A Letter from Former Rwandan Bishops to the AMiA

Matt, you’re so harsh! Read it again and learn that they have a special leading from the Holy Spirit that trumps everything else. 

Seriously, though, you can justify anything if you precede it with a period of discernment and make the claim that the Spirit is leading you independent from the written Word.

Compare this letter that expects loyalty with the Barnum and Glenn letter that simply offered pastoral care.

Correction: Seven bishops, not eight. My mistake when I posted this in comments on another thread. +Murphy did not sign it.

“We apologize for the fallout that you have felt…”

Sounds A LOT like the “I’m sorry that you got offended…” non-apology that marks unrepentance.

I really hope ++Duncan doesn’t make it easy for these guys.

How can bishops expect loyal and obedient clergy under them, if they themselves don’t show loyalty and obedience to the God ordained authority over them?

How can bishops expect loyal and obedient clergy under them, if they themselves don’t show loyalty and obedience to the God ordained authority over them?

These particular bishops have a truckload of explaining to do and also a boatload of contrition and a trainload of repentance and a cargo planeload of remediation.

They resigned from the structure that accorded them episcopal authority. That’s a very big deal.

How does one retain episcopal authority after having done that? IMHO, one does not, and certainly cannot arbitrarily retain said authority and exercise it.

And Bishop Murphy needs to step aside now.

All this stuff because one person got himself in a snit.

Been away for a few days secondary to inclement weather. I am very glad that Archbishop Duncan has written his letter. It is pretty much perfect, saying what needs to be said. It also omits what needs to be omitted: the absence of names of resigning AMiA bishops is loud silence. This lacuna (look that one up!) says that their role is very much in doubt and that they, “the former Rwanda bishops”, need to work to restore right relationship. The onus is on them, and this letter is another swing and a miss.

I think that this is a positive step in many regards, but it does not wrap things up. More repentance is needed, along with some explanation. I too do not trust “the leading of the Spirit” without reference to Scripture and how the Spirit led, along with some of the major facts of the situation and how their actions were principled, biblical responses to that situation. If Rwanda’s current HoB and Archbishop are that different from before, it might be a reason to meet, talk, pray, and come to a common understanding, and not say (as this letter implies) “This was not what we had expected or wanted, so we are leaving.”

It is good first step, but the final step is somewhere down the line.

Some thoughts.

In my opinion, the AM is, in general, and has been such a good story and one of the bright spots in NA Anglicanism - an example of some of what is best in our movement. Some of the specific things I appreciate about the AM:

1) they saw the writing on the wall with TEC earlier. They became the early adapters in stepping out in faith and courage a decade before it became more popular to do so.
2) they have remained doggedly focused on the unchurched in North America - you go to their conferences and you hear the number 130 million again and again because they are focused on the 130 million unchurched in NA.
3) they’ve started a ton of churches
4) they are chock full of godly, gospel-minded people and
5) they have a bishop that likes to wear chucks

If I were the enemy and opposed to the planting of churches and the reaching of the 130M, I’d be pretty happy to see a messy and confusing division.

I’m thankful for the leadership of the HOB in Rwanda. I’m thankful for men like Barnum and Glenn. I’m thankful for men like TJ and Philip and Doc. I’m thankful for the many faithful AMiA / Rwandan laity and clergy. I’m thankful for the leadership of Duncan and ACNA in this.

Bottom line, I believe that a good outcome in all of this is still possible. I’m praying for a good resolution that honors God and all those involved. More than that, I am praying that we do not lose the passion that the AM has had for church planting and the lost. Rather, that this passion would increase in Anglicanism and beyond.

FWIW.

To be clear, I am also thankful for Kallsen and Conger and Kennedy and Galli, etc.

Transparency is a good thing.

If the AMiA bishops acted as arrogantly toward the Rwandan HOB as they appear in the several recent missiles, then it is no wonder the Rwandan HOB tried to exercise their authority over them. Which led to
certain parties getting their knickers in a twist and resigning.
Humility and repentance are necessary
before there is mutual respect and a possibility for reconciliation.

While I welcome this letter as an example of the collective AMiA bishops attempting to communicate openly and clearly and non-defensively (a most welcome chage), the fact remians that thuis letter falls far short of what’s needed.  It shows me that the AMiA bishops are still stuck in denial and just don’t get it.  At least not yet.  But maybe the light is beginning to go on and glow, at least dimly.

I re-emphasize that one key point in this letter that must be firmly grasped is that BOTH sides, the AMiA bishops and the ACNA bishops, have agreed that the goal here is not merely restoring the previous status quo of AMiA going back to Ministry Partner status, but rather the loftier and much harder goal of integrating AMiA fully into the ACNA.

To which I would make two or three basic comments:

1.  That is a noble and proper goal.  I heartily agree with the ACNA (to which I belong) that the overall goal must be the building of a new “bibolical, missionary, and united Anglicanism” for North America.  Nothing less will suffice in the end.

2.  However, the full realization of that goal is probably a LONG way off.  Years down the line in the rather distant future.  I agree with Sarah there.

3.  I think this letter shows that the AMiA bishops still grossly underestimate how drastic are the changes that may be required is AMiA is to rejoin, and be fully intregrated into, the ACNA.  Being “Anglican Lite” is one thing, and it is marginally acceptable as a way of broadening our ability to reach more of North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.  Some folks will buy Bud Lite who would never drink regular beer.  But there comes a point where Anglican identity is so diluted and compromised that a supposedly Anglican form of missionary outreach ceases to be recognizably Anglican at all.  And the sad reality is that this has already happened in AMiA, time after time and in place after place.

Alas, many of us suspect that such a stern stricture applies to all too many AMiA churches and leaders.  I heartily agree with ++Duncan that much about AMiA must become “fully Anglican” before true and worthwhile reunion is possible. 

Bottom line: I’m not yet assured that the AMiA bishops will be willing to pay that high price.  They refused to be held accountable by the Rwandan HoB.  I’m not at all sure they’ve learned their lesson yet and will be willing to be held accountable by the ACNA College of Bishops.  But we will see.  Hope springs eternal, and comes naturally to Christians, who believe, along with the archangel Gabriel, that “Nothing is impossible with God.”

David Handy+

+Murphy didn’t sign (???) and Bishop Terrell Glenn is reconciled with +Murphy.  Maybe we have a +Glenn +Murphy alliance poised to lead the new Mission Society.  Better to split the “pot” 2 ways rather than 10 (or is it 12 or is it 16 or whatever) ways.

Follow the Money.  The more I hear about this, the more believe that the Tithe $$$$$ are running the show.

Again, +Duncan would be crazy to buy into this mess.  Go after the parishes directly and forget this rat pack of Bishops.  (I mean 160 parishes, 12 Bishops - you gotta be kidding)

11 - +Terrell Glenn didn’t sign because he is representing a different part of what was once AMIA than are the rest of the bishops who went with +Murphy.  +Glenn and +Barnum are representing those still under Rwanda who either wish to remain there (+Barnum) or who are looking to join ACNA separately from whatever might happen to the Murphy group.  +Murphy is an entirely different situation. 

As to the number of bishops your criticism might be justified, but when a bishop is also a parish leader and when your churches are spread across thousands of miles it is hard for bishops to get to us all for confirmations etc.  You need to pay more attention to the geography and less to the number of churches.  Bishop Jones, for example had churches in several states (Ar, Tx, La, Tenn, Miss, Missouri, etc.).

As St John Chrysostom put it, schism is a sin so great that even the blood of subsequent martyrdom will not wash it away.

This letter certainly stands in pretty sharp contrast to the letter ++Duncan issued from the ACNA.  I hope I am wrong, but on a surface reading it appears this situation may be more a matter of trying to gloss over the differences rather than taking the more painful, but all the more necessary steps to fully establish reconciliation.

I can’t see a meaningful reconciliation without the AMIA, Inc. Bishops submitting to the Rwandan HOB, even if it’s a negotiated settlement where after they submit, PEAR gives them leave to go.  Anything less makes the vows they took essentially meaningless.

12 - just for clarification.  We have +Murphy who is a “different situation”. +Glenn who is a “different part of AMiA”, +Glenn and +Barnum “representing those still under Rwanda” and the balance (numbers uncertain) who have “put all on the table” and are willing to talk to +Duncan.
Does anyone know the corporate status of any of these folks.  I would assume +Murphy is Chairman or President of AMiA Inc.  The rest, presumably, are Vice-Presidents.  If +Murphy, as President of AMiA Inc. didn’t sign, then how/where do the others get their authority to negiotiate for AmiA Inc.  What exactly can they “put on the table”.

This is pretty confusing.  Looks like +Murphy said “go to Pittsburg and see what kind of deal you can get”.  I’ll hold back - as President I have the final say anyway.

Sorry to be so critical but - - -

It would, as Robert Jordan says, be nice to see the AMiA Inc. corporate documents.

The letter itself has a few problems IMHO, but I think what I find more troubling is that Bp. Loomis is saying, “please allow us to proceed in this without further criticism”  (Ahh, more silence) and “do not be too hard on us, Matt . . .”  IS this designed to be a cruel joke?  Is he actually serious and put that in to writing?  I find those statements to be really bizarre.

If they wrote this letter after having been in Pittsburgh, then it’s likely that “fully Anglican,” means being plugged into the ACNA, and not so much genuinely asking for forgiveness. 

I fully expect that I will get words of encouragement from my bishop and my rector, telling me to welcome these guys into the fold with open arms. 

I suggest we all sit down and think of a few sweet-nothings we can say about the RoboBishops when we are inevitably asked, “So, what do YOU think about all of this.”  Because we best speak the company line. 

I’m middle-aged.  My days of swimming upstream are over. 

Damn.  It was a brief run.

Matt,
Although only a “one point Calvinist”; I most surely agree with your characterization of this “apology”.  Long ago when our children were small, we taught them the difference between remorse and repentance.  If we didn’t see repentance in their countenances or speech, we assumed that they were merely remorseful over being caught out.  Judgment has fallen hard on the house of American Episcopalianism/Anglicanism.

[18] carl+

Although only a “one point Calvinist”...

*Gasp!* 
...
Turn in your nick, Good Sir!  You are not worthy of it.

carl

In Rwanda there has been significant change in the House of Bishops over the past two years as a result of the election of a new Primate and several new members to that House. It appears to have been their desire to transition our partnership toward a leadership model that would allow this newly constituted House to exercise much greater control over the day-to-day operations and direction of the Anglican Mission,

In this whole sorted affair, finally, I think the root issue may have come out.

I think the much over the last two months has been a cup d’etat of a certain faction with a manufacture narrative which has not developed naturally and some so-called journalist who not been suspect of their sources and broadcast that narrative, some leaked documents support it, one actually works against them (though I suspect it was leaked by the one faction to prove their point). +Murphy must be very predictable for it played out he resigns as “Primatial Vicar,” (which this faction may have desired looking at the material and venom some held, in government employee circles its called “upward managing”) but not CEO of AMiA (which may be a ringer no one counted on). 

Quick recap - AU16 breaks the story of this meeting, then supported by the Washington Statement, AU17 reveals Conger+ is fact checking the day of the start of said meeting (thus red-flag for a set up) with all the talking points ‘confirmed’ from the Washington Statement. Two SFIF comments say Washington Statement is not a faithful representation of that meeting, one who had a friend but could not comment not having permission and zero in support. Most AMiA on SFIF are PEAR-loyal but in confused agony on what is going on, except for one commenter who seems to have all the facts, which was the exact same narrative as the Washington Statement, who was sugar sweet if you accepted his narrative, but attack dog if mere slightest question also seemed very confused told when June bishops’ letters disproved his point (went on to give over the top charges of Viet Cong then degraded to school yard bully tactics). All the above I see as flags to someone trying to control the narrative to outright manipulation of the narrative.

Contents of Washington Statement were three basic charges: 1)PEAR has Romanish cannon; 2) Money “10/10/10” and questions of financial impropriety; 3) Missionary Society is tearing us from Rwanda. First one AnglicanAblaze written extensive and seems proven true, but ironically not applicable for two bishops with PEAR are still under said Romanish cannons and other eight are not. Second point there was a press release, albeit about a month after it would have been best and SO MUCH print has been written, but actually the June bishops letter back up +Murphy’s narrative not the Washington Statement, anyways a simple independent audit will put this one to bed (I think it was the crux of the one narrative, so much one commenter kept returning to it). Finally the “Missionary Society” by the letter above did not have to separate from Rwanda, but considering the current ecclesiastical canonical chaos, maybe not a bad idea, though a “Missionary Diocese” would also be valid model. Some 1 true, but N/A, 1 press released disputed and bishops letter proven false merely needs certification and 1 sort of true but a misrepresentation, though that could be a lack of understanding (thinking they were conically sound). Two months down the road, I’m not seeing said document as contributing much to today’s discussions.

Having an ear in the flip-flop-flip of one Archbishop comes, +Murphy repent or resign. ‘I repent of two things said, I can not repent of that I’m not guilty, BTW, I’m not renouncing and your canons can’t depose me.’ So because of the above mentioned ecclesiastical canonical chaos, +Murphy and the other bishops are inactive bishops in good standing inside the Anglican Communion, via ironically, Rwanda until deposed, parishes still with priest canonically in PEAR, parish with US 501c3 AMiA Inc, with a future decision, thus not really a schism. Only because of the messed up ecclesiology, still a story of brokenness, rebellion and poor example of “high calling” of clergy on both sides of this issue.

———-
That’s how I see this story so far ... a MESS ...

More or less, much print but maybe not core issues directly stated so much going in circles.
———-

Back to the quote for it’s the first bit of helpful NEW revelation, but raises important questions.

This seems to be the root issue of actions which set off on group in one direction and another in a different direction, with much organization dysfunction and human sin escalating to where we are today. One seeking originally it seems a firewall and other seeing it as leaving, ultimately may have done things that made it a self-fulling prophesy. 

What were those “interferences” in day to day operations? Were they acceptable inside Anglican norms (meaning the past, CoN with CANA or TEC in Europe or Haiti)?

If it is a point of preference, I believe I’m called to submit, only a point of conscience than not. If claiming the later, how so? What is the justification?

Folks.. I fail to understand the purpose that all this commentary serves… We we there? Do we REALLY know the hearts we seem so willing to accuse?  I submit that the Anglican diaspora in N. America would be a lot better served with a lot less “speck finding” in our brother’s eyes, and a lot more “mote finding” in our own…

[19] carl, thank goodness (my congregation certainly does!) that Article 26 does not specify the source of “unworthiness”.  Especially since the one point I accept fully is - total depravity.
Blessings,

#21- If you fail to see the purpose the commentary serves, why comment?  And please don’t use the passive-aggressive “we”- you are clearly NOT including yourself in that “we”.

What I hear us (myself included) saying is that there are blatant and obvious violations of church order that so far go unexplained- and we find this really confusing- since the bishops responsible were the last people we expected to do what they did.  The Rwandan HoB began by asking fairly elementary questions about where the money went, that remain unanswered.  Somehow, this escalated into a resignation of several US bishops, who apparently intend to continue in a pastoral role over parishes despite their resignations, based upon a corporate charter of an Illinois corporation doing business in S Carolina.  Which seems a really strange way to run a Church, and one that requires some explanation.  The DIVISION is NOT some idle blog speculation, it is fact.  We want to know WHY it happened.

The Anglican blogosphere would calm down in a hurry if someone came along with a rational explanation for why everything happened as it did, and what steps are being taken to discipline the bishops who broke with Rwanda, and restore the Church.

What it comes down to is why would “we” cut “our” bishops slack on this while still holding the Archbishop of Canterbury to account for reneging on the Dar communique and the Windsor Report?

This is a very positive step.  Congrats to AMiA Council of Bishops for communicating with the rest of AMiA.  This is new to them and they will get better at it.

I expect there will be a meeting of the AMiA Council of Bishops the House of Bishops of Rwanda.  This is where the real work of reconciliation will take place, and where it should take place.

</SNARK MODE ON:

Carl+ (whatever that sanctimonious little plus sign signals is up for debate IMHO) - Apparently you feel led to speak for everyone else, myself excepted, and while I am sure you may feel frustrated and potentially “outraged” over the issues at hand.. ask yourself these questions..
“How much “accountability” have you seen evidenced over the last 40 years by ANYONE in the ecclesiastical hierarchy?
And why do you expect that pattern of behavior to change now?
What level of “accountability” do YOU feel is required to satisfy YOUR idea of what “THE CHURCH” SHOULD be doing?
And where do you get off presuming to sit in judgement?
It’s my opinion that opinions are like *ssholes, everyone has one, and they all stink…

WE are all sinners, no more and no less than the Bishops and Ecclesiastical governments under discussion. The whole world is broken and fallen, including the church… get over it.
SNARK MODE OFF\>

[25] Dear Soundbytes,
As to everyone being sinners - see my post 22 - I have no (little?) illusion about myself.
I leave judgment to the Lord.  However, it is not presumption to note that remorse and repentance are different - especially if you are in the uncomfortable position many clergy are in of having to (re)evaluate the important relationship they have (had?) with their bishop from “appearances”.  I say appearances because the underlying facts of the situation, to which most are not privy, are in contention.  While I’m not directly affected by this “disorder”, my AMiA clergy friends are; these are difficult times for them and their congregations.  It is not unreasonable to ask if these difficulties could have been “avoided” - hence the need for transparency and truth telling.
Nothing in my post indicates that I meant to speak for anyone other than myself.  I am not outraged or even much surprised, as much as I am saddened.

Huh?

All opinions stink?

What a bizarre notion—one that I cannot comprehend.

At any rate, this thread is not about the evils of opinions, or of sharing opinions.  This thread is about a topic titled “A Letter from Former Rwandan Bishops to the AMiA.”

Please everyone get back onto the topic.

Thanks.

Carl+ - My apologies.

My comments were meant to be directed toward #23 tjmcmahon.
Having said that, if it’s not facts we’re discussing, its opinion… and most of the discussion seems to be just that…

HRH QE II has a wonderful saying about conversation…“Facts, not chat”

Soundbytes -
I think I understand your frustration with accountability issues in the various hierarchies we’ve experienced, but, speaking for myself, the challenge of getting clear information from superiors who are making some pretty big changes is one I can’t dismiss. A few hours ago I participated in a teleconference with the AMiA bishop I’ve been reporting to since 2008 and I’m still not clear on the reasons why he and several other bishops I’ve grown to know and respect made the decisions they’ve made. The best I’ve got is that the new Rwandan HoB was not inclined to support the kind of mission society Bp. Murphy and at least some of the other AM bishops believed the Holy Spirit was calling them to form. Exactly how that conflict manifested is still something I don’t know and I think it would be helpful to have a definitive version of those events to help me guide my own parish through this mess. I think that the conciliatory tone of the letter above is a helpful start, but I really do need those blanks to be filled in.

To cut to the chase, here’s the question I’d really like answered: Did the AM bishops come together to carefully consider the position of the Rwandans, compare it to the form and mission of the proposed mission society and regretfully decide that the Holy Spirit’s guiding couldn’t possibly be followed while in relation to Rwanda, or did Bp. Murphy lose his temper, quit, and place the AM bishops in the difficult position of following him or honoring the connection to Rwanda, while simultaneously having to justify after the fact what was essentially an emotional decision?

Craig+

The good bishops seem to forget that ECUSA claimed they were following a new leading of the spirit also. 

Evidently the acorn does not fall far from the tree.

RE: “the kind of mission society Bp. Murphy and at least some of the other AM bishops believed the Holy Spirit was calling them to form . . . “

And “the kind of mission society” envisioned for the future seems to have been one that did not wish to be accountable to the oversight of the Rwandan province, including its Primate and House of Bishops.

The Holy Spirit is Never the author of schism…any claims to the contrary arise from a very different source.

So how does that square with the Reformation, Matt?

Pretty easily Nikolaus…since Rome was and remains in doctrinal error with regard to Justification, the authority of Scripture vis a vis the Church, the sole mediatorial office of Christ, and the nature of the sacraments.

But since this thread is not about the doctrinal dispute between Rome and the Reformers but about the non-doctrinal departure of +Murphy et al from a body he acknowledges as orthodox—your comment is off topic.

This is your one warning

The Reformation was a split over fundamental Christian doctrine. This is a schism over money and power. The difference is huge. The pneumatic heresy in question -attributing one’s actions to the moving of the Holy Spirit- is the same pneumatic heresy of Mrs Schori and her friends.

Thank you Senior Priest.  I appreciate the response.

[29] Craig+  You ask

To cut to the chase, here’s the question I’d really like answered: Did the AM bishops come together to carefully consider the position of the Rwandans, compare it to the form and mission of the proposed mission society and regretfully decide that the Holy Spirit’s guiding couldn’t possibly be followed while in relation to Rwanda, or did Bp. Murphy lose his temper, quit, and place the AM bishops in the difficult position of following him or honoring the connection to Rwanda, while simultaneously having to justify after the fact what was essentially an emotional decision?

I have no privy info, but when I read the letter of resignation +Murphy wrote to Rwanda I was certain he had not consulted with the other bishops on the details of the letter.  I cannot believe that the use of Exodus was signed off by all of them. Not a chance.

This gives me the impression that the Bishops who are with +Murphy are loyal followers. 

Now it seems that these same Bishops are moving out of the shadow and working towards a God honoring solution to this mess that brings reconciliation and healing.

I don’t know if this is universal, but the reports I get from friends in AMIA parishes is that the explanations given for what is happening are far from satisfying, and the congregations are baffled.  In these instances, Rectors are affirming the right of parishes to choose which path they may go, while telling the Parish that they have already made the decision for themselves, which essentially gives the parish no choice.

Well the parishes have a choice.  If the Rector has made a personal decision, and if the parish wants to retain him/her then the Parish will have to follow at least for a while.

But you can always terminate the Rectors contract of you don’t like the affiliation.  Happens all the time.

[28] Apology accepted Soundbytes.

Although I don’t know Craig+ [29] - with few exceptions, I believe he represents the “position” of AMiA clergy.

# 31 Sarah - and might NOT have a committment to send a tithe to Rwanda.

I continue to believe that the $1.3M/year became a sore point for +Murphy, especially if the new Rwandan leadership did not seem appropriately grateful, and the proposed change in status could/would be an excuse/cover to re-work the $$$$$.

As Ross Perot said - follow the money !!

Something about this has been bugging me a while now.  When Amnon was about to force himself on his sister, she basically told him that he’d get everything he wanted, even if it was coloring outside of the lines, if he went before the proper authority.  Amnon didn’t.  He didn’t love his sister that way. 

Contrast that to Shechem, who basically did the same thing, but was willing to color inside the lines, per the proper authority.  He in fact, did love Dinah, unlike Amnon. 

These bishops would have gotten everything they wanted - if they went slower, and went through the proper channels. 

It wasn’t out of love, then.  It isn’t out of love now. 

And just think - these “elders” who thumbed their nose at their elders, are likely to be made our elders.  So that it can all be “fully Anglican.”

Yeah, yeah.  Do as they say..

ALREADY-GONE

[41] The money thing is a red herring, in fact it seems to been what one side tried to use so strongly that it ended up exposing their lies {willful & purposely manipulation of the facts} when, not obviously having an accounting background, released {no proof, but the only other primary source document not from a few week period, which did support their case, so suspect it was them} actually submarined their narrative, making the other side case. A simple audit should clear it up, and for those not in numbers for a living, audits of this sort would not be a big deal, merely verifying the numbers - not like an IRS audit (we think you’re hiding money, prove you’re not) or find the missing money, but someone independent verifies the press release numbers (which are in line with usual practices to have someone pull out numbers from Peach Tree or Quickbooks and make a spread sheet - no great suspicion from those who work with number). Besides they are members of ECFA, which means if you truly suspect there is recourse else you’re going to have to build a theory that accuses them too.

Money does strike at emotions. Bible uses money to make many of its points. I watched someone try to takeover another’s ministry to Ukrainian Orphans and just about got two of the flagship Northern Virginia parishes in violation of IRS rules (collecting designated funds with no means of delivering) a year before a historic vote, all is well that ends well and that bomb defused - the vehicle she used, the one who started the ministry used a Canadian NGO, not a US one therefore no 990 ... oooohh suspicious ... the claim of finial impropriety sucked me in for a while until I blew the whistle.

It may be a motivator here (why PEAR wants more control or why people don’t trust each other) but I don’t think you’ll find it root issue in this mess as some would like to claim, if so it actually the easiest one to prove one way or another, verse who said what when type of stuff.

—

[39] “But you can always terminate the Rectors contract of you don’t like the affiliation.  Happens all the time.”

Sounds like you don’t know the AMiA I knew. First off there no set parish by-law, so what I am going to write only applies to RewDC parishes. The “parish council” is not quite like a “vestry,” while there are by-laws on how to deal with getting rid of a priest, it is not easy, also the “parish council” is filled with “yes men/women” in that those nominated are done via a committee with clergy input and given to the congregation in straight “yes/no” vote on a one to one basis, so no voting for the best two out of five. Even the position of senior warden is chosen by priest, not vote inside the vestry. So you end up with a weak council who less likely to challenge the priest.

Second is information. One member who attends the very same parish of the blogger who released the Washington Statement found out about it when the article appeared in Christianity Today according to Facebook (also of my friends in all three of the parishes, none except said blogger is really involved in any of the forms, none list anything on their “status)” On Dec. 4 Capital Hill parish held a congregational meeting where the “parish council” was bring folks up to speed and Ascension on Dec. 9. So long after they signed their names to letters and this ball had been rolling. Contrast with Truro and TFC during ‘03-‘06, there were prep meeting before the rectors went to GC03 & GC06, meeting afterwards, or WR release, “Forty Days of Discernment”—much higher level of communication .

I do not know if you’re in AMiA or not but your post about “happens all the time” does not seem to describe the plants I was in. Maybe like other issues, those who COME to AMiA have a different ethos than those PLANTED by AMiA, but pew peons where I was at barely knew what was going on much less able to challenge leadership (we won’t even go there, that title authority was a huge deal).

Did the AM bishops come together to carefully consider the position of the Rwandans, compare it to the form and mission of the proposed mission society and regretfully decide that the Holy Spirit’s guiding couldn’t possibly be followed while in relation to Rwanda, or did Bp. Murphy lose his temper, quit, and place the AM bishops in the difficult position of following him or honoring the connection to Rwanda, while simultaneously having to justify after the fact what was essentially an emotional decision?

We’ve now gone through several days since the AMiA Mess transpired.

Desirous of helpful, healing, direction oriented communication, AMiA clergy have stood by prayerfully awaiting clarity on every level. We have instead received regret language asking us to bear with AMiA leadership for a while longer yet, along with the nebulous semi-hope of seeing visions of ACNA dancing in our heads and things put back together with/by/for the same leaders who got us into this mess in the first place.  Why do I sense that we AMiA clergy are about to hear one of the great sales pitches of the decade (probably coinciding with Winter Conference)?

#43 then withhold YOUR money.  I’ve never ever seem a priest who will continure very long if he/she does not get paid.  Of course, if you have wealthy folks on the Parish Council, then things get sticky . . .

that title authority was a huge deal

This continues to be my experience.  Upon reflection, I see the authority thang prevalent at the parish level, too.  It tends to go like this: If I have a title/authority/seniority that exceeds yours in any way, you must do what I say without any question; however, I AM grateful that we discussed your concerns.  Do these leaders know what servant leadership is versus leadership by fiat/decree?

My longsuffering wife and I expended a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears in the process of my ordination to the priesthood.  So we could be mistreated at the early stages by leadership??

So we could be mistreated at the early stages by leadership??

Hmmm, I wonder what Jesus had to say and what example he set???

Well, not only do all my friends (including a few grad of seminary) said, “well, he lost the argument already if he’s going for appeal to tile,” my Baptist friends, “ooooh, he’d be vote out ... that’s a lack of humility” but Jesus did expressly forbid it (Matt 20:25-28, Luke 22:25-27). So He, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, actually condescended to our level to deal with a really rotten, troublesome group of people, look at his friends, they don’t get it half the time and the reason we have these verse it THEY were so concern about title authority.  Jesus lead like a NCO, a Sargent, follow me. When He commanded me to do something, it is NOTHING he has not already done or been willing to do, I am without excuse. So I look at his beaten and bloody backside, carrying the Cross when he commands me to pick up my cross and follow Him.

St. Paul, “imitate me as I imitate Christ.” Even with his most troublesome Church in Corinth, he has unique appeals. They must have given him fits, but his root appeals, while referencing title authority of Apostle, actually are not based on his title, he instead appeals to “clout authority.”

Jesus has been so VERY kind and after this experience, lead me to place backwater place (so hope it not going to be a future commentary on SFIF, like Truro, TFC or RenewDC parishes—which I can provide an inside perspective, but at the time dealing with forgiveness issues for stuff that when on—I really hope it remains “boring”) with a priest who is really easy to submit to his authority. First, he is submitted, being a convert Baptist, he off trying to be more Anglican than the ABC, which is very different than non-Anglican who got a job in an AMiA parish—I really disagree with him on so many trivial point, but don’t care because its obvious he’s trying. Second is he trades “title authority” for “clout authority” all the time. He can speak into my life about just about anything because my defenses are down and I actually want to not burden him.

Also, I noticed those who appealed to “title” authority often tried to be the Third Person of the Trinity. While what they said may have been true, it was not empowered by the Holy Spirit, for it was not the issue we been working on. In the end both priest and parishioner were frustrated and annoyed. I know that accusation of my harden heart must not be true because during this time other friends could say a single sentence and it was like the Holy Spirit whacked my head with a 2X4. Oddly, those empowered friends, never remember saying the sentences that held the power.

So Long/Short AR ... well, I guess this is part of the DNA that if AMiA totally disappeared, I would cry. You all have done so much good. Off-line was a testimony of ten highs-choolers coming to faith in Jesus (which I replied maybe why he’s had as much grief as he had, Satan is probably pist at him). Yet, this lack of humility many SFIF cmmeters accuse +Murphy, well, he may have set the “corporate culture” and not pervasive and maybe just why the dysfunction and mistrust that lead to today?! So, no, I am not impressed by title authority, TEC bishops used that and just because your “orthodox” does not mean you can not have “orthopraxy.”

Lead like Jesus lead. Come on, He did even reveal Himself until the mid-point of the Gospel of Mark, even then by asking “who do you say I am?”

#47— I wound NOT cry! 

I am 100% committed to the ACNA, having worked toward that goal since 2003, and I have to say that I am sick about what has happened to the AMiA.  It is time to settle things.  Do it.

The sadness is that so many bible believing Orthodox Christians are having to debate once more whether to leave or stay an entity that promised them shelter in the storm when they should be preparing to celebrate the birth of our Lord!

#50. billqs,

The sadness is that so many bible believing Orthodox Christians are having to debate once more whether to leave or stay an entity that promised them shelter in the storm when they should be preparing to celebrate the birth of our Lord!

This is in part the result of Protestant DNA.

This is in part the result of Protestant DNA.

I’m sure there are many opinions on that. I think it runs deeper, to our sin nature, even after regeneration, we still show our sin. Easter always was my favorite Holy Days, one day the “double cure” will be tangible in my life.

Breaking development:

http://anglicanink.com/article/christmas-greeting-province-rwanda and some correspondence I received this afternoon are making things really very interesting.  Aslan must be on the move…

Oh! for a true walk on the path of holiness.  It is not only the bishops.  Our local AMiA church will have no services on December 25th and January 1—only a Christmas party on a date in between.  Mass cancelled for a party.  Moreover the men’s group will have a poker party for one of their upcoming meetings.  American culture?  The bishops do what they want to do and the local priest does what he wants to do.  What happened to God’s culture of holiness?

Our local AMiA church will have two Christmas Eve services, a Christmas day service (Dec. 25) and a Holy Name service (Jan. 1).  We will also have MP and Eucharist services at 7 am for St Stephen (Dec. 26), St. John the Evangelist (Dec. 27) and Holy Innocents (Dec. 28).  Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer will take place as usual on the other days between Christmas and New Year’s.  Men’s and Women’s Bible studies are taking the week off though.

Thanks for the link AR at #53.

I wonder is this one of the meetings that the Gafcon leadership were talking about last year? They planned to hold meetings in USA jointly with orthodox non-Anglican churches to protest against the GLBT agenda (if I remember rightly?).

Also, happy Christmas everyone!

25 December 2011 The Feast of the Nativity, or the Birthday of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day.
9:30 AM Morning Prayer, Athanasian Creed, Eucharist, Christmas carols.

1 January 2012 Circumcision of Christ
9:30 AM Holy Eucharist, Nicene Creed (filioque), Christmas Carols.

6 January 2012 Epiphany
7:00 PM Twelfth Night, Holy Eucharist

8 January 2012 Epiphany 1
9:30 AM Holy Eucharist

Ya’ll come.

MichaelA (#56),

I believe this is a different meeting, but with all the information turbulence that’s flown through my radar the past 3 weeks I cannot be sure.

Happy Christmas all!
AR+

... transition our partnership toward a leadership model that would allow this newly constituted House to exercise much greater control over the day-to-day operations and direction of the Anglican Mission, moving in a direction that is inconsistent with anything that had been fully discussed or engaged in over the past thirteen years.

In other words, it’s all about money…

breaking news… How is it that Doc Loomis points to Bishop Alexis as the devil incarnate in private while saying here on SFIF that he wants to ‘reconcile’ with the Rwandans.
For everyone who has heard Doc’s privated rants against the Rwandans. The following news item shall be enlightening. How is it that a Bishop (Alexis) who has a reputation for being bad with money, lacks the respect of his peers, is a tyrant who ‘hijaacked’ the Rwandan House of Bishops has been elected by 23 major protestant churches and Christian organizations in Rwanda to be the President of a national council of churches that prides itself on promoting reconciliation, financial transparency, and Christianity unity. Just asking. Does Doc Loomis try to justify the actions of rogue bishops by attacking and discrediting Africans who aren’t here to defend themselves… or lets just hope he is misinformed.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15362#.Tvtz-SNSR1M

Barbara (#55),

I was there at “Rez” for the fun early Christmas Eve (family) service.  I would’ve loved to come back for the later (more dignified) Christ Mass, but spending time with my kids and grandkids was a higher priority.  Likewise I would’ve also loved to be there for the 7 am services on the 26th and 27th, but the same family factor kept me back.  We only had four days in Chicago on this whirlwind trip.  Maybe next time…

However, you can be assured that I’m praying for the leaders of Rez as you go through this “season of grief, uncertainty, and confusion” regarding the turmoil and mess in AMiA (to echo the language in +Barnam’s and +Glenn’s Christmas letter).  I know that real submission and accountability to one’s overseers and colleagues in ministry is very important to Fr. Stewart (Ruch, the rector), and rightly so.  I didn’t get a chance to talk with him, but I’d imagine that he’s very upset at how the majority of AMiA bishops have utterly failed in that department.  As I said in my #31 above, I’m waiting to see if +Murphy and the eight bishops following him into the ecclesiastical wilderness will demonstrate a new willingness to show the kind of deference to godly authority that Fr. Stewart does.  This letter doesn’t give me much hope that they’ve come to their senses yet, but time will tell.

In the meantime I can only say that I wish a LOT more AMiA churches were fully Anglican like Rez.

David Handy+

AR (#53),

Thanks for providing the link in your #53 to that brief but hopeful letter from bishops Barnam and Glenn.  It will be interesting to see how many AMiA leaders show up at the Winter Conference in Houston Jan. 11-14, and how many show up in Raleigh Jan. 16-18, and how many just stay home and don’t go to either event.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if lots just stay home and wait for the dust to settle.

David Handy+

David Handy (+) // What does “fully Anglican” mean from your perspective..?  ~ Just curious

theophorus (#60),

Thanks to you also for the link about the election of +Alexis as the head of the ecumenical Council in Rwanda.  I also appreciate how you’ve pointed out elsewhere that the “Dean” of PEAR has a sterling reputation for his courage and integrity as the only Tutu bishop in the Rwanda HoB and one who bravely stayed in the country (at great risk) during the horrible genocide back in 1994. 

It is certainly ironic that +Murphy and the Pawley’s Island PR staff have made such a bid deal out of the high turnover within the Rwandan HoB since the formation of AMiA back in AD 2000, and implied that a key reason for the “Exodus” out of Rwandan oversight is due to the rise of a “Pharoah who knew not Joseph,” when in actuality +Alexis is precisely one of the few (2) active bishops who does in fact go back to those early pioneer days.  This article points out helpfully that the Dean of the Rwanda HoB is a position that normally goes automatically to the senior, long-serving bishop.  In that light, it has to make you wonder if +Alexis has been so persistent in pursuing the matter of clearing up the murky situation about AMiA’s tithe to Rwanda NOT because he “knew not Joseph”/+Murphy, but rather, his pushback may have been precisely because he DID know +Murphy, and perhaps in some ways knew him and his Lone Ranger style all too well.

But I must say that, from my perspective as an outsider with no personal knowledge of the AMiA bishops, the kind of mud defensively slung at the Rwanda HoB by some AMiA leaders is one of the worst aspects of this whole mess.  It reeks of desperation and a foolish “shoot the messenger” mentality.

Thanks again for helping shed some light on this whole murky mess, theophorus.  Please keep it up.

David Handy+

“...as the only Tutu bishop in the Rwanda HoB ...”

I think you might mean Hutu bishop. Unless you mean that the good bishop has taken to a new standard of robes involving layers of tulle netting, stiffening, and a closely-fitted bodice, in which case I apologise for my error.  :o)

soundbytes (#63),

I addressed that on another related thread (not sure which one now, but it was in conversation with Canon Neal Mitchell of Dallas).  As I’ve mentioned repeatedly in recent weeks, I’m afraid that in all too many cases, AMiA churches (and even bishops) seem to me to be “Anglican Lite,” i.e., a pretty diluted form of Anglicanism that is often much more evangelical than truly Anglican.

For example, the AMiA congregation I currently attend (for lack of a good, healthy ACNA parish in my area) takes LOTS of liberties with the liturgy, toning down the catholic element and making the service seem not only more casual (informal isn’t necessarily bad), but almost Presbyterian or even Baptist-like.  For instance, the priest seldom wears vestments (he prefers to just wear his black shirt and clergy collar), often chooses readings that aren’t in the lectionary (any Anglican form), and not least, he always chooses to substitute the lay form of absolution for the priestly one after the confession of sins on Sundays (i.e., “Almighty God have mercy on US, forgive US all OUR sins…etc., instead of using “you”).  That kind of thing is very Puritan and unAnglican (IMHO).  LIkewise, +Murphy styling himslf the “Chairman” of AMiA.  And it’s certainly highly symptomatic that a former Vineyard leader like Todd Hunter could be appointed a bishop in AMiA when he’s so new to Anglicanism and still seems not to fully understand the distinctive Anglican ethos.

Now I grant that a reasonable case can be made that when you’re trying to reach lost, unchurched people in a highly Protestant area like Richmond where I live, which is predominantly Southern Baptist territory, it’s a reasonable strategy to adjust your approach to fit your social environment.  But there are LOTS of generic evangelical Protestant groups starting new churches in Richmond and its suburbs.  From my point of view, if you’re going to be Anglican at all, why not go all the way and be fully and authentically Anglican??

My concern ever since this crisis erupted is that there seems to be a grave danger that +Murphy is taking those following his lead into an ecclesiastical No Man’s Land, outside of any meaningful connection with one of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion, a spiritual wilderness where AMiA could wander for years and where AMiA is apt to become less and less Anglican as time goes by.  I fear that +Murphy’s trajectory will further dilute the already weak Anglican identity of AMiA.

Now I freely admit that this wouldn’t be the end of the world.  His group will still be leading lost people to saving faith in Christ and planting new churches that will extend the Kingdom of God, and that’s the most important thing.  But unfortunately, the less Anglican that AMiA becomes, the less it will contribute to the rebirth of orthodox Anglicanism on this continent.

I’m not against being innovative and creative.  I’m in fact all for communicating the unchanging Gospel in fresh new ways to an ever changing world.  It’s not, for example, that I oppose calling dioceses “networks,” and organizing them on the basis of personal or theological affinity rather than geography.  We have non-geographical dioceses in the ACNA too.  But being non-geographical is one thing; being non-synodical is quite another.  In Anglicanism, we’ve always been “epsicopaly led, but synodically governed.”  It has been a profound and disturbing shock for me to discover, to my dismay, that the AMiA networks that I’d assumed were like dioceses are actually not synodical at all.  That is, they don’t make any real decisions as a synod or council about matters of their common life as a network.  Instead, all decision making within AMiA is concentrated in one man (+Murphy, the former Provincial Vicar) and exercised in a very top-down, command style (much like the military, or the business world).  That’s not just undemocratic, it’s downright unAnglican.

I strongly suspect that the non-synodical nature of AMiA networks is a key factor behind ++Duncan’s language in his letter openly warning that AMiA’s “leadership, relationships, and (not least) jurisdictional participation” must become “fully Anglican” before AMiA can be folded back into the ACNA.

David Handy+

Touche, MichaelA (#65).

Nice catch, and a witty reply to my foolish mistake.  You’re right, of course, about the silly Tutu part.  However, I actually meant he’s a Tutsi.  Just one of my numerous typo’s, for which I’m notorious. 

FWIW, the Tutsi’s, although a minority of the population in Rwanda, have traditionally had a virtual monopoly on many high positions in the government, in education, in the business world, etc.  The majority Hutu’s, however, were relegated to the dregs at the bottom of the social and economic ladder.  Hence the brutal revenge exacted by Hutu’s against the Tutsi’s in the terrible genocide of 1994.

Ugh, I really am going to have to learn to proofread much more carefully before hitting the “Submit” button.  Maybe I’ll make that a New Year’s Resolution for 2012.

OTOH, that would deprive SF readers of some of my more amusing flubs.  For example, as a Sydney guy, Michael, you’d probably have gotten a kick out of one of my more embarrassing flubs lately.  On a thread that David Ould started, I made a reference to my appreciation for the scholarly work of some of the NT faculty at Moore Theological College despite the fact that we differ so dramatically on the evangelical to catholic specturm in theology.  And I mentioned by name David Peterson and, hem, “Peter O’Toole.”  Of course, I had Peter O’Brien in mind, but somehow the famous actor popped into my head instead (probably because I’d recently seen a movie that he starred in with Audrey Hepburn, “How to Steal a Million.”  Fortunately, David Ould was as kind and gentle in his teasing me about that hilarious slip as you just were above.  I appreciate that, Michael.

David Handy+

In the meantime I can only say that I wish a LOT more AMiA churches were fully Anglican

Amen!

I think it would be useful if ++Duncan would flesh out what he means by “fully Anglican”. I’m not sure there is 100% overlap between NRA and ++Duncan on the meaning of that phrase. Personally, I think the ACNA is still in the process of fleshing out this term and hopefully it will be reflected in the Prayer Book, liturgy and catechism being developed. At this point many ACNA parishoners can only identify themselves as “Not TEC Anglicans”.

My guess is that “fully Anglican” means “not reporting to a self appointed college of former Archbishops.” See:
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/iv-amia-upheaval-a-changing-course/

Hi Fr. Dale,

If past behavior predicts future behavior, “fully Anglican,” is any Anglican-like organization that sure as Shanghai ain’t universalist or homosexualist.  To assimilate such folks into the ACNA can only bring us closer to our mandate of so many more parishes by such-and-such a date. 

We conservatives must not get sucked into thinking that we might be our own worst enemies.  It’s the liberals that were the problem then, and even though they’re not around now, they’re still the problem.  We should focus on that and not engage in meaningless naval-gazing exercises.  To do so is to court the notion that conservatives might have contributed to the very problems that drove them from the mainline denomination in the first place, and egregiously so, at that. 

Nope.  There is no problem with conservatives.  And everything will be fine.  You’ll see.  Everyone will see.  haHEe.

Dale #69
A comparison of Archbishop Duncan’s definition of “fully Anglican,” with the GAFCON definitions of “orthodox Anglican,” as articulated in The Way, the Truth, and the Life,” The Jerusalem Declaration, and Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today might prove interesting. But I am not expecting Duncan to come out with a definitive statement regarding his understanding of what being “fully Anglican” means. He has so far spoken in only very general terms. A statement of his position in very specific language and with very specific emphases might be interpreted as an official statement of the position of the ACNA in key areas. This, while it might please those who shared his position on these issues, would alienate those who do not. Among those he might alienate might be not only congregations and clergy in the ACNA but also primates and other church leaders in the global South Anglican community. So I expect him to continue his practice of speaking in only very general terms, leaving his audience to interpret what he means. Unfortunately this can lead to multiple interpretations.

I really don’t care about what “fully Anglican” means, and neither should anyone else.  Instead, I prefer to be known simply as “Christian.”

#72. Anglicans Ablaze,

So I expect him to continue his practice of speaking in only very general terms, leaving his audience to interpret what he means. Unfortunately this can lead to multiple interpretations.

If he is doing so to allow the cement to dry and cure, OK. Otherwise the way you have described it sounds a lot like Rowan Williams.

cennydd13, I agree with your #73, but I would say for me, I want people to understand Anglicanism/Episcopalian(ism) as a unique expression within Christianity. Anglican = Christian, or, if you prefer, Christian = Anglican…

RE: “Instead, I prefer to be known simply as “Christian.””

Yikes.

So does this mean you just accidentally wandered into an Anglican church and stayed?  If not, why did you choose to enter an Anglican church and stay?

Also—why not be known as “simply” a “Christian” in, say, the Southern Baptist church or the PCA church or the Mennonites?

I am pleased and happy to be an Anglican and believe it to be the best expression of the Gospel out there.  I wish to be tethered to **an organization** of Christians, which necessarily means an identifying marker as to what kind of Christian I am, since once one has entered an organization, an adjective in front of the word “Christian” necessarily ensues.

If the leaders whom I respect were to suddenly begin announcing that snake-handling is integral to “Anglicanism” I’d be nervous, and certainly wouldn’t just sit around saying that it doesn’t matter a bit what “Fully Anglican” means.

I believe ++Duncan used the phrase “Fully Anglican” to cover a multitude of issues.  We can speculate on what these might be or simply wait and watch the changes.  I think it is likely that ++Duncan has a list of things that need addressing, but will wait for the appropriate meeting to address them.

As to “fully Anglican”, I’m guessing it has to do with the TEC rectors and “priests in charge” out there who are trying to get people to return from ACNA by arguing that it is not “fully Anglican” because it is not recognized as a member of the ACC, not recognized by ABoC, etc.
Last year, a TEC priest (the guy appointed to the local parish by the bishop who refused to allow them to even interview their choice for rector, much less hire an orthodox priest), showed up on the doorstep after Morning Prayer at our little ACNA congregation to argue with anyone who would listen to him about how ACNA was not “really Anglican.” (From his point of view, you are Anglican only by virtue of ACC membership and “full communion with the See of Canterbury”- whatever that actually means anymore) This drivel is heard weekly if not daily on the HoBD and other places.  How it is that TEC claims legitimacy when the majority of its bishops are not in Communion with 50 million of the world’s 70 million Anglicans is beyond me.

Ed+ (#77),

Just for the record, I agree with you that there may well be a number of issues or concerns that lie behind ++Duncan’s general warning about AMiA needing to become “fully Anglican” before the +Murphy group can be integrated into the ACNA.  I also agree that only time will tell just what those issues really are. 

Likewise, I welcome the contributions of Fr. Dale (#69) and Joel (#70), and others above.  The latter could easily be right that the primary factor Robert the Lion-Hearted had in mind was genuine accountability, and the need for the +Murphy group to be truly submitted to the current episcopal leadership of an orthodox Anglican province in order to be “fully Anglican.”

I was simply trying to provide some sample illustrations to soundbytes above, since he asked me to clarify what I meant about ways that AMiA might be less than fully Anglican.  Naturally, I freely grant that my specific complaint about the non-synodical nature of AMiA networks, or the specific liturgical liberties I mentioned as occurring in the Richmond church I attend, could easily reflect my own personal concerns more than his. 

After all, ++Duncan wasn’t the one who casually tossed out a provocative expression like “Anglican Lite.”  He’s far too wise and diplomatic to use such a potentially offensive term.  OTOH, I’ve never claimed to be either wise or diplomatic.

So let me be clear: I regret if any of my AMiA friends regard any of my comments above as derogatory or offensive.  By describing AMiA as often (not always) resembling “Anglican Lite,” I was partially speaking in jest, not intending it as a serious put down.

I have numerous friends in AMiA, not to mention my own two children.  I want to see AMiA recover and thrive and reach as many lost, unchurched people as possible.  I’m just hoping that “the Anglican Mission” doesn’t cease to be truly Anglican along the way.

David Handy+

David Handy+

Oops, sorry about the double sign off (#79).

TJ is right (#78) that there is a certain irony in all this.  Our TEC foes will indeed be chortling about the pot calling the kettle black since they don’t think the ACNA is “fully Anglican” either.

Alas, that points to one of the most fundamental reasons why worldwide Anglicanism is in the chronic quagmire we’re in.  There is no universal agreement about what being Anglican really means.  There is no consensus about what the proper criteria are for separating the real Anglican sheep from the wannabe (pseudo) Anglican goats.  The Covenant is a feeble attempt at creating a weak mechanism for resolving such disputes, but it is fatally flawed since it puts the fox in charge of guarding the chickencoop.

In the end, these sorts of endless, unresolved tensions illustrate the Achilles Heel of Anglicanism, at least post-1689 and the effective end of the English monarch being the final arbiter of all Anglican disputes as the “Supreme Governor” of the CoE.  Our inability to reach a definitive, final, binding resolution to the fundamental question of who is Anglican and who is not illustrates a devastating flaw at the heart of the whole Anglican system.  It is high time to settle that issue once and for all by creating a means of SETTLING international disputes between provinces in a way that is BINDING across provincial lines.  Nothing less will suffice.

That’s why I continue to argue that, in the end, we MUST develop something like an international Anglican Supreme Court that can adjudicate international disputes in a way that is final and binding on all who claim to be Anglicans.

For in the end, it all comes down to the authority issue.  In the final analysis the ultimate question is this:

Who gets to decide what is Anglican and what is not?

All that’s clear at this point is that it sure isn’t the Archbishop of Canterbury!  No one with any sense trusts ++RW to be the final arbiter.

David Handy+

Dale #74
Archbishop Duncan is the present Archbishop of a relatively diverse church. While it does not include the more radical forms of liberalism, it does include some of its more moderate forms. It also includes traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, charismatic evangelicals, confessional evangelicals, “mere Christians,” and various other sub-groupings and combinations of sub-groupings. The church is split between those who support the ordination of women and those who are opposed to women’s ordination. This means that if he does not want to alienate any of these folks, he must speak in very general terms. If that makes he seem like Rowan Williams to you, remember that is your impression, not mine. I did not make any such comparison nor did I write what I wrote with any such comparison in mind.

Different groupings in the ACNA have expressed the desire that he come out in favor of their particular position on a particular issue but if he does, he risks estranging other groups in the ACNA that do not espouse that position. The Common Cause Roundtable, which Archbishop Duncan chaired as Common Cause Moderator, produced the Common Cause Theological Statment, which would subsequently become the basis of the ACNA Fundamental Declarations. The result was a church that is comprehensive in some ways but not in others. I do not believe that Duncan wishes to reduce this comprehensiveness any further. He already has to contend with leading evengelical figures like Gerald Bray predicting that the ACNA will become another Continuing Anglican Church. Bray also predicted tht the AMiA will also become another Continuing Anglican Church.

The developments in the AMiA are bound to focus the attention of the global South Anglican community on the ACNA and where it stands on key issues of concern to that community. I suspect that Archbishop Duncan is fully aware that how he deals with the AMiA will affect his relationship and the relationship of the ACNA with the global South Anglican community, particularly the Africans. He must tread lightly.

I think that Anglicans Ablaze at #81 has nailed it. 

For that reason, I think some folks are reading far too much into ++Duncan’s comment to the former Rwandan bisops about “truly Anglican”. They are reading what they want into it, whereas ++Duncan (and many of his bishops and probably the primates as well) is far more “broad church” than they realise. I therefore suspect David Handy was correct when he wrote:

“The latter could easily be right that the primary factor Robert the Lion-Hearted had in mind was genuine accountability, and the need for the +Murphy group to be truly submitted to the current episcopal leadership of an orthodox Anglican province in order to be “fully Anglican.””

And not much more, in this particular context.

76.  Sarah, I think you misread my meaning.  I am a Christian first, and an Anglican second.  I don’t think that should be hard to understand, should it?  I don’t like nitpicking.

#80- You are much too gracious.  In reality, I was very confused- the “fully Anglican” everyone was talking about was the “fully Anglican” of ++Duncan’s letter on the AMiA situation- ie: looking for a “fully Anglican” way of establishing a relationship between the “Pawley’s Island group” and the ACNA. I jumped into the middle of the conversation without thinking about which thread I was on, or going over in my head the various things I had read in the last couple weeks.
AA makes some very good points in his #82.  I think perhaps his conclusion

how he deals with the AMiA will affect his relationship and the relationship of the ACNA with the global South Anglican community, particularly the Africans. He must tread lightly.

is in principle correct, although my own opinion would be that he doesn’t so much need to tread lightly, as he needs to fully honor his own commitments to the GS Primates and Churches, and return with gratitude and humility the respect they have shown to him and ACNA.  I would think that having been involved with all these Archbishops and their Provinces over the last several years, ++Duncan will give their counsel much greater weight than any “advice” coming from Pawley’s Island.
I would venture an opinion that the best way forward is to leave things as they are, organizationally, until such time as Murphy reconciles with the Rwandan HoB, or retires and his successor does so. 
The enigma in all of this, to me, is the position of the 3 retired Archbishops.  I would not have taken the Archbishops as the sort who would divide the Church over financial disagreements or personal disputes.  One would have thought that had ++Kolini believed an “Archbishops Council” necessary to oversee AMiA, it would have been a simple enough thing to have set up while he was Primate of Rwanda.
Maybe George Conger can get an interview with the retired Archbishops- I think it might go a long way to making the current situation understandable.

tj,
I think that we are essentially saying the same thing but using different phraseology. Archbishop Duncan must consider the relationships that he has built with the global South Anglican community. The break of Murphy and the other AMiA bishops with Rwanda (Barnum and Glenn excluded) has damaged the trust between the North American Anglican community and global South Anglican community. Archbishop Duncan can be expected to take care not to damage the trust he himself has built with global South Anglican leaders. This includes doing anything that they might misinterpret.

And just exactly what gives TEC the right to infer that they’re “fully Anglican?”  After the shenanigans they’ve pulled since 1973, what makes them think they’ve earned that right? 

Wearing mitres (oven mitts in Schori’s case) and clerical vestments (designer vestments in Schori’s case) does not make one Anglican.

“He already has to contend with leading evengelical figures like Gerald Bray predicting that the ACNA will become another Continuing Anglican Church. Bray also predicted tht the AMiA will also become another Continuing Anglican Church.”

I’d be very interested in a link to the document or speech or whatever where Bray mentions this.  I’m an admirer of Bray’s.

Sarah,
Gerald Bray made these predictions in an Autumn 2011 Churchman editorial, “Come over and help us?” He wrote, “The probability is that both groups will end up like the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), the offshoot of a late nineteenth-century division that has become a separate denomination and remained marginal to the wider Anglican scene ever since. REC started off as an Evangelical protest against liberalism but in recent years has embraced a form of Anglo-Catholicism that has only been intensified by the disgruntled TEC members who have joined it.” The URL is http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_125_3_Editorial.pdf

Some folks may not regard the REC as a Continuing Anglican Church because it broke away from the Episcopal Church before the 1970s and the St. Louis Declaration. The Anglican Orthodox Church (AOC) does not regard itself as a Continuing Anglican Church because it ws founded before the 1970s. However, Douglas Bless in Divided We Stand: A History of the Continuing Anglican Movement classifies them as precursers of the early Continuing groups and also identifies them among the older Continuing bodies. Bess classifies the Charismatic Episcopal Cburch and the AMiA as Continuing groups. The ACNA had not been been established at the time Bess wrote his book.

REC was founded in the 1870’s by Bishop Cummins of Kentucky, he was assisting Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith, who was PB because he was the senior bishop in HOB. Smith was never in his diocese, I understand, and would never retire. Cummins, the story in Lexington, Kentucky’s Christ Church Cathedral goes, was sick of the high leanings of the diocese and Smith, and upon entering Christ Church saw candles on the holy table…Enough was enough…REC was a low Church movement. I doubt Cummins would be pleased with the new 1928 BCP…I do believe they have always been highly respected, and almost re-entered communion with TEC…I think for a time, clergy from other traditions did not have to be reordained…

Hmmmm—thanks for the link.

Looks like Bray’s primary word in that sentence is the word “marginal.”  There have always been some great folks in the REC, but there’s no doubt in my mind that one of its primary characteristics was in its “failure to thrive.”  [Of course, some might protest that description and demand a definition of the word “thrive” . . . but sometimes their protests sound rather like KJS talking about how it’s all about quality, not quantity.]  One of my close relatives was a member of an REC church and his descriptions served to explain more of why that was so “on the ground.”  It may be that that attribute changes with their ACNA membership, I don’t know.

Van #90
What prompted Bishop Cummins to finally resign as assistant bishop of Kentucky and to withdraw from the Episcopal Church were the calls for his removal as assistant bishop because he attended a Presbyterian church service. The Ritualist party in the Episcopal Church had secured passage of legislation that forbade Episcopal clergy from associating in any way with the clergy of any church that did not have bishops. Cummins himself championed better relations with evangelical churches in the United States, which included churches that had no bishops.

Cummins was an evangelical and like the evangelicals of his day was opposed to the changes in doctrine and worship that the Ritualists were introducing in the Episcopal Church. The evangelicals would attempt to secure the passage of legislation in the General Convention restricting these changes but the Ritualists defeated this legislation.

The Ritualists controlled the diocesan convention in Kentucky and they refused to permit Bishop Bosworth to relocate to New York after he became Presiding Bishop unless he restricted Cummins’ authority in his absence. Bosworth eventully gave into the Ritualists.

Cummins became convinced from a pamphlet then in circulation that the 1789 Prayer Book contained incipient Roman Catholic theology. After a failed attempt to secure the passage of alternative language and forms acceptable to the evangelicals, in the General Convention, he and other conservative evangelicals concluded that their only way forward was to establish a reformed church with a reformed prayer book. In 1873 Cummins resigned as assistant bishop of Kentucky, withdrew from the Episcopal Church, and with a number of like-minded clergy and laity formed the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The Reformed Episcopal Church initially experienced a period of growth, establishing not only churches in the United States but also in Canada, England, and Europe. Bishop Cummins died suddenly, and the REC lost momentum after his death.

At one time the REC did not require the reordination of clergy transferring to the REC from denominations without bishops. It also permitted the bishops of its synods and mission districts to license deacons to administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in their jurisdictions. This included reciting the Prayer of Consecration over the elements as well as distributing them.

Dear AnglicansAblaze: Yes, that sounds so much more historically accurate than mine—which came from Dean Insko, of blessed memory. ETSKy where I spent some happy days…What I didn’t add was the quote he often gave to accompany (which I am sure was apocryphal) the story about the candles on the Lord’s Table, by Cummins, “This is pope-ish nonsense up with which I will not put!” One gets the sense it might be a bit too Churchillian to be Cumminesque… 

tj,
I think that we are essentially saying the same thing but using different phraseology.

I also think we are.  Where I take a small issue with you is that your language implies that ++Duncan is keeping the resigned AMiA bishops at arms length to avoid stepping on GS toes- that is to say that I get the impression you think he would like to extend recognition to them as though the break with Rwanda had not happened- but is prevented by fear of upsetting the GS Primates and bishops.  My interpretation of ++Duncan’s letter is more positive- that ++Duncan is actively seeking the guidance of the Rwandan HoB and other GS Churches as the best way forward- that is to say, seeking to act in unity with the GS on the issues caused by the rift in AMiA.
  As to your point (if I take you correctly) about the GS becoming suspicious of the motives of NA Anglicans in general, I think they would be well advised to do so. North American Anglicans are (yours truly included- I mean, here I am preaching to the world as though what I had to say might influence events and opinions) a rather self-important and arrogant lot. And I think you and I might also agree on the remedy for that suspicion. I have expressed the opinion on many occasions that we Anglicans in North America need to stop telling the GS what they “need to do” (as in “the GS needs to dump the ABoC” or “the GS should tell Kearon what’s what”).  My personal impression is that they are tired of one after another American (or European) bishop or layman telling them what they need to do for us.  They are expecting us to follow their lead- they are, after all, the growing Churches of the Anglican Communion.  Those of us outside of TEC, and for the time being, outside the official structures of the Communion, need to get about the business of building the Church here, and go, with humility, to the GS for support and guidance.

It would appear to the untrained eye, that the REC has had a change of heart regarding the role of bishops in the church.  At the ACNA Provincial Assembly in Bedford nearly three years ago, the topic that sparked the most discussion was Article !.3 of the Constitution:

  We confess the godly historic Episcopate as an inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice, and therefore as integral to the fullness and unity of the Body of Christ.

A number of evangelical delegates wanted to amend the wording to better reflect the historical evangelical understanding (as per #92) that bishops might be beneficial to the church, but were certainly not essential.  The debate ended rather abruptly when one of the REC bishops stood and clarified that it was in fact the REC who had insisted on the constitutional wording that bishops are by their nature essential to the church.  There were more than a few of us delegates there who were a bit shocked to discover that it was the REC championing the catholic understanding of the historic episcopate as the esse of the church.  Obviously a lot has happened during the century and a half that has elapsed since Bp. Cummins and his followers parted ways with the Episcopal Church.

tj,
Neither of us know Archbishop Duncan’s actual motives. And I am not trying to portray Archbishop Duncan in bad light as you appear to be inferring.

To my mind a church leader in his position must proceed with caution. He has built good relations with the global South church leaders. Having broken with Rwanda, the AMiA bishops (exclusive of Barnum and Glenn who did not break with Rwanda) turn to the ACNA, seeking a new provincial sponsor. While the AMiA was a part of the Common Cause Partnership and played a role in the establishment of the ACNA, there are drawbacks to taking the AMiA back into the ACNA fold. One of those drawbacks is Bishop Charles “Chuck” Murphy. If Murphy was not willing to accept Archbishop Onosphore Rwaje’s oversight, why would he accept Archbishop Duncan’s oversight? Murphy does not want primatial oversight. He just wants a provincial sponsor. Duncan knows this. Why make trouble for himself with people with whom he has worked hard to build good relations by taking in Murphy who can be expected to make trouble for him in any number of ways.

Duncan might like to see the AMiA a part of the ACNA again. After all, it was a part of the original coalition that he built. At the same time he does not want to do anything that might be misinterpreted by those with whom he has built good relations.

Barbara #95
I believe that Presiding Bishop Leonard Riches and other REC leaders are teaching the revisionist view that the REC Declaration of Principles takes the position that bishops are of the essence of the church. A friend sent me a Pastoral Exhortation from Bishop Riches’ 1997 Annual Report in which he makes this claim.

tjmcmahon wrote:

“North American Anglicans are (yours truly included- I mean, here I am preaching to the world as though what I had to say might influence events and opinions) a rather self-important and arrogant lot”

I had to laugh when I read this (and that is not meant unkindly). Come and stay in Sydney for a while - you will feel much better about yourselves.

I am not disagreeing with those who say there is much in common between the REC and the Continuum of the 1970s.

But there is at least one very significant difference between them: The REC did not continue to divide (so far as I am aware); whereas the 1970s Continuum became a by-word for its continual quarreling and splitting into new entities which in turn divided again, or perhaps one division joined up with a division of another division before they split yet again, and so it went on.

I suspect it is that aspect of the 1970s Continuum which is in the minds of many in ACNA, and perhaps keeps them from getting too insistent on precise points of doctrine.