Speaking to All Saints Church in Pawleys Island in 2012, AMiA Bishop T.J. Johnston said, “The unfortunate thing is the leaders who profoundly led All Saints—Thad, Chuck, Shuler, name them all. You know what. They ain’t doing too well relationally.”1 The fissures between Terrell Glenn and Chuck Murphy led Glenn to resign in late 2011. When word of Bishop Glenn’s resignation reached Rwanda Archbishop Rwaje responded by writing to Murphy on November 11th saying, “We are concerned and want to caution your moves.” Rwaje continued:
As previously mentioned, as a House of Bishops, we have not discussed the new Missionary Society. It is true that you shared the concept insisting that it is still in an embryonic state (meeting held at Serena hotel with Fr Kevin, +Mbanda and myself and in the House of Bishops’ meeting) and we agreed to keep it as a confidential issue until further discussed. You were requested by the House of Bishops to provide us a draft document on the new Missionary Society, and its governance for our study before we could discuss it in our December House of Bishops’ meeting (Dec. 21, 2011).
Rwaje concluded: “We need to look back and to learn from our journey together, consider where we are today, together chart the future road map of where we want to be and how to get there under the guidance of Holy Spirit.”2 The message the Archbishop was sending seemed clear: slow down and listen to your leaders, but this kind of thinking was rooted in the belief that the Chairman was actually going to obey the Archbishop who was in charge of him on paper.
The conflict within the AMiA continued to play out in the new American Anglican media sphere. Bishop Murphy gave an interview to David Virtue, who at that time was a supporter of Murphy and had been since the inception of AMiA. The image Bishop Murphy advanced was one of unity and an orderly process of development with Rwanda:
Rumors that there has been a rift between the Anglican Mission in the Americas and the Anglican Province of Rwanda are false said Bishop and Chairman Chuck Murphy who told VOL that there is “no rift, no tear” and that the relationship is “solid” and “cherished. Both parties are working through their future shape together.
“I will be meeting with Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, Primate of the Province of Rwanda, in Washington DC, next week to continue discussion of the design of such a missionary society. I have invited the Rev. Canon Kevin Donlon (our Canon for Ecclesiastical Affairs) to join us in these discussions. (…)
“I will not deny that there have been grumblings in some quarters of the Apostles Mission Network about a variety of issues aired throughout the blogosphere, but there are also a significant number of congregations and clergy who have expressed a very different perspective and maintain strong support for both the Anglican Mission and my leadership.”
Asked if he was under any pressure to resign, Murphy said no. Earlier this year, the entire Council of Bishops wrote Archbishop Rwaje specifically requesting that he be re-appointed as the Primatial Vicar of the Mission. He has, however, told Archbishop Rwaje, that he intends to retire as Primatial Vicar in two years at age 66.3
The “grumblings” in “some quarters” was an oblique way of referring to the D.C. clergy. Rev. Colson told me that they didn’t expect Murphy to do anything to them as it would make them martyrs. His feeling was that Murphy was angry and on a political war path. “If we do anything else public, I think he would take action against us. He is attempting to minimize his losses by going on a spin offensive.”
David Virtue was not the only journalist talking to the AMiA. George Conger sent questions to the AMiA’s press officer that sought clarification on the situation and she responded on the 11th of November:
It is true that we are in very early conversations about the best structure to facilitate the Anglican Mission’s commitment to being “a mission, nothing more and nothing less.” Bishop Murphy has actually spoken about the concept of a missionary society or order for several years at both informal gatherings as well as in his Chairman’s address for the last five years at Winter Conference. The Anglican Mission has only recently been seriously exploring what such a missionary society might look like and how it might function, as well as what steps would be necessary to make it a reality.
Since these details are very much still in a discussion phase, Archbishop Rwaje and Bishop Murphy had agreed that it was wise not to publicly discuss details of this concept and working proposal outside each of their leadership teams. Bishop Murphy is a collaborative leader who has always discussed new developments and possibilities with the broader leadership of the Mission, and he did so in this case. Misleading and incomplete information has been circulating, however, necessitating responses to clarify and correct that misinformation.
There is a December 21 meeting of the Rwandan House of Bishops, but it is unclear at this time what stage of development the concept will be at that time.
Conger asked, “Are the AMiA’s financial statements available for review and is there an accounting of the funds collected by the AMiA and sent to Rwanda showing how much was sent, to whom it was sent and when it was sent?” The reply was:
Unfortunately, the House of Bishops meeting in June was shortened from two days to one day due to the funeral of a prominent leader in Rwanda. Archdeacon H Miller had come to Rwanda prepared to outline specifics of the Mission’s disbursements, including a list of all bank accounts to which the money had been wired over all these years. Bishop Murphy considered this conversation to be a normal part of the transition process being experienced by the new House of Bishops in Rwanda.
Archdeacon Miller was not included on the one-day agenda because of the modified schedule, and no questions were brought up for discussion during the meeting, nor was Bishop Murphy asked to address the issue. He left the meeting at noon, and his description of the visit as “painful” had to do with having brought two staff members the long distance to Rwanda to make a presentation on issues that were important, but never addressed at this meeting.
Bishop Murphy also attended the September House of Bishops meeting in Rwanda, but without Archdeacon Miller this time. He addressed the money questions, though perhaps in less detail than Archdeacon Miller had been prepared to provide back at the June meeting (the bank account listing, etc.). The Bishops expressed satisfaction and appreciation for the information and clarity that Bishop Murphy provided.
During the September meeting, Bishop Murphy noted that there has been a strong commitment to tithing to the Province of Rwanda since the Anglican Mission’s inception. The 10-10-10 plan adopted by the Mission applies the biblical principle of the tithe:parishioners are asked to tithe to their congregations; congregations are asked to tithe to the Mission; and the Mission chooses to tithe to Rwanda. This principle is always voluntary, not mandated. Bishop Murphy simply noted that there is no legal or canonical requirement for the Mission to tithe. Rather, just as a personal tithe to a congregation is a gift to that church for the glory of God, so is the Anglican Mission’s tithe a voluntary gift to the Province expressing love and respect and intending to bless and encourage the ministry of the Province.
The tithe to Rwanda has been in place since the beginning, and over the last seven years, the Mission has given an average of close to 12% each year for the last seven years. Those funds have gone to the Province’s general operating budget and other specific projects and/or needs that have been made known or identified over the years.
Conger also asked about the language of reverse colonialism that the Washington Statement had revealed and was told:
The language of “reverse colonialism” as a missiological strategy was used by Bishop Murphy at the September House of Bishops meeting in Rwanda. He used this phrase to explain why it was unwise for the House of Bishops to move into a higher level of direction, vision and decision-making over the Anglican Mission. Giving such a level of direction to a missionary work thousands of miles away was a bad idea in the colonial period (over 100 years ago) when it came from Europe to Rwanda, and it remains a bad idea to attempt it from Rwanda to North America. The Bishops expressed their understanding and agreement of Bishop Murphy’s point. Bishop Murphy has repeated that argument when reporting on the September House of Bishops meeting to his leadership.
The interactions with the press did not mention the D.C. clergy by name and did not interact directly with the Washington Statement. They did address some of its questions, but not in ways that satisfied those who held its concerns. The D.C. clergy estimated that about 55-85 AMiA churches out of the stated total of 156 were in general agreement with the Washington Statement‘s position.
Murphy and his press officer were technically speaking the truth—they probably gave 12% to Rwanda—but no one outside of the leadership knew where that money went. The Rwandans were asking for clarity. As Rev. Colson said to me, “Whenever we have asked this question for 3 years now, we can get no answer. We are promised something that never arrives. Why is that?”
The AMiA’s regional leaders met on Tuesday November 15th to begin discussing their options. The leaders of the Apostles Network wrote a letter to Bishop Murphy asking for him to reconcile with Bishop Glenn, appoint Thad Barnum as their bishop temporarily, and allow them to stay connected to Rwanda somehow. I do not have a record of Murphy’s response if there was one.
On Thursday November 17th and Friday the 18th Archbishop Rwaje, Bishop Laurent Mbanda, Bishop Murphy and Father Kevin Donlon met in Arlington, Virginia. The D.C. clergy later summarized this meeting, in another sign that they were in close communication with Bishop Mbanda. Their account of the meeting was:4
The original purpose of the meeting had been to discuss in further detail the missionary society proposal. Instead, the meeting begins with dialogue regarding Glenn’s resignation and online speculation regarding the relationship between AMiA and Rwanda. Murphy and Donlon push for disciplinary action to be taken against Glenn and Claire. Rwaje refuses and encourages reconciliation instead.
It is fascinating that the obsession with new media coverage of the AMiA was top of the agenda from Chuck Murphy. In fact the AMiA leadership were so upset with my blog that they tracked me down and were trying to discipline me as well! What that might have looked like I don’t know, but it is another sign of how far apart Rwanda and Pawleys Island were at this time. Murphy’s priorities were discipling Terrell Glenn, Dan Claire, and me despite the public pronouncements in the media of praying for Terrell and Teresa. One of the through lines in all of the Anglican history I have been a part of is how shallow and misleading public pronouncements are–you would think Christians would have better principles of communication. The D.C. account continues:
In the time that remains, they make an effort to address the stated purpose for the meeting. Murphy emphasizes the necessity of the missionary society concept. Rwaje, on the other hand, says that the problem is not so much structural as it is procedural. There is an urgent need for good working relationships between AMiA and Rwanda, as well as within the AMiA. Rwaje emphasizes the importance of policies and procedures for transparency and open communication.
Murphy asks whether there are any additional outstanding issues regarding the missionary society proposal. Rwaje indicates that although he had originally agreed to a discussion of the missionary society concept with the full House of Bishops in Rwanda on December 21, 2011, he chooses in light of the broken relationships in the AMiA to defer this discussion until all the bishops of Rwanda and AMiA meet together in January. Until then, he reiterates that no further actions should be taken regarding the missionary society proposal. He also stresses the priority of genuine Christian reconciliation between Murphy and Glenn.
I will again stress at this point that Murphy and Kolini had decided to leave Rwanda the previous summer, so I see the talks with Archbishop Rwaje as attempts to manage a situation that had a destination already in mind. Bishop Murphy later shared Archbishop Rwaje’s notes from the meeting:
“Following that meeting, I received an email from Archbishop Rwaje containing his personal notes of the meeting that indicated we would be engaging in further discussions regarding a missionary society possibility and a missionary jurisdiction possibility.”
Below are bullet points excerpted from Archbishop Rwaje’s notes from the Washington, DC meeting that he sent to Murphy:
- In the House of Bishops in September 27, 2011, Bishop Chuck Murphy shared with members of the House about the idea of changing AMiA to a Missionary Society.
- This meeting in Washington DC is the first one between the representatives of AMiA and of the House of Bishops to brainstorm about this idea.
- We met, brainstormed, discussed many things and basically agreed on the following:
- New missionary society is a concept that has not yet been formally discussed and it needs detailed discussions.
- Two ideas are emerging: VOCATIONAL and JURISDICTION, thus Missionary Society and do SWOT analysis and let situational analysis lead us on the best way forward.
Rev. Chuck Colson and Rev. Dan Claire met with a Rwandan bishop–probably Mbanda– on Saturday the 19th. What they discussed is unknown, but as the Rwandans went home they had many issues to ponder, and their next steps would be dramatic.
- Johnston, T. J. “Bishop T. J. Johnston — Communications Update.” Interview by Communications Team. All Saints Communications, no. 5, All Saints Pawleys. ↩︎
- Cited in Why Did AMiA Break Away from the Anglican Province of Rwanda? by Claire et al. ↩︎
- http://www.virtueonline.org/amia-leader-clarifies-relationship-anglican-province-rwanda accessed 5 October 17. ↩︎
- Why Did AMiA Break Away from the Anglican Province of Rwanda? by Claire et al. ↩︎
Leave a Reply