AMiA Collapse 14

(Continued from https://alivingtext.com/amia-collapse-interlude/. All posts are together here)

My pastor emailed the letter from Archbishop Rwaje to me late on December 1, 2011. Archbishop Rwaje emailed it out as “an open letter” to all the bishops in the United States and encouraged them to send it to their network leaders. It appeared on the Stand Firm website on Friday, December 2nd. I would assume that Chairman Murphy suspected that something was in the works earlier as he had received the November 20th communication from Rwanda and had not distributed it. It is unfortunate that we do not have an account behind the scenes of what happened during the week or two after November 20th.

Bishop Murphy later told David Virtue, “We received a letter from Archbishop Rwaje requesting a response within seven days delivered as an ultimatum which regrettably was leaked to George Conger before we could respond to Archbishop Rwaje’s concerns…This was unfortunate in that it exacerbated the problems and forced an immediate decision and action in that Conger, who also received the letter when I did (on December 2), had within three days published his article in Anglican Ink, quoting the letter before I could respond to Archbishop Rwaje…We asked Mr. Conger to wait until the entire Council of Bishops had time to digest, pray and respond to Archbishop Rwaje before making an official statement. Regrettably the article was released anyway before our Council of Bishops could either meet or write a response to the Archbishop.”¹

On Monday morning, December 5th, Bishop Thad Barnum emailed Murphy and “begged him to comply with the Archbishop’s admonition.” He 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.”²

Suddenly, Barnum was notified that the College of Bishops was going to have an emergency conference call at noon Eastern time where all of the bishops would be asked to issue formal resignations from Rwanda. As he noted, “Not once did any of the bishops ask to take time in prayer over this momentous decision or to consult their Network leaders, clergy and lay leaders.” This was not going to be a meeting for deliberation or debate, the decision had been made and the other bishops now needed to get on board. 

During the conference call the letter of resignation that would be sent to Rwanda was read out loud. Barnum comments, “…at the end of the letter, the brokenness of the relationship was exposed as our Chairman compared AMIA to the nation of Israel leaving the Egyptians (Africa). The implication, I knew, would be devastating for our African brothers to hear. How would they bear being compared to the Egyptian nation under the judgment of God?” One by one, the bishops resigned, with the exception of Barnum, who joined Terrell Glenn outside the AMiAs’ College.

Although the decision to resign was 9 to 1 or 9 to 2 if you count Glenn, it was a jerry-rigged process that would later be regretted by some of the bishops. For example, years later, Bishop John Rodgers said, “When AMiA withdrew from Rwanda, it happened without my permission.” But Rodgers did not leave AMiA over it because he thought that would dishonor Yong Ping Chung and Emmanel Kolini.³ So affixing the name of Bishop Rodgers to the resignation letter seems unethical, although entirely in keeping with later ACNA practice in the Steve Wood affair. 

Bishop Todd Hunter bemoaned his leadership at this time when he spoke a month later to the AMiA Winter Conference and said, “I missed the Spirit on this one. I am stunned how badly I missed what it would mean to you all if I resigned as your bishop.” According to Nashville priest Fr. Thomas McKenzie, there was a conversation in January 2012, “…between Bishop Todd and the Tennessee clergy. Bishop Todd’s humility and non-defensiveness were remarkable. When I asked him why he had resigned from Rwanda, he answered me that he had made a mistake. He did not know that his resignation would affect his relationship with our church. He expected that the bishops were simply going to move into another Anglican Province. He reminded us that he has only been an Anglican for a couple of years. He did not fully grasp the enormity of this move.” ⁴

On the same day that the bishops met and resigned, Anglican Ink published an article called “Recant or Resign, Rwanda tells Chuck Murphy.”⁵ It quoted, “an AMiA spokesman for Bishop Murphy told Anglican Ink the proposed reorganization has “required the [AMiA] and the Province of Rwanda to engage in substantive dialogues, and we seek to ensure that our unique cultures are in clear communication with each other.”

“It has required that we listen carefully to one another in our attempts to fully understand all of the issues involved from one another’s cultural perspectives,” the spokesman said, noting the 30 Nov letter was “part of that yet unfinished dialogue and it will be addressed as our Archbishop has required.”

Chairman Murphy’s resignation letter to Archbishop Rwaje opened with an apology and request for forgiveness: “Let me begin by sincerely apologizing both to you and to the House of Bishops for any language that I have recently used that has caused hurt or pain to you or to any of my fellow bishops. I did not sense, nor did anyone tell me, that my reference to the dangers of reverse colonialism at the September House of Bishops meeting was received as being abusive. Since it appears that it did bring offense, then I do apologize and ask your forgiveness.” 

He followed this up with a second apology: “Secondly, as I told you and Bishop Mbanda at our recent meeting in Washington DC, my use of the term “knucklehead” when describing the posts to public blogs here in the USA of Bishop Alexis’ February letter listing his many concerns and accusations regarding our financial gifts and practices with the PEAR over these past ten years, was intended to be more playful than abusive, and was not directed to Bishop Alexis or to any specific bishop. However, in that my use of that term, in response to a question asking about that letter, has also brought some offense, once again, I apologize and ask your forgiveness.”

Personally I find apologies that indicate they are caused by the other party taking offense less than ideal. To me they smack of “I’m sorry you are hurt” rather than “I’m sorry I did wrong.” In David Konstan’s book Before Forgiveness: The Origins of a Moral Idea he defines forgiveness as a “…bilateral process involving a confession of wrongdoing, evidence of sincere repentance, and a change of heart or moral perspective on the part of the offender, together with a comparable alteration in the forgiver, by which she or he consents to forego vengeance on the basis precisely of the change in the offender.” ⁶

Nevertheless, from Murphy’s viewpoint he was being treated unjustly and hounded both online and by Rwandan bishops. He may have felt he deserved an apology, and so in offering one he was humbling himself. Without access to first hand accounts it is unknowable to me.

Murphy’s letter moved on to what Archbishop Moses Tay had written Bishop John Rucyahana, where Tay said there were spirits at work in the conflict. Tay saw rebellion, lawlessness, accusation, and the spirit of offense–a take on human nature based on charismatic theology. Murphy aligned himself with Tay’s opinions, writing “…having gone through these past several months, I now see clearly that Archbishop Tay’s discernment when writing to Bishop John back in October has proven to be accurate, true, and spiritually insightful.”

Murphy then listed the accusations against him in an exasperated tone and complained that all of the communications from Rwanda were being released to the press immediately. “This, of course, has made any constructive conversation between us all the more difficult during these past several months.” He returned to a point he had made at the meeting in Washington D.C.: “And again, as I told you in our Washington meeting, it was troubling to me to have been told, specifically, by one member of the press, that “the letters being received are being provided by the Africans.” This, of course, may explain why Conger felt quite confident about releasing an article today, based upon your most recent letter to me, entitled: “Recant or Resign, Rwanda tells Chuck Murphy”.

Bishop Murphy presented his side of events, which were that the new demands from Rwanda had not been addressed in their recent meetings, and that H Miller’s explanation of the financial questions had never even been allowed to be presented:

It is also very troubling to me that, apart from Bishop Mbanda’s question about the term “knucklehead,” the accusations contained in your last letter were not presented or discussed at our recent meeting in DC. Your summary of that meeting [attached] makes no reference to any discussion of the accusations in your letter of November 30th. I was, therefore, understandably both surprised and dismayed to read the list of accusations presented in that letter.

You also will remember that your invitation that I bring H Miller (and Kevin Donlon) to the June House of Bishops meeting [see attached] in order to present a full disclosure of the financial information that you seek was neither asked for, nor allowed at the June meeting. In fact, I now know that Bishop Alexis’ letter to you [also attached] specifically instructed and demanded that you not allow H Miller to speak or present at that House of Bishops meeting. Apart from the additional cost that we incurred in flying H Miller to Rwanda, as requested, I am even more troubled by the fact that he was not permitted to present the clarifying financial materials that he had prepared and brought for that House of Bishops meeting. Sadly, the decision to prevent H Miller from addressing those financial questions back in June has only served to keep the accusations and suspicions surrounding finances from being settled and resolved once and for all.

Frankly, had you asked me even at our recent meeting in Washington DC for this information, I could have telephoned H Miller and asked him to email us the financial information that he had prepared for the June House of Bishops meeting (including the account numbers used when money was wired to Rwanda). But, of course, you did not mention or ask me for this during our time together, and I had actually thought that these financial concerns had been satisfactorily discussed and cleared up at our September House of Bishops meeting. I understood the House to have assured me in September that there were no financial questions or concerns about money on our side of the Atlantic, but that only the PEAR side of the Atlantic had more work to do, and more decisions to make. You will remember that as you drove Susan Grayson and me back to the airport following our September meeting you told me that you sensed that a “cloud had been lifted” within the House of Bishops concerning those financial questions, and this is what I reported back to H Miller, the staff, and the Council of Bishops when I return home.

As one astute observer pointed out there was a disconnect between what Bishop Alexis and the D.C. clergy were asking about and what Bishop Murphy was prepared to brief them about. Murphy wanted to discuss transfer figures about the money sent to Rwanda, Alexis and the D.C. faction wanted to know about disbursement figures–how was that money spent in Rwanda? More on this subject later.

The next part of Murphy’s letter would become the most controversial. “Archbishop, while I could attempt to present my case and my defense concerning each of the accusations that you list in your letter of November 30th, I have come to the realization and conclusion that this would not be at all productive. I would, instead, like to share my heart with you and with the House of Bishops about our past and about our future.”

Using exegesis typical of charismatics which made a text apply to a modern situation, Murphy thanked Rwanda for their role in the creation of AMiA in 1999, which he compared to Joseph heading into Egypt due to a famine in Canaan. There had been a spiritual famine in North America and Africa had functioned as a sanctuary for the fledgling AMiA. Murphy pointed to verses from Exodus chapters 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10 and said that “…the Lord’s present word to me (and to us) now directs me to look beyond Genesis chapters 39-45, and on into the Book of Exodus.” Murphy disastrously compared Archbishop Rwaje’s new leadership to the Pharaoh of Exodus and claimed God wanted AMiA in a new location just like Israel’s journey to the Promised Land. 

Murphy claimed the bishops agreed with him and were at peace. Just as Archbishop Yong had retired and that had ended the oversight of Southeast Asia, the retirement of Archbishop Kolini meant it was time to go. Never mind that the decision from Southeast Asia had come from their side, not the AMiA’s. 

Murphy indicated that the submission to the Rwandan canons was voluntary and that AMiA would be “stepping back” from that submission. AMiA itself had imposed these canons on Rwanda but that is also a subject for another time. Murphy gave his blessing to any churches that wished to remain with Rwanda and uninvited the Rwandan bishops from the upcoming 2012 Winter Conference. He said he would be meeting with Bishop Glenn that week to try and reconcile their broken relationship.

In addition to this letter of “personal concerns” Chairman Murphy sent a second letter, formally citing canons and saying he and the other bishops “…will no longer continue our membership in the House of Bishops through the voluntary submission to the Canons and Constitution of the Province of Rwanda.” Effectively, he resigned and made sure to note that “In not renewing our voluntary submission to the Canons and Constitution of Rwanda, we recognize that we remain bishops of the Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in good standing there is no discipline pending.”⁷

The leadership of the AMiA, sans Bishop Thad Barnum, were out of Rwanda, still bishops, and under no discipline. They had pulled back from ACNA and now severed the overseas ties. In Bishop Murphy’s language they had left Egypt but had yet to identify what the Promised Land they were heading for was.

1. Virtue, David. “AMIA/Rwanda/ACNA Unholy Mess Spreads.” VirtueOnline, 7 Dec. 2011, www.virtueonline.org/amiarwandaacna-unholy-mess-spreads. ↩︎
2. Barnum, First Steps Toward Reconciliation And Why I Decided to Stay in Rwanda. ↩︎
3. Zoom Memoirs, p 201. ↩︎
4. http://ihajj.blogspot.com/ ↩︎
5. link ↩︎
6. David Konstan, Before Forgiveness: The Origins of a Moral Idea. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ↩︎
7. Signed by Rev. Charles H. Murphy, III,  Rev. Alexander Greene, Rev Todd Hunter, Rev. Thomas W. Johnston, Jr., Rev. Philip Jones, The Rt. Rev. Doc Loomis Bishop, The Rt. Rev. John Miller Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Silas Ng Bishop, The Rt. Rev. John Rodgers (retired) Bishop. ↩︎