Before the skirmish, [Chuck] Murphy had contended that AMIA was “embedded” in the constitution and canons of Rwanda, Conger said. When AMIA stepped back from its links with the Anglican Church in North America, a larger Episcopal breakaway group that formed in 2009, Murphy and the Rwandan House of Bishops said that AMIA could not be both American and Rwandan at the same time under the Rwandan church laws.
“It’s a dispute of personalities,” [George] Conger said of the recent turmoil. “Archbishop Kolini had a very strong, good relationship with Bishop Murphy and essentially let Bishop Murphy do what he wanted to do.”
I am choosing to leave comments open again but I want people to be careful, please, as there are strong passions afoot here and it is of no value to make an already trying situation worse.
I don’t particularly understand the strong passions afoot here, but it would not be the first time that such passions are unleashed around issues in the Church. Many of these have been vented exuberantly in this space, a condition that makes this a useful, educational, and interesting read.
David Virtue has a good article on this as well, but from a different perspective: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15284
Isn’t it time we have just one orthodox Anglican presence in North America? I understand how and why multiple jurisdictions arose over the past decade, but now that ACNA exists, I fail to understand why multiple jurisdictions are either necessary or helpful (within or outside) of ACNA. I can’t fathom how we’ll ever be accepted as a genuine Anglican province until we start acting like one.
I agree 100% with Chris Taylor. These various jurisdictions are enemies of unity. Personally, in light of the turmoil in AMIA, I would seriously question +Murphy’s continued presence in the counsels of ACNA. He has proven himself an agent of turmoil and disaffection. I don’t doubt for a minute his sincerity, but his outsize ego and hubris make him unsuited for a leadership role in a united North American Anglicanism.
Except for saying hello to him @ Hope and a Future in ’04, I am unacquainted with Bp. Murphy and cannot comment on him or his actions.
But I do agree with 4 and 5 re: unity; they have said it in more polite terms than I. Or, who knows, maybe I was polite but I didn’t feel very polite whilst writing my recent posts. Again, it’s true I am just one of the masses and don’t quite know where the solutions lie, but I don’t believe this is what God means by “Church unity”. And if we can’t find a way to stand united, divided we will fall, or at least flounder.
IMHO, the public characterization of this mess as nothing more than a clash of ego tells us more about George Conger than it sheds light on the situation. Of course, if he interviewed the parties and they communicated high dudgeon, then that would be hard information – a completely different story.
I reserve considerable allowance for many other issues on both sides to be at play, whether pour counsel, cultural misunderstanding, communication break down, group think, mismanagement, misapprehending canon law, etc.
tired, I think that you should provide the same considerable allowance for George as you are for the principals. It seems to me that George has reported pretty fairly and impartially, and most of the “ego” talk is coming from the Comments peanut gallery.
[8] Here is a quote:
I think it’s primarily about +Murphy’s ego, and money.