AMiA Collapse 7

(Picking back up from part 6)

AMiA leadership had met with the Rwandan House of Bishops in September 2011 and now they would begin to road test the new Missionary Society concept to the clergy in their churches. On October 25th there was a Presbyter’s Retreat in Pawley’s Island. My own clergy from Washington D.C. went there and later described the meeting at length in a controversial paper. The D.C. clergy were part of the AMiA’s Apostles Mission Network under Bishop Terrell Glenn. The network’s clergy were already clued in to the proposal coming from Chuck Murphy and Kevin Donlon and they were uniformly against it.

Bishop Murphy opened the meeting with a description of what had brought AMiA to this point. The D.C. clergy version of his account was:

The Chairman prefaced the proposal with an explanatory narrative, emphasizing the following items as rationale for making this transition.

1. Turnover in the Rwandan House of Bishops. Bp Murphy explained that there is insufficient  institutional memory regarding the AMiA among the current Rwandan bishops, noting that only Onesiphore Rwaje and Alexis Bilindabagabo were bishops when the AMiA began. He also mentioned other concerns, e.g. that two of the bishops “have never even served as rectors,” and one who only recently returned to Rwanda after having lived for nineteen years in Colorado Springs.   
 

2. Bishop Murphy’s Visit to Rwanda. Bp Murphy went to Rwanda in June 2011 to meet with the Rwandan House of Bishops. The Rwandan bishops had communicated in advance that  they had questions regarding AMiA finances, so Bp. Murphy took his Executive Director, H. Miller. They also had questions regarding their canons, and so he took his canon lawyer and chief architect of the current Rwandan canons, Kevin Donlon. After they arrived, the Rwandan bishops changed the agenda in order to discuss their relationship to the AMiA. As  such the Americans were no longer needed. They returned home reportedly frustrated by the wasted time and expense. With a nod to 2 Cor 2:1, Bp Murphy called this trip a “painful visit.”
3. Financial Questions. One of the reasons the Rwandan bishops were discussing their relationship to the AMiA in June 2011 was due to uncertainties regarding charitable contributions sent to Rwanda by the AMiA. Since 2003, the AMiA has encouraged a policy of stewardship known as “10/10/10,” by which parishioners give 10% to the local church,  local churches give 10% to the AMiA, and the AMiA gives 10% to Rwanda. Earlier this year,  one of the Rwandan bishops, Alexis Bilindabagabo, distributed a public letter calling for a reckoning of AMiA money sent to Rwanda. This letter seemed to frustrate Bp Murphy, as he described the letter’s author as a “knucklehead.”  
 
   In September 2011, Bp Murphy returned to Rwanda and answered the bishops’ questions  regarding finances. He said that the AMiA’s gifts to Rwanda had not been routine payments,  but instead occasional gifts based on needs expressed to him. According to Bp Murphy, Abp  Rwaje told him that “he could feel the tension lift” as he answered their questions.
   Nevertheless, Bp Murphy is concerned about Rwanda’s dependence upon AMiA support. He mentioned that AMiA money given to Rwanda is now 2/3 of the provincial budget. He also said that the Kigali seminary is compromised due to its dependence upon AMiA aid.
4. Ecclesiastical Vulnerability. In 2007, Kevin Donlon wrote new canons for the Province of Rwanda, which were then approved by the Province. The canons do not mention the AMiA,  but they do make provision for organizations such as the AMiA to become “missionary jurisdictions” of the province through petitioning the House of Bishops. The AMiA has yet to make such a petition. Consequently, the AMiA’s Canonical Charter for Ministry (9/2009) wrongly identifies the Anglican Mission as a missionary jurisdiction. Further, it is incorrect to say, as Bp Murphy has often said, that the AMiA “is embedded in the Constitution and  Canons of the Province of Rwanda.” In truth, the AMiA exists as a “Personal Prelature,” i.e. a personal ministry initiative of a bishop, in this case, Abp Kolini until his retirement, and now Abp Rwaje, who will serve for another 6 years. Bp Murphy is concerned that the next archbishop may not renew the prelature, in which case the AMiA would no longer have any formal relationship with the Province of Rwanda, and the Anglican legitimacy of the AMiA would be in jeopardy. Bp Murphy is eager to make changes to the structure to eliminate this ecclesiastical vulnerability. We need a new structure, said Bp Murphy, “regardless of who is the leader 22 hours away by air in the heart of Africa.”
5. “Reverse Colonialism.” Given these financial and ecclesiastical concerns, some of the  Rwandan bishops expressed the desire to exercise greater authority over the AMiA,  including the Rwandan House of Bishops electing the AMiA chairman. In response, Bp Murphy cautioned the Rwandan bishops against “reverse colonialism.” During the presentation, he claimed to have told the Rwandan House of Bishops that their “directing  and shaping what happens in North America is a bad idea.” He went on to say that their increased involvement would be both “missiologically crazy and practically foolish.”  
 


After Bishop Murphy presented his rationale for the necessity of change he handed the floor to priest and canon lawyer Kevin Donlon. Donlon outlined the proposal for AMiA:

• The AMiA will transition from an outreach of the Province of Rwanda into a missionary society (in the tradition of religious orders such as the Jesuits). (Donlon disputed this characterization later, writing “It was specifically stated that this society was an apostolic work of laity and clergy and NOT IN ANY WAY similar to a religious order as SLIDE #11 of the presentation specifically stated that the society would be a fellowship of Anglican clergy and laity, organized as a society of apostolic works.”)
• The AMiA will no longer be under direct oversight of the Archbishop of Rwanda, but instead under a “College of Consultors,” i.e. seated or former archbishops. The initial College will consist of retired Abp Kolini of Rwanda, and Abps Tay and Yong of SE Asia.
• Bp Murphy will transition from Primatial Vicar to “Apostolic Vicar.” While executive authority will be the responsibility of the Consultors, it will be largely delegated to the Apostolic Vicar and his “apparatus,” i.e. the national office of the AMiA.
• The AMiA’s missionary bishops will serve together as a Conference of Bishops. They will have no authority except what is granted them by the ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer or delegated to them by the Apostolic Vicar.
• Religious orders must abide by a set of canons; the AMiA will voluntarily submit to the canons of Rwanda.
• For the time being, AMiA clergy will remain credentialed in Rwanda.
• The new structure will permit the ordination of women to the priesthood but not require it. AMiA clergy will opt for either the Normative Rite (male presbyters) or the Provisional Rite (male and female presbyters) according to preference. 


When Donlon finished his presentation, the floor was opened for questions. “The first question asked was whether the time was only for questions of clarification, or if feedback was also welcomed. Bp Murphy discouraged the latter, saying, “I’m only on the sixth step out of ten. I’m in a process now of trying to tell you the latest thinking. The next steps will be four more meetings. Then when we get to the point that we’re about to pour the concrete, that’s when we would need to hear back.” When asked when this might be, Bp Murphy said only that  “we might want to call a gathering” at some point, but nothing definitive was offered.” The D.C. clergy did not ask any questions themselves as others stood up and asked the same questions they had.

Further answers suggested that if clergy didn’t like this idea, they should leave.

Those who are uncomfortable with the AMiA’s “two integrities” concerning  women’s ordination are free to find a new home.

Those who would prefer to establish diocesan structures should look elsewhere.

The Chairman may confer with the missionary bishops or other clergy, but it is for advice and not a vote. Those who desire a more conciliar system should join a
different organization. 

From this point on the conflicts that had largely been brewing behind the scenes burst into public view.