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.

When the leading theologian of the Global South Anglican site raises a series of serious questions about GAFCON then their significance is worth noting.

For more on Michael Poon's context, see:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=178

There seems to have been:

1. a misuse of the name ‘Global Anglican’ in the title of the Conference, which is (deliberately?) close to Global South Anglican.

2. no consultation with the Global South Anglican steering committee, including John Chew the Primate of South East Asia who is the secretary, and Mouneer Anis, the Primate of the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

3. no consultation with the local bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem nor with Mouneer Anis, the local Primate.

Presmably, the answer to Singapore is that some of the more dogmatic evangelical types and Forward in Faith types will make the running, and then others can tag on subsequently. It is called impatience, and the Sugden-Minns African alliance has been nothing but impatient and methodical with plans.

Ah how the realignment must continue to work itself out. Players must play. I very much doubt that Ahmanson, Scaife, and colleagues are much asking themselves any questions about the pluralistically conceived goods lived by all the rest of us. Good questions though for all of us to ponder, from time to time to time.

One hopes the more brash among the realignment leaders in the campaign are listening and reflecting further.

Meanwhile, Orombi falls headlong into the prepared realignment traps. Presuppositional, hence, blind.

He cannot understand that western scholarly textual/hermeneutic criticism has the good aim of cleaning up and renewing our modern understandings of scriptures. The last step in exegesis is that the corrected, renewed, painstakingly contextualized scripture is free to speak powerfully to our modern peoples and modern situations. And to be diligently harmonized, again and again and again and again, with changed empirical data from all our sciences. That all hermeneutic approaches track that moving target, our provisional discernment and understanding of the scriptures.

He fails completely to mention the risk that people who idolize scripture as the sole (and static? and therefore, Status Quo?) revelation authority necessarily run in their approach to hermeneutics and discernment. And he shows no awareness of the equally great risks run by con evo believers who wittingly or unwittingly adopt presuppositional hermeneutics, wrapped up in the deceptively bright tinsel papers of being tagged plain readings of scripture.

He cannot see that - if there is much more to worldwide Anglicanism than mindless obeisance to lost empire and British culture, then there is also much more to current Anglican community than African or indeed Global South cultural hegemony.

He cannot see that the half-truths and outright falsehoods which simplistically pitched past wars across modern Anglican believer differences are still germane to our community and church life in the current realignment campaign pitching. He can cite African peacemaking without seeking reconciliation across our own global wider differences. He can identify African cattle rustling as an occasion of real grief, but not the more recent primatial incursions, diocesan meddling, and attempted thefts of TEC (or soon, Canadian?) money/property?

Actually, I think this by James Packer explains all that one needs from their perspective.

http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=1

Here are some choice texts getting my interest for later comment:

The present project, however, is precisely not to abandon...

...but to realign within it [Anglicanism] , so as to be able to maintain it in its fullness and authenticity...

...liberal theology, which has become increasingly dominant in seminaries and among leaders in what we may call the Anglican Old West - that is, North America in the lead, with Britain and Australasia coming along behind.

...since Anglo-Catholic leadership began to flag.

Well now; with liberal leaders thinking and teaching in these terms, a collision with conservatives - that is, with upholders of the historic biblical and Anglican faith - was bound to come. It came over gay unions...

...we see our realignment as among other things, an enhancing of our solidarity with them [claimed 90%]. As I said earlier, what we are doing is precisely not leaving Anglicanism behind.

Right from the start church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.

...heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence...

In his speech Jim Packer justifies the Anglican "realignment" of the sixteenth century because of Rome's false doctrines.

Yet virtually all these "false" doctrines are taught as Biblical by San Joaquin and Fort Worth.....they joined Southern Cone at the same time as he did. These dioceses teach things which are opposed to the thirty nine articles he so values...like prayer for the Saints and interpolate Holy Communion like the Mass.

Yet again we see the heresy test reduced to homosexuality. Packer was quite content to stay in Canadian Anglicanism, with its women bishops and easy divorce...but sodomy that is the final straw.

So we see the ame patttern emerging...evangelicals are prepared to turn a blind eye to any heretical teaching as long as it is not pink!

So by Packers logic a Biblical and Orthodox Church may contaion error....he is on record as saying anthing other than evangelical is a mutated Christianity.

What next will we see him preaching at San Joaquin Cathedral with Bishop Schofield celebrating High Mass with incense?

I’m not surprised by the shenanigans. A recent Jensen paper on why he supported this GAFCON move expressed a concern US TEC development would not remain confined within their own borders. For some, we are not meant to unconditionally love our children, even if the Potter makes them GLBT. Nor are we to share testimony this of courageous unconditional love outside of a shameful confession to a few "insiders".

There are some who think there is a limited bucket of God's love, and that should be meted out frugally to only those who tithe and flatter to the appropriate ideology. I think Rowan’s Christmas sermon is a good refutation to that http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6501

It strikes me that there are souls who actually fear love, especially unconditional love. So, while some souls are working to bring us out of Galut (it's not just the Jews who are in exile) by recognizing and healing the neglected portions of God's dreams. There are others who fear they might have to apologize and be kind to that which they have been vilifying and tyrannizing for millennia. More about Galut here: http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/tgr-prologue2.html

Souls would do well to remember that it was not only Eve who was imperfect. Adam's first match was Lilith and that was a marriage of two "perfect" beings. The problem was they couldn't sustain a universe as they kept expunging variation as it occurred, thus stifling diversity and thus life. Cheva was created to mitigate perfection with Grace and compassion, her "mistake" and tolerance thereof enabled life to flourish. If souls want Galut to end, they need to remember the problems of excessive perfectionism and recall that the universe is balanced when both masculine and feminine traits are affirmed. Eastern learnings tell us that whenever yin or yang is too unbalanced, things become chaotic and unstable.

We are not going to come out of Galut until both the feminine AND the masculine are invited to dwell safely amongst humanity. That means remembering and honoring the feminine matriarchal traits, as well as continuing to affirm the masculine patriarchal characteristics.

Where is the money coming from to finance this conference? I am repeatedly telling Archbishop Akinola that his action will lead to the formation of a orthodox liberal anglican church in Nigeria that will maintain ties with Canterbury.

Ephraim Radner has just commented on the Covenant site:

'Secretive organizational plans, lack of open consultation, ignoring of consensus, rushed strategies aimed at creating influential "facts on the ground" -- we have been dealing with this kind of thing for too long. In the TEC, we have, as has been noted, had to suffer from it at the hands of innovating advocates of change to the point of splitting our American church in multiple bodies. What is interesting now is perceiving how the same tactics, carried out by factions within the "Global South" (along with allies -- or is it the other way around?), are finally being identified for what they are by other "Global South" Anglicans; and identified with unease and even dismay. One should not put too much world-ecclesial weight upon the remarks of a single person, but Dr. Poon's set of questions, the tone of their enunciation, and the stated context of their concern are highly significant, given the place of respect and influence he holds in the councils of the Global South as a whole. Basically, he is asking whether the traditional Anglicanism that has been nobly upheld by numerous non-Western churches, driven on by their unwavering faith in the Gospel of Jesus, is not in the process of being hijacked by a much narrower and perhaps more venal set of interests. That is news.'

http://covenant-communion.com/?p=367#comments

Dr Michael Poon has published another article, directed at +Jensen, on the Global South Anglican site - http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/michael_poon_seeks_a_conversation_with_archbishop_peter_jensen_on_issues_af/

It's a teeny, tiny point Simon, but where did you get the idea that this conference was happening in Jerusalem? Can't see that on the (splendidly put together if I may say so) GAFCON website. All I see is "Holy Land".

Peter
I wasn't aware that I had said anything about the conference location!
I'm really not responsible for what either Michael Poon or Graham Kings thinks, but FWIW I had interpreted their comments to be a reference to the diocese rather than the city itself. Last time I checked, the diocese covered the whole of the countries in question, by whatever names you prefer to use...
Simon

Pity that Ephraim Radner has to have a dig at TEC whilst he criticises the new gathering.

I was asked to write something about Michael Poon's first comments. So I did, but what he wrote (in terms of response) is covered by more general understandings of this GAFCON crowd.

I see that he is indeed now addressing himself to Peter Jensen. It is turning into a bit of a near neighbours' squabble. To take the Militant analogy further, it is starting to get like the relationship between Labour and SDP - so close and yet getting far.

Poon Questions (of GAFCON)

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/poon-questions-of-gafcon.html

Packer Obsession and GAFCON Plans

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/packer-obsession-and-gafcom-plans.html

Have people noticed Canon [Dr] Chris Sugden’s involvement with other initiatives which have been devastatingly criticised in the past 12 months, as well as his latest involvement with GAFCON, now subject to critique by Michael Poon?

In August, his ’fingerprints’ were to be found, along with Bishop Martyn Minns’, on the letter from Archbishop Akinola to the Nigerian Synods entitled “A Most Agonizing Journey towards Lambeth 2008“ published on 19 August 2007.

http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=315

Canon Sugden was also associated with ‘A Covenant for the Church of England’ with Paul Perkins and others, published in December 2006. This document was subjected to a devastating criticism by Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham. The bishop also criticises Michael Nazir-Ali’s involvement with the Covenant.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061214wright.cfm?doc=171

Chris Sugden, Michael Nazir-Ali and others are playing a dangerous game, both for the Anglican Communion and the Church of England. They are actively involved with a strategy which is determined to exclude LGBT people from the Church (well, we can deal with that, we’re not so easily got rid of).

Far more critical ultimately are the power games being played, to destabilise the Church of England, undermine the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and create a second Anglican Communion with the Primate of Nigeria as its head.

Regarding where the money will come from, Davis Mac-Iyalla, we can start with Orombi's Anglican TV interview of last September, when he expounds with great enthusiasm the money he has received from American right-wing sources: "... they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money." A direct, unedited quote.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002600.html

As to the formation of an "orthodox liberal anglican church .... that will maintain ties with Canterbury", I have seen it suggested on this site that the proposed law banning organizations that support homosexuality, that Archbishop Akinola has attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to tack on to the legislation that you are so bravely fighting in Nigeria, is aimed not at internal organizations but at TEC or any other liberal Anglican entity that might attempt to establish an alternative church and hierarchy in the country, in the event of a schism in the Communion. Given the machinations that have and are taking place, the theory makes sense to me.

There is a very important note from Terry Wong, the Editor of the Global South Anglican site and vicar of St James's Church, Singapore, on Michael Poon's new article concerning questions to Peter Jensen.

It is easy to miss because it is on the home page and not part of the article itself. It reads:

Editorial note: Both Dr Michael Poon and Archbishop Jensen have articles featured on this site regularly. It will be in the interest of our readers and Anglican faithful that we continue some open conversations on the nature and direction that our Communion is taking. This is a critical time for our Communion and churches. If we are just fighting for biblical orthodoxy and nothing else, we might as well splinter into independent churches. Even ‘mission’ is not a good enough reason to be together - for we are working quite well across denominational boundaries. If it is both biblical orthodoxy AND the catholic order of our Church with our identity/mission as an ecclesial family, then it calls for careful, deeper reflection, longterm vision and clarity in our strategy - that the 2003 crisis and our subsequent responses may not tear the fabric of our Communion even further.

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php

Chris Sugden is of course the co-ordinating mastermind.....but in all the Covenants
( including his) the real meaning of heterosexual marriage is left out...whether it is indissoluable or not ( you see evangelicals can't agree on this...and if they admit this difference,..it makes their claim that the Bible is clear on morality, very hollow)....

Please make sure that the Anglican Communion Covenant defines marriage and if there is a possibility of divorce...it will totally divide the evangelicals.

Divorce is the evangelical achilles heel.

As for evangelical overtures to Anglo-Catholics...the Book of Proverbs tells us,

" beware of those who wink at you, for the inwardly plot your destruction."

Previewing your Comment
“Yet virtually all these "false" doctrines are taught as Biblical by San Joaquin and Fort Worth.....they joined Southern Cone at the same time as he did. These dioceses teach things which are opposed to the thirty nine articles he so values...like prayer for the Saints and interpolate Holy Communion like the Mass.”—Robert Ian Williams

Good grief, Robert! You reject the Catholic faith which Anglicanism is pledged to uphold—with or without the obsolete 16th century Calvinist Articles of Religion! Don’t you believe in the “communion of saints”? Don’t you ask your friends to pray for you? Then why not ask those friends who have died, but with whom we are still united in the Body of Christ—to pray for you? Don’t you believe that Jesus is truly Present in the Holy Eucharist? Is it just a Calvinist “memorial” for you?

I just don’t understand you Prods. Is it the result of too much of the lash Down Under...?

Posted by Kurt on Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 5:48pm GMT

Pluralist,
A lot of what has happened in TEC has been by unilateral action and without the consents of diocesan conventions or General Convention, and Radner is correct to point it out. Having relocated to Canada from the US, I appreciate the openness of the Canadian church, that we are discussing the issue at synods and moving forward (or not) based on consensus and synodical action. Of course, I do sometimes find it frustratingly slow. But in the end, I would prefer same-sex marriage to be authorized only after thorough discussion of its theology as well as all the implications, and with a true consensus, even if that may take a generation.

And I think Radner's criticism of his colleagues is sharpened by his pointing out that their behavior is no different from that which they have complained of in the past.

The attitude that the end justifies the mean is something that we hear both from Stand Firm and from Integrity. And I agree with Dr. Radner that we must condemn it, regardless of where it comes from.

Lapin
sounds like time we all started fundraising to enable Davis and other members of "Changing Attitude in Nigeria" to be present at Lambeth.

The more this story unfolds the more their public and open presence becomes a necessity.

Changing Attitude will accept donations for this purpose.

As has been suggested on other sites, and as a result of the reactions of people like Michael Poon and Ephraim Radner, I have been allowing myself to think what else might be going on behind the scenes amongst the organisers of GAFCON.

This isn't rocket science, but let's speculate. We know, as Lapinbizarre has reminded us, that Henry Orombi is obscenely seduced by money. This might explain why he seems to be capitulating to Peter Akinola becoming leader of the new Church that is undoubtedly plan B of the GAFCON team.

Plan A is to so humiliate the present Archbishop of Canterbury and so abuse power, that Peter Akinola takes the throne of Canterbury. Plan B puts Peter Akinola on his own, new, independent Church throne.

Peter Akinola is due to retire shortly, so he would like Plan A or B to be initiated soon. When he retires, phase two of either plan is initiated - Martyn Minns becomes the new Primate, of whichever Church they have taken control. Be in no doubt, Martyn Minns is the power behind the throne, who wants the throne when it becomes available.

Those seeking this goal include Michael Nazir-Ali, Wallace Benn and Chris Sugden.

I am mad, of course. I'm not a part of Global South or evangelical networks. But I'm as sure as sure can be, that this is exactly what this team of Primates, bishops and lay MEN (well, Angela Minns follows Martyn around on the stump), are up to. They'll all deny it. Wicked, gay, liberal, conspiracy theory.

"...if they admit this difference,… it makes their claim that the Bible is clear on morality, very hollow..."

There has been a lot of oil poured on a lot of possible dissension points so that there can be full solo scriptural authority posturing over the "heretical" notion of providing love and nurturing to eunuchs (aka GLBTs).

For example, the ordination of women or women as teachers, divorce, polygamy, usury.

Similarly their "robust" theology has dirty big holes in it as it completely ignores God's will to have things done on this earth as they are done in heaven (Matthew 6:10), that this world was made to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), or that there were ever meant to be covenants with and for eunuchs, foreigners, the poor or beasts (e.g. Isaiah 56 or Ezekiel 34). Just as they have been in denial over the feminine attributes and desires e.g. gentleness (Matthew 11:27-30 or 21:5) or covenants of peace (Isaiah 54:9-17).

Their emperors are wearing no clothes: Isaiah 59:6-6 "Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands. Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into crooked roads; no one who walks in them will know peace."

I have two long pieces, wouldn't fit here, on Michael Poon's further questions and a criticism of J. I. Packer and his caricature of liberalism.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/j-i-packer-you-are-wrong-about.html

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-poon-questions-gafcon.html

Dear Kurt... I am a convinced Roman Catholic and I use the word "false" to put myself abnd the reader in the mindset of the evangelicals and show the duplicity of their setting aside their beliefs to further their cause...By the way the Evangelicals are true to Cranmer and the historic reformation settlement

Rob.

Interesting that the Sydney Anglicans site introduces on their homepage an article on GAFCON with the following.

"Archbishop Peter Jensen WILL CHAIR an international Anglican conference that aims to call the Communion back to the basic tenets of the Christian faith."

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/

What the article ACTUALLY begins with is:

"Archbishop Peter Jensen has given firm support to an Anglican conference..."

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/future_anglicans_unite/

Typical Sydney arrogance (unless they know something others don't!):

Can anyone explain to me why Rowan Williams does not make any comment at all?

As a follow-up to my pointing out Sydney Anglican's 'slip' in saying +Jensen will 'chair' GAFCON, it's equally interesting that Terry Wong, of the Global South Anglican website, posted a comment on T19 which says:

"While some may read the Gafcon initiative as a move which bypasses GSA, it can also be read as one which seeks to allow more space, especially at the leadership and organisers’ level, for other primates or leaders to participate. Thus, Archbishop Peter Jensen could act as the spokesman of the event and we have some from UK assisting in the organisation."

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8764/#comments (comment #110)

There's a growing sense (his letter, the 'accidental' chair comment, the spokesman 'suggestion') that +Jensen is perhaps being put forward as the public 'face' of GAFCON - perhaps in a deliberate move to take the focus off +Venables, the African provinces, and the Americans? After all, +Jensen has not been taking as prominent a role up to now.

+Anis has written to +Akinola asking for a reconsideration of GAFCON, although he is supportive of the idea. It appears, amongst other things, that +Suheil Dawani was NOT aware this was taking place:

"In regard to the site, 'Jerusalem', I doubt that we will get the support of the Bishop there for various reasons. Even if he agreed initially, things may change several months afterwards. This will put us in an awkward position. It is my region and I know it better than you. To say we will do a pilgrimage to attract Bishops, and yet it is not entirely a pilgrimage, is not right in my point of view."

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7374

The Golden Questions I wish that Michael Poon should have asked Doctor Jensen...and maybe a bishop or Rowan Williams could still ask of the self proclaimed orthodox champion :

Will he give an assurance (like that which is demanded of Bishop Jefferts Schori )that he will never sign lay presidency into law in Sydney diocese.

Also if he wishes to chair a conference which recognises Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical as valid components of authentic Biblical Anglicanism, will he authorise the use of the Australian prayer Book and Catholic eucharistic vestments in the handful of Anglo-Catholic parishes in his diocese.

Will he also insist that every Sydney parish uses wine at Holy Communion and use his special influence to ask the Church of England in South Africa to hand over its Zimbabwe parishes to the orthodox Anglican province of Central Africa.

I am sure that Doctor Jensen will be unable to give such assurances.

According to The Jerusalem Post they are expecting to host the event:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517248310&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Sydney Anglicans has now removed the phrase 'will chair' from the piece I mentioned. I guess they must keep an eye on TA :-D

VirtueOnline appears to be down at the minute, but the article on the alleged +Anis / +Akinola correspondence regarding GAFCON can also be read here - http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1946045/posts

It will be interesting to see not only who is invited but also who, even with outside financial support (how much, one wonders, are the Ahmansons, Scaifes, et al. actually prepared to commit to the venture) is able or willing to attend.

"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

"Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?"

“Dear Kurt... I am a convinced Roman Catholic...”—Robert Ian Williams

You sure don’t sound like one to me! You have one crazy conception of Anglican history and doctrine!

Kurt, I think you have swallowed the Anglo-catholic line...if you go back to the Reformation roots of Anglicanism, you find prayer for the dead, to the Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass and Eyucharistic adoration banned. Even the high church element took this line...Anglo-Catholicism as practiced in dioceses like San Joaquin developed in the nineteeth century as an off shoot of the ritualist movement.

The Jerusalem Post piece was all preplanned. This particular blogger wrote on Dec 26th (the day most heard of GAFCON) that a piece was coming, although she got the publication day wrong:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/global-anglican.html

Good heavens, Robert! It may be true that certain Roman pietistic practices (some of them acceptable to me, some of them not so acceptable) were introduced (or, re-introduced) in the 19th century, but basic doctrinal concepts such as “the communion of saints” and the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass have been with us since the beginnings of Anglicanism as a Christian denomination. The Calvinists, it is true, have often disputed such doctrines, and have done their best to obliterate them—the neo-Puritans are still trying to do so today! But, they have not succeeded—which is why, among other things, I don’t believe that all Papists are going to hell!

Kurt I don't want to detract from Gafcon...but you should read the Black " rubric" in your BOOK of Common Prayer, not to mention the 39 articles and Cranmer's book on the Eucharist.

"I think you have swallowed the Anglo-catholic line"

Au contraire, RIW, I think you have swallowed the Calvinist line that THEY alone created/maintained "True Anglicanism" (TM).

"you should read the Black " rubric" in your BOOK of Common Prayer, not to mention the 39 articles"

The Black Rubric is not in *my* BCP, Robert! (TEC 1979, as True an Anglicanism as there is). The 39 articles are merely there as historical, not definitive. As far as Cranmer goes, we honor his martyrdom for freedom of thought over Papist dictatorship, but his theology is hardly the most important in Anglicanism---Hooker is far more representative.

On-topic: GAFCON = Yawn...