Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion

https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/

March 11, 2026

On Sunday I was asked by a member of my parish church if I could explain what was happening in the Anglican Communion. She had heard a report on the BBC about the declaration issued by GAFCON after its recent meeting in Abuja and asked what the division between GAFCON and other Anglicans was about.

The answer is that the division is about two different visions of the future of global Anglicanism.

The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals

The first vision is set out in the ‘Nairobi-Cairo Proposals,’ which have been produced by The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO). As the Anglican Communion News Service explains:

‘IASCUFO is a permanent commission of the Anglican Communion, composed of Anglican theologians from around the world. The commission is charged with advising the member churches and Instruments of Communion on all matters of faith, order, and ecumenism with the intention of promoting ‘common understanding, consistency, and convergence.’[1]

The Anglican Communion website further explains that the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (so called because of the location of the meetings at which they were developed) are:

‘… a theological paper written by IASCUFO offering a framework for fostering Christian Unity and maintaining communion. The paper makes recommendations for updating how the Anglican Communion describes itself and encourages a ‘maximal sharing in leadership’.

The proposals seek to reflect the diversity and breadth of the worldwide Anglican Communion, ‘to account for changes of the last century’. They are also intended to help Anglican churches navigate difference and divisions, upholding the call of all Christians to sustain the unity of the Church.’[2]

In a statement released earlier this month IASCUFO declares:  

‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life:

• Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930. When the Lambeth Conference of 1930 offered its description of the Anglican Communion, it presumed an understanding of all Anglican churches as gathered round the Church of England as mother. This has not been the case since at least 1968. All Anglican churches, including the Church of England, are now sisters. The Constitution of the ACC governs the Communion’s membership. In view of these facts, an updated description of the Communion will enable all Anglicans to speak truly and honestly about the faith, ministry, and mission that we share.

• Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. All the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together, despite our differences, in living relationships with one another, aided by the Instruments of Communion. We are not defined by the decisions of any single member church. This fact enables us to articulate our communion in various ways, and to walk together to the highest degree possible. It encourages us to be honest about our divisions and make room for one another in love.

• Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion. This means recognising the fact that the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference, complement and complete the unique ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion. The ACC incorporates lay voices and leadership: we propose that these contributions be enhanced. The regional primates already assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in his or her ministry in the Communion: we propose that the collegial character of this shared ministry be developed.

To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will enable us to shed some of the baggage of colonialism while celebrating a shared theological and sacramental inheritance, to which the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury bears witness. And it will encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing in a world riven by violence and despair.’[3]

The Abuja Affirmation

The second vision is set out in the Abuja Affirmation which was issued this month after a meeting in Abuja Nigeria of bishops, clergy and laity belong to GAFCON.

GAFCON, which was founded in 2008, describes itself as ‘a global movement, gathering authentic Anglicans, guarding God’s gospel, growing orthodox leaders, and generating missional resources, for the glory of God!’ [4]  Although the figures are disputed, it seems probable that the churches affiliated with GAFCON, which include the Anglican churches in Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Chile, and the Anglican Church in North America, represent the majority of the world’s practising Anglicans.

The Abuja Affirmation[5] declares that:

‘Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully. While matters of human sexuality are one expression of this, this is merely symptomatic of doctrinal and moral departures from the teaching of Scripture.

The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion have failed to exercise discipline and maintain the biblical witness and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of ‘walking together’ with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus.’

Looking back over recent Anglican history, the Affirmation notes that:

‘Recent Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to guard the faith by inviting bishops to Lambeth who have embraced or promoted practices contrary to Scripture. The former Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the provision of liturgical resources for the Church of England to bless people who had entered same-sex civil marriages. The current Archbishop of Canterbury led the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project that produced these liturgical resources for the Church of England. The moral and spiritual authority of the Seat of Augustine has been severely compromised by this.

Notwithstanding the unequivocal rejection of ‘homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture’ as expressed in Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, contrary teaching has continued to gain a foothold in some Anglican provinces. At Lambeth 2022 it was treated as a matter over which Christians could disagree but remain in fellowship. Archbishop Justin Welby affirmed both a ‘traditional teaching’ and a ‘different teaching’, the latter held by those who are ‘not careless about Scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature’. This is unambiguously contrary to Anglican doctrine as it has been received.

The ACC and the Primates’ Meetings have likewise failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion, notwithstanding the repeated recommendations of various reports, for example the 2004 Windsor Report. They have neither restrained nor challenged false teaching and instead have called for the acceptance of false teachers as fellow members of the Communion.’

The result, says the Affirmation, is that:

‘… there are now two incompatible forms of Anglican Communion in existence. There is the ‘Anglican Communion’ which is based on institutional links with the failed Canterbury led Instruments of Communion and there is the ‘Global Anglican Communion’ represented by GAFCON.’   

The Affirmation goes on to explain that:

‘The Global Anglican Communion is neither a breakaway Communion nor an alternative Communion. The Jerusalem Statement clearly says that ‘We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it’. What has occurred instead is a shift of the stewardship of the Anglican Communion from the Canterbury Instruments to the Global Anglican Communion. We are returning the Anglican Communion to its roots. The Global Anglican Communion is not a new Communion, but the historic Anglican Communion reordered from within.’

Membership of the Global Anglican Communion is confessional in the sense that what is required for membership is subscription to the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’ an updated statement of Anglican faith produced by GAFCON in 2008, and for the leaders of the Communion belonging to it:

‘…. requires a principled disengagement from the Canterbury Instruments. Leaders who hold office in the Global Anglican Communion must not attend future Primates’ Meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor attend the Lambeth Conference, nor attend ACC meetings or participate in Commissions of the ACC, nor personally approve financial contributions to the ACC. It is also expected that they will not receive financial assistance from compromised sources. This principle enables, for example, a Gafcon Branch chair in a mixed province to participate in Global Anglican Communion leadership.

A full and public disengagement from these structures is necessary. The clear and consistent teaching of the New Testament is that those who seek to lead the church astray must not be tolerated and Christians must refuse to have fellowship with those who promote false teaching (Romans 16:17; 2 John 10-11; Revelation 2:20).’

Continued participation in these Canterbury-led meetings gives credence to the lie that it is possible to ‘walk together despite deep disagreement’ with those who have abandoned biblical teaching. A separation from the Canterbury Instruments is necessary to demonstrate that such teaching is not of secondary importance. The warning of the prophet Amos rings true: ‘Can two walk together unless they are agreed?’ (Amos 3:3).’

However, while the Affirmation insists on a rejection of the traditional leadership structures of the Anglican Communion it also states:

‘… that it is a matter of conscience, when rejecting the authority of revisionist leaders, as to whether one remains or not in a compromised ecclesial structure. We stand, for example, with those who remain within the Church of England who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration, who seek to remain as a faithful witness within the Church of England structures. And we stand with those who have joined Gafcon-authenticated jurisdictions, such as The Anglican Network in Europe, who are a faithful witness in the UK and Europe.’

Assessing the two views of the future of global Anglicanism

The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds that the Anglican Communion can continue as it is providing its traditional patterns of leadership are tweaked to give a greater role to other Anglican Primates alongside the Archbishop Canterbury, while the latter holds that the patterns of leadership in Communion have been irrevocably compromised by their failure to exercise proper discipline against those who have departed from the orthodox faith through their acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships, and that therefore a new way for Anglican churches to relate to one another has become necessary.

As we have seen, IASCUFO accepts that ‘communion has been damaged between some churches’ over the issue of same-sex relationships but it insists that it is possible for ‘real communion’ to continue to exist in spite of differences over this issue.

In the Nairobi-Cairo report IASCUFO notes that:

‘… sustained Anglican disputes and divisions concerning marriage and sexuality are disconcerting, and have been a cause for scandal.

Many believe that to celebrate and bless the relationships of non-celibate same-sex couples in the Church is to bless what Scripture and the tradition of Christian teaching has always called sin. In this case, such blessing marks a departure from the proper and holy ordering of sex and sexuality. As the union of a man and a woman, holy matrimony is a sign of the nuptial relationship between Christ and the Church and is a union of the two distinct parts of created humanity which has the potential to bring new life into the world and sustain the human race. Marriage therefore also recalls Christ the Word’s sanctifying of created matter in the events of his Incarnation and Passion.

For others, the refusal of the Church to bless committed same-sex relationships perpetrates an unholy offence against the love of Christ and a rejection of persons made in God’s image, whose natural affections are understood to be innate rather than chosen. The sin described here is against charity, the more when committed same-sex relationships reflect some of the goods of marriage, such as faithfulness in mutual support, companionship, and the nurturing, if not begetting, of children. Moreover, for many within the Communion, the criminalisation of homosexual acts, including punishment by imposition of the death penalty, supported by Anglicans in some countries, amounts to a sinful refusal of Christ’s justice.’

These two accounts are not entirely contradictory. Anglicans disagree, however, about what constitutes the holy life, including questions about the proper place of celibacy as an expectation for single persons, expectations for the moral life of the ordained, and public liturgies of blessing of same-sex relationships. Is there some reliable way of resolving this? Again, the councils and synods of the Church are given by God for the shared discerning of truth, centred on the Scriptures, on the way to achieving agreement or ‘one mind,’ as the New Testament exhorts (Phil. 2:2; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 3:8; cf. Acts 15). If divisions should be expected here as well, these will be resolved in the just judgment of the Lord, when all is revealed (1 Cor. 11:19,32).’ [6]

IASCUFO goes on to suggest that:

‘When Anglicans, like others, differ profoundly about aspects of holy living, they can recommit themselves to finding holy ways of handling differences and divisions. What might it look like to be ‘completely’ humble, gentle, and patient, ‘bearing with one another in love’? How might we ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4:2-3)? Refusing to give up on those with whom we differ means pressing into renewed love when the world would have us walk away. A dogged refusal to give up on each other, to remain in relationship despite deep and significant disagreement, can be a remarkable witness to the power of Christ to bring unity in a  divided world, and a foretaste of the day when all things in heaven and on earth will be brought together under Christ (Eph.1:10).’[7]

According to IASCUFO, the Anglican tradition contains two different approaches to handling theological differences.

‘One, evidenced in the Church of England’s departure from the Church of Rome, calls for a clean break from what is taken to be heresy or deliberate moral sinfulness within the Church. The other, illustrated in the Elizabethan Settlement, sets the inevitability of doctrinal dispute within the broad contours of a visible Church, which serves as a staging ground for God’s just judgment and right ordering in the end. Bishop John Jewel’s polemical justification of the Church of England’s split from Rome

gives way to Richard Hooker’s synthesis a generation later, which labours to affirm the  authentic ecclesiality of even the Church of Rome, notwithstanding serious doctrinal disagreement.

As Hooker writes, Christians in the Church of England certainly hope ‘that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still.’ But this must be true of others, as well — not only the Lutherans, for instance, but also the Church of Rome, with which the Church of England can still seek to ‘hold fellowship,’ insofar as it ‘lawfully may.’ Thus, just as St. Paul can speak of Israel as both the enemy and the beloved of God (Rom. 11:28), so too with Rome, says Hooker: we ‘dare not’ commune with ‘her gross and grievous abominations,’ and ‘yet touching those main parts of Christian truth’ in which Roman Catholics ‘constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.’ Accordingly, ‘our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in anything, but that we ‘all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour’ (Rom. 15:6), whose Church we are.’ [8]

The approach to handling theological disagreements that IASCUFO thinks Anglicans should follow today is the approach taken by Hooker, and they hold that his approach supports their view of maintaining unity within the Anglican Communion even in the face of theological disagreement. AS IASCUFO sees it, what unites Christians is fundamentally the communion established by their common baptism and remaining in ecclesial communion in the face of disagreement is the proper expression of this fact. It is on this basis that they think the existing Anglican Communion should hold together in its current form, albeit with some appropriate post-colonial tweaking to its patterns of leadership.

What are we to make of this argument? 

First of all, we should note that it is a mistake to set the approach of Richard Hooker against that of his mentor John Jewel. Hooker, like Jewel, believed that the Church of England was right to differentiate itself from the Roman Catholic Church even though Roman Catholics were ‘of the family of Jesus Christ’ because those in the Church of England ‘dare not’ commune with ‘her gross and grievous abominations.’  Renewed unity between the Church of England and Rome could only follow from Rome reforming itself of its errors.

Applying Hooker’s teaching would thus mean that if there are churches today that are guilty of ‘gross and grievous abominations’ Anglicans should differentiate themselves from them until such time as they reform.

The question then becomes what status we should give to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships by some Anglican churches today.

In the words of C S Lewis, the traditional rule of the Christian Church with regard to sexual ethics has always been ‘either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’[9] (marriage here means marriage between a man and a woman). This is the consensual teaching about marriage and sexual ethics that, as Vincent of Lerin puts it, has been held ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’[10] from biblical times onwards, in the same way that belief in the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection have been universally taught and accepted.

In the words of Darrin Belousek in his book Marriage, Scripture and the Church:

‘Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male- female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage. Tradition, East and West, also has consistently taught a single standard of sex and marriage: marriage is man-woman monogamy; all sex outside man-woman monogamy is sin. This doctrine has been taught always by the church, beginning with the apostles’ testimony to Jesus teaching; It has been proclaimed throughout the worldwide church, among all people in every place and epoch, as God’s will for sex and marriage; it has been articulated by apologetic writings and theological treatises, transmitted through baptismal catechesis and canonical discipline, celebrated in monastic vows and nuptial rites.’ [11]

Judged against this standard, the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (and even same-sex marriages) by some churches in the Anglican Communion has to be viewed as a ‘gross and grievous abomination,’ since it constitutes a departure from a key part of the Catholic and apostolic faith and an endorsement of sin. To put it plainly the churches involved have supported both heresy and immorality.

Furthermore, as the Church of England Evangelical Council report ‘Guarding the Deposit’ notes, the apostolic witness in the New Testament, which has also been accepted ‘everywhere at all times and by all,‘  teaches that:

‘…the Church should make a separation in this world between the people of God and those who practise sexual immorality (1 Cor 5: 1-13).

As Tom Wright notes, Paul teaches that the Church has the ‘God-given right and duty to discriminate between those who are living in the Messiah’s way and those who are not’.

This discrimination needs to involve ceasing to associate with those living a life of sexual immorality—both so as to protect the Church from their influence and to make clear to them the seriousness of their behaviour in the hope that they will repent. The apostles also warn against the destructive effect of ‘false teachers’ who teach people to engage in sexual immorality (see Eph. 5:6-8, 2 Peter, Jude and Rev. 2:19-23). Christians are repeatedly warned against such teaching and the toleration of it within the Church.’[12]

The exercise of ecclesiastical discipline called for in the precious paragraph may well seem harsh to many people today. However, it is a necessary part of the Church’s calling. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

‘If the Church is to walk worthily of the gospel, part of its duty will be to maintain ecclesiastical discipline. Sanctification means driving out the world from the Church as well as separating the Church from the world.’ [13]

If what has just been said is true, then IASCUFO’s vision for the future of global Anglicanism must be judged as inadequate. What IASCUFO proposes is precisely that toleration of false teaching and immoral conduct that the apostolic witness contained in the New Testament warns us against. According to IASCUFO those Anglican churches that have promoted heresy and immorality by their acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships, and even same-sex marriages, must still be treated as churches in good standing within the Anglican Communion, regardless of the fact that what they have done constitutes, in Hooker’s words, a ‘gross and grievous abomination.’

By contrast the approach set out by GAFCON in the Abuja Affirmation makes perfectly good sense. GAFCON correctly recognises that the traditional leadership structures of the Anglican Communion are not going to take action to discipline those Anglican churches that have gone astray and so it is up to those Anglican churches who continue to uphold traditional Christian teaching to separate themselves from these churches until such time as they reform.

The creation of the ‘Global Anglican Communion’ announced by GAFCON is a way of doing this. It is a way of reforming worldwide Anglicanism that aims to bring orthodox Anglican churches together while excluding those churches that have gone astray.

The requirement for acceptance of the Jerusalem Declaration makes sense given that the Declaration is re-statement of traditional Anglican and Christian teaching which includes the statement:

‘We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.’ [14]

Subscribing to the Jerusalem Declaration is a means by which a church, or a group within a church, publicly affirms that it stands by traditional Anglican and Christian teaching in general and the traditional Anglican and Christian  teaching on marriage and sexual ethics in particular.  

Separation from the traditional Anglican ‘instruments of communion,’ the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), also makes sense as a way of a church, or a group with a church, disassociating itself from the willingness of these instruments to officially tolerate the presence of heresy and immorality within the Anglican Communion. It is a way of publicly declaring that what they are doing is wrong. [15]

In summary, global Anglicanism has a serious problem caused by the rejection of the Catholic and Apostolic teaching concerning marriage and sexual ethics by a number of Anglican churches. What is being proposed by IASCUFO in the Nairobi-Cairo proposals does not provide an adequate response to this problem as it calls for the toleration of this departure from orthodoxy.  By contrast, the restructuring of worldwide Anglicanism set out by GAFCON in the Abuja Affirmation provides an adequate response in that it provides a way for orthodox Anglicans to relate to one another while separating themselves from those Anglican churches with which in Hooker’s words they ‘dare not commune.’

We can still recognise that these are Christian churches. To quote Hooker again, we can still ‘gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.’ However, the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline must mean, as GAFCON says, distancing ourselves from them until they come, as we must hope they will, to a better mind. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Anglican Communion News Service, ‘IASCUFO shares learnings and supplement to The Nairobi-Cairo

Proposals in preparation for ACC-19’ at: https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2026/03/iascufo-shares-    learnings-and-supplement-to-the-nairobi-cairo-proposals-in-preparation-for-acc-19.aspx.

[2] The Anglican Communion, ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals’ at: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/the-nairobi-cairo-proposals/

[3] IASCUFO,  ‘Supplement to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals’ at https://anglicancommunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Supplement-to-NCPs_Lent-2026.pdf

[4] GAFCON, ‘About GAFCON’ at: https://gafcon.org/about/.

[5] GAFCON, ‘Communique: The Abuja Affirmation’ at: https://gafcon.org/communique-updates/the-abuja-affirmation/.

[6] IASCUFO, ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals,’ paragraphs 41-43 at: https://anglicancommunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Nairobi-Cairo-Proposals-Advent-2024-2.pdf

[7] The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, paragraph 45.

[8] The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, paragraphs 50-51

[9] C S Lewis, Mere Christianity (Glasgow: Fount, 1984), p.86.

[10] Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch.II in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series , Vol.XI (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark/Eerdmans, 1998), p. 132

[11] Darrin Belousek, Marriage, Scripture and the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), Kindle Edition, p.284.

[12] Church of England Evangelical Council, ‘Guarding the Deposit’  pp.4-5 at https://declaration.ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEEC-Guarding-The-Deposit.pdf.

[13] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM, 1959), p.360.

[14] The Jerusalem Declaration. Article 8 at: https://gafcon.org/about/the-jerusalem-statement/.

[15] It should be noted that the reason that GAFCON cannot accept the ministry of the new Archbishop of Canterbury is not because she is a woman, but because, like her predecessor, she has supported the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships in the context of the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process.