GAFCON? What Were They Thinking?

Michael Poon, a priest in the Diocese of Singapore has raised some thoughtful questions and concerns about the planning and intentions of GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference). Both of the documents appear on the Global South Anglican site.

The Rev. Poon's first set of questions appeared on December 29th in response to the December 25th announcement of GAFCON and is generally addressed to the Primates involved in the planning of the conference. The questions are direct and appropriate no matter which side of the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot you find yourself. Being a Titanic buff, I could not help but be amused by the following comment on the post:

Do people think we really need these life boats lowered?* How do we know that the people lowering them actually know what they are doing?* Does the Captain know and approve of the lifeboats being lowered?* Who will be in command of each boat when the boats are actually in the water?*

*Questions asked by a concerned passenger immediately after the Titanic struck an iceberg. Said passenger not known to have survived.

His second is an open letter addressed directly to Archbishop Jensen in response to his December 27th Statement on the proposed Global Anglican Future Conference, appearing both on the GAFCON web pages and the site run by Anglican Media Sydney (the media and communications arm of the Diocese of Sydney). His first question goes right to the heart of the "crisis" by asking Archbishop Jensen just what the issue is:

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.

Basically, he is asking "is this about how we do things, or is it about sex?" In other words, are we dealing with the Gay Fear Condition here?

I was also particularly struck by two thoughts toward the end of the letter. First:

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.

and second:

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.

The Rev. Poon has offered the entire Anglican Communion much to think about with these questions and comments.

UPDATE

If David Virtue is to be believed, the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Middle East, was not consulted about the location, or anything else for that matter, of GAFCON. Mr. Virtue quotes correspondence between President Bishop Anis and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria in this article.

Also posted on VirtueOnline are the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon's response to the initial announcement of GAFCON and his response to Archbishop Jensen's statement (you have to look closely in a paragraph in the middle of the posting to find where Dr. Toon's comments begin). His response to Bishop Jensen is particularly critical of the so-called "orthodox" bishops of the Global South crossing provincial borders:

It seems that those Primates and assistants who planned this June 2008 Conference in Israel have lost the virtue of godly patience-after all it is one month from June to July! Tragically also they have exhibited a lack of both godly patience and a sense of unity in the Gospel in their own ranks in the way in which they have entered into the geographical space of the North American Provinces of the global Anglican Communion.

And this action Dr Jensen does not mention. Perhaps he supports it as being fine. Before the crisis brought on by the Robinson affair in 2002, there was working in the U.S.A. that which was known as "the Anglican Mission in America" [AMIA]which was promoted by the Province of Rwanda. In 2004 and the years following, the African Primates in Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda knew well that this Mission was not approved by any of "the instruments of unity" of the Anglican Communion, because it involved the crossing of boundaries by invading missionaries without permission from the home Church/province.

Nevertheless, they decided (a) to send their own missionaries (to function wholly separately from the AMIA) and in general to work separately from each other; and (b) to pay no attention to TEC locally or the "Instruments of Unity" globally.

There are now effectively several separate Anglican denominations in the U.S.A. & Canada sponsored by Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda, together with the Southern Cone of South America. By any reckoning this state of affairs-when one puts alongside them the many other Anglican denominations and groups-is a major denial of the doctrine of the Church held within the Anglican Way from its inception. It is nearly a free for all and this despite organizations like Common Cause.

And there is a very real question as to whether this situation can ever be put right, for once in existence denominations in the U.S.A, as history shows, tend to solidify and spin off groups to add to the mix.

Looking back, one can see how much wiser it would have been for the Primates involved in the invasions to have stayed off shore, offered succor and aid, and counseled patience until the matters could be thrashed out at Lambeth 08. At least, if they wanted to invade from 2004 they could have worked in and through the AMIA to keep the differences and missions in their own ranks to the very minimum.

The impending facture [sic] of the global Communion is caused not only by the wicked innovations of the North Americans, and the lack of courage and conviction by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the lack of patience and precipitate action of some of the Provinces of the Global South!

Dr. Toon has summed up very neatly why the self-named "orthodox" bishops have no grounds to hold the Windsor Report as legislative or even authoritative. He also notes the very real possibility of further fractures taking place after separation. Have these particular bishops and their (primarily) North American cohorts overplayed their hand? Perhaps. And even if they have, the damage they have already done to the Anglican Communion will be with us for a very long time.

The Daily Episcopalian section of the Episcopal Cafe posted the Rev. Greg Jones' commentary on the...ummmmm...conversation taking place on some of the conservative blogs in the wake of the GAFCON announcement and the Rev. Poon's questions. In "Conservative Anglicanism Splitting" the Rev. Jones correctly points out:

What I wish more liberal Episcopalians would acknowledge is that many theologically conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat for standing up for unity, reconciliation and a comprehensive vision of Anglicanism -- and they are not getting much credit for standing against the extremist Separatist powers busily at work attempting to render the Communion. The good news, to my mind, is that there are many Communion minded people who seek comprehensiveness and unity for true -- and they are not all on the same theological page, as regards the inclusion of women, gays or on other questions challenging the wider body at present. They are not of one mind, but they are of one desire to remain in communion by virtue of baptism and a common identity as Anglicans.

Among those named as "conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat" the Rev. Jones names "the Covenant blog collective." You can see what the writers on the Covenant blog have to say in this post, this one, and the comments on both. While I often disagree with the Covenant folks say, I have a great deal of respect for their writing. In particular I have an immense respect for Doug LeBlanc who has long been one of the most objective reporters of things Anglican--when I edited my Integrity chapter's newsletter I often included articles he had written covering various events. I have also been privileged to share a meal with Doug.

Among those the Rev. Jones names as "extremist Separatist Powers" is StandFirm. If you want to see what these folks have to say, you can look at this post, this one, and the comments on both. Except for a couple of writers on the StandFirm blog, I have little to no respect for most of the folks who post there. In my opinion they are as mean spirited and as nasty as they often accuse their "worthy opponents" of being. If you decide to read further on their blog, you have been warned.

Peace,
Jeffri