I am going to comment on parts of the statement written by Bishop Barnum and released today. I will break this into several posts to avoid one overly long post. My comments appear in blue.
I was on a monthly AMIA Council of Bishops (COB) phone call when 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.
Note that the initial conception of the options did *not* include “be a missionary society within ACNA.” That seems to be a recent, event-driven development. Also, what strikes me is the complete uniformity of all the other bishops, at least in the accounts to date.
Just a year before, we announced to our brothers and sisters in ACNA that we chose to be a Missionary Partner with ACNA because our identity was clear. We are Rwandans. We can’t be in two provinces. We can’t have two archbishops. We belong to an Anglican jurisdiction. It’s how we started. It’s who we are.
Bishop Barnum is logically consistent here. It is why I think AMiA and CANA need to end and fold into ACNA – you can’t serve two masters. He also points out what I have been saying, that Bishop Murphy used Rwanda as a justification to stay out of ACNA only two years ago. I don’t understand Bishop Barnum’s reluctance to keep AMiA apart from ACNA, but I do agree with the rationale for being one or the other.