Joint Communiqué from Archbishop Rwaje of P.E.A.R. and Archbishop Duncan of the Anglican Church

Posted by Kendall Harmon

While in London, we had the opportunity to talk at length together about the continuing turbulence from the separation of the Anglican Mission in America from its founding church, the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The House of Bishops of Rwanda has recently declared the establishment of a Missionary District in North America (PEARUSA) as its only continuing work on this continent and has offered a deadline of August 31 for clergy and churches to determine their future jurisdiction. There are three options available: remain with Rwanda through PEARUSA, transfer to another Anglican jurisdiction through letters dimissory, or follow the Anglican Mission into its new venture. Provision and procedure for each of these options is available or is being developed as rapidly as possible. (These materials will be available through the http://www.pearusa.org website as they are developed.)

At the same time, there has been a great deal of confusion recently around the issue of the resigned bishops of the AMiA, their relationship with Rwanda, and their possible relationship with ACNA. We write this communiqué together primarily to address that confusion.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) • Anglican Provinces • Anglican Church in Congo/Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo • Church of Rwanda • * Religion News & Commentary • Other Churches • Anglican Continuum

10 Comments
Posted April 29, 2012 at 7:06 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Brian from T19 wrote:

“We are shattering into pieces. We can pick and choose our bishops like a McDonald’s menu as long as we meet the preset deadlines”

In the love and truth of Christ wink

April 29, 10:52 am | [comment link]
2. Sarah wrote:

Hi Brian—you and I don’t worship the same Christ or believe the same gospel, so I have no idea what you mean.

If I thought that we did, I would be insulted by your mockery of Christ’s name.  But again . . . since your “Christ” isn’t the same as the historic and scriptural Christ, it’s just an odd and off-topic comment on your part.

April 29, 11:28 am | [comment link]
3. tjmcmahon wrote:

Private comment directed toward individual poster deleted by elf.

April 29, 2:11 pm | [comment link]
4. Charles wrote:

Private comment deleted by elf.

April 29, 2:53 pm | [comment link]
5. Brian from T19 wrote:

Private comment deleted by elf.

April 29, 3:36 pm | [comment link]
6. Sarah wrote:

RE: “Sarah has a history of declaring who is and isn’t a true Christian.”

Not at all.  I didn’t say Brian from T19 was not a Christian—I merely pointed out quite rightly that we don’t worship the same Christ or believe the same Gospel, as Brian’s gospel and the Gospel are antithetically opposed to one another.  Brian himself recognizes that there is a chasm between the two foundational worldviews and between the two masters that we serve.

RE: “You, apparently, are quite bitter.”

Now now, Brian, let’s not display so much wistful longing.

April 29, 4:33 pm | [comment link]
7. Sarah wrote:

Mean Elves!!!  Brian and I were just getting started—just like the Good Old Days—and now you’ve gone and ruined it!

April 29, 5:18 pm | [comment link]
8. Brian from T19 wrote:

The Elves seem pretty random on this one..I believe my point was appropriate as I was clearing up a misconception.  So I’ll try agaim:

To all people and no one person and with no personal or private intent:

My comment in #1 was intended solely to point out the irony of issuing a communique’ “In the love and truth of Christ” regarding a situation that displays very little love and stridently disputed truth.

April 29, 6:39 pm | [comment link]
9. Sarah wrote:

I’m not certain why somebody could not appropriately issue a communique “in the love and truth of Christ” regarding “a situation that displays very little love and stridently disputed truth.”

People do that all the time about massive varieties of “situations.”  Why such a closing should suddenly cease with *this* particular situation I cannot imagine.

April 29, 7:59 pm | [comment link]
10. MichaelA wrote:

“My comment in #1 was intended solely to point out the irony of issuing a communique’ “In the love and truth of Christ” regarding a situation that displays very little love and stridently disputed truth.”

Really?  I had difficulty in working out what you meant, but that never crossed my mind.  Still, strange things do happen.

Anyway, your latest email begs questions:

(a) How does this situation “display very little love”?

(b) How does it display “stridently disputed truth”?

(c) Why is there any irony at all in issuing a communication “in the love and truth of Christ” in such a situation – isn’t that precisely the sort of situation where we should be communicating in that manner?

April 30, 4:39 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): (Guardian Comment is Free) Mark Vernon—Goethe and the search for the spirit of science

Previous entry (below): Bishop Nazir-Ali joins row over right to wear the cross

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)