The Strange Case of Dr. Poon and the Primate

The Primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, and the Southern Cone (of South America) were there. All of these (except perhaps Tanzania) have their own "start ups" in the U. S. or have invited seceeding parishes or dioceses to join their Provinces. Also in Nairobi were Americans who support those efforts: Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Kenyan Bishop Bill Atwood, and Bishop Martyn Minns of Nigeria's Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).

The Nairobi meeting called for a gathering in Jerusalem next June and named it GAFCON. Everyone not in Nairobi was surprised, it seems, some of them unpleasantly so. One encounter that resulted was very revealing. It concerned Dr. Poon, who raised questions about GAFCON and had his knuckles rapped for his pains.

The Rev. Michael Nai-Chui Poon, D. Phil. (Oxon), is a priest of Singapore and an important figure in GSA's program He is chair of GSA's Theological Formation and Education Task Force, which is charged with developing a Catechism for Gobal South Churches. This work, Dr. Poon reports, has put him in weekly contact with the leadership of GSA.

GAFCON was announced on St. Stephen's Day 2007 in a press release that read, "Orthodox Primates with other leading bishops from across the globe are to invite fellow Bishops, senior clergy and laity from every province of the Anglican Communion to a unique eight-day event, to be known as the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) 2008."

And it continued, "The event, which was agreed at a meeting of Primates in Nairobi last week, will be in the form of a pilgrimage back to the roots of the Church's faith.... From 15-22 June 2008, Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings of the church will make pilgrimage to the Holy Land..."

One sentence in the last paragraph caught everyone's eye: "While this conference is not a specific challenge to the Lambeth Conference, it will provide opportunities for fellowship and care for those who have decided not to attend Lambeth." Since Lambeth meets in July, many asked the obvious question: is GAFCON not in fact what it appears to be, a challenge and an alternative to Lambeth Conference -- come to our meeting, don't go to that one? (Feb 15 the "Nairobi Primates" (except Tanzania) wrote that they would not go to Lambeth.)

The Bishop of Jerusalem was particularly incensed by the press release. No one had told him that a large and possibly divisive church meeting was set for his diocese. He protested that the Church in the Holy Land was involved in the desperate issues of peace and reconciliation, and he suggested that GAFCON would make a different kind of witness. Archbishop Akinola, missing or ignoring the point, blandly replied that they would not be concerned with politics.

Dr. Michael Poon, however, drew blood when he posted some very pointed questions on the GSA website, He quoted I Cor, 10, "Everything is permissible — but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." And he wrote, "I am saddened and shocked by the Statement on "The Global Anglican Future Conference, June 15-22, The Holy Land." Perhaps the Primates responsible need to clarify their views on the matter."

Then he launched his barrage. On what basis, he wanted to know, did those particular primates call themselves "orthodox," implying that others were not orthodox. Furthermore, did they act personally, on their own, or as primates of their respective churches, and was their statement ratified by each synod?

He asked, "Has the Global South Anglican Primates Steering Committee endorsed this Statement? So far, it has remained silent on the matter. ... The Global South represents a broad spectrum of Anglican churches ... It does not answer to the dictates of the radical evangelical wings within the Communion."

Dr. Poon's questions go on: "It is regrettable that Asia, West Indies, and Middle East are glaring omissions among the "conveners" of the proposed Conference. Have they been consulted? In their place, we find names of colleagues (with due respect) from a particular strand in the Northern churches... Was the Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem of the Middle East consulted? After all the proposed Conference takes place in Jerusalem? Furthermore, by holding it in Jerusalem, it makes it quite impossible for orthodox Christians from Muslim countries to attend." And he concluded, "Primates are pledged to uphold the unity and the faith of the church, and not their private judgments and personalities—even their interpretation of orthodoxy. Please be constructive in your decisions at this stage."

Dr. Poon's sharp questions found their mark, and two days later he received an e-mail reply from someone he names only as "an esteemed primate."

It read, "... How could you possibly believe it to be God's will to make such a public scandal against your brethren without first consulting with us? ... You assume authority and superiority (neither of which are yours to assume) and assault not only the entire enterprise but the integrity of those involved. You use rhetorical questions thus adding inappropriate scorn to what you have perpetrated. On top of this you used the Global South website for a personal matter. With whose authorization did you do so?"

The Primate continued, "This conference is designed to move beyond the current paralysis in the Communion and pursue mission with those who have a common mind about what Biblical mission means. We are not suggesting that we are the only ones who have the "real" faith to share, but neither are we so naive to believe that all who call themselves Anglicans agree with what the church has always described as the content of the faith and the mission of the Church.... Please seek God over this and recognize the great wrong you have done to those who have trusted you and never imagined you might behave in this way."

In addition to the rebuke of a presumptious priest, the e-mail arrived with a mystery. Technological evidence in the letter led Dr. Poon to conclude that it was not written by the "esteemed primate" but by an "equally esteemed" American bishop, to whom the evidence pointed. People who know about the technology have suggested that other conclusions were possible, so Dr. Poon's theory has to rank as not proved, although intrigueing.

Back to the substance. Dr. Poon cannot have been unaware of how wounding his questions would be. That the Primate was overbearing and determined to put him in his place is obvious, but the grievance must also have been real.

Behind Poon's acrid inquisition and the Primate's responding bluster, the exchange discloses tensions within the Global South movement. The Africans have the numbers and the bit in their teeth. Certainly they seem to shape the calculations of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisors. But it appears that Anglican leaders and scholars in South East Asia may not admire all of this as much as leaders in Africa might wish. And if Michael Poon is any guide, that South East Asia was ignored in the GAFCON matter is galling.

These issues, insofar as they are real, are finally for the Global South Anglicans to sort out, not for us. We in the North find issues for ourselves in these events.

We are very proud of our governance, our system of distributed authority and shared decision making, although it sometimes disappoints us badly. Even so, why would one exchange that system for the dangerous simplicity of a primatial rule with few restraints?

At a deeper level, Episcopalians in the United States must reshape their strategies and relationships in response to the new power realities in the Communion. This is not news to anyone apparently but ourselves. It may be, however, that in the years ahead we may begin to acquire the new skills and new disciplines which we will need. If that does happen, if we persevere and are renewed in humility, the hallowed "bonds of affection" may be found again to be strong.

Footnote: This article has drawn on sources from Thinking Anglicans and Global South Anglican.