UP THE ANGLICAN CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE
- 6 minutes ago
- 3 min read
COMMENTARY
By David W. Virtue, DD
March 9, 2026
Two branches of the Anglican Communion are in direct conflict over how the Communion should move forward in the years ahead.
The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has issued a Lent 2026 supplement to its Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, confirming plans to revise the Communion's self-definition and diversify its leadership.
They are doing this in the face of deep opposition from the newly formed Global Anglican Council, recently established in Abuja, where some 400 bishops, clergy, and laity assembled to signal that they have "reset" and reformed the Communion — and that IASCUFO's proposals are, in effect, unwelcome.
Here is the central sleight of hand. The first proposal would replace the 1930 Lambeth language of churches being "in communion with the See of Canterbury" with a description of provinces as sharing an inheritance of faith and order, mutual service, common counsel, and a historic connection with Canterbury.
The problem is that GAFCON and the Global South no longer share even common ground with IASCUFO, and the appeal to "a historic connection with Canterbury" is dead on arrival.
Liberal Anglican provinces may talk among themselves, but no one in the Global South will pay serious attention to what they say.
IASCUFO has proposed redefining Anglican identity and sharing global leadership between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a new Primatial Council. These proposals will be sent up the chain to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-19) in Belfast later this year.
However, the orthodox Global Anglican Council has already made clear it will not participate in this process. The phrase "dead on arrival" has taken on new meaning.
Here is the convoluted Canterbury-driven process in detail. The second proposal would strengthen the role of the Primates' Standing Committee so that regional primates, gathered in a Primatial Council, could at times represent the Communion in ways currently reserved to Canterbury — such as attending provincial inaugurations or installations of new primates. The Archbishop of Canterbury would remain the presumptive representative in most ecumenical settings, but IASCUFO argues that "the diversified face of the Communion ought not always be the face of the Church of England."
The reason for that argument is straightforward: roughly 80% of the Communion wants nothing to do with the direction Canterbury has taken. The archbishop can remain at Lambeth Palace and hope for a miraculous change of heart among Global South bishops, but that day has passed.
Lambeth Palace has not offered a formal counter-proposal to Nairobi-Cairo. Instead, its messaging has been to present the IASCUFO package as one contribution to a wider discernment, not a finished settlement. The Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken of ACC-19 as a moment to receive "the fruit of IASCUFO's labours" and to seek renewed common life, while stressing that any changes must be owned by the whole Communion over time.
A counter-proposal is not forthcoming because one is not possible. The Global South has made it abundantly clear it will not engage on those terms. One wonders whether the archbishop's advisers have properly briefed her on what happened in Abuja.
Liberal Anglicanism is shrinking and will continue to do so because it has lost a clear grip on the gospel. Institutional loyalty, however sincerely held, has never been a substitute for doctrinal conviction.
The outcome has been determined. There will be no "new conversations" on the current terms. The Anglican Communion as presently constituted is effectively over, even if a formal declaration of schism has not yet been made.
END