AMiA Upheaval – A Changing Course

from Stand Firm by Sarah

Some interesting analysis of the most recent letter from the Pawley's Island AMiA group -- peruse the entire piece:

The Pawleys letter blames the new bishops in PEAR for wanting to “exercise much greater control over the day-to-day operations and direction of the Anglican Mission, moving in a direction that is inconsistent with anything that had been fully discussed or engaged in over the past thirteen years.” Why is this a bad thing? Is the oversight of the Kolini era, which appears to have been no oversight, the only acceptable form of ecclesiastical relationship? What does it say to Archbishop Duncan as he weighs allowing these bishops into some form of relationship with ACNA? It seems that Archbishop Duncan, or anyone else, should not exercise any meaningful oversight over this group, because they can’t handle it.

The Pawleys letter then describes the missionary society yet again. No one from Pawleys has yet made an argument for why this society is necessary. The Church by her very nature is to be a missionary endeavor. The Great Commission is part of the warp and woof of every single church. Further, ACNA is clearly committed to evangelization. Further still, AMiA used to claim the narrative of “Rwanda re-evangelizing America.” So what possible need is there for yet another change in structure, ecclesiology, and theology? To me, it suggests a greater desire for autonomy, control, and theological deviation from Anglican norms. There is no pressing missiological reason for AMiA to adopt a new structure.

The letter says “For today, we will leave the details of these past nine months to history. Things will all be made clearer as the dust settles, as relationships are restored and truth comes to light…We will not speak further of what has happened save in the pursuit of reconciliation among our Houses.”

This reflects the apparent belief of Pawleys Island that they are in possession of the true narrative of what has happened. They have not provided an account of why Bishop Murphy separated from ACNA in 2010, only to now approach ACNA again in a time of distress. They have not accounted for Canon Donlon’s activities, or the reason why Donlon inserted provisions for ‘a missionary jurisdiction, a missionary society, or an extra-territorial missionary diocese’ in Title Six of the Rwandan Canons way back in 2007. Historically, PEAR never had any extra-territorial outreach, but Donlon saw fit to provide for three alternate structures for such a purpose in their canons. As someone told me, “It looks like Murphy was putting the possibility of these structures in place to accommodate his future plans as early as 2007.” Truth is indeed the daughter of time.

The Pawleys letter says:

Although several options have been considered and have presented themselves to us, in prayer and conversation with many of you, it became clear that a process of discernment should first be engaged with the Anglican Church in North America.

Note the claim of “several options.” My take on this is that the clergy, baffled by what had just occurred, pressed their leaders in the conference call with Doc Loomis, to work with ACNA. So bishops Loomis and Johnston are now working with ACNA “first” but not exclusively. What may develop is a conflict between Bishop Murphy’s desire for control and continued leadership, versus ACNA’s desire for legitimate Anglican structures. Also, how does ACNA bring in at least seven more bishops for 80-100 churches? The bishop to laity ratio is becoming absurd in the rump AMiA. Add to this the desire to make Shuler a bishop and who knows how many other potential bishops in waiting (all declined by the PEAR HOB this summer) and you have a more and more top-heavy structure, despite protests to the contrary.