Thad Barnum and the Anglican Mission: Why I Decided to Stay in Rwanda

The feedback came anyway; feedback that would hit the internet and rock the Anglican world with fact, speculation, confusion and opinion. Like a wild virus, the internet took on a life of its own and often led, in a number of cases, to slander, accusation and bitter gossip—primarily directed against our Chairman.

The result wasn’t for us to step back and slow down as our Archbishop advised. Instead, the frenzy of the internet somehow became our frenzy and everything sped up with speed way beyond control.

I have some advice for Bishop Barnum - and Chuck Murphy, and anyone else who has a position of leadership and authority in an organization where the perception of public behavior is important in the least:

1. You do not operate in a vacuum. You are engaged in a highly public, very visible enterprise. Do not whine and complain and sniff and snort when the public to whom your business it is to make your case, begin commenting on your behavior.

2. You do not have the right to control the agenda. You are certainly welcome to try, but the agenda is common property. Other people do have the right to comment on it.

3. “Do not speak unless spoken to” may work in your little entmoots, but expecting it to work in the real world is - and I’m putting this is as kindly as I can - naive (or arrogant) beyond belief.

If you’re upset at the way the public, on blogs and elsewhere, speculated about what was behind the message you were sending, consider first that the problem may be the way you handled your message, and/or the message itself.

I know many good people in the AMiA - priests and laypeople especially - but with each development like this, my opinion of its bishops and leaders sinks lower and lower.

RE: “your little entmoots . . . “

Greg—while I agree with your excellent points above—principles that so far I don’t see that many Anglican leaders have understood or learned—I fear that you are elevating the meetings of bishops to a stature that is somewhat higher than strictly accurate comparisons.

The ents, though insufferably slow, plodding, hesitant, and traditional, were also quite noble and honorable creatures.

Maybe Matt can help me with this:

What’s behind this idea that you get to control the agenda, and that anyone who dares comment publicly on your very public actions, is stepping out of line? Is it naivete? Arrogance? Both?

Well, we’re just supposed to be happy with the sausage not worry about how it’s made.

Right, I get that, but… it’s the sausage itself that people are saying is so bad.

No no no! It’s a grand sausage. The vision for the sausage was handed down from heaven to the sausage makers and they, graciously, reveal it when the time is right and all is prepared.

When you interrupt the process YOU make the good, Spirit filled, Spirit led sausage, bad.

I very much appreciate this first person account, and think it will help with AMiA’s healing process.  I was struck by this phrase

Instead, the frenzy of the internet somehow became our frenzy and everything sped up with speed way beyond control.

AMiA’s Council of Bishops have recently started to communicate with the churches of AMiA following their meetings, in I believe a sincere effort to explain what is going on.  This is a new thing for them.  In the past AMiA’s communications were pretty thin reflecting their lack of accountability structures.  Without a Synodical bone in their body they had no need to communicate as if they lived in a Synodical structure. 

Today I am wondering if their own lack of communication made them vulnerable to a spirit of frenzy in response to the communication that was happening on line.  When +Murphy wrote his letter of resignation I wondered why he blamed bloggers and the internet for the rushed decision.  I thought it was peculiar then.  Today I still wonder how it was that the “frenzy of the internet became” their “frenzy”.

It is difficult for me to express the extent of my gratitude to all of the intrepid Anglican internet journalists.  Thank you, Stand Firm.  Thank you Titus One Nine, Thank you Anglican TV. And thank you Chris Johnson, the maintainer of our humor and sanity.  Perhaps the great lesson to be learned in this mess which is heartbreaking for many is that transparency is no longer an option for would be leaders in the Anglican world.

I do think these guys believe that their meetings are venues through which the Holy Spirit guides the church..and i don’t doubt that that is true in some way…but not, probably, the way they think

Some bishops tend to imagine that their apostolic office comes with a kind of apostolic spiritual essence and so when they meet with other bishops they envision themselves as Peter, Paul, and James, discussing how best to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles

And so they believe that what they say and do is hugely important, not open to review (much less rebuke) by non-apostles, and their motives are, of course, unimpeachable

So when they veil is removed and we see Larry, Curly, and Moe instead of Peter, James and Paul…they become quite irate because their vision of themselves and the vision they want us to have of their deliberations is ruined

All that being said…I do believe that God uses +Larry, +Curly and +Moe to guide and lead his church…not because they are brilliant, flawless, visionary leaders but their insufficiency makes Christ’s sufficiency all the more evident.

The fact that the church hasn’t collapsed and died in the last 2000 years after the true Apostles continues to stun and amaze me. The fact that Good Shepherd hasn’t crashed and burned due to my incompetency is shocking…

But through the very idiocy of human leaders in the church, God provides ample evidence that he still can and still does speak through the asses of the world (Numbers 22)

The church is a broken and messed up place with hugely flawed people…which makes God’s grace even more apparent.

At the very least this whole AMiA debacle reveals God’s glorious grace and mercy toward his church—that he hasn’t let her self-destruct as, left to her own devices, she would most deservedly do—means he loves her still and that he is faithful.

...and with this development, I now wonder where to turn.

I strenuously objected to the break with Rwanda. (And authoritarianism runs down to the parish leadership level). That makes staying with renegade AMiA untenable.  Bishop Glenn’s ecclesiology is decidedly low church and he has “reconciled” with Bishop Murphy. Untenable for a high churcher such as I.  Bishop Barnum’s blame the interwebs tactic reveals that the leadership across the board possesses a “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” operational/functional bias. No openness between shepherds, assistants, and flocks.  We unwashed masses cannot comprehend the import and scope of such momentous, weighty decisions as breaking a trust with godly persons. What a wrongheaded attitude!

So, where now for a soon-to-be-formerly AMiA priest?

Christe eleison!

the concept of a new AMIA Missionary Society took shape out of a perceived concern that AMIA was suddenly vulnerable to the leadership changes in Rwanda.

Here the AMIA leadership is more concerned about being “vulnerable” than accountable. I don’t understand why leadership changes in Rwanda should concern AMIA. It sounds like this is being used to justify innovation and disobedience. It sounds to me by Thad Barnum’s letter that Chuck Murphy was not being told “no” but “slow down”. This reminds me of TEC innovtion. At the heart is disobedience to authority (Heb. 13:17) and failure to discern the body (1 Cor. 11:29). Don’t blame the fallout on the light of day shining on the problem.

I thought the problem was the pigs, not the sausage ... I would have said “HOGS,” but in Arkansas, near Cotton Bowl time, I had an epiphany and thought better of it…

Okay Greg and Sarah, if you’re going to make such strong points, you’ve got to use less geeky terminology “Entmoots?!”  Lord of the Rings statements aside, it’s the first open account of what happened in the council.  Refreshing openness for once.

Sure the internet discussion took on a life of its own, but what did they expect when they give folks so little information after making such a major decision?  For years our council of bishops has made decisions with little or no input from their churches or clergy—culminating in mass resignations without any consultation with them.  For years they’ve been told that many disagree with the decisions coming from our leadership.  They responded by shooting the messengers and dismissing the issues raised as insignificant.  In such an environment, an explosion like this was bound to happen. It was simply a matter of time. 

If you are a leader chosen by other leaders without the consent of the governed, it’s really wise to do your best to include the governed in your decision making process—or at the very least sincerely listen to them and consider their input seriously.  A consistent failure to do that, created the environment we have today.

#10 Dear AR,
I hope you will give +Thad a hearing, at the upcoming gathering if possible, or otherwise. I can tell you that he is a truly godly bishop, and takes submission to godly authority seriously, and repentance and reconciliation. He was the bishop who ordained me to the diaconate and priesthood, before my eventual move to the Anglican Catholic Church. He’s not High Church though! But I’m sure that’s not what’s paramount in your heart and mind right now. You are in my prayers. Don+

Matt…Do you understand that the office of bishop is equal to that of New Testament Apostle? Or something other? I ask sincerely… One understanding would certainly frame my sense of the AMiA situation differently ...

Hi Fr. Van,

No, I do not think the office of bishop is equivalent to NT Apostle…
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26874

I was speaking more of a perceived attitude that some bishops seem to hold toward the office than any set ecclesiology of the office. I do think that the idea of being set apart for apostolic ministry sometimes goes to the heads of those who serve as bishops.

I am thankful to Bishop Thad for this statement.  Perhaps it is the start of a new book.

IMHO, the problem was threefold. 

First, the manner in which +CHM leads in NOT conducive to a large, national organization in which leaders should be consulted and respected.  CHM+ did not grow with the organization.  The COB and CHM was amazingly tone-deaf to the leadership they had successfully gathered over the years. 

Secondly, the COB and the Communications Office seemed to be clueless about the Internet, Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and any other modern methods.  You simply cannot control the story if you don’t get ahead of it.  Days would go by without any substantial communication from Pawley’s…and then what did come out of the office was inadequate and sounded like spin.  I know that C. Brust is one of the best and has served AMiA well, but she seemed to be caught flatfooted on this story.  (See Herman Cain)

Thirdly, CHM’s letter to resignation was unbelievably insulting.  Was anyone consulted on it?  Even the chancellor was not consulted on the resignations.  And the fact that bishops could resign in a letter…without any prayer, any discussion, any principles of Matthew 18; these bishops have lost major respect.

To use a tired expression, it was a perfect storm of bad leadership, out-of-touch communication, and pride.

The only way forward for the COB and what might be left is the immediate and humble resignation of +CHM and for the remaining resigned bishops to make a pilgrimage to Pittsburgh and ask for forgiveness, grace, and plead to be restored to fellowship and some kind of office within the ACNA.

It is a mess that the bishops have made…

I have some advice for Bishop Barnum - and Chuck Murphy, and anyone else who has a position of leadership and authority in an organization

Greg,

I fully concur. I’d also say that my personal inside experience and by what we’ve seen since AU16—BOTH sides in this mess are not good at it.

+Thad’s letter does seem to omit that those who still remain under his authority were the ones whose actions “that would hit the internet and rock the Anglican world with fact, speculation, confusion and opinion.” So, I find his narrative a bit odd. However, I think we’re finally down to the root issue.

+Thad’s letter is consistent with:

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,    [From 7-bishops’ letter]

So the WO issue and money issue of the Washington Statement and theophorus+ seems to be part of that “speculation, confusion and opinion” +Thad referenced.

——

By coming together. By confessing our sins. By asking the Lord to do what we ourselves can’t do for the sake of His great name; for the blessing of His Church; and for our witness of the peace and unity of Christ to a world in desperate need of Him.

I do hope this sentence is written in sincerity and honesty, maybe even to an open confession as many of the other stuff since late October been in the open. I guess we shall see after Raleigh.

I do agree those are the first steps.

All I know is that Bishop Thad Barnum is a godly man, an exemplary Bishop, and a speaker of truth.  For weeks there have been demands for more transparency, more light, more information, more data.  Here, Bishop Thad is providing these things in a gracious and Christ-like manner.  He deserves a hearing, he deserves our respect.

On a personal level, I owe a great debt to Bishop Thad.  He stood with me and my vestry and my people at a time when the very ground under us seemed to shake.  A man more concerned about politics, his standing with influential people or other worldly concerns would have abandoned us.  He did not. 

I thank God for his ministry to this very day.

Sure, some Bishops may try demonize their opponents.  Bishop Thad has not done this.  Others may let their office “go to their heads”.  Any one who knows Thad, knows that he has not.  Indeed, he is the epitome of a servant leader.  When he makes mistakes, he acknowledges them.  He has a shepherd’s heart and cares for his clergy and his people. 

At this exceedingly difficult time he is trying to model what I think the blogosphere has (rightly, at that) been calling for:  more humility, more transparency, more collegiality.  No human leader is perfect, but surely this man is not one who should be attracting pot shots from the orthodox side of the fence.

#17. Texas Hold’em,

for the remaining resigned bishops to make a pilgrimage to Pittsburgh and ask for forgiveness, grace, and plead to be restored to fellowship and some kind of office within the ACNA.

As I see it, they still have some unfinished business with Rwanda and need a letter dimissory from Archbishop Rwaje to Archbishop Duncan. For Archbishop Duncan to simply recieve them would be a slap in the face of Rwanda and create new problems in GAFCON.

I believe Bishop Thad has done us a great service by presenting us with this background information which has been sadly lacking from the rest of the AMiA leadership. It is heartbreaking to see this played out in this manner as, no matter what the critics say, these bishops and archbishops are all godly people. It ought not to have happened in such a precipitate manner. There is nothing wrong with a missionary society per se - if it had not been for missionary societies the Anglican Communion today would consist of only the churches of the British Isles and a handful of expat chaplaincies around the world. One point which has been missing in the discussions about this sad affair is the essential missiological difference between a modality (diocese, provinces, denominations etc) and a sodality (missionary societies, religious orders etc).  Missionary Societies such as CMS, SAMS and NAMS plant churches which eventually become parts of diocese and provinces. AMiA has always been a sodality which others have tried to force into a modality mould. There have been ambivalence and tension around that process. A missionary jurisdiction is a diocese or province (modality) in the making. A missionary society is not. Perhaps now AMiA can focus on church planting in cooperation with and on behalf of ACNA, but without holding on to the congregations it plants.

Just one comment on the work of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. It is clear (at least to me) at many points that AMIA bishops should have paused and asked if their actions based on experience and reason were in line with tradition and Scripture. Of the later two, I would comment they were not, especially on the later one as the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

This is a very useful letter.  Thanks to Bishop Thad for sharing it with us.  Without the truth, people will answer questions with speculation.  And that can lead to many problems on many levels.

Two other comments.  The spiritual entity in a hurry is Satan, God has all the time in eternity.  Satan’s lie is that men have to act before they have a chance to count the cost.  We need to keep our eyes on Jesus and wait for HIS opinion and not rush into something because it seems good to our puny brains.  Wait, wait, wait.  Bishop Murphy did not want to wait.  He did not want to give the AMIA bishops time to think about the serious decision to leave Rwanda.

Second, I hate the term “casting a vision.”  WE should not be “casting visions,” we should be catching God’s vision.  The term “casting a vision” seems sort of pagan to me.  I have been frightened by the concept since the first time I heard of it, some 10 years ago.  Following a human vision will not necessarily keep us on that narrow path God wants us to stay on.  To hear that Bishop Murphy is great at casting a vision makes me uneasy.

but surely this man is not one who should be attracting pot shots from the orthodox side of the fence.

Potshots?  Possibly the bishops in question should realize that when one attempts to place blame on others when the real problem is one does not like the consequences of one’s own actions - it will cause a few feathers to rise.  That being said I do not believe anyone here has taken shots at any of the men involved but have focused on their words and actions.  If I am incorrect, please show me where.

To me - the most egregious error these men have made is assuming that God is speaking solely to them and that we are expected to believe He would have them act unscripturally.  Using the ECUSA defense is so revolting to me it sends me into fits of slaganfall. 
The bishops would do well to remember that they are bishops and not the Green Lantern. 

I don’t want anyone, be it +Barnum or anyone else, to get the wrong idea: I’m thankful for his candor in this letter as well.

My point is that - candid though it may be - it reveals that some non-trivial number of orthodox Anglican leaders have not learned the lessons of the last decade of Episcopal wars; in this case, that to expect the public to watch your actions and listen to your pronouncements, then instead of forming their own opinions and offering their own criticisms, sit silently and wait for you to tell them how it’s going to be, after which they shuffle off and nod in agreement… is insane.

Can it be that they really didn’t see where this got their liberal counterparts in ECUSA?

Can it be that they really haven’t been aware of the growth of the blogosphere, and the sophistication both in the technology and the commentary that it’s produced over the past 7 or 8 years?

If the answer is ‘yes’ to either of those questions, then what are we to think of their inability to observe what the rest of us have?

If the answer is ‘no’ to either of those questions, then what are we to make of their inability to learn from what they’ve seen?

I find it impossible to believe that they have not been watching ECUSA implode this whole time, or that they’ve been ignorant of the role the blogs have played in the whole crisis.

Therefore, all I can figure is one of two things:

1. Either they saw what happens when you try and operate in secrecy, then attempt to spin your operations to an informed public… but did it anyway, in which case they have not learned a thing as regards communications from the last 8 years.

2. Or, they did see what happens… but figured they were somehow different, that somehow they deserved to be allowed to operate in secrecy and hand down their pronouncements from on high, but their opponents didn’t, in which case their hubris is truly stunning.

No matter what the case - 1 or 2 - it is impossible to be anything but extremely frustrated and disappointed.

That Barnum, Murphy, or anyone involved in this mess would try and shift the blame from themselves - the ones who caused it all - to us, the people who are simply watching and commenting - just… what’s the phrase… oh yes: “Blinks at reality.”

Fr. Bob,

I don’t think anyone is taking pot shots at Bp. Barnum.  Rather, folks are rightly responding to the unwarranted criticism that Bp. Barnum himself has for ‘the internet.’  It’s really a shame he didn’t edit out those paragraphs (and mentally edit out the misperceptions that generated those paragraphs in the first place), for they add nothing to his letter, and merely damage his credibility.

The bulk of the letter is quite helpful, but those parts of the letter are really quite depressing.

This whole thing has been a communications nightmare: AMiA has issued statements in which they alternate which foot they put in their mouth.  Bp. Barnum’s group decided to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and leave a complete information vacuum by going on a self-imposed Advent-of-silence at precisely the moment when people needed facts in order to make sense of the chaos. 

And as congregations and priests are looking to their future and trying to evaluate which of these two groups to affiliate with, they are met with the stark realization that both groups think ‘the internet’ is a part of the problem, when in fact the internet has been the best source of transparent information available (and for some perhaps the only source of information available).

So, on the whole, Bp. Barnum’s letter helps elucidate one side’s perception of the issues at hand, but as Athanasius Returns post illustrates, it might not make the decisions ahead that much easier.

Jackie,
Again, my concern is that I feel Bp Barnum’s letter is not getting the hearing it deserves.

For instance, when you state

Possibly the bishops in question should realize that when one attempts to place blame on others when the real problem is one does not like the consequences of one’s own actions

I have to ask, where and when did Bishop Barnum ever do this?

And again, when you state

the most egregious error these men have made is assuming that God is speaking solely to them and that we are expected to believe He would have them act unscripturally.  Using the ECUSA defense is so revolting to me it sends me into fits of slaganfall.
The bishops would do well to remember that they are bishops and not the Green Lantern.

Again, I have to wonder, what has Bishop Barnum done to deserve this sort of response.  Indeed, you rightly point out, I think that Bishop’s should be transparent, and not feel themselves to be above criticism.  But you lack any basis for making that accusation against Bishop Barnum, and that is my one and only point here.

With all respect to “texas hold’em”, I must agree with Fr. Dale. In Rwanda reconciliation is not sweeping the past under the carpet. AMiA, Inc. cannot simply turn away from Rwanda and turn to ACNA for ecclesiastical cover. When you read +Thad’s letter it is obvious that eight of the AM bishops were in full agreement with +Murphy’s schism and rebellion. They are going to have to be reconciled to Rwanda, Murphy’s resignation will not absolve them.
In Rwanda reconciliation involves transparency, confession, forgiveness, and, where necessary, restitution. Since they have had to deal with the disaster of the 1994 genocide the Rwandans understand in a unique way the pain and danger of division. They are very, very experienced in the most difficult kinds of reconciliation. In addition to that their spiritual heritage, being born out of the East African Revival, gives them a powerful understanding of ‘walking in the light’. (Suggested reading, “The Calvary Road”, Roy Hession, and “Quest for the Highest” Dr. Joe Church)
I am not suggesting, nor do I have any knowledge of, the way ++Rwaje and the HOB in Rwanda would handle this process. However, I believe we will see that there must be a process that starts with Rwanda before AMiA, Inc. can find another provincial home. Healing begins at the place of brokenness.

My strong suspicion is that the rush-rush decision making from Bishop Murphy was based around the Winter Conference. I suspect he wanted (and wants) a finished product to present to the gathered AM. Bishop Barnum’s letter says that former Archbishop Kolini told Bishop Murphy in June that “it was time for AMIA to leave Rwanda.” Decision made. After that, it was just a matter of going through the steps to arrive at Winter Conference and announce the “new thing” - all in keeping with the theme of the Holy Spirit this year.

I find this letter somewhat ironic.  Having personally experienced “authoritatian”, heavy handed treatment at the local AMiA church and network level, and being summarily rebuffed when pleading for reconciliation and mediation from my network leadership, I would not be so trusting of Bishop Thad.  And yes, it was his network.

Friends,
I have been sitting on my hands for weeks now, and,short of having my fingers cut off-which would be painful and prohibit me from playing keyboards (which the odd church might have a problem with) I now feel compelled to comment.  Please, please, stop shooting the messenger!  Thad Barnum is a good, kind, Godly man and is trying -belatedly - to shine a light on all that has gone before in this unholy mess. He carefully doesn’t comment on behaviors-he just tells of them.  And this is as it should be.

I totally agree with those who say that to assume this won’t be played out on the internet is naive and silly- and I think that is all it is.  But may I point out that many people in leadership- and especially these AMiA Bishops -don’t have a lot of experience in just how avid people are for news.  I say this as one who was once new at this thing too.  I now know that if the Archbishop sneezes to the left, in less that the speed of light, it’s on the internet that he’s gone over to the dark side. It is often not just WHAT one does and says, it’s the APPEARANCE that must be carefully guarded. These AMiA Bishops, by not going through a public process of being chosen, have been to some extent sheltered from the cold cruel publicity world out there. (lucky them!)  Believe me, it takes a lot of getting used to having your every word scanned and scrutinized for the “hidden” or “subtle” meaning,when in fact it may mean just exactly and only what it says.  I always hover between being amused and infuriated when I read the comments here after something Himself has written has been posted. Himself generally says exactly what he wants to-no more, no less. I think that it is the case here with Thad and I think we all need to thankful for the light which he has shone on the past meetings and conversations from within the labyrinthine halls of the AMiA and assume that he intended no more, no less.

I am fairly certain that this is what our Savior would have us do.  After all, when He said “blessed are the peacemakers” he didn’t specify only if they REALLY meant it, or only if they were speaking to shepherds, or only if they lived on the property, etc - you get my drift!
And while I am pontificating on leadership in the church,ponder this: it’s a steep learning curve for anyone-if we are not careful, we will scare away just those leaders who we need, just as has been happening in secular politics.  Why on earth would anyone put themselves forward to take this stuff?  After the comments here on bishops in general, how on earth can we expect anyone to consider taking on that job?  That all of them are lumped into one glory hounding bunch of dimwits really frosts my cake. Maybe there are too many in some places, but the ones I know in the ACNA are on the road constantly ministering to their people and are ALL overworked and underpaid! I can actually say part of that about some of the AMiA bishops also - the ones that I know.  Some I cannot. But for all of that, lighten up folks -we’re Anglicans and we need bishops - they are the only ones who can confirm us and ordain us - you remember that stuff?  If you want to be a congregationalist,do so, but leave behind the pretty clothes and music!

Growing up in the then anglo-catholic Diocese of New Jersey, my mother always reminded the six of us that the Bishop was a person just like Daddy - only scarier- they just have a higher standard of behavior expected of them and they have to dress funny and remember names and be humble because God expects that and works them really hard. Not a bad description when you come right down to it! In that case I think Mother did know best.
Here endeth the pontification! Amen and Happy New Year!

The brilliance of his leadership to me is the way he sees and casts vision. Time and time again, I’ve watched him gather leaders, present vision, and then break us into groups. He’d get us to talk it out and then come back and share our reflections.

Gee, where else have we seen this style of leadership?  The leader has his “vision”, then divides everyone up into groups to discuss, after which each group shares its reflections….and (as appears elsewhere in Bp. Barnum’s letter) the leader does what he was always planning to do in the first place.  Sound familiar anyone?

This leadership style works fine as long as everybody agrees with what the leader wants to do.  Works just fine in TEC, the AMiA, the Lambeth Confrerence, what have you - just so long as nobody is prepared to seriously challenge of question the leader.  (Note - yet another example of where orthodox NA Anglicans have simply followed along with the same sickness that had infected the Greater TEC).

Perhaps if the AMiA had had a culture of collegial leadership within its COB instead of a slightly modified version of Indaba (perhaps Murphy-daba??), then that culture of collegiality could have slowed things down.  But instead it sounds like the culture had developed of a Council of Yes-Men enthusiastically going along with whatever vision “the Chairman” had.

FrMatt:Thanks @16…

Fr. Bob - You will notice the plural is used in my statement.  All of the bishops are guilty of this nonsense that their problems have been caused and/or exacerbated by the internet.  This blog has not taken pot shots.  We comment on what facts we have.  If AMIA had truly wished to avoid speculation, this entire process would have been open.  It would have been done in an orderly fashion.  It would have included all the people who would be impacted by the results.

From where I stand, AMiA appears to be as guilty as ECUSA in taking the position that we mere pew sitters have no place in the important decisions.  Have they forgotten that the Church Universal is made up of us mere pew sitters?  Have the new leadership developed a serious case of amnesia as it relates to what happens when the mere pew sitters are treated like mushrooms? 

The quote above was not a pot shot at Bishop Barnum, it was frustration that anyone with the title of bishop before his name could even intimate that the internet/blogs are the problem here.  I equate that to someone blaming the TV station who happened to be present when the police arrested them for a DWI.  I don’t know Bishop Barnum and I take your word that he is a Godly man.  I commend Bishop Barnum for providing a clear and concise diary of the events that have transpired.  If I were his advisor I would immediately suggest he correct the notion that the blame for any of this debacle (and that is what it is) can be placed on anyone other than the bishops involved. 

I stand by my analogy to the Green Lantern as it relates to bishops in general.  Bishop Barnum was not singled out in the analogy.  It was put to all too many bishops in general.  Putting on the ring does not suddenly imbue them with special powers.  All too many of them forget that they are not God nor prophets but simple men who seek to serve their Lord.  They are called to be leaders—not dictators.  Has Bishop Barnum done this?  I have no way of knowing as I am not in AMiA and have never had the pleasure of meeting him.  If his supporters are accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), he must be a fine man.  I pray that God lead him through this very ungodly maze.

I have never met Bishop Barnum but have heard many very good things about him from people I respect. And this letter bears out all that I have heard. He took a brave stand to stick with his commitment and vows when everyone else was going the other way…and he did so without knowing how it would all play out.

His points about the press and the internet, however, strike a cord because they are quite consistent with the common, repeated theme heard too often when the church is in turmoil—“Be quiet and let us sort this out in private.”

The problem is, especially in our present environment, many people have staked their careers and futures to the various flags these bishops are flying. So when stakeholders realize that there are momentous decisions being made—or that momentous decisions have already been made—by bishops, behind closed doors, that will change everything and deeply impact their lives; decision which are, in fact, contrary to their own professed and strongly held biblical values, you can expect that they will not only want news but feel as if they deserve news.

And they are right.

In such cases, heeding an episcopal call for internet silence would serve only to enable the manipulation and deception of those who have very much to lose.

Such enabling is something none of us at Stand Firm will ever, ever be prepared to do.

I have no doubt that Bishop Barnum had godly intentions in making the request for silence a few weeks ago and in his remarks above…but the results of heeding his request would have been the very same—those bent on manipulating public opinion and painting a false picture of the events at hand would have been enabled to do so.

With regard to my remarks above, I was speaking more generally about “bishops” than about any one bishop, especially not intending to characterize Bishop Barnum.

Having said all this, I agree that from this point on it would be a good idea to focus on the substance of the letter rather than his words about the internet.

Jackie,
Thanks for that clarification.  This is a difficult situation—and, I want to be clear, I don’t mean “to shoot the messenger” who may well be doing no more than finding and reporting news (and thus serving a very valuable function).  Many of us have learned some lessons the proverbial “hard way” in this process- hopefully we can put those lessons to good use as we move forward.
Bob

Matt+,

Thank you also—your statement in 35 is most helpful and I appreciate your perspective here.

I fully agree with those who have underscored the repentance with Rwanda is vital.  Yes.  Yes.  Yes. May it begin!

I think you have been very clear, Fr. Bob, and I thank you for your honest expression.  I pray my explanations were adequate to reassure you this is not a witch-hunt.  Anglicanism as a whole is under a cloud.  Let us pray that the cloud becomes cover by day and fire by night.

Response to Gregg in post #25.  It seems to me that part of the explanation is “party spirit.”  You phrase the issue as “don’t these people see what secrecy did to TEC?”, but I think that many conservative leaders think “it’s not the secrecy that was the problem in TEC, it is that the secret keepers were heretics.  But we’re not.  We’re good guys, and so we are entitled to keep things secret and because you know we are good guys, you should just trust us.”  And when people refuse to heed the call for keeping silent, these leaders become angry and feel that they are being undermined.

The mirror side of this can be seen in many liberal blogs.  Shocking examples of bad faith, dishonesty, injustice, etc., are praised and celebrated on liberal blogs because the nasty conservatives got nailed, and all’s fair when the conservatives get nailed.

Most conservative blogs are different - StandFirm, TitusOneNine, Anglican TV, Conger.  They are different in that they hold all sides to objective standards of behavior.  It is no excuse to try to justify objectively foolish, unwise or bad behavior by saying “but we’re the orthodox, just trust us.”

What the whole AMiA mess should be teaching us all is that constructive criticism from friendly folks is something that needs to be heeded early on in a non-defensive manner, and that there is still a whole lot of work ahead for orthodox Anglicans in healing from the deep and pervasive sickness that had and still is infecting North American Anglicanism.

I appreciated this line from Bp. Barnum’s letter in particular:

Early Monday morning, December 5, I wrote Bishop Chuck and copied two of my colleagues as witnesses. I begged him to comply with the Archbishop’s admonition. I wrote, “If we have any authority as bishops to bring ‘godly discipline’ then we’ve got to model being under and complying to ‘godly discipline’ ...“Model being under authority for us, for the Mission. Don’t let us divide… For the sake of the Mission, for the sake of all who look to you as a model of godly leadership, come under the discipline of your Archbishop.”

What a spot on admonition/pleading.  It cuts to the core of the issues at stake.

Moving forward it also raises the question, “How will those who remain with AMiA ever handle authority in their churches with credibility?”

Much of the implications of this will depend on (a) whether AMiA congregations are forced to choose between the AMiA bishops and +Barnum/PEAR, and (b) if so, how many go each way.

#29, Joel,

Bishop Barnum’s letter says that former Archbishop Kolini told Bishop Murphy in June that “it was time for AMIA to leave Rwanda.” Decision made. After that, it was just a matter of going through the steps to arrive at Winter Conference and announce the “new thing

It was not “former Archbishop Kolini” ‘s call on this. He was not Chuck Murphy’s Archbishop any longer.

He met again with AMIA’s retired archbishops (sans ++Rwaje)

This is not due process. He was avoiding the person who had authority over him.

I agree Fr. Dale, I’m just repeating what Bishop Barnum said.

.. our Chairman presented us with “options.” He asked, 1- if we wanted to stay in Rwanda; 2- if we wanted to go to ACNA or, 3- if we wanted to start a new Missionary Society. He asked each of us to respond.

It seems rather presumptuous for him to offer these options when at least two primates would have to agree to option #2.

Better to go with what you know than with what you don’t know.

It seems rather presumptuous for him to offer these options when at least two primates would have to agree to option #2.

Yet in overall Anglican ecclesastical polity, option two would have been the cleanest considering other East African bishops ++Orombi’s & ++Nzimbi’s actions after ACNA formation and some of the more Communion Conservatives in Global South. I am not saying with the “ecclesiology of pragmatism” that would be the motivation, just #2 is not that presumptuous in the context of whole. #1 has the whole deal of “why still under Rwanda when ACNA formed question (somewhat the same some have ask in recent blog post of CANA) or charge that “only due to money” etc. and option #3 (which seems the current gist of things) maybe equally problematic, other folks on SFIF have been flushing out.

#48. Hosea6:6,
It was presumptuous to make the offer since he had not cleared it first with the primates involved. In fact, was it presumptuous to make any of the three offers without prior approval?

#49—I’d disagree if August 31 was done in good faith. Granted, we have numerous testimony to +Murphy’s character to suggest maybe otherwise. However, if this weer a healthy organization I think “straw poll” of your peers before approaching PEAR HoB would be prudent.

—-

Generic Commentary - not addressed to a single comment but many different ones I’ve read throughout this drama.

It seems some strange contradictory some scream at “Romanish” canons then actually seem to promote RCC hierarchical system of bishops of bishops. This is odd for me as 815 pressuring orthodox bishops was touted as unAnglican ecclesiology, the ABC is first among equals, therefore +Barnum and +Murphy and +Birindabagabo would be peers and ++Rwaje a leadership function (but not necessarily a theological one as in the RCC). Second item I find fascinating is the pre-VC 2 approach to top-down grace with appeals ‘how godly such-in-such bishop’ is and therefore beyond questioning (example in my mind actually was an over-reaction someone said with an African bishop when I pointed out his narrative didn’t match the bishops letter, in fact the bishops letter shows some humanity anger to another bishop)—I find that most curious, again very Romanish - of the pre-VC2 variety, but less Protestant, “Bishops put their pants on one leg at a time—All we are sinners in need of Jesus.”

If option 3 was not presented, than the August 31 conference call would made perfect sense to me. What was done for a season maybe needed to come to an end. There seems a whole lot of concern about positions in which you’re going to have to make very Romanish arguments to defend (bishop of bishops) but not so much on concept of mutual submission. Does PEAR or CoN have the right to ignore Communion Conservative voices after ACNA was formed or should they have done as all the other Global South have done (at least CANA is dual citizen).

Having “talked out” (written) what I just did above: Option Two of August 31, would actually not be presumptuous for the mind of the Communion of the Windsor Report or Dar es Salaam, but Option One would be (as it was at that time, but then there was not another option).

I’v had the privlleges of meeting +Thad and also hearing him preach.  The best description of the man comes from a friend of mine who once drempt of being a priest in AMiA - “a force of nature.”  I walked away wishing we could bottle what he has. 

On another note, I am personally familiar with the type of situation he had found himself in on that conference call.  It goes without saying but warrants repeating that the wrong thing to do seems so comfortable, and the right thing, not so much.  It requires a “Godly” amount of will that seems ungodly at the time.  And you will the right thing, knowing that you yourself and those who love you, will suffer consequences for some time to come. 

I don’t really know what to make of the hush-hush.  I’ve served on a TEC vestry before - both the parish and the vestry were a mixed bag running the gamut between conservatives and liberals.  We dealt with information release issues sometimes.  The protocol we seemed to use was to avoid talking about the drama and try to stick to what they really needed to know, as soon as we knew it ourselves. 

Our austerity budget was one such example.  We published information about what needed to get cut, and what the congregation needed to be doing to make up for the cut;  but we didn’t broadcast information dealing with the various diocesian weirdos we were subjected to in our talks about our budget problem, or the drama that seemed to follow them like BO. 

Looking back, that was probably a dysfunctional way of handling things;  the cost of business perhaps for being in TEC. 

Maybe we’re bound to carry all of that dysfunction to our newandimprovedorthodox jurisdictions, I don’t know.  I guess I’m not angry, just humbled and a little sad.

For I actually believed that we, in AMIA, at our very core, were more than canonically resident in Rwanda.

And then there was the special status AMIA had with ACNA. So, in Chuck Murphy’s mind, was this just an annulment and not a divorce? It seems like Chuck Murphy thought he had a special deal with both Rwanda and ACNA that would allow him to have the “autonomy” of a province and the right to innovate. Perhaps this is what Archbishop Duncan meant when he said that they were working toward being “fully Anglican”.

Not sure if it’s true.  I just got an e-mail from “Anglican Ink” that +Murphy and ++Rwaje will meet in Kenya.  Hopefully they’ll be able to work some sort of accommodation out.

Being in the corporate world for the past 20+ years, this seems like the typical “New Management” scenario where the new guy and his team come in and want to make their mark on the organization, change the way things work and some folks get cheesed off because they thought they had prior agreements or just don’t like the new MO.  Unfortunately, this is a Church, so it looks bad, far more so on the +Murphy end.  But here’s hoping cooler heads and a great deal of grace can prevail in the days to come.

Old Lady @23 said

I hate the term “casting a vision.”

Agree 100%. That’s why I don’t fit well in a group like AMiA that claims it can discern the Spirit’s leading (and especially leading into new things) through leadership vision or discernment processes, improving on what the Word clearly says and what the Church has always believed.

If the vision is likely to change when the leadership changes, then it isn’t really the vision of an unchanging God.  Maybe it’s just a good tactical plan—something useful to do but not something that has to be obeyed.

#54 said:

It seems like Chuck Murphy thought he had a special deal with both Rwanda and ACNA that would allow him to have the “autonomy” of a province and the right to innovate.

I have to admit, I’m confused as to why the AMIA Bishops event want to be in ACNA.  For years the chairman and many of the AMIA bishops have told us that the reason we weren’t joining with the ACNA was that their polity was seriously flawed and would eventually lead us down the exact same road as TEC.  If they really believe that, then why would they want to be part of the ACNA at all?

As a latecomer to this thread, I have two primary comments to make.

First, the shorter and easier one, echoing various people above.  Above all, I welcome the candor and transparency displayed by +Thad here.  If this sort of open, honest communication had been the norm in AMiA, instead of the exception, this whole mess probably wouldn’t have happened.  Or it wouldn’t have been as catastrophic as it has been.  But I’m optimistic enough by nature to think that repentance and real change is always possible for any of us, if we’re willing to do whatever it takes.

Second, my heart aches for all my many friends in AMiA, who now find themselves in a crisis not of their making, and faced with a difficult dilemma, being forced to choose between staying under +Murphy and those bishops aligned with him, and staying under Rwandan oversight through +Barnum and +Glenn.  It’s a fateful, momentous choice that will likely have far-reaching ramifications for many years to come, and they’re having to make that wrenching decision very suddenly, with a paucity of reliable information to go on.

That crucial fork-in-the-road decision reminds me of a memorable historical marker in my hometown, Sioux Falls, SD (where Fr. Tim Fountain lives and ministers so effectively).  Back in the 1870s and 1880s, Sioux Falls was a pioneer town, near the edge of the western frontier, and a major fork was there in the trails that led westward.  If you took the northern fork, you would eventually end up in Portland (OR), and if you took the other, you could end up in Los Angeles (among other places).

Now that memorable historical marker commemorated the spot where the pioneer trails divided. Literally thousands of covered wagons passed through Sioux Falls heading west, and the resulting wagon ruts were very, very deep.  The marker delightfully quoted a humorous sign some wag had posted at the fork:

Choose your rut carefully.
You’ll be in it for the next 500 miles.

David Handy+

Follow up to my #56,

In light of the caution and due diligence that is appropriate for AMiA congregational leaders in light of the need to choose which rut to follow, the Rwandan rut or the new, non-Rwandan one, I will venture a fairly safe prediction.

In terms of the two upcoming rival events in Houston and Raleigh, I think there aren’t just two possibilities, but at least four options that AMiA leaders can choose from.

1.  Go to Houston.
2.  Go to Raleigh.
3.  Do neither, saving money and delaying a decision.
4.  Do BOTH, to gather as much info as possible before deciding.

Here’s a further prediction.  I expect a substantial number of AMiA leaders will opt for choice #3 and go to NEITHER event.  They just haven’t had time to sort it all out, and such events are expensive, in terms of both time and money invested.

OTOH, I suspect a small number will fork out the money to attend BOTH events, if at all possible.  After all, there is just no substitute for first-hand observation of the bishops and direct personal contact with other AMiA leaders.  Given the vast confusion that still reigns within AMiA, and the lack of full, reliable information that bedevils and aggravates this tragic crisis, if I were a leader of an AMiA congregation that wasn’t already sure of which way to go, then I think I’d try to make sure that at least someone from our parish leadership circle attended BOTH events (not necessarily the same person(s) at both).  However, I recognize that this would be a luxury that many, if not most, congregations simply couldn’t afford.

Too bad, because while the divergent wagon trails might not seem to be that far apart when they disappear on the western horizon, by the time the trails get to the Pacific, they wind up many hundreds of miles apart.  There is indeed a need to “Choose your rut carefully.”

Alas, I continue to think that those who choose to follow +Murphy and the majority of bishops (and probably the majority of congregations) into an ecclesial No Man’s Land will probably end up becoming less and less Anglican in the months and years to come, as the “Anglican Lite” characteristics of this group go unchecked and snowball.  OTOH, those who choose to stay in the Rwandan “rut” could easily do just the opposite, and because they may well be integrated much sooner and more completely into the ACNA, they could conceivably become more and more Anglican in the coming years, not less.  We’ll see.

On the whole, this fine letter really encourages me.  It tells me that at least a portion of AMiA can be salvaged and saved to participate in the rebirth of authentic Anglicanism on this continent.

David Handy+

With all respect to Greg, Matt, and others, I think you protest too much.  While the blogosphere is a reality, very wise people have taught me that it is good to listen and consider before you speak.  In the world of anonymity, it is easy to speak first and suffer no consequences.  People who are responsible for congregations are wise to follow scriptural admonitions to guard their tongue (or in this case, their keyboard).  It is obvious by this letter that Bishop Thad’s purpose in his earlier exhortation was not to conceal or to keep things secret, but to encourage leaders with responsibility to to talk to one another directly, to listen and consider, before making conclusions and judgments that are broadcast to the world. His comments about the internet in this letter seem to be reflective rather than critical - an attempt to understand how usually spiritual and thoughtful people became rash, impulsive and sinful.

To me, the story in this letter is not about his position on the value of the transparency of constant press releases, but about the audacity of a leader to advise a group of bishops under authority to resign their post and sign a letter with no prayer, discussion, or time to reflect.  I wonder how he convinced them the sky was falling?  Also, the fact that 8 of them agreed is disturbing and shows the folly of letting yourself be hurried into such a major decision.  I am reminded of the used car salesman who wants you to close a deal tonight because the car could be sold in the morning.  Maybe there should be a 3 day waiting period before someone can resign their orders.

BillK:  You find the fact that the eight bishops agreed so quickly to Murphy’s suggestion to be disturbing, and so it is.  But I think that there is a little more going on here than just eight guys letting themselves be rushed into a decision.  I think that this exposes the folly of the larger AMiA leadership culture.  What I found most disturbing (as I pointed out earlier) was this from Barnum’s letter:

The brilliance of his leadership to me is the way he sees and casts vision. Time and time again, I’ve watched him gather leaders, present vision, and then break us into groups. He’d get us to talk it out and then come back and share our reflections. One of his most captivating and memorable lines is that, “God speaks to His people through His people.” And I’ve watched him listen to the people around him, take counsel, and move forward…

Not only the eight bishops that followed Murphy, but Barnum as well, had for many years let Murphy run the show and make the decisions.  The quote above describes a leadership culture of a strongman CEO surrounded by yes-men.  I am sure that it is a little bit more complex than that, but that sounds very much to be AMiA’s decision-making paradigm.  Murphy presents the idea, the COB tells him how wonderful that idea is, and Murphy implements it.  What puzzles me is why Barnum or anyone else is surprised at the results of this latest decision.  This is the decision-making paradigm that they had contributed to for over ten years.

What needs to be done is not only review the actual decision itself, but also question the decision-making paradigm that enabled such a colossal blunder to take place without serious debate and challenge.

#55. Southernpriest,

I have to admit, I’m confused as to why the AMIA Bishops event want to be in ACNA.  For years the chairman and many of the AMIA bishops have told us that the reason we weren’t joining with the ACNA was that their polity was seriously flawed and would eventually lead us down the exact same road as TEC.  If they really believe that, then why would they want to be part of the ACNA at all?

That’s a great question. If this is only a marriage of convenience to get a spiritual green card, then I hope it doesn’t take place.

Whatever in the world has happened to leading like Jesus???

That question has been bothering me since the AMiA mess story broke.

BillK (#58) I agree with you. The comments on this thread have dismayed me, with their focus on Bishop Barnum’s supposed “criticism” of the Internet - and the harshness displayed towards him. If only the Archbishop’s rebuke of Bishop Murphy remained private for a reasonable period of time, there could have been a different outcome here. Bishop Murphy, after a period of prayer and reflection, may have submitted to authority. Perhaps Bishop Barnum and others - with prayer and patient counsel - could have lead Bishop Murphy to see a better path.  Instead, Bishop Murphy felt either shame or outrage that was so tremendous that he reacted inappropriately - and too quickly. If only this genie could be put back in the bottle. I am not AMiA, just a former Episcopalian who has observed and admired the faithfulness of AMiA from afar. When Bishop Murphy started First Promise, he won my respect and gratitude. What has happened over the past month has saddened me greatly. I believe Bishop Murphy was wrong to resign from Rowanda. Had there not been a quick public release of the private letter,  things may have not played out in the terrible way they have.  Bishop Barnum’s reflection helped me understand better how this mess occurred. I am thankful he provided this. He has been very forthcoming.

Hi BillK

“With all respect to Greg, Matt, and others, I think you protest too much.”

I don’t.

“While the blogosphere is a reality, very wise people have taught me that it is good to listen and consider before you speak.”

Yes, that is true. It is good to consider what you say before you say it. You’re point?

“In the world of anonymity, it is easy to speak first and suffer no consequences.”

It’s interesting that you address this point to me, Matt Kennedy, and Greg Griffith…

“People who are responsible for congregations are wise to follow scriptural admonitions to guard their tongue (or in this case, their keyboard).”

Yep.

“It is obvious by this letter that Bishop Thad’s purpose in his earlier exhortation was not to conceal or to keep things secret, but to encourage leaders with responsibility to to talk to one another directly, to listen and consider, before making conclusions and judgments that are broadcast to the world.”

No doubt. Had you read our comments above—not to mention just about everything we’ve written on this subject—before you took to the keyboard you would know that nobody has questioned +Barnum’s “purpose”. Rather, we have disagreed with his written assertions with regard to blogs and with his call for blog silence. And we have articulated our arguments above. You are, of course, free to disagree with them…but don’t mischaracterize them as some sort of commentary on the “purposes” or motives of the bishop.

“His comments about the internet in this letter seem to be reflective rather than critical - an attempt to understand how usually spiritual and thoughtful people became rash, impulsive and sinful.”

I am sure, as I said above, he had the godliest of intentions. But the result of the silence for which he called in an earlier letter posted here would not have produced consideration and reflection…but it would have opened the door for even more deceit and manipulation.

#58. BillK,

With all respect to Greg, Matt, and others, I think you protest too much.

And I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about the severity of this, and your understanding of the need for silent keyboards.

Hey.

HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY . . .

SO!!!

RE: “With all respect to Greg, Matt, and others, I think you protest too much.”

There is a person not mentioned who apparently receives no respect at all, even though she has fiercely protested the notion that bishops and clergy responsible for their own actions, parishes, words, and keyboards should also somehow get to decide that other people shouldn’t comment on their denominational leadership’s actions.

And that person is me.

What am I—chopped liver that I should receive no due respect?????

; > )

#65. Sarah Hey,
I believe you have been assigned to the category “others” with the rest of the Hoi polli. The season of Lent comes earlier for some.

Just want to be on record quickly - I respect chopped liver and duly so.

65 - Sarah, I think that your Ent humor lightened the tone created in the first post, but a call by other people to take a deep breath and reflect before commenting isn’t the same thing as telling people not to comment at all.  (I hope you notice that I comment to you first… a clear sign of my recognition that you deserve chief respect in all things).

63 - Matt, I actually think that if Greg had started with post 25 instead of post 1 his comments would have been fine…my problem isn’t with the accuracy of his (or your) criticism, rather it is with the fact that you made this the focus of your analysis of the content that Barnum presented.  As a deacon in an AMIA/Rwanda church I am trying to understand the options that our congregation has to consider and I appreciate analysis that might help us to make wise decisions under difficult circumstances.  The fact that I read all of the posts on these issues means that I recognize the value of openness, I think the same is true for BillK in this case.  I know this is an important issue to you guys, but the other aspects should have gotten top priority…that is if you are looking to help us make wise decisions.

Even though I personally want more information and wanted it immediately, I appreciate the fact that Barnum and company have taken time to reflect and to develop a plan before rolling it out and I think the patience to reflect before speaking is evident in his response.

Ent humor. . .still geeky:)

Hi LurkingTooLong . . . I couldn’t tell by your comment if you’d been following this story all that closely—here are some earlier threads with some background commenting as well:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/28019/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/28158/

RE: “If only the Archbishop’s rebuke of Bishop Murphy remained private for a reasonable period of time, there could have been a different outcome here. . . . . . . Had there not been a quick public release of the private letter,  things may have not played out in the terrible way they have.”

Hmmm . . . I think the mythology surrounding the Archbishop’s letter being released publicly immediately has been laid on rather too richly by . . . er . . . certain other people whom I won’t name here.  The Archbishop’s letter was submitted on November 30 and with a 7-day deadline for response.

George Conger posted it towards the end of December 5—and though I haven’t had any contact with him, I would certainly have done the same thing, given the propensity of Anglican leaders of all stripes to use the private time-delay to gather one’s cards and allies, which, as it happens, it appears is exactly what was done. 

RE: “If only this genie could be put back in the bottle.”

I’m afraid that, given the foundations of AMiA, this was a train wreck waiting to happen.  This has all been gone into in great detail elsewhere, so I won’t go into it again.  But many many many people—within and without AMiA—were well aware of the foundational flaws that were within AMiA, despite its many fantastic laity and clergy.

I spoke with an older friend tonight for the first time about various Anglican matters, and both of us agreed about how *unsurprising* the whole thing was—not the *way* it came about, but the unsurprising *fact* of its happening.

Finally, one of the things I’ve been utterly dumbfounded over is how droningly and repetitiously Anglican traditionalists have used the very phrases, manipulations, and faux arguments that the liberals in TEC used—or attempted to use—on the conservatives.

The whole “interwebs are awful, bloggers must cease being divisive” meme is awfully awfully awfully old now.  And traditional Anglicans use the various memes of revisionist-TEC with astounding regularity—and with a seeming obliviousness to the irony.

What that tells me is that a whole lot of people never learned what they were supposed to learn and there will be lots of repetitions of consequences in the years to come.

Good times.

Wish I thought you were wrong Sarah (70), but as a thirty year veteran of public school teaching I am afraid that people learning what they are suppose to learn is far too rare…sigh.

RE: “I believe you have been assigned to the category “others” with the rest of the Hoi polli.”

“assigned to the category “others” . . .

Pah!

RE: “I hope you notice that I comment to you first… a clear sign of my recognition that you deserve chief respect in all things).”

Now see, this is much better—I just skyped this comment to the whole SF blogging crew with a little party hat icon.

Gratified,

Sarah

Sarah, and others,

Let me start by saying that I appreciate, and have bookmarked, Stand Firm and Anglican TV.  You have been an important source of truth in a confusing time for those of us in the middle of this mess.  I am far away from South Carolina.  I am angry at the AMiA press office for attacking you, denying true stories, and deceiving us by their press releases and letters. 

Having said that, with respect to this piece, I think you should read your own sign, “This is a no-whining no-freakout zone.”  Maybe Bishop Thad, who I don’t know, said something very negative to you that I have not heard.  If that is the case, I withdraw.  However, based on this piece, and his letter in Advent, I don’t think he was “trying to control the agenda.” or saying that “bloggers are awfully divisive.”  Quite the opposite.

Just before the advent letter, he posted a website for those who would wish to remain in Rwanda.  At that time, many of us were angry and were looking to choose sides and begin recruiting people to our side.  This was a logical impulse and would be an example of using the interweb to try to control the agenda.  The emotion that we felt at the time was evident in every post and it was difficult to follow your admonitions below (ie Matt 5:43-45).  Each one of us wanted to immediately resign from something, we just weren’t sure what. ☺

Bishop Thad took down his site and in concert with Archbishop Rwaje admonished those of us in leadership in our very busy parishes during Advent to take a respite from the hourly drama and …

“In addition, we request of all clergy and congregations in PEAR, that all recruiting, posturing, and gathering for allegiance to one side or another in these matters cease immediately.  In place of these, we commit to join everyone in fervent prayer to our Lord that His reconciling love would prevail in our hearts and that His grace would abound as we seek a way forward that blesses Him and brings glory to His Name.”

Obviously then and now, the way he worded this was offensive to many bloggers, but it did not appear to me as a condemnation of the blogs (like we saw from others, including another blog, ironically).  Rather, it came to me as a welcome reminder that I had more important stuff to do than get immersed in this drama all day.  Even though there are some leaders out there that deserve a lot of criticism, there are others who are working very hard to “seek a way forward that blesses Him.”  Rather than seizing the opportunity to recruit angry clergy like me, Thad instead called for prayer (a release of control).

You guys seem very defensive and want to key on this “freedom of the bloggers” story.  I guess you think that there should be a live feed from every telephone call between bishops.  Maybe this would stop all of the arrogance, bad decisions, corruption, etc.  We could get them unedited, burps, nose picks and all…  Demythesize the purple shirts.  I think we all know that just like bloggers, bishops will continue to make mistakes, rush to judgment, get their panties in a twist, etc whether we are on the line or not.

The root issue for me in this letter is the decision-making paradigm described so well by James (59).  “Strong-man” decision-making structures usually lead to careful control of information to support the chairman.  Leadership like this seeks to keep everyone else in the dark, does not trust their people with the truth and, by using the world’s means of control, does not trust God.  When Bishop Thad still calls Bishop Murphy “our chairman” it now seems creepy to me.

How did this happen?  Many of us who have gone to many diocesan conventions and seen the futility of countless resolutions regarding the definition of marriage have been happily content to go to Winter Conferences focused more on worship and training than policy.  We trusted that our council of bishops advised the Provincial Vicar (now Chairman) and that he was under true accountability to a council of Bishops that we trusted in Rwanda.  We were told this polity was because of our status as a mission (like a mission in a diocese).  Ironically, we failed for the same reason that TEC is failing, we trusted but did not verify what was going on upstairs.  I seem to remember you warning us of this many years ago.

You can say we should have known better, that those outside have always known Chuck was a stinker, etc.  But the issue is not whether Chuck was a good man or not.  He is one man.  I think this is what Bishop Duncan meant when he said that we needed our final product to be “fully Anglican.”  Ie. Not lead by one man.  You cannot be a Mission, nothing more, nothing less © without structure, Bishop Murphy… and in this church the structure must be fully Anglican. 

I get a little tired of the triumphalism of those who never liked AmiA in the first place.  This is not surprising, I always knew it was bound to end like this…  What is happening to AmiA is not good for any Christian, much less any Anglican.  That blind trust is broken for us I think.  Whether people stay in this group or that, I suspect a lot more tranparancy will be needed in the decision making process in ALL of North American Anglicanism.  So while I agree that leadership and transparency are important aspects of this story, the focus of Thad’s admonition at Advent and his musing about the Internet here seems to me to be more about being considerate, careful, and prayerful before engaging the “send” key.

As an ACNA member, I don’t see why it would be in anyone’s interest to try to shoehorn all the AMIA congregations into the denomination. Far better to take only those parishes whose backround and mindset are such that they will be happy in the ACNA.

Meanwhile, the ACNA has its own foundational issues to work on.

RE: “I guess you think that there should be a live feed from every telephone call between bishops.”

Hmmm . . .

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

; > )

RE: “The root issue for me in this letter is the decision-making paradigm described so well by James (59).”

Listen—I’m game to talk about that and I agree that that’s a big issue.  Maybe if so many blogs/bloggers hadn’t been instructed lo-these-hundreds-of-times over the past 8-11 years about the intrinsic divisiveness of their blogs, bloggers wouldn’t hone in like a laser on the latest iteration. 

But having hashed it out quite a lot in the above thread, I’m happy to talk about the other more principled stuff as well and I see that I haven’t mentioned just how incredibly tough and admirable it is to be the lone person saying “nay” in a major vote where everybody else is saying “aye.”  I’ve been there and it’s not easy.

Although he doesn’t need any praise or public admiration, my hat’s off to Bishop Barnum for that, as well as some attempts at communicating to the flock and explanation; such a clear exposition also takes a lot of courage and clarity.

RE: “Many of us who have gone to many diocesan conventions and seen the futility of countless resolutions regarding the definition of marriage have been happily content to go to Winter Conferences focused more on worship and training than policy.  We trusted that our council of bishops advised the Provincial Vicar (now Chairman) and that he was under true accountability to a council of Bishops that we trusted in Rwanda.”

See—this bothers me.  I don’t understand how anybody can go through the pain of TEC—the sheer horror and misery of TEC—and leave there thinking “goodness, I really must be more trusting of my leaders once I’m in a bright shiny new organization that has Really Really Good People in it.”

It’s like a red flag in front of a pawing, snorting bull for me.

Humans make organizations.  Organizations are people in a group with leaders and rules and structures.  The act of politics is people working within the organization—actions taken to sustain and/or reform and/or direct—the organization.  That’s what politics is. 

I can’t conceive of leaving TEC and saying “boy, thank goodness we don’t have to deal in that nasty politics any more and don’t have to be alert.”  Quite the opposite—15 years ago, I never thought about politics.  Now, it’s not quite an incessant clamor—but it’s *there* all the time as an undercurrent, for any organization of which I’m a part.

RE: “You can say we should have known better, that those outside have always known Chuck was a stinker, etc.”

For the record, I do not have any opinion about that latter.  Some people may think that—but from my perspective Bishop Murphy is a uniquely talented man with striking strengths and weaknesses.  I agree with you, also, that the issue is not whether he is a “good man”—none of us are anyway.  Note that my thesis is the intrinsic necessity and rightness of politics—of humans working within human organizations using the structures and rules and leaders of the organization to accomplish things.  That’s a far different cry from a thesis about the intrinsic badness of leaders, laity, or whatever other people are involved.

RE: “I get a little tired of the triumphalism . . . “

I don’t think that being aware of some immense faults and disjunctions within an organization—and having lots of people on the Underground Railway of communication that is Anglitania give you very personal and direct and detailed information—gives one a sense of “triumphalism” so much as a rather sickening sinking feeling, along with a lot of frustration when people gaily trundle along pointing out the butterflies and the cotton candy.  None of what these people had was particularly special—it was merely that the information was *wanted* and therefore provided.  Some of those who didn’t have information were—as with those in TEC—people who often didn’t want the information.  That’s not everybody—but in my experience, it’s a whole lot of people.

RE: “What is happening to AmiA is not good for any Christian . . . “

I agree.  And I think if you go back and look at most of my or others’ comments you will hopefully see that the focus isn’t on things that should have been known or done, but the epic catastrophe this is for 1) Christian reputation, 2) Anglican reputation, order, and identity, 3) individual parishioners who are facing real fracture and division and sorrow, as well as a focus on 4) *what can be learned now* in the midst of this mess, so that nobody has to *relearn it* and 5) if there are any practical things that can be done now in order to salvage something.

On that latter point, I think my biggest concern is the incredible, tremendous pressure there’s going to be on all sides—the leaders of ACNA, the leaders of the Rwandan former AM parishes, the leaders of AM corporate, the Archbishop of Rwanda—to lever some kind of “reconciliation and reset button” move—“reconciliation” meaning “let’s all go back to being all together in one big happy family again with the same leaders only now with a little structural whitewashing and all of us in ACNA”—you know, ironically the kind of “reconciliation” that TEC leaders were always blathering about back before they realized that things were never going to be pleasant again in TEC and the wish arose for you guys to “leave already.”

All that “reconciliation [defined as above] and reset” does is 1) import the same leadership and structural dysfunctions into another organization, 2) short circuit the allowance of some sowing and tilling of the soil so that different leadership/structures can emerge, 3) prevent natural and good consequences occurring as a result of actions—and the recognition of those consequences by all, and 4) put a happy whitewash on the whole burrito.

If I were going to guess, that’s what I think probably *will* happen.

But if I were to guess the *ideal* possible outcome, it would be for 1) all parties to wait to see how the *actual division* categorizes out [and it is an *actual* division, not a *potential* one] 2) lots of repentance and reflection taking place within the various groups, 3) settling within the various groups [Rwanda, corporate AM, ACNA] and becoming healthy and functional, and 4) THEN conversations and discussions on *the future* and how things might could possibly flesh out, including perhaps some structural unifications.

But as I’ve droningly pointed out in the past, I don’t think very unhealthy or fractured or dysfunctional entities or bodies should “marry” so to speak.  And you know what?

You’d say the same thing to your daughter, if she asked your advice about her potential union with someone like that.  You’d want there to be some waiting, some growth, some maturing, first.

Well . . . anyway . . . at least we live in interesting times.

#75 Sarah you write

All that “reconciliation [defined as above] and reset” does is 1) import the same leadership and structural dysfunctions into another organization, 2) short circuit the allowance of some sowing and tilling of the soil so that different leadership/structures can emerge, 3) prevent natural and good consequences occurring as a result of actions—and the recognition of those consequences by all, and 4) put a happy whitewash on the whole burrito.

If I were going to guess, that’s what I think probably *will* happen.

This is precisely what I don’t think will happen.  I’ve gotten to know ++Duncan well enough over the past few years to judge that he would view such an outcome as abject failure. It simply will not happen. 

Archbishop Duncan set out as a prerequisite reconciliation btw AMiA and PEAR before serious engagment btw AMiA and the ACNA.  He also made it clear that the ACNA’s first concern was their relationship with The Province of Rwanda.  The net here is that ++Duncan and the ACNA will not move forward with AMiA until PEAR is satisfied.

That’s just the way we roll.

I should have also said that the result of reconciliation will result in significant changes in AMiA.  It has to.  That is part of my understanding of ++Duncan’s comment about AMiA becoming more fully Anglican.

It is all rather sad, but how can one really be surprised by any of it? I think the faith that brought the people of the AMiA was real—from my lowly vantage point—But, I think like so many well meaning people who get into things for all the right reasons, they sometimes start “to believe their own press,” as my father would say…It would seem, also, they would forget who made their press “newsworthy.” In their case, the blogs and internet news services.

The AMIA, and the CANA, came of age as the bloggers became legit in the eyes of other media. Heavens HUNDREDS stayed online, burning up Standfirm for every minute or nanosecond(?) of news. We worked you all really hard—you were(are)the darlings of, and most hated of, legions…“What did bishop Bumbles look like when he said so and so…”  Matt typing at the speed of light… Sarah getting interviews, writing about bridges, and all of us wanting to see her on Anglican TV…Greg making it a feverish pitch, and getting everyone worked up and excited, making this blog a remarkable event…The Woodriff’s reminding us to pray…
There was electricity in the Anglican World…But the parade lost its way, and went down the wrong avenue, following people who wanted to be the story, rather than point to the story…They are right to give the blogs such an acknowledgement of their power to destroy them, but to do so they need to acknowledge they were made by them…Perhaps it wasn’t the blogs, but the substance they had to work with, humanity, it’s just getting humans to understand we are just humans…

Sarah, Matt, Greg -
thanks for what you do. you’re part of the solution!
Wright Wall

The Standfirm folks are pioneers…They are gifted..Indeed…By writing, “But the parade lost its way, and went down the wrong avenue, following people who wanted to be the story, rather than point to the story,” I meant no disrepect to the bishops, but that they, personally, became the story, their egos had to be affectef, their sense of being “masters of their own destiny” - and the heros they were reported to be…  Who could have known the power of the blog to build up, but not have a custion ready for the fall to normality…Like a tital wave…builds up, hits, ebbs away to huge damage…The internet was/is a force of nature…Standfirm was the first to harness it for the Anglican world…People came along, but they could not do it all well…I think we have all learned a lot…

A brief backwards detour:

jamesw (#59),
I heartily agree with you, as is often the case.  As I’ve said on other threads, one of the most troubling and unAnglican things about AMiA’s cultural DNA is the way that +Murphy gets to make decisions virtually unilaterally (almost as if he were Chairman Mao instead of Chairman Murphy, or rather, more fittingly, as if he were the Chairman of the Board and the CEO of the corporation simultaneously).  Similarly, it seems that in some (many?) AMiA congregations, the “vestry” (whatever it might be called) isn’t elected by the congregation, but is merely a council of advisors appointed by the priest.  Not least, AMiA networks are definitely not run like dioceses, with elected representatives making decisions in synodical fashion.  AMiA seems to be set up to run like a business, instead of like a traditional church, with the executive staff making all the key decisiions, as in the business world.

The upside of that, and it’s a major plus, is that everyone else gets to focus like a laser beam on actually doing mission, leading people to Christ and planting new churches, serving others in Christ’s name, without all the tedious, mundane tasks of running things getting in the way.  However, the downside to that
“streamlined” style of church governance (to put it most charitably) is that when things start to go wrong, and people get unhappy with some of the decisions made on their behalf but in which they had little say, there is little recourse available.  Shut out of the decision-making process, they have little way to express their complaints and concerns, much less actually being able to work toward constructive change.

In short, I agree with you, jamesw, that the NON-SYNODICAL style in which AMiA is set up and run is both unhealthy and less than “fully Anglican.”  It’s one of the main reasons why I characterize AMiA as Anglican Lite.

Ed McNeill+ (#76, 77),
I also heartily agree with you, Ed, again as is so often the case.  I’m much more optimistic than Sarah is that Robert the Lion-Heaarted will act wisely as well as boldly in this crisis, just as he so often has in the past.  But then again, you and I are in the ACNA, and she is not, so that difference in perspective on the soundness of judgment displayed by the ACNA’s top leadership is hardly surprising.

I too think that ++Duncan has issued a clear warning that AMiA may have to make some MAJOR concessions in order to be integrated into the ACNA.  Hence his cautionary emphasis that +Loomis and +Johnston had agreed that all options were on the table and that no solutions were ruled out in advance.  Remember that the ACNA leaders have been burned once or twice before.  They remember how +Murphy acted unilaterally in various ways in the past while on the College of Bishops, not least by moving to secure (from PEAR) the appointment of more AMiA bishops after the ACNA was officially born in June, 2009, but without gaining the approval or consent of the ACNA bishops for his selections.  They haven’t forgotten how hard they leaned over backwards to accommodate AMiA’s quirky ways within the ACNA umbrella, only to have AMiA pull out in 2010 and drop back to Ministry Partner status. 

Bottom line: ++Duncan is no dummy.  Neither are +Guernsey, +Atwood, +Riches, etc.  They will go into any future negotiations with their eyes wide open, eager to make sure that past embarrassments due to +Murphy acting like the Lone Ranger and loose cannon that he is aren’t repeated in the future.

And this time, the ACNA holds all the trump cards, and the AMiA leadership is holding a very bad hand.  They have almost no leverage.  And that is something that I personally find encouraging.  It suggests to me that there is a very good chance that AMiA will in fact be virtually forced to make some major concessions in order to rejoin the ACNA.  They will indeed, as you say, Ed+, have to become more “fully Anglican.”

But how many in AMiA will really be willing to pay that price??  That is one of the big unknowns in this whole mess.  I strongly suspect, although it’s only a hunch, that not everyone will be willing to become as fully Anglican as the ACNA will probably require.

Time will tell.  But I’m hopeful.  At least, as I said above, the emergence of the group staying under Rwandan oversight via +Barnum and +Glenn shows that a significant portion of AMiA can still be salvaged to participate in the rebuilding of a new orthodox Anglican Church on this continent.  That’s encouraging to me.

David handy+

P.S.  This whole AMiA fiasco reminds me of an at least somewhat similar dynamic playing itself out in Europe over the sovereign debt crisis.  Back in July, when it looked like Greece might well have to default on its massive loans, Thomas Friedman published a marvelous little essay in the NY Times with the memorable title, “Can Greeks become Germans?”  The title said it all.  Answer, probably not.

Which leads me to wonder something similar, Can the AMiA’ns become ACNA’ns??

Well, maybe some can, and some can’t.  Or some will, and some won’t.  Time will tell.  But I’m actually more hopeful about the chances for AMiA to change than I am about the prospect of large numbers of spend-thrift Greeks becoming like responsible Germans.

David Handy+

RE: “Standfirm was the first to harness it for the Anglican world… . . . “

As much as I would love for this to be the case, I don’t want to start believing that kind of press either!  ; > ) 

There are some good blogs out there that beat us to the punch, and T19 is the most notable—Kendall continues to be one of SF’s blogging heroes—very brave and creative work on his part.

We try to make up for our slowness to the party with some creativity and hard work.

#81. NRA,

The upside of that, and it’s a major plus, is that everyone else gets to focus like a laser beam on actually doing mission, leading people to Christ and planting new churches, serving others in Christ’s name, without all the tedious, mundane tasks of running things getting in the way.

A large part of maturing in the faith takes place in the day to day running of the congregation. It is participatory and collaborative. It is deciding to live with one another and being able to negotiate turf issues and showing up for altar guild. It is being accountable to one another and living in a community of faith. It is not as quick and easy and sometimes rather messy. One of the distinctives of ACNA is this very participatory Lay Order involvement. The methods employed are as important as the results obtained. This is one of the things the ACNA means when we use the term “fully Anglican”.

It suggests to me that there is a very good chance that AMiA will in fact be virtually forced to make some major concessions in order to rejoin the ACNA.

I hope this is not a shotgun wedding. If they are simply looking to reestablish a pedigree and don’t agree with the ACNA polity then this is a leaven that should not be added.

Blogs used to be places one went to become stagnant, no one had interaction amongst Anglicans like this site…Most were bully pulpits…True, KSH brought refinement ...

As I currently understand our (AMIA/Rwanda clergy/congregations) options we have three options - all three of which are seeking ties with ACNA:

1 - Stay with AMIA inc. - Murphy - with the option to be fleshed out at Winter Conference - 1/11-1/14

2 - Stay with Rwanda - Barnum - with the option to be fleshed out at the Moving Forward Together Conference - 1/16-1/18

3 - Moving into ACNA without maintaining the tie with Rwanda - I am uncertain whether this will also be discussed at the Moving Forward Together Conference and I am uncertain who is leading this - is it Terrell?

I wish I were able to go to the Moving Forward Conference, but I live in the Houston area…I could go to Winter Conference since it is here, but this option doesn’t appeal to me and it doesn’t sound like the other options will be represented there.

Once upon a time I was really excited about having Winter Conference coming here.  I thought it would fire up our congregations and be a good witness that might draw more interest from the local area…I thought a good media blitz might do us some good, now I just hope it flies under the radar and doesn’t hurt us.

Sarah’s so cute when she gets indignant

Fr. Dale (#84),

I welcome your comment, and take it as a friendly amendment.  I wholeheartedly agree with you about how learning to live together and work together without always getting your way is a big part of growing into maturity.  After all, we follow a Master who came not be be served, but to serve…

I also agree that a “shotgun wedding” between the Murphy group and the ACNA would likely lead to disaster later on.  To use another marital analogy, it’s always better to breakoff an engagement than to get a divorce later.  If the +Murphy group is eventually going to be folded into the ACNA, I think a rather long engagement would be in order.

David Handy+

Can the AMiA’ns become ACNA’ns??

The Moses Murphy Missionary Society seems to want to do its own thang. Bob Duncan doesn’t need that kind of headache.  So no, they can’t.  However, if there are any Anglican Christians (congregations, clergy, or folding-chair sitters) currently in AMIA, and if they would like to join ACNA, here’s Leonard Riches’ cell phone number: [Deleted]