Writing in 2015, Bishop Terrell Glenn talked about the times of chaos that engulfed the AMiA. He said, “What followed was a season of enmity, demonization, and slander. Sides were chosen. False accusations were made. In one case, bishops turned on congregations and clergy in ways that were worse than anything that had occurred at the hands of TEC when AMiA was formed in the first place. It was the single most painful experience that I have ever had in ministry. What was most remarkable was that this pain came through relationships with people with whom I had no theological disagreement. But I have to say in all honesty that even in the worst of my disagreements with leadership in TEC, over what I considered to be serious gospel issues, I was never treated as I was during this ordeal.”1 Bishop Glenn’s summary shows that beneath the veneer of public relations, press releases, and sermons there was a vast array of conflicts playing out.
Because AMiA was the hip forerunner to ACNA and had almost universally good press until this time, the sudden news that there were problems with its relationship with Rwanda was massive news in the Anglican world. The Washington Statement was “designed to get people to the place of questioning the plan and questioning the current structure in hopes of taking people over the top when it comes time to move” according to Rev. Colson. Rather than slowing the process of separation from Rwanda down and slowly thinking through the issues raised in the statement, it caused all hell to break loose.
Bishop Murphy had lost control of the narrative and he was not happy. My pastor emailed me and said, “Murphy has seen it (The Washington Statement). He is furious. He is attempting to pin everything on us.” Apparently, Murphy called Bishop Terrell Glenn who was on vacation in Hawaii and in that conversation went after the clergy in D.C. Murphy summoned the bishops to another meeting at Pawley’s Island the following week to discuss the issues raised by the paper.
Archbishop Duncan was alarmed enough by events that he called Murphy on November 3rd, “hoping that we might talk about the matters you are considering for the structural future of the Anglican Mission.”2 Murphy communicated back to Duncan that he would call in six weeks when “his plans for the structure were more settled.”
The AMiA quickly splintered online. One clergy leader claimed that Dan Claire was asked to get Bishop Terrell Glenn’s permission before publishing the paper on any level of distribution, but had ignored that advice and published it anyway–I can’t confirm that account. In a later post on the Internet Monk website, AMiA priest Joe Boysel wrote: “In what has been the most unfortunate and precipitous event in the entire saga leading to the AMiA’s departure from PEAR, a few priests in the Washington D.C. area released a statement just days after the Pawleys Island retreat, called The Washington Statement (WS), wherein they conspicuously did what Bishop Murphy had expressly requested they not do: discuss their thoughts publicly. The WS raised concerns without providing context, it created adversarial relationships where there had been trust, and it exploited uncertainty in order to cause division. I found this action by my Washington brothers deplorable and inexcusable.”
The AMiA quickly enlisted Archbishop Rwaje in denouncing “rumors and false assertions.” On November 7th3 the AMiA issued “A Statement from the Archbishop of Rwanda and the Primatial Vicar of the Anglican Mission in the Americas” (which Rwaje later expressed regret in being pressed by the AMiA to sign without knowing what was happening internally within the AMiA).4 The statement said:
We have recently been made aware that a number of unfounded rumors and false assertions regarding the relationship between the Anglican Mission and Rwanda have begun to swirl in various circles and on the Internet. We are releasing this statement together to urge you not to be misled or distracted by those who would sow destructive seeds of discord through innuendo and commentary, for we know that this is the work and design of the Enemy.
The work and the relationship between the AMiA and the Province of Rwanda remains solid and cherished, as we discuss and explore together the future shape of our life and our work in the mission from the Lord which we share on two continents. As always, we ask for your prayers and support as we continue to seek the best way forward together in growing the Lord’s Kingdom on both sides of the Atlantic.
The same press release email contained a statement from AMiA about what was going on.
In our world of instant communication and Internet dialogue in and through the blogosphere, it is easy for misinformation and misunderstanding to be rapidly disseminated. Recently, a video blog made unsubstantiated and false assertions about the Anglican Mission’s relationship with Rwanda, and another statement [separate sources] presented negative commentary about theAM’s consideration of a working proposal presented during a recent Anglican Mission Presbyters’ retreat. Each of these has generated some blog discussion.
These issues have been publicly addressed in a way that can cause confusion and responding is challenging, as many of those on our mailing list are not aware of the inaccurate reporting and negative commentary. We believe it is important, however, to reassure those who have read blogs and may be concerned or confused and to address the misleading information and personal commentary in a general way. To that end, Archbishop Rwaje and Bishop Murphy have issued a joint statement that you can read below.
This unforeseen situation actually provides us with the opportunity to share some potential developments, which we believe promise a new and rich season of ministry together. The Anglican Mission has been actively engaged in conversations with Rwanda over the last several months, exploring the concept of a Missionary Society designed to formalize what has long been the stated vision of theAM – to be “a mission, nothing more, nothing less.” A Missionary Society, focused on the apostolic work of church planting, would provide a stable, long-term framework for what we have been communicating and living from our inception.
Over its 12-year history, the Anglican Mission has been consistent in vision, while being careful not to rush to structure. We have established a pattern of processing and discussing in multiple levels of leadership how best to live into our vision, addressing pros and cons, and determining a plan of action. This approach has marked the in-depth process of considering what a Missionary Society would look like and how it would operate. While no decisions have been made, this concept represents a consistent trajectory and is being discussed widely in an ordered and sequential way internally and with Rwanda. As additional clarity is reached, and an actual proposal is more clearly defined, we intend to develop a format to provide an organized opportunity for clergy and lay representatives from all of our Networks to speak into the “shape” of a proposed Missionary Society. Be assured that as decisions are reached regarding any component of our life together, we will communicate that information to you directly.
Because conversations are ongoing as we seek to discern the will of God and the right way forward through wise counsel and prayer, we cannot state definitively the results of this process, but we can make you aware of the conversations, and with confidence and transparency, refute false rumors and offer a different perspective on negative commentary.
Our hope is that none of us will become distracted from our mission and ministry. We ask you to pray for wisdom and discernment as the Anglican Mission and Rwanda seek God’s will and best plan for this missionary movement He has created. We believe our best days are still ahead as we seek to maintain a long obedience in the same direction.
The constant portrayal of what AMiA leadership was engaged in as simply a process or discussion when Kolini and Murphy had decided in June that AMiA should leave Rwanda does not reflect favorably on AMiA. Further, the press office had demanded a retraction from Conger and Kallsen just a week earlier for reporting what this latest press release was now admitting was true! “Remaining connected to Rwanda remains a high value in these conversations, and we have no reason to believe this would change. Mr. Kallsen’s and Mr. Conger’s claims otherwise are untrue.” This statement from Pawley’s Island was already shown to be false.
The 7th of November was a big day for communication, because Archbishop Duncan also sent an email to Chuck Murphy, copying his message to Emmanuel Kolini, Moses Tay, Yong Ping Chung, Eliud Wabukala, Onesphore Rwaje, Nicholas Okoh, and others. Archbishop Duncan recounted the shared history between AMiA and ACNA from the Common Cause days up until his election. In a nod to the possibility that the true source of conflict was wanting to be the leader of American Anglicans, he wrote “I recognize that this was in some ways the lifting up of Joseph over his brothers, but you know that my way of leadership has always been as servant of the servants of God.”
Duncan recalled that there had been many hurts over the years and said he had asked for forgiveness and worked at healing recently. He told Murphy that AMiA bishop would be welcome back to the Provincial College and that AM networks would be welcome as AM “dioceses.” This was an olive branch, but one that would be spurned.
- Arten, Isaac, et al. A House Divided?: Ways Forward for North American Anglicans. Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015. Kindle file. Page 64. ↩︎
- Ducan letter to Murphy, 7 Nov 2011. ↩︎
- It was dated 5 Nov but was issued on the 7th. ↩︎
- Why Did AMiA Break Away from the Anglican Province of Rwanda? by Claire et al. ↩︎
Leave a Reply