The Anglican Mission: Officially Going it Alone?

RE: “There’s no mention of Rwanda, no mention of Congo, no mention of any bona fide Anglican Communion oversight . . . “

True, but then, its kept changing from month to month, release to release, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in a non-mention.  I could see their announcing some new provincial “connection” next week for all we know.

I’m disgusted with “the AM”(as they are calling themselves lately).  It really does appear to be Chuck Murphy’s ego-driven group…so he can say he founded a “missionary society” like those of 150 years ago.

Background info here:
http://www.theamia.org/new/news/

Love this section of the May 1st article:

“In the near future, I expect other jurisdictions will also invite clergy to be canonically resident in their provinces, mirroring the Anglican Mission’s original model of oversight and connection to the Global South through the provinces of South East Asia and Rwanda. In addition, I am pleased that an agreement has been reached allowing Bishop TJ Johnston and Bishop John Miller to be received temporarily into the Anglican Church of North America and to serve as assisting bishops within two dioceses. These bishops will continue to oversee Anglican Mission congregations with written permission from their bishops, Neil Lebhar and Foley Beach. This decision demonstrates our commitment to being a multi-jurisdictional entity. Bishops Johnston and Miller will also continue their conversations with Bishops Riches and Masters regarding a future connection with the Anglican Church in North America. There is no need for parishes to make any choice about jurisdictional relationships. Congregations will, of course, remain in the Anglican Mission unless they choose to disaffiliate and join with some other group or entity.”

Toxic. Deadly. Cult-like. Run for your lives!  This will not end well.

http://janeheller.mlblogs.com/2009/12/22/i-drank-the-kool-aid/

A.Complete.Mess. Certainly no longer Anglican, except when they (the AM) say so. Multi-jurisdictional entity = meddlers. Thought I’d set the record straight on the AM doublespeak hyphenated mumbo jumbo.

Disorder.  Did these leaders ever read the Pauline epistles?

If I could figure out what he was doing, I think I’d disapprove.

This release has some real gems, but it requires the gift of discernment.

Hub churches: whatever it is, it probably is subsidized by the AM tithe and provides staff positions for AM leadership.

Specific episcopal portfolios:  anyone want to unpeel that one?

So wasn’t their previous vision and model also Spirit-given, efficient, and relevant for this/future generations?  And the one before that?

I just skimmed the Constitution and Canons.  This new society is like the AM in many respects.  It still lacks any synodical structures.  There is provision made for a presbyteral council that “may” be formed if the “Apostolic Vicar” decides to initiate one.  It functions as a Council of Advice to the Apostolic Vicar.  I could not see how they were elected.  Perhaps they are appointed by the Apostolic Vicar. 

Once every 6 years there has to be a General Assembly and this does appear to have some synodical semblance.  Not much, mind you, but a little glimmer. 

This new thing is like the previous thing in most significant respects.  It is hierarchical in organization, lacks synodical structures of any significance, and replaces the oversight of a Province with a hand picked College of Consultors.

What I find puzzling is why anyone would think that these changes will effect any real change within the organization.  Here’s the rub.  There are new titles, new councils of advice, a new form of oversight, but operationally it appears to be business as usual.

Sounds a little like this:

The AM is a sort of tug boat that hacked off its mooring lines and is adrift, but ready to fire up engines to come alongside any strong boat it encounters.  A renegade craft, AM’s little tugboat.

“Apostolic vicar”- to call oneself “Christ’s Vicar” would be too popish.  To humbly title oneself “Apostolic vicar” is so much more Anglican.

What a weird document full of vague mumbo-jumbo.

The first thing that struck me:  no mention of Jesus.  None.  If this were a TEC document, I know we all would be bemoaning that.  Well here’s an AM document that’s just as bad.  It’s all about them and their “vision.” 

I get the sense that they’re so busy continually restructuring and trying to figure out who or what a “missionary society” is, that perhaps they have lost sight of the bigger picture.  Vague words about evangelism or “the ministry” aren’t really enough.  What are they proclaiming?  Who are they serving?  This reads like no other mission society document I have ever read… where is their passion for Jesus and proclaiming Him?

One line hints at this, talking of a “strong sense of vision designed to reach, ever more effectively, those outside the faith”  I pray that this vision would indeed be their focus, not getting lost in all the structural contortions they’ve been going through over the past year.  Indeed it would be TRAGIC if those churches and clergy that choose to remain in the AM become focused on themselves and not on Christ and proclaiming Him.

The second thing I noted is the incredible repetition of the word “adaptive” in the second paragraph.  The whole second paragraph reads like a load of BS.  I can’t really find any coherent thought there or summarize it in plain English.  (It reminds me of something that Chris Johnson’s “Griswold-speak generator” might have produced back in the day).  I mean seriously, can anyone “translate” this sentence into plain English and tell me what it means? 

Our adaptive challenge now is to continue to reflect theologically, strategize and work collaboratively within our Mission Society to effectively evangelize in local contexts through church planting. 

Question: How do you collaborate with yourself?!

I would say there is one significant & meaningful sentence in the document.  Paragraph 3 strikes me as being the real center of this document - it is all about not wanting to be under anyone else’s authority or accountability.  It appears they view any attachment as being ENCUMBERED.

Note this sentence:  “As a Mission Society, theAM can focus all of its energy and resources on preparing leaders and planting churches for Kingdom mission and ministry.”

Maybe it really IS all about the $$$$$?!  Don’t want to send money any longer to Rwanda.  We can keep it all for ourselves?

I hate to be so cynical in reading this, but this is a hugely troubling and sad document.  Based on this I would hope the vast majority of former AMiA clergy and congregations would leave and seek affiliation with PEARUSA and/or ACNA. 

I pray for repentance and a recapturing of a truly Christ-centered vision and a passion for His glory rather this obsession with their own structure and “adaptive shift.”

Let’s do a little compare and contrast.

1.  From the section on Founding Purpose and Core Beliefs and Values of the draft consitution and canons of the AM (linked in the article above):

The Anglican Mission exists to glorify God by recognizing, recruiting, resourcing, and releasing leaders for planting and serving churches in the Anglican tradition for the next generation of Kingdom leadership in the Americas.

Mission = recognizing, recruiting, resourcing & releasing leaders.  Whatever that means. 

2.  From today’s ACNA press release about the gathering of its governing bodies at Ridgecrest:  ( http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/426 )

Today’s meetings of the Executive Committee and Archbishop’s Cabinet were marked by an emphasis on the vital importance of the Gospel mission of the Church: spreading the transforming love of Jesus Christ.

What a nice bit of clear English, and clear focus on Christ!

3.  From the Current draft of the PEARUSA Charter
http://www.pearusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PEARUSA-Charter-15-B.pdf

PEARUSA is a North American mission and church planting movement of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, in collaboration with the Anglican Church in North America. Its purpose is to bear faithful witness to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in all things, and especially through the establishing and nurturing of Anglican churches throughout North America.

4. From the ACNA Constitution and Canons, Article III on the misison of the Province
http://www.anglicanchurch.net/media/Constituation_and_Canons_Jan_2012.pdf

The mission of the Province is to extend the Kingdom of God by so presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church. The chief agents of this mission to extend the Kingdom of God are the people of God.

***

The contrast between these statements of mission and purpose from ACNA and PEARUSA with that of the AM are horribly revealing.  Indeed it appears that AM is adrift in its attempt to be “adaptive.”

Ok, one last comment from me. I don’t really have time today to do a detailed review of the C&C / Charters of the AM, PEARUSA and ACNA.  And Constitutions and Canons are not something I can really claim to be strong in.  I don’t have a lot of experience reading them, so can’t honestly say how representative or typical these bodies’ documents are or are not.

But I have to note the amazingly striking difference in the governing documents of these 3 entitities.

Both the ACNA & PEARUSA docs begin with explicit fundamental declarations about doctrine: Jesus and salvation through Him alone, the authority of the Scriptures, and what it means to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic church…

In contrast, after its statement of “mission” about recognizing and releasing leaders, the AMiA document has a vague statement about the three streams, culminating in this statment:  The Anglican Mission is a relational expression of these three streams for mission.

So let’s see, I can either join an entity/province that clearly articulates their adherence to the orthodox Christian Creeds, or a movement that talks about being shaped by three streams.  Hmmmm.  Tough decision.  NOT!

Transplanted comment:

Another day, another announcement of something completely different.

Apostolic Vicar - something between and Apostle and Vicar of Christ I presume.

How sad to see what’s left of the Anglican Mission morph further away into the Church of Murph.  Who does this serve?

As Karen B. noted above, the 3rd paragraph is key:

“Anglican Mission adopts a vocational model of mission reflecting the Celtic approach of St. Patrick.”

St. Patrick—being at the edge of the world (the severely declining Roman Empire) helped set up an the uncentralized—and not quite in-communion (due to distance, and barbarism) nor quite out-of-communion…with Rome, Celtic church. 

Scholars today prefer the term “Insular Christianity” to the Celtic church as it never was an entirely separate body, nor was it entirely Celtic—as elements of British isles Christianity lasted well into the Saxon period…  Rather it was an isolated, insular church, which developed independently of Rome, more or less of necessity—due to the times, and the distance from Rome.

Patrick’s Insular Christianity did not PURPOSELY isolate itself however, and by the 7th and 8th Centuries did formally submit to the customs of the Church catholic…and the rising power of the Bishop of Rome.

To purposely set up an insular body though—with all of our natural, good and righteous connections in Christ—obedient to scripture, is a mark of sectarianism, ego, and rebellion…in my opinion.

LuxRex,

I agree that the reference to St Patrick is misconceived, but not for the reasons you state, which seem to be based on a concept of Roman hegemony in the early medieval church which Anglicans reject, and also regard as unhistorical.

From what little we know of St Patrick when he was bishop of Ireland, he was in communion with the rest of the European church, particularly the churches closest to him in mainland Britain and France.  The Christian Church had existed in Britain since at least the second century AD, and its bishops are recorded attending Councils of the wider Church by at least the early 4th century, some 60 years before Patrick’s birth.

The one letter of Patrick regarded as genuine shows that he was up-to-date with recent events in France.  He castigated and called for excommunication of certain Christians in mainland northern Britain because they did not follow the practice of Christians in Gaul, of ransoming captured Christians.  This is where the AM appears to be missing the point - St Patrick had a truly Catholic understanding of the Church, as an Anglican would understand it.

Karen B. at #12 highlights the contrast between ACNA documents and those of the AM. 

Another interesting contrast is the statements of +Todd Hunter of the AM when he moved to ACNA jurisdiction, as reported here: http://anglicanink.com/article/bishop-todd-hunter-joins-acna.  Its pretty humble reading (in a positive sense).  He makes no criticism of +Murphy, and is thankful to him for originally introducing his mission (Churches for the sake of Others or C4SO) to Anglicanism.  But I note this:

“Bishop Hunter also stated that he had asked for and had received forgiveness from the Primate of Rwanda, Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje for “my part in actions, attitudes or communications that were hurtful to him or to my brother bishops in Rwanda.””

MichaelA:  I’m sure you’re correct on the details of St. Patrick.  I wasn’t assuming Roman hegemony, my only intended point was that Patrick was in communion with, and under proper authority—considering the nature of British Insular Christianity of the Ancient period, into the early Middle Ages. 

This is quite unlike the AM leadership.

Thanks for the clarification LuxRex, I see your point.