The Future of AMiA: Is the AMiA’s New “Missionary Society” structure the best way forward?

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

Dan Claire, Chuck Colson, and Tommy Hinson of Washington, DC raise concerns on current developments in the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA):

AMiA Bishop Chuck Murphy

On Oct. 25-26, 2011, Bp Murphy hosted some 75 Anglican Mission clergy in Pawleys Island, SC for a Presbyters’ Retreat. The bulk of the meeting was given to the presentation of the Chairman’s new structural proposal for the AMiA. Bp Murphy explained his rationale for the proposal, and then his canon lawyer, Kevin Donlon, presented the proposal in great detail. During the Q&A following the Chairman’s presentation, the first question asked was whether the time was only for questions of clarification, or if feedback 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. Many AMiA clergy left the retreat burdened with a growing uneasiness about the future, yet no avenue for constructive feedback has been provided by the Chairman. Thus, many clergy find themselves in an impossible bind, needing to engage in genuine dialogue with the leadership about the future but wary of insubordination. As a result, hundreds of conversations are taking place—without the leadership—in secret behind closed doors. It’s a tense and uncertain time for many in the AMiA. We desire to walk in the light by bringing the ongoing conversation into the light. Our purpose in writing this document is to speak the truth in love, in hopes of fostering honest and open dialogue together, for the sake of our shared Gospel mission to North America. We have been greatly blessed by, and are indebted to, the AMiA and her leadership, and our hope is to see this mission continue as our Lord leads.

Among their concerns they write:

The proposed structure perpetuates a top-heavy polity. One of the greatest weaknesses of the AMiA is that, practically speaking, the Chairman is the sole decision-maker. While on paper Bp Murphy remains under the authority of Abp Rwaje, the Rwandan primate is nevertheless “22 hours away by air in the heart of Africa.” Meanwhile, the national officers all work for the Chairman, the missionary bishops function effectively as his suffragans, and there is no regular college of presbyters. In short, the AMiA’s current polity is extremely top-heavy. Our biggest concern with the proposed structure is that it codifies the Chairman’s unilateral leadership. It’s a fresh coat of paint on the old wineskin of the national office. Instead of an ecclesiology grounded in Holy Scripture and classical Anglican tradition, it is a monocracy legitimized by parachurch precedents. The architect of the proposal, Kevin Donlon, describes his role as telling the Chairman what he can and cannot do according to canon law. During the retreat he explained his understanding of the discipline of canon law in the traditional Roman Catholic sense: that not only is there Holy Scripture, but also natural law, from which ecclesiastical canon law is derived. In other words, in this framework, canon law does not flow out of Scripture, but runs parallel to it. Classical Anglicanism, on the other hand, understands canon law to be derived from and subordinate to Scripture (cf. Article 34). Here’s the problem: the Chairman’s canon lawyer has tailor made a structure that fits existing AMiA hierarchy not on the basis of Scripture or classical Anglican tradition. Rather, the structure is modeled after historical parachurch ministries primarily found in Roman Catholic tradition. If one must consistently resort to Roman Catholic terminology and analogies to communicate ecclesial structure, then it should come as no surprise if the end result is a Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Where are the biblical theologians advising the Chairman regarding better alternatives with more ancient, biblical historical precedents? Where are the historians recommending the checks and balances of Anglican episcopacy since the Reformation?

Read it all here.  For more commentary, check out the latest edition of Anglican Unscripted here.