Questions from Singapore to Peter Jensen about GAFCON by Michael Poon

Questions from Singapore to

Archbishop Peter Jensen on

the Global Anglican Future Conference

by Michael Poon

Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia, Trinity Theological College, Singapore

republished with permission from the Global South Anglican site

Dear Archbishop Peter,

I read with interest your 27 December 2007 Statement on the proposed Global Anglican Future Conference. Thank you for unpacking the background, and for your reassurance to your faithful in Sydney that the Conference “is not designed to take the place of Lambeth”. I appreciate your conviction in upholding orthodoxy. I also share you passion in standing together with those Anglicans in North America who are courageously contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. I hope we can work together for the good of the Communion in the time to come, to the glory of God.

Your Statement at the same time leaves me, and perhaps others in the Southern Hemisphere, unclear on several crucial points. I look to you, as an archbishop charged with huge responsibility under God, for your further clarification, that your actions can lead to the strengthening of the faithful across the worldwide Communion at this time of deep crisis and uncertainty.

1. What is the particular nature of the crisis before the Communion today? You mentioned several times in your Statement that the issue is over “biblical standards”, especially “in the biblical view of sexual ethics”. I wonder if that depiction adequately reflects the crux of the matter. After all, some other churches and congregations from different traditions have also departed from the “biblical views”. I wonder if the issue before the Anglican Communion is rather this: How do we see ourselves keeping the faith and witnessing together as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” across the ages and across the oceans? Perhaps at the heart is an ecclesiological issue. So the contention has never been simply on biblical view of sex, but on the particular issues of episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and on the rites of blessing for same-sex unions. The process of discerning the Word and on keeping faith to what is revealed as a community go hand in hand. I suggest this interpretation may perhaps be fundamental, and determines how we respond and map the way forward.

2. What are the particular heritage within the Anglican history you wish to retain? Your Statement recalls us back to the “biblical roots of our faith”. Perhaps our faithful needs clearer guidance on how Anglicans across the ages have understood the Scripture and defended the faith. Without this historical understanding, how would Anglicans be able to mark themselves out as an identifiable community? To put this in another way, would you wish to affirm that the historic formularies are foundational to the Anglican traditions of worship and theology? I am sure. Would then subscription to Canon A5 and Canon C15 of the Church of England be the necessary and sufficient condition for biblical orthodoxy? Or are you suggesting a more rigorous and tighter definition for Biblical faithfulness required for Anglicans?

3. Related to the above is your silence over the Anglican Covenant, which of course is determinative for the future of the Communion. Successive Global South communiqués support the Covenant processes. In fact, Global South Anglicans are instrumental in producing the present draft. Do you intend to support the Anglican Covenant processes which I trust is a main feature of Lambeth 2008? What hopes do you have for Lambeth 2008? And how do you see the discussion on the Anglican future in the proposed Conference related to that in Lambeth 2008?

4. The above leads me to ask for clarification on the agenda of the proposed Conference. Your Statement rightly highlights the crisis in the North American churches. Indeed, the list of Conference organizers are those who urgently need to take common counsel on how “orthodox” Anglicans in North America can work together as one identifiable body. It requires much patience and humility in working out how Anglican congregations (within CANA, AMIA, ACN etc.) support one another, not to mention how churches under different ecclesiastical authority can work together. The June Conference rightly should focus on this.

At the same time, can the Conference realistically discuss issues “such as Anglican identity, fellowship, theological education and mission” at a global level? I am unsure. First, some may say: “Primates, heal yourselves. If you cannot sort yourselves out in North America, are you merely spreading your mess and divisions to Anglican churches worldwide?” Second, can we in practice talk about an Anglican future for the global Communion if the Primates of all the Communion are not present? Or are you thinking of devising strategies for crossing boundaries to the churches worldwide that are deemed not to be orthodox?

5. I agree with your remark: “We live in a new world”. This observation calls for radical discipleship. I wonder if it ever crosses your mind in Nairobi a few weeks ago why there are no theologians from the Global South in your discussions. At least this is not apparent in the Statement issued by the organizers. I note of course the presence of eminent colleagues from the UK. I wonder if you feel any unease whether you may be still putting the new wine in old wineskins. In how you define the problems in the Communion, I am unclear whether you are not still perpetuating the theological debates that belong to a world long gone. The issues, as you depicted, are so focused on America. What contribution do you think the Global South churches can offer, other than the numbers? What theological contribution do you see Global South churches are making? Would you ask the Global South to refer in the first instance to their own theologians than to the elites in the North? Should you not exercise a charitable restraint to create space for the global churches to work out their agenda? John Stott’s lasting legacy is to bring about the maturing of the churches in the Southern Hemisphere, even if that means the “waning” of the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion. He laboured for the birth of churches, and not merely for the victory of an ecclesiastical party. This is why he is held in high esteem by all. The “new” in the Communion is that for the first time we live as a worldwide Communion of autonomous churches, defined by geographical boundaries, and called to work together across the geopolitical and socioeconomic realities. We are no longer a church defined by party lines. We seek not the victory of a party.

6. Do you think the “orthodox” Anglicans on their own can carry the Communion forward without the blessing of Canterbury? I am unsure. Anglicans – as any other religious bodies – have a social and public identity that is informed by tradition. Such tradition stabilizes tiny Anglican communities across the globe, and offer them tangible hope in times of deep crisis. I think here for example of Myanmar and Sri Lanka. It would be a sad day if Anglican churches across the Communion are presented with the choice: between a particular understanding of biblical faithfulness, and allegiance to Canterbury. It is easy to be rebels with causes. It is a different matter, you would agree, to bring about a new world order.

So we wait patiently and pray for the glorious coming of Christ.

With warm wishes in Christ,

Affectionately yours,

Michael Poon
Priest, Diocese of Singapore

[click for Michael Poon's 'Questions from Singapore on GAFCON']

______________________________________________________________________________

The Revd Dr Michael Poon is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia, Trinity Theological College, Singapore, and convenor of the Global South Anglican theological formation and education task force