What has Sydney to do with Jerusalem?

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" The question was asked by the 3rd century church father Tertullian, expressing his disdain for the relevance of Greek philosophy for Christian thought. Re-worded, it has some relevance to the inauspcious start to the proposed conference of conservative Anglican leaders in the Holy Land (Global Anglican Future Conference - GAFCON) planned for later this year. It transpires that the bishops organising the conference failed to first communicate with the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem. According to Bishop Suheil Dawani:

"regrettably, I have not been consulted about this planned conference. The first I learned of it was through a press release. I am aware that the post-Christmas announcement that this conference is to be held here has excited considerable interest around the Anglican Communion, and has become the subject of online discussion. Yet we Anglicans who minister here have been left out in the cold. I also note that the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, who appears to be one of the organisers, is encouraging clergy and lay people from his diocese to attend the conference with him and his bishops. He speaks of the meeting taking place because the Anglican Communion is, he says, ‘in disarray over fundamental issues of the gospel and biblical authority’. I am deeply troubled that this meeting, of which we had no prior knowledge, will import inter-Anglican conflict into our diocese, which seeks to be a place of welcome for all Anglicans".

Sydney, it seems, has had very little to do with Jerusalem. Michael Poon, a priest in the Diocese of Singapore, first raised the question in a posting on the Global Anglican South website asking Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, if the Bishop of Jerusalem had been consulted. Poon went on to question how representative GAFCON would be:

"the Global South represents a broad spectrum of Anglican churches that hold onto the historic faith and ecclesiology informed by the historic formularies. It does not answer to the dictates of the radical evangelical wings within the Communion. It is regrettable that Asia, West Indies, and Middle East are glaring omissions among the 'conveners' of the proposed Conference. Have they been consulted? Have they rejected the proposal? In their place, we find names of colleagues (with due respect) from a particular strand in the Northern churches".

That reference to "radical evangelical wings within the Communion" (i.e. Sydney) takes on added significance in light of the Archbishop of Canterbury's 2006 Statement Challenge and Hope for the Anglican Communion, during which he noted another divisive issue alongside the sexuality debate:

"given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist)".

Anglicans can give a range of theological explanations in opposition to lay presidency (authorising laity to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist). Some will stress catholic arguments, some reformed - but a common theme will be that it marks a profound break with 2000 years of Christian tradition. It clearly falls outside what Poon describes as an Anglicanism shaped by "the historic faith and ecclesiology informed by the historic formularies". Yet the diocese of Sydney under Archbishop Jensen continues to move towards lay presidency, with as much disregard for 2 millenia of Christian reflection as the diocese of New Hampshire when it elected Gene Robinson as bishop.

Poon's critique of such a "radical evangelical" agenda - an agenda which stands apart from the mainstream of historic Anglicanism - perhaps suggests that GAFCON is fatally flawed as a bearer of hope for those Anglicans seeking a renewed fidelity to the Tradition within our Communion.