What is the Global Anglican Communion?

Early this month, leaders and representatives from 27 Anglican national churches met together in Abuja, Nigeria, to begin the work of what they call “reordering” the Anglican Communion. These groups had previously stated that they would no longer look to the archbishop of Canterbury for leadership. They have now created an alternative leadership structure, called the “Global Anglican Council.” They have also attempted to rename the Anglican Communion, calling it the Global Anglican Communion. But what else they have accomplished is not entirely clear. The Global Anglicans stopped short of establishing an alternative “church.” And several members of the “Global South” Anglican world have not joined the new movement. So what actually happened in Abuja?

Anglican churches originally came from the Church of England, but what is called the Anglican Communion is a collection of the national churches (called provinces) that grew up over time and attained their own autonomous status. These groups meet together in conference for shared missionary work and mutually recognized oversight of discipline. They formally acknowledge and receive each other’s clergy and members, based upon a common form of government, liturgy, and set of doctrinal affirmations. But this supposedly common doctrine has been eroding for decades and is now largely a fiction. There has been an effective breakdown in “communion” since at least 2008, along a recognizable liberal-conservative divide.

The overwhelming majority of orthodox bishops in the Anglican world live near the equator or in the Southern Hemisphere. Because of this, their movement was originally called “the Global South.” This group was united by their opposition to the redefinition of marriage and human sexuality and their affirmation of the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the traditional Anglican standards of faith and worship (called the “Formularies”). From this original “Global South” movement, two particular organizations have formed: the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA). The actual membership of both groups substantially overlaps, but their leadership structures have pulled in different directions. Gafcon has shown much more desire to fully break from Canterbury and the other revisionist provinces, while GSFA has attempted to reform the original institutional Anglican Communion from within. Late last year, it appeared that Gafcon was calling for a clean break and the founding of a new ecclesiastical federation. The Abuja gathering was expected to inaugurate this new era.

It’s not clear that it did.

From March 3-6, Gafcon held a new meeting, advertised in advance as the realization of their “future” vision. This was to be the first time they met together as not merely an alternative advocacy group within the Anglican Communion but indeed as the face of the Global Anglican Communion. They had promised to establish a new leadership structure, including a “first among equals” executive head. This would be an obvious alternative to the archbishop of Canterbury. But, surprisingly, this did not happen. A last-minute change of mind and heart led instead to the creation of the “Global Anglican Council” and a declaration that a singular “first among equals” was no longer deemed necessary. The Global Anglican Church will not parallel Canterbury in that way.

This about-face might be due to a lack of full global support. Going into the conference, Gafcon had claimed to represent something like 80% of all faithful Anglicans. But leaders from many of the Global South churches did not attend the Abuja gathering. This could simply be due to a relatively rushed scheduling. Global South leaders previously gathered just three years ago in Kigali, Rwanda. But it could also mean that many are not ready to take such a decisive step towards what would surely be seen as a second Anglican Communion.

For their part, the leaders of Gafcon have denied that they are creating a new or second communion. While they are continuing to move forward with the new name—the Global Anglican Communion—their step away from a clear answer indicates that they want to maintain unity with all of those who can agree on doctrine and practice. Their latest “Abuja Affirmation” proclaims, “True communion is a voluntary fellowship which at its heart is neither synodical nor legal” and “True communion is confessional, rather than defined by a shared history or institutional structures.”

The Abuja Affirmation does continue to call for “principled disengagement” and “constitutional disconnection” from Canterbury. But it does not raise these to the level of ultimatums. Instead, it states “whether or not an orthodox province or diocese makes such amendments, all (including churches) who have assented to the Jerusalem Declaration are participants in the Global Anglican Communion.” This means that “the Global Anglican Communion” is not an institution with formal organizational boundary lines. It instead designates all those Anglican churches who are deemed to have a faithful confession.

There is a lot to be thankful for with the Abuja Affirmation. The Scriptures are clearly proclaimed to be the ultimate authority and the true bond of Christian unity. The old “instruments of communion” that had attempted to hold together Anglicans across the world have definitively been rejected. And a specific confession of faith has been explained as the secondary doctrinal standard and the practical means of guiding the fellowship. The Global Anglican Council states, “The Jerusalem Declaration, which includes the Reformation Formularies, expresses our common confession of the Biblical truth, shared faith, and communal conviction.” This is a huge step forward for the role of confessions of faith in recent Anglican history.

And yet many questions remain. How different is the new arrangement from the reality on the ground this time a year ago? Is “the Global Anglican Council” simply Gafcon with a new name? And is “the Global Anglican Communion” basically an abstract concept, more or less a way to say “the true Anglican Communion”? Who should decide when a province or diocese can be considered a member of the fellowship? Does mere assent to the Jerusalem Declaration suffice, or does an ecclesiastical body need to take some sort of canonical action to formalize such assent?

These sorts of questions demonstrate just how challenging church politics can be, especially global church politics. Shared doctrinal assent is absolutely important to any fellowship, but organizational structure is also necessary. In the past, that has taken an institutional form. What will alternative forms look like?

The Global Anglicans have proclaimed that “the future has arrived,” but for many us, we will need to wait and see. So much is at stake.