 2 Corinthians 6:2

RE: “I don’t take the previous posters as suggesting that the inevitable end is this apparent problem between Bishop Murphy and the Bishops of Rwanda, but rather that the desire of the AMiA is to be independent in their vision, strategy and as an organization.”

Very much agree, Jerry C.

There is a clear distinction between the issues between the Rwandan HOB and its Primate and Bishop Murphy and the AMiA choosing not to continue a brief membership in ACNA.  There have been Anglican entities which have declined membership in the past and there will be in the future, just as there have been Anglican individuals who have declined membership in the past and there will be in the future.  That “no” does not in itself make the AMiA particularly bad or intrinsically flawed, although as I’ve said before, people have made decisions not to consider the AMiA for various reasons having to do with its identity and values.

I’m confused about something and would appreciate some clarification.  I was under the impression that both AMiA and Rwanda have always understood their relationship to be temporary and that AMiA was supposed to gradually move out from under Rwanda’s oversight.  If that is true, then why would Rwanda be upset with AMiA’s desire to be independent, and why would some in AMiA want to remain under Rwanda?  Is that really the problem, or is it more to do with dissatisfaction with the way that AMiA is seeking to structure itself under Bishop Murphy’s leadership?  Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me!

The whole fiasco makes me very sad, but I admit that I’m not really surprised.  I’m praying that God somehow works this whole mess out for good, in ways beyond our human understanding.

When I left TEC, one of the reasons why I chose the ACNA over affiliating with the AMiA is precisely that it always seemed clear to me that +Murphy’s leadership style was not only non-collegial but pretty authoritarian.  In fact, +Murphy has been refreshingly upfront and unapologetic about his sort of “my way or the highway” approach.  Now that’s not wholly bad, and there are times and places when a military-like command style of leadership, or more precisely, an American business CEO style of management can be quite effective.  But when things start to go sour, as they clearly have in AMiA lately, suddenly differences of opinion about strategy and tactics become highly personalized, greatly complicating church life and decision making.

However, I think we should resist the natural tendency to start playing the blame game in our post-mortem analysis of what went wrong.  Just as when a marriage undergoes some hard times, perhaps leading to separation or even divorce, there are always two sides to the story, and neither party is totally innocent.

One of the hidden factors here, although it’s pretty much an open secret, is that +Murphy got along so well with ++Kolini because they both are pretty much Lone Ranger types, and their leadership styles are relatively compatible that way.  However, when the Rwandan HoB elected a new primate, they seem to have very deliberated selected a highly collegial archbishop, who is taking pains to make major decisions in a slower, more cautious, and above all in a much more joint way that inevitably doesn’t mesh well with +Murphy’s style.

One final comment, which I’ll direct straight at Matt+.  I wish you hadn’t been so harsh on Cynthia Brust, the offical spokesperson for AMiA.  It’s true that she and her staff fumbled the ball badly in this crisis, but she had to work with the data that she was given by +Murphy.  I’ve only met Cynthia once, but having watched her stellar work under pressure at General Convention in 2003, I guess I’m more willing to cut her some slack.  To charge her and her office with “deceit, slander, and hypocrisy” seems unduly harsh and unwarranted at this point, when many of the facts about the internal workings of the AMiA headquarters are still unknown to most of us.

Personally, I’m inclined to take the gentler, kinder perspective implicit in Mary Ailes’ famous HHHB principle.  That’s the “Hammerstein Hierarchy of Human Behavior” for those unfamiliar with one of Babyblue’s most characteristic viewpoints.  The gist of the HHHB is that things get really messed up, as has sadly happened here, it’s far more likely to be due to sheer incompetence (laziness, stupidity, or both) than to deliberate malice or evil intent.  I strongly suspect that the HHHB principle applies to the AMiA Communications Office in this case.  MInd you, I’m not trying to diminish the harm done to AMiA’s image by the poor communication itself, which was egregious.  I’m only suggesting that we shouldn’t rush to judgment and sling around very serious accusations like “deceit” and “slander” unless we know for sure that they are warranted.

Similarly, we shouldn’t rush to condemn +Murphy.  Yes, this whole mess has revealed that the “Chairman” has feet of clay, as do we all.  The real lesson, it seems to me, is that leaders are most dangerous when a “perfect storm” of two factors combines to wreck havoc.  Those two major factors are these:
1.  when they are, for all practical purposes, accountable to no one (and +Murphy clearly wasn’t),
and
2.  when that lack of accountability is greatly aggravated by the leader being in denial about some of his (or her) character flaws or major healing issues.

You combine those two things and it’s like creating TNT, the conditions for explosive trouble exist that can blow things sky high.

David Handy+

HH—I’d been under the impression that the *public* idea of the temporary nature of oversight was in the event that an actual Anglican Communion province were formed and that TEC was side-carred [new word!]

I never thought that the *public* idea of the temporariness of it all was so that the AMiA could simply be off somewhere alone without Anglican Communion provincial relationship.

However—I could be wrong about that impression.  Much of it is blurred anyway by the *public* rhetoric used to justify what appeared to be the entity formed and led and dreamed up and grown and promoted by one particular person who is uniquely talented and with his own strengths and faults.  So while we can look at the public rhetoric I think we can’t discount the idea that really an evangelicalish Anglicanish entity was formed with shaky loyalties to the Anglican bits anyway—which is one reason why so many free-church evangelicals with few Anglican loyalties and very little in the way of Anglican liturgy, ethos, or doctrine are comfortable with the AMiA.

Perhaps some folks who have been or are in the AMiA will respond to your question.  There is a division [judging from my emails and phone conversations] within the AMiA between people who are essentially simply evangelical/seeker-sensitive/free-church and those who hoped or thought that they were entering something actually predominantly Anglican in identity.

NRA, having worked in PR it’s true that you’re often fed “information” by the powers that be and it’s your job to 1) warn when things really sound wrong or stupid or pig-headed or when actions being considered are really mistaken and 2) develop the best way to say the truth.

And it’s true that one has to work hard to figure out what the truth actually is within an organization so that one does not end up inadvertently lying.

It takes quite a lot of original research and thoughtfulness for a person who is working in communications to say “hey wait—saying *that* particular thing that you want me to say is not factual or truthful and I simply cannot say it.  Let’s think of another 1) message and 2) way to say that message publicly.”

And sometimes one can not quite nail down what is the truth and what is not, and one proceeds with the best information one has at the moment and hopes that it is correct. 

If a person repeatedly gets burned by a corporation or organization then usually someone in that position just ends up throwing up his or her hands and departing post-haste.

P.S.  George Congar deserves credit for breaking this story.  The fact that he did it formally, and not just informally in a casual Anglican TV interview, is significant.  This latest letter by the Rwandan bishops shows that he and Kevin Kallsen were basically on the right track all along.  While not perfect by any means, Goerge+ and Kevin are performing a valuable service for all of us who care deeply about the successful rebirth of orthodox Anglicanism on this continent.

From another angle, personally, I’m not at all dismayed that AMiA has chosen to go its own way and refused to get absorbed into the larger ACNA, which has a different ethos and DNA.  Actually, I should say that our overall ethos in the ACNA is still emerging and evolving as the different groups making up the ACNA bring their different histories, concerns, and values to the mix.  However, it’s already abundantly clear that whatever that eventual primary ethos of ACNA turns out to be, it will be strikingly different from that of AMiA (not necessarily better or worse, just different).

I wish that Chairman +Murphy had acted a little less like Chairman Mao at times, and that he’d been able to retire in peace, with the honor due him for all his courageous and hard work for the sake of the gospel.  The bitter irony is that the man is 64 and is already something of a lame duck, since he’s publicly pledged to retire in just a couple more years.  I sure wish, for his sake, and for that of AMiA and orthodox Anglicanism in general, that he’d been able to avoid this scandal and pass on the baton before things came to an ugly head like this.

But the Head of the Church is in charge, and He has a mysterious and wonderful way of turning evil to good.  We need AMiA to thrive and flourish, so I hope they will recover from this major setback, and go on to even greater accomplishments in the future, for the sake of Christ and his Kingdom.  It takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people with the good news of salvation and to disciple them and shepherd them well.

So I repeat what I’ve said more than once in recent days here at SF, the ACNA and the AMiA are ALLIES, not rivals, in our common mission of reaching North America with the healing, transforming love of Jesus Christ and the new life that only he can give.  I, for one, at NOT rejoicing at AMiA troubles, even though it may indeed lead some AMiA churches and leaders to realign themselves with us in ACNA.  This is not a zero-sum game.  There is more than enough room for ALL orthodox Anglican groups to thrive in our strange new cultural situation, where we Christians are a definite minority group, and we Anglicans are only a small sliver of that minority.

Actually, this strong, brave action by the Rwandan HoB is encouraging to me, for it demonstrates their capacity to exercise pasotral oversight in a highly responsible and meaningful fashion, even when it hurts.  TEC’s HoB lost that capacity long ago.  And in a tradition like ours which is led by bishops, that kind of integrity and responsible leadership that holds fellow bishops mutually accountable is ESSENTIAL.  We can’t survive without it.

David Handy+

Is this a matter of Murphy simply being contentious and unruly, or could Murphy possibly be calling Anglicanism back to its roots? I doubt it’s the latter, but who knows?

Note that the Solemn Declaration submitted at Kampala in 1999 and forming the Anglican Mission’s doctrinal and theological basis established the classic Anglican formularies (e.g., the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571; The Book of Common Prayer of 1662) as the doctrinal and worship standards of the Anglican Mission. I just wonder whether Murphy, once thought of as an evangelical, is sorry for his complicit involvement with the creation of much more Rome-like standards for Common Cause (later ACNA) and for Rwanda. Does he now find himself caught in a trap of his own making? Perhaps we own him a measure of sympathy and understanding.

On the other hand, perhaps the real story here is that both the Rwandans and the AMIA clergy are upset over the unAnglican canons with which they now find themselves, and blame Murphy/Donlon for their sorry situation. This theory is set out by Robin Jordan here: http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/11/anglican-mission-gods-church-under.html

In any case, there’s a lot more going on here than a Murphy temper tantrum.

So, Sarah, are you saying that those in AMiA who wish to remain under Rwandan oversight do so primarily because they wish to maintain their formal relationship to the Anglican Communion?  If so, would the opposite be true of +Murphy—i.e., that his desire to be independent of Rwanda shows a lack of concern about maintaining any formal links to the Communion?

I love the “evangelicalish”, “Anglicanish”  concept.  And I believe that, if ACNA wishes to remain within Anglicanism and not become “Anglicanish”, it needs to take a cold, hard look at AMiA.  While I understand that evangelism and church growth are worthy projects, they can become idols.  True oversight and true obedience were absent for so long in TEC, reestablishing them in a new entity will be a long, difficult process.  As an outsider, it doesn’t appear to me that these concepts were ever a significant part of the AMiA ethos.  If this painful episode results in more clarity of what being Anglican is within the ACNA, then there will be some good coming out of what looks to be a lot of suffering of a lot of good people.

Hi NRA,

I am not sure you read my comments carefully. I wrote:

“At the very least, we know now we cannot trust the Anglican Mission press office which has displayed varying degrees of deceit, slander, and hypocrisy. Sad thing to say about the public voice of a Christian church.”

There is nothing in that statement that is a) untrue or b) directed at an individual.

It is possible that the individual press officer was ignorant of the lying and slanderous nature of things she was bidden to write. Good.

And yet, irrelevant.

It remains true that, “we cannot trust the Anglican Mission press office which has displayed varying degrees of deceit, slander, and hypocrisy.”

Sarah (#24),

I agree with your general observation, and I repeat that I don’t know Cynthia Brust personally and thus I don’t really have a dog in this fight.  You are correct, sister, that being the PR staffer for a major ministry or organization can sometimes get complicated and produce tricky situations that sometimes lead a PR spokesperson to resign. 

I’ll just add that when such a separation takes place, it’s not always due to some sort of protest against the integrity of the organization’s leadership.  It sometimes just reflects a growing divergence in perspectives.

I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences when I cite as an example my good friend Douglas LeBlanc, who is as fine an Anglican journalist as you can find.  He once served as the communications director for Episcopalians United, and then, briefly, in the same role for the ACNA.  In the end, Doug left the staff of both organizations, not because he doubted the integrity of the leaders of EU or ACNA, but simply because he (as someone still in TEC, although in an outstanding CP parish, St. Matthew’s in Richmond) couldn’t go along anymore with some of the things he was being asked to say on behalf of those ministries.

Opportunities in the Christian world for journalists and professional communicators are few and far between.  Hence, no one lightly gives up such a coveted position, unless they feel truly complelled to do so.

The fact that when Kevin and Fr. Congar first contacted Cynthia about all the reports they were getting of major trouble erupting in AMiA she denied that there was any problem is more likely to reflect badly on +Murphy than on Mrs. Brust.  To me, it’s a dead giveaway about the incredible extent to which +Murphy acted like a Lone Ranger. 

OTOH, even the Lone Ranger needed Tonto as his faithful assistant.  The fact that Cynthia could be so embarrassingly blindsided by this whole fiasco shows the stunning extent to which in AMiA the left hand often doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.  Now that kind of secrecy is a good thing when it comes to almsgiving, as the Master taught us.  But when it comes to church administration, that kind of lack of internal communication, even between the Chairman and his press officer, is simply deadly.  In such a case, the buck stops with the man in charge.

David Handy+

Aaytch (#26),

Yes, there is clearly more going on here than meets the eye, and it obviously includes some matters of theological principle and not merely the personal failings of any one person (+Murphy) or group of people (the Rwandan HoB).  Among other things, there is the very real element of HUGE cross-cultural communication challenges between Rwanda and the USA.

But I’d be cautious about Robin Jordan’s ultra-Protestant rants and not take them at face value.  As I’ve said more than once here at SF in recent days, I’m convinced that +Muprhy is a pragmatist and he makes no pretense of being much of a theologian.  Now admittedly, I’m speaking only as an outside observer who doesn’t claim to know +Murphy perssonally, but I’ve been watching him in action for years.

To me, +Murphy is typically American in that he tends to be remarkably indifferent to all theoretical discussions that don’t apply directly to his single-minded focus on evangelism and church planting.  I stronly suspect, although I could never prove it, that when it comes to things like church polity (structure) or the theological subdiscipline of ecclesiology, +Murphy is a true pragmatist, whose main concern is simply with what works in practice.  I strongly suspect that when he decided that the time had come to reorganize AMiA formally as a mission society (for whatever reasons, and there were probably several of them), he didn’t bother to investigate those things deeply and in detail but merely delegated them to a trusted advisor with experience in the arcane field of canon law.  Further, I strongly suspect that both he and the Rwandan bishops basically opted to just pull something off the shelf rather than going back to the drawing board and starting from scratch in creating new structures.  Given how emphatically low church and Protestant “Chariman” Murphy has been his whole life, I think it’s absurd to think that he’s suddenly become crypto-catholic.

No, as a pragmatist, he didn’t want to get distracted by such “minor details” as church polity, and he chose not to waste time reinventing the wheel.  So if a Catholic model seemed OK to his trusted advisor, +Murphy was probably fine in going with his recommendation.  I strongly suspect that for +Murphy, matters of church goverance and authority structures, are simply matters of indifference (“adiaphora”).  If so, that’s certainly a very Protestant way of looking at the Church.  And what’s more, it’s not really very Anglican either, but that’s another matter.

I never buy lottery tickets or gamble on horse races, etc.  But if I were a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet a signficant sum that this whole flap over the Catholic nature of the new mission society proposal, or indebtedness of the Rwandan constitution to some RC concepts (like the seven sacraments) really reflects the underlying pragmatism and indifference to matters of polity displayed both by AMiA and perhaps even by the Anglican church in Rwanda (which is predominantly very low church).

Personally, I DON’T think that church polity is a matter of adiaphora at all.  So I’m glad that AMiA is being forced to slow down and approach these important matters more carefully and in a more thoroughly thought through way.  In the end, that should lead to a more balanced and permanently tenable position, one more in keeping with the classic, centrist Anglican position.

David Handy+

It’s just that—for whatever reasons—conservative Anglicans seem to place a high priority on clueless naivete and ignorance.

Sarah, you are correct.  This is precisely why the PB of TEC gets away with receiving a confessed sex offender as a priest.  It’s why people will be willing to follow Chuck Murphy out of any Anglican connections and yet see themselves as the Anglican Mission in America. I am not saying the two are morally equivalent.  They just reflect a common desire to remain clueless about what is happening at the top of an organization. 
I see it in smaller ways all the time.  Rectors blindside vestries and parishes when the come out in favor of SSBs.  Everyone says, “He was such a nice guy.  How can he say that?”  Other rectors use the fact the TEC is not particularly faithful to Christian Doctrine to hide their issues with authority.  Those issues with authority then follow them into the ACNA or AMiA and a church that is struggling because it is meeting in a store front falls apart because they followed someone who refuses to follow anyone.  This is not a statement about everyone who has joined ACNA or AMiA, but there does seem to be a larger problem with this in those bodies.

Hi David+,

Your recent posts are again approaching essay length. If you would like to post essays please consider starting your own blog. Future lengthy essays at SF will be deleted. Thank you.

OK, Matt (#3),

You’re right.  I was getting insufferably verbose.  I’m sorry.  Even worse than any one of the “essay”-length posts by itself, by submitting a whole series of those long comments in short succession I was monopolizing the thread.  And no one likes that kind of rude, boorish behavior in a group conversation, even a digital conversation.  You were right to call me on it, Matt.

I repent.  And because I’ve committed this offense several times in recent days, I think I need to demonstrate genuine amendment of life.

So I will not only cease making any more comments on this thread.  I will also abstain from making any more comments on any other SF thread for at least the remainder of the week (BTW, this decision doesn’t necessarily apply however to T19, where I’m seldom quite as verbose, not sure why).

And having made this public confession, I’ll now go a step further and publicly assign myself an additional act of penance.  Instead of saying a multitude of Our Father’s (or Hail Mary’s), I’ll now repeat to myself 1oo times:

Less is more, less is more, less is more…

Sheepishly,
David Handy+

Well…this did not take long! The continuum allover again! 

not surprised

Seraph

1. Founded by Evangelicals in response to what it saw as the abandonment of the classical Anglicanism in the United States.
2.  Criticisms have also been raised over new canons prepared for Rwanda by the AMiA’s canon lawyer, Dr. Kevin Donlon, that adopted Roman Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental theology in place of the traditional Anglican formularies.

These two statements make no sense to me whatever when taken together.

Someone made the analogy of this being like the breakup of a marriage. I believe a more apt analogy would be that of an older child leaving the family and striking out on his or her own. As most parents can attest, this can be a messy process, and often neither side can agree on the timing or the terms.
Most of us who left TEC saw our residency under the oversight of other Anglican provinces as being temporary and transitional. With that perspective the challenges of distance and different cultures were not only bearable but also exhilarating. We were blessed beyond measure by the new relationships we made and the new ministry opportunities that were opened to us. In most cases our leaders on both sides wisely stressed the temporary nature of this relationship and built in provisions for the eventual reorganization that would take place when a new province was established in North America.
The Anglican Mission’s relationship with Rwanda began years earlier than those of most ACNA churches with their Global South partners, and the connections between the two became much more entwined. It is not surprising that the reorganization, which I believe to be the healthy way forward for all parties, is much messier. The AM mission has matured and wants to venture forth to fulfill its purpose in North America less encumbered by the oversight of a new generation of PEAR leaders half-a-world away. The Rwandan HOB, which, in my opinion, has become much too dependent of the financial provision of AM, is trying to hold onto its child. It is not a pretty sight. It usually isn’t.
My prayer is that in time the wounds would be healed and parent and child would be able to reestablish their relationship on new terms. I also pray that Chairman +Murphy would be on the phone very quickly with Archbishop Duncan to begin planning AM’s reentry into full membership in ACNA.

I also pray that Chairman +Murphy would be on the phone very quickly with Archbishop Duncan to begin planning AM’s reentry into full membership in ACNA.

Once bit twice shy.