A Future to Fret: Apprehension Amid GAFCON’s Reordering of the Anglican Communion

By Bishop Francis Omondi, Garissa, Kenya

April 26, 2026

I began my episcopal ministry at a time when the Anglican Communion was entering significant upheaval.

The early signs of strain were already evident; yet the pace and force of recent developments have surpassed what many anticipated.

We now face a future we did not fully shape, but one we must nonetheless navigate with care and discernment.

Recent developments—particularly the emergence of a GAFCON-led “Global Anglican Communion”—have sharpened long-standing questions about our identity.

On Martyrs’ Day 2025, Archbishop Laurent Mbanda announced a new global vision known as “FUTURE,” signalling a deliberate shift away from the historic Communion centred on Canterbury toward an alternative global structure.

Proponents portray this direction as a recovery of spiritual authority and doctrinal clarity.

They claim fidelity to Biblical authority, grounding their vision in the plain and canonical reading of Scripture articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) and echoing Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

The Kigali Commitment of 2023 reinforces this trajectory, rejecting the Instruments of Communion, those very structures that have historically safeguarded unity and mutual accountability across Anglican provinces.

In doing so, GAFCON does not preserve Anglican tradition but disrupts it.

Although the Global Anglican Communion (GAC) maintains that it is neither abandoning Anglicanism nor forming a new denomination, it asserts that it is “resetting” the Communion and restoring what it interprets as the original intention of the 1867 Lambeth Conference.

These developments compel us to ask searching questions.

What kind of future is being constructed?

And on a more personal level, what does this future mean for my episcopal ministry within the Anglican Church of Kenya—a province rooted in the Global South yet deeply shaped by the inherited bonds of Anglican tradition?

Internal Contradictions

Despite these assertions, unresolved contradictions continue to weigh down the future that GAFCON envisions.

Central to its proposal is the claim that Scripture possesses a single, authoritative interpretation.

An interpretation it locates in the Jerusalem Declaration and sets against what it labels as revisionist theology.

Yet this claim falters under scrutiny.

GAFCON’s own internal disagreements reveal the instability of its interpretive framework.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the movement’s divergent positions on the ordination of women.

Kenya and South Sudan consecrate women as bishops, while Uganda and Nigeria oppose the practice on the grounds that Scripture mandates a male-only episcopate.

Nigeria and Egypt extend this prohibition even to the priesthood, a stance not shared by Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, or South Sudan, all of which ordain women as priests.

These are not minor or peripheral disagreements.

They expose deep theological fissures that undermine GAFCON’s insistence on a singular, canonical reading of Scripture.

These tensions grew sharper with the appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury, a decision publicly denounced by Rwanda, Uganda and Nigeria.

Their objections, both to her gender and to her voting record supporting same-sex blessings, were presented as evidence of the Church of England’s doctrinal unfaithfulness.

Yet beneath these disputes lies a more fundamental question.

Will the future of Anglicanism be shaped by the careful, conciliar discernment of Scripture that has defined the tradition since Richard Hooker, or by the theological priorities of a single province, whether Nigeria or America?

GAFCON’s appeal to doctrinal purity thus reveals tensions that weaken its credibility as a guardian of uniform Biblical interpretation.

Classical Anglican theology, articulated most fully by Hooker, affirms that Scripture is interpreted through the dynamic interaction of Scripture, reason, and tradition.

The Lambeth Conferences and the Instruments of Communion have consistently upheld this broad hermeneutical approach, not as optional, but as foundational to Anglican identity.

These instruments do not exist to enforce uniformity through exclusion.

Rather, they sustain communion through shared discernment, pastoral patience and theological humility, especially in moments of disagreement.

Here, the contrast becomes unmistakably clear.

GAFCON advances a model of authority that asserts unity is impossible without adherence to “truth” as it defines it, declaring that “we can no longer walk together with those who persist in unbiblical teaching.”

Such a position stands in tension with historic Anglican self-understanding and replaces centuries of conciliar deliberation with a more confessional, exclusionary framework.

This shift does not stand alone; it accelerates the fragmentation already emerging across the Communion.

The resulting narrowing of Anglican theology stands in sharp contrast to the ecclesial vision expressed in the Lambeth Conferences and embodied in the Instruments of Communion.

This shift toward a more restrictive theological model marks a significant departure from the broad, inclusive approach that has shaped Anglican identity for generations.

Historically, these structures upheld a unity grounded not in doctrinal uniformity but in shared discernment, patient engagement, theological diversity and mutual accountability.

By redefining unity as dependent on doctrinal conformity, the emerging GAFCON model moves away from the dispersed and collegial authority that has held the Anglican Communion together.

Instead, it reimagines Anglican identity through the lens of separation, prioritising exclusion over engagement and narrowing the scope of what it means to belong to the Communion.

This approach not only fragments the global Church but also diminishes the richness and depth that have historically marked Anglican theology and practice.

These inconsistencies undermine not only the Jerusalem Declaration’s claim to coherent theological reflection but also the very Anglican tradition GAFCON asserts it is preserving.

In reshaping Anglicanism around a narrower doctrinal centre, sustained through separation rather than communion, GAFCON risks diminishing a tradition formed by breadth, patience and careful engagement with contested questions.

The unresolved disagreements within GAFCON over women’s ordination further expose the fragility of its project.

Far from offering theological coherence, these contradictions weaken the Declaration’s claim to represent a consistent, canonical and comprehensive Anglican theology.

Theological Foundations

These calls have now produced two sharply divergent responses within the Anglican world.

One urging separation in the name of doctrinal clarity.

The other calling for reform from within the Communion’s historic structures.

Advocates of separation argue that fidelity to Scripture requires decisive action whenever they believe core doctrines are compromised.

To them, remaining in communion with Canterbury, as it is now, amounts to theological compromise.

Separation, therefore, is not seen as schism but as an act of obedience, driven by the conviction that Anglican unity must rest on doctrinal truth rather than institutional loyalty.

When the Instruments of Communion seem unable to safeguard those truths, they believe an alternative structure becomes necessary.

This reasoning mirrors earlier Anglican realignments, including the formation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Yet embracing separation introduces profound difficulties.

Breaking away does not merely address perceived doctrinal error; it reshapes Anglican identity itself.

Historically, Anglicanism has rested upon a shared centre, a common liturgical inheritance, a historic episcopate and dispersed authority, rather than upon strict doctrinal uniformity.

Separation, therefore, raises a critical question: how can Anglicans preserve their identity if they reject the very instruments and relationships that have long sustained it?

In contrast, those who urge remaining within the Communion appeal to classical Anglican theology.

They draw upon Hooker’s vision of Scripture interpreted within the life of the Church through the interplay of Scripture, reason, and tradition, a vision that recognizes disagreement as a normal, even necessary, aspect of ecclesial life rather than a failure of faith.

The Lambeth Conferences and the Instruments of Communion have embodied this approach, consistently favouring patient discernment over rupture, even in moments of deep theological tension.

From this perspective, Canterbury functions not as a doctrinal supervisor but as a symbolic and relational centre that enables communion across difference.

It provides space for theological argument without fracturing into competing Anglicanisms, allowing reform to unfold within the inherited structures that have historically held the Communion together.

This approach, however, is not without its own challenges.

Advocates of reform often invoke the need for change without articulating clearly what that reform entails.

Without a distinction between reform, understood as the correction of error, and change, understood as structural or cultural adaptation, the risk of theological drift becomes real.

Critics warn that prolonged ambiguity erodes trust and allows unresolved tensions to masquerade as unity.

The Communion is therefore confronted not merely with a simple choice between faithfulness and compromise, but with a deeper tension between two long-standing Anglican instincts.

The instinct toward separation, which prioritises doctrinal clarity yet risks severing the tradition from its historical and ecclesial foundations.

And the instinct toward staying, which prioritises continuity and shared discernment yet risks confusion when the nature of reform remains undefined.

Missional Implications

The implications of delinking from Canterbury are indeed immense.

The central issue is not simply whether provinces choose to leave or remain within the historic structures of the Communion.

Rather, it concerns the more fundamental question of what defines Anglican identity.

When Anglicanism is reduced to adherence to a single interpretive framework, such as the Jerusalem Declaration, its rich theological and historical breadth is diminished, and separation becomes an almost inevitable outcome.

By contrast, Anglicanism in its historic form is rooted in Scripture interpreted within the life of the Church, sustained by the Book of Common Prayer and guided by conciliar discernment.

From within this broader and more faithful understanding, remaining in the Communion and pursuing reform emerges as the more coherent path.

The primary challenge, therefore, is not the reality of change itself, but change undertaken without theological consistency, historical accountability or communal deliberation.

The future of Anglicanism will depend not only on the direction chosen but on the extent to which that choice embodies the breadth, humility, and patience that have long characterized the Anglican tradition.

Establishing a Global Anglican Communion and urging provinces to delink from Canterbury represents a significant reconfiguration of Anglican identity.

These developments do not occur in isolation.

Instead, they reveal the wider structural and theological consequences that emerge when doctrinal boundaries become the basis for jurisdictional realignment.

It is to these broader ecclesial, relational and missional implications that we now turn.

In 2007, the Church of Nigeria removed all references to “communion with the See of Canterbury” from its constitution.

This redefined its relationships with other provinces, not based on geographic boundaries but on shared doctrine and biblical interpretation.

This shift had far-reaching consequences for the province’s engagement with the wider Communion.

One immediate outcome was that the Church of Nigeria gained constitutional authority to “create convocations and chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria” and to appoint individuals, within or beyond Nigeria, to oversee them under the jurisdiction of the Nigerian Primate.

This provision enabled the establishment of churches under Nigerian oversight in the United States, including the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and eventually the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Such a precedent raises a critical question.

What would prevent provinces labelled “revisionist” from applying the same logic to create parallel jurisdictions within GAFCON-aligned provinces such as Uganda, Nigeria or Kenya?

If doctrinal affinity becomes the primary criterion for jurisdictional expansion, the Communion risks entering an era of reciprocal interventions, competing ecclesiastical structures, and deepening fragmentation.

The mission field is changing quickly.

CANA was created to offer pastoral oversight for conservative Nigerian Anglicans in the United States.

Today, demographic trends and cultural shifts show a major missiological transition.

American Anglicanism is becoming more culturally integrated and more liturgically diverse.

David Goodhew’s recent analysis of The Episcopal Church’s post-COVID attendance patterns highlights this.

Two congregations now hold services in Igbo, one of Nigeria’s major languages spoken by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Seven parishes have also introduced Latin services.

These developments show a shifting ecclesial landscape.

Immigrant communities are no longer isolated cultural enclaves.

They are active contributors to a broader and more connected American religious environment.

This challenges earlier assumptions that African-rooted Anglican jurisdictions in North America serve only as cultural sanctuaries.

Instead, they are participating in a shared and rapidly evolving missional context.

Archbishop Peter Jensen argues that GAFCON is not a protest movement but a mission movement.

Its goal is to expand evangelism, discipleship and church planting.

Yet this vision is weakened by the growing fragmentation of the Church.

Fragmentation creates parallel structures and competing priorities.

It strains relationships and reduces the coherence of Anglican witness.

As these divisions deepen, the missional energy GAFCON promotes becomes harder to sustain.

This fragmentation also places provinces under pressure to choose sides.

Such decisions threaten long-standing partnerships that once supported global cooperation.

Theologians like Michael Ramsey and Rowan Williams remind us that Anglican strength has never come from rigid uniformity.

Instead, it comes from sustaining communion despite theological diversity.

That core principle is now severely tested, as the Church must decide whether it will allow division to shape its identity or seek unity that strengthens its mission.

Historically, Anglican missions have assumed that coherent oversight fosters coherent witness.

A shared proclamation of the gospel, an integrated pattern of discipleship, and a unified deployment of resources have enabled Anglicans to minister with clarity and confidence.

Overlapping jurisdictions, however, disperse these energies.

Clergy and congregations must navigate conflicting lines of authority rather than focus on the pastoral and evangelistic needs of their communities.

Competing structures generate parallel programs, duplicate ministries and foster rivalry where collaboration is essential.

The result is a diminished public witness, eroded trust among the faithful and a mission field increasingly uncertain about Anglican identity and purpose.

In this respect, overlapping jurisdictions do not merely complicate canonical order; they strike at the heart of Anglican ecclesiology.

They undermine the Church’s vocation to be a visible sign of unity and a credible instrument of God’s reconciling mission.

They fracture what the Anglican tradition has understood as the bishop-in-synod and replace it with a patchwork of competing voices.

The cumulative effect is centrifugal rather than centripetal, dispersing the Church’s witness and diminishing its capacity to proclaim Christ with the clarity, coherence and catholic integrity that have long characterized Anglicanism.

Paths Forward

These mounting tensions have brought the Communion to a moment of profound uncertainty.

For more than two decades, Anglicans have carried the persistent question of whether we would remain together or gradually drift apart.

Earlier realignments, often undertaken with deep conviction, were framed as necessary attempts to safeguard the faith during periods of perceived doctrinal compromise.

At their best, these actions sought to provide clarity in moments that felt marked by confusion.

Today, however, we sense that the Communion has reached a new and more decisive turning point.

In 2023, ten Global South primates publicly denounced recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares following his support for same-sex blessings.

Their declaration signalled a significant rupture in their relationship with Canterbury and exposed the depth of the theological and relational fractures now shaping the Anglican world.

Responding to these changing dynamics, Archbishop Paul Kwong, chair of the ACC in 2024, launched a process to consider future directions for the Communion.

The Nairobi–Cairo Proposals from IASCUFO urge the Church to reconsider its understanding of shared life, drawing again on the 1930 Lambeth Conference and calling for leadership structures that reflect today’s global Anglican realities.

IASCUFO’s latest recommendations advocate for more diverse Communion leadership.

They propose that the Archbishop of Canterbury convene a council of regional primates to share pastoral duties and represent the Communion as needed.

The archbishop would remain the chief ecumenical representative but could delegate involvement where appropriate.

For the largely symbolic ACC Presidency, IASCUFO suggests simplifying the ACC’s structure to clarify the Chair’s role.

The Archbishop of Canterbury would continue as an ex officio member of both the ACC and its Standing Committee, serving alongside five other primates.

Together, these steps seek to align Communion leadership with contemporary global needs.

At the same time, developments within the Church of England further reveal the complexity of the moment.

The 2026 General Synod’s decision to pause the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process on sexuality, relationships, and gender demonstrates that the Communion is wrestling not merely with doctrinal disagreements but with fundamentally different visions of its identity and future.

These global shifts coincide with significant changes within the mission field itself.

Increasing participation and influence of conservative immigrant communities, particularly within The Episcopal Church, indicate a growing cultural sensitivity in Western Anglicanism.

This development disproves the belief that African-rooted Anglican bodies in North America are mainly cultural refuges.

Instead, these communities are emerging as active contributors to a more diverse and interconnected ecclesial landscape, helping to reshape both liturgical life and missional priorities.

In such a moment of testing, the wisdom of Archbishop Desmond Tutu remains instructive.

As he led South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he reminded us that naming wounds is not meant to imprison us in the past but to release us from its grip.

His pastoral insight calls us to confront present challenges with honesty and hope, refusing to let fear or bitterness determine our future.

Now, as decisive actions unfold across the Communion, we stand together at a genuine crossroads.

The question before us is not merely institutional or structural; it is deeply spiritual and communal.

Will we choose a path that leads to further fragmentation, or will we seek reforms that honour our shared foundations while allowing space for healing and renewal?

Whichever path we discern, may we walk it with humility, patience and a deep longing for the unity for which Christ Himself prayed, a unity that strengthens the Church’s witness and reflects the reconciling love of God.

Conclusion

Beloved, we find ourselves living through a moment none of us anticipated, yet one that now demands our faithful discernment.

The future being imagined for us—whether through GAFCON’s restructuring or through shifts within the historic Instruments of Communion—carries profound implications for our fellowship, our mission, and our shared identity as Anglicans.

These developments have arrived with unsettling speed, and they require from us not fear, but clarity, courage, and prayerful deliberation.

GAFCON offers a vision grounded in conviction, yet one that risks deepening division through an increasingly narrow ecclesial framework.

Remaining within the historic Anglican Communion provides continuity and a shared theological inheritance, yet it too requires honest engagement and genuine reform.

Neither path is without cost.

But whichever course we choose, it must arise not from reaction or external pressure, but from our desire to remain faithful to Jesus Christ—rooted in Scripture, shaped by our Anglican heritage and committed to walking together even when the road is difficult.

Thus, our calling in this moment is not simply to choose between separation and continuity, but to discern what it means to be authentically Anglican in a time of global upheaval.

We must resist the temptation to decide in haste or to allow louder voices—whether global or local—to dictate our future.

Instead, we are invited to listen attentively to the Spirit, to one another, and to the witness of our tradition.

The unity for which Christ prayed is not a unity devoid of conviction, but a unity formed through humility, patience, mutual accountability and hope.

My prayer is that our province will find the courage to pursue a path that neither fractures our Communion nor abandons the conciliar wisdom that has sustained it for generations.

May we choose a future not shaped by fear but illumined by grace, one in which love and truth meet, and in which the Anglican Church of Kenya bears faithful witness to the reconciling mission of God in a divided world.

The Rt. Revd. Dr. Francis Omondi Otieno is the second Anglican Bishop of Garissa in the Anglican Church of Kenya.