GAFCON, Global South, The Anglican Communion Office and Their Deconstruction of the Anglican Idea

By Bishop Kevin Donlon, Assistant Bishop of Zanzibar and Episcopal Vicar of the Anglican Union for the Propagation of the Gospel

Part I: The Situation: A Divided Communion

The Anglican Communion is a global fellowship, but it is not a single, monolithic church.  It is a loose association of national and regional bodies,  each autonomous yet historically bound together by shared liturgy, history, and—most crucially—the See of Canterbury.  That unity is now under existential strain.  Human sexuality, biblical authority, and now, women's ordination to the highest office in the Communion are proving irreconcilable for many.  The fragility of Canterbury as a unifying center is in jeopardy and at risk of ceasing to be recognizably an expression of the  “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury has held  unique position as the Focus of Unity and the First Among Equals (Primus inter Pares) across the 42 independent provinces of the global Anglican  Communion since 1930 through a resolution of the Lambeth Conferences (Resolution #49 which stated that the Anglican Communion is a “fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury”

It should be noted here that this is a resolution that is not binding, as stated at the Lambeth Conference of 1867.  The Conference made clear that any resolutions were intended to “serve as safe guides to future action” and express the opinions of those present, not to have legal or legislative force.

As a result, provinces are moving toward a “differentiated” communion—a polycentric, loosely affiliated network.  This has now been framed in three models

A. The  Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO).

B. GAFCON (the Global South Fellowship of Anglican  Churches) has formed the GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION

C. The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) has created a covenantal structure for orthodox Anglicans.

It would be helpful to analyze the three proposals from the Anglican Communion, GAFCON, and the Global South Fellowship in light of their claim that they are rescuing the Anglican Idea or offering a new Anglicanism to its constituents.  It should be noted that throughout its history, the Anglican Communion has resolved conflicts, however acrimonious, by attempting to work within the existing Instruments, seeking moratoria, or, in the case of the Anglican Covenant attempt, seeking multi-lateral agreement to redefine the terms of membership.  All three of these fissures are a departure from this standard.

A. The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO)

Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCP) seek to address deep divisions within the Anglican Communion by offering
a) A revised definition of its identity.
b) A  reformed structure for its Instruments of Communion.

While framed as a response to the “maturing” and post-colonial reality of the Communion, it certainly revises  historic ecclesiology and canonical principles, the central ecclesiological shift lies in the redefinition of unity itself.

I.  Historic Ecclesiology (The Nature of the Church)

1. The Priority of Faith vs. Relationship

1. Historic Standard (Fides et Ordo): Classical Anglicanism, in alignment with the wider catholic tradition, held that full communion rests on the foundation of one Faith and Order (fides et ordo).  Resolution 49 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference required provinces to “uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order.” This established a criterion of loyalty and fidelity to the received truth.

2. Promotes Aspiration over Commitment: The Nairobi-Cairo Proposal requires provinces to merely “seek to uphold and propagate” the faith and order.  This subtle change transforms the definition from a commitment to an aspiration.  By making the retention of Apostolic faith and order voluntary or open to irreconcilable differentiation, this proposal is seen by seeks an association of churches rather than maintaining the identity of one Church globally expressed.

3. The Loss of Catholicity: Historic ecclesiology requires doctrinal coherence (the consensus fidelium) on matters deemed essential to the deposit of faith (such as the doctrine of marriage or authority of Scripture).  By accommodating “good differentiation” that allows mutually exclusive theological positions to co-exist without canonical consequence, the Communion proposal risks substituting an ecclesiology of charity (walking together out of love) for an ecclesiology of truth (walking together in fidelity to Christ's revealed truth), thereby weakening its claim to be truly “Catholic and Apostolic.”

2. The Locus of Unity

1. The Historic Locus: Until now, the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) and the See of Canterbury, while lacking canonical jurisdiction over autonomous provinces, served as the locus and visible sign of unity (the nexus).  The historic connection to Canterbury was what defined the Anglican Identity.

2. Decentralization and Dilution: The Nairobi-Cairo Proposal effort to replace “communion with the See of Canterbury” with “historic connection with the See of Canterbury” and to significantly reduce the ABC's procedural role (e.g., rotating ACC presidency, removing convening power) structurally decenters the Communion.  While justified by a post-colonial desire for mutuality, the removal of the traditional anchor leaves the Communion defined less by a specific historic lineage and more by a loose list of characteristics ( such as “shared inheritance, mutual service”), further solidifying the perception of the Anglican Communion as a federation rather than a unified expression of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church like the Lutheran World Federation on which much this was modeled from.

II. A Canonical Perspective on The Ordering of the Church

The canonical tradition provides the structural framework for the church's life.  The proposals in this document reflect much of what has been the canonical tradition that is unwritten for the  Anglican Communion and therefore is ever evolving.

1. The Canonical Function of the Instruments

1. The ABC's Canonical Function: The essential canonical role of the ABC has been the power to convene the Instruments of Communion (Lambeth and the Primates' Meeting).  This role, though pastoral and relational rather than jurisdictional, was the foundational canonical expression of the ABC's primus inter pares status.

2. The Canonical Rupture: By vesting the power to convene the Primates' Meeting and the Lambeth Conference in a Primates' Standing Committee, the proposal creates a canonical rupture.  This shift effectively transfers a defining, inherent function of the historic see and office to a committee, fundamentally altering the nature of the Instruments and the structure of global authority.  Such a change would typically require a formal, constitutional process, which the Communion has historically lacked.

2. The Absence of Canonical Discipline

1. Canonical Deficiency: A robust canonical system, even in a federal structure, must possess a mechanism for discernment and, if necessary, discipline (relational consequences) when bodies adopt teaching contrary to the core Faith and Order.  Previous attempts, like the Anglican Covenant, failed, but they at least recognized the canonical need for consequences.

2. Formalizing Institutional Impairment: The NCP is heavily criticized for deliberately avoiding the provision of any new canonical tools to address or halt unilateral actions taken by provinces on essential matters of faith or doctrine.  By promoting an approach of “walking together” despite irreconcilable differences, the proposals essentially establish a canonical framework that formalizes institutional impairment as the status quo, making it impossible to engage in a witness of the fullness of the “Catholic and Apostolic faith” that is supposedly the basis of the Communion.

Conclusion

The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals can be seen as a necessary pragmatic step to prevent the complete collapse of the Anglican Communion, acknowledging the reality that different provinces now hold irreconcilable positions on fundamental matters.  However, from a historic ecclesiological and canonical standpoint, the proposals represent a move away from the classical model of a Church united by a common commitment to truth, order, and loyalty (fidelity) to the See of Canterbury.  Instead, they chart a course toward a looser, federated model defined by historical sentiment and relational charity, a canonical innovation that carries the risk of dissolving the theological definition of the Anglican Communion as a coherent part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

B. GAFCON ( the Global South Fellowship of Anglican  Churches)

The crisis within the Anglican Communion, fueled by irreconcilable theological differences, has prompted the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) to declare itself the authentic expression of global Anglicanism, forming a new body often referred to as the Global Anglican Communion (GAC).  Proponents of this frame it as a necessary act of recovery—a return to a biblical and apostolic faith that they claim has been abandoned by the historic Instruments of Communion.

While GAFCON's theological motivation is rooted in fidelity to classical moral teaching, its method is not a recovery of the Anglican Idea, but rather a profound structural and canonical novelty that forges an entirely new Anglican way.

I.  Historic Ecclesiology (The Nature of the Church)

The historic Anglican Idea, from its post-Reformation settlement to the maturation of the global Communion in the 20th century, was defined not primarily by a centralized magisterium, but by a delicate balance of autonomy and interdependence centered on the relational instruments.  The See of Canterbury served as the “focus of unity,” and the Instruments (Lambeth Conference, Primates' Meeting, ACC) were consultative and non-legislative.  The binding force was mutual loyalty to a common inherited faith and order, with change requiring slow, multi-lateral reception across autonomous provinces.  GAFCON's action fundamentally departs from this model in two critical structural respects.

1. The Priority of Confessional vs. Credal Conciliar

GAFCON rejects the consultative, relational ecclesiology of the historic Instruments in favor of a confessional, covenantal ecclesiology enforced by a parallel, permanent body.  The historic Anglican Idea was characterized by comprehensiveness—the holding together of diverse theological schools within common formularies.  While this comprehensiveness has been stretched past its breaking point, GAFCON's response is the establishment of its own Primates Council and a Covenantal Structure which, by design, seeks to discipline and enforce a specific theological and moral interpretation as the absolute condition of communion.  This is a canonical shift from a relational association to a confessional federation, a structure more akin to other Protestant bodies than to the historic self-understanding of the Anglican family.  By declaring the existing Instruments incapable of leading, GAFCON has taken an act of schism that fundamentally redefines the locus of authority outside the historic and recognized structures.

2. The Autonomy Wins Again

Second, the very act of a unilateral declaration of a new Communion represents a canonical rupture with precedent.  The GAFCON decision, conversely, asserts the power of a subset of provinces to unilaterally declare the existing Communion effectively dissolved and reconstitute a new one in its place.  This is not the action of provinces seeking reform through established means; it is the exercise of a novel, self-declared jurisdiction to create a parallel jurisdiction.  The historic Anglican Idea places the ultimate authority for unity and order in the consensus of the entire body of bishops, meeting in the name of the wider Communion (Lambeth), not a self-selecting council of Primates.

While GAFCON leaders assert the necessity of upholding the historic faith, their structural solution is revolutionary, not restorationist.  The creation of a Global Anglican Communion, complete with parallel Instruments and a governing Primates Council, establishes an ecclesial structure that fundamentally rejects the principles of shared relational authority and consultative process that defined the Anglican Idea for over a century.  The GAFCON movement is not recovering the Anglican Idea, but forging a new Anglican way—one that prioritizes confessional discipline and structural separation over the historically prized value of holding together, however messily, under the historic Instruments.

II. Ecclesiology and the Ordering of the Church

The structural response of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) to the crisis within the Anglican Communion involves establishing the Global Anglican Communion (GAC), governed by a Council of Primates that explicitly disavows the necessary role of the historic See of Canterbury.  While GAFCON grounds its motivation in recovering biblical orthodoxy, its method—a shift in ultimate authority from a specific, historic episcopal office to a non-territorial, functional committee of contemporary archbishops—is not a restoration.  It is a direct and radical affront to the essential tenets of historic Catholic and Apostolic ecclesiology, fundamentally undermining any prospect of meaningful ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

1. Apostolicity, Place, and the Office of Primate

The ecclesiological principle shared by catholic liturgical churches hinges on the concept of territorial stability and Apostolic succession tied to a historic See.  These traditions understand the Church not as a voluntary confessional federation, but as an extension of the Incarnation, structured by specific offices tracing their authority back to the Apostles and anchored in historic sees such as Alexandria, Rome, etc.

While the Anglican Idea shifts from being the Catholic Church in England to the Church of England, it maintained its link to this ancient structure through the See of Canterbury.  Ultimately, this resulted in the Archbishop of Canterbury, while lacking canonical jurisdiction outside his own province, serving as the Instrument of Unity and the focus of loyalty precisely because his office was the enduring link to the pre-Reformation apostolic heritage in England.

GAFCON's structure, however, intentionally severs this link.  By vesting the highest governing and disciplining authority not in a specific, enduring See (like

Canterbury or a new, permanent location) but in a Council of current Primates—a fluctuating, ad hoc committee of archbishops elected by their respective provinces—GAFCON establishes an authority rooted in function and consensus rather than territory and succession.  This substitution of a committee for a historic office is an ecclesiological novelty that is incompatible with two millennia of Catholic and Orthodox self-understanding.

2. The Ecumenical Obstacle: An Unrecognizable Authority

The GAFCON model creates insurmountable difficulties for ecumenical dialogue because the two largest bodies of historic Christianity do not recognize authority defined by a contemporary committee consensus.

For Roman Catholics, the question of reunion focuses squarely on the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  While the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) documents have explored models of universal primacy acceptable to Anglicans, GAFCON's action removes the Anglicans further from this framework by discarding even a primacy of honor.  To the RC Church, GAFCON has traded the historically recognized See of Canterbury for a group whose claim to collective, superior magisterial authority is canonically self-invented and lacks any basis in conciliar tradition.

The Eastern Orthodox, while rejecting papal claims, place immense value on the Orthodox consensus as expressed through established Synods operating under the canons of the ancient Church.  The Orthodox are suspicious of unilateral changes to church structure.  For them, GAFCON's Council of Primates is not a conciliar body, as it is defined by a self-selection process that has created an authority structure parallel to, and in competition with, the globally recognized  Communion.  They would view this Council as a purely functional, modern innovation—a type of “Protestant magisterium”—rather than an authentically conciliar structure in continuity with the Great Councils.  By substituting a permanent, binding Primates Council for the consultative role of Canterbury, GAFCON shifts the basis of its existence from an inherited, historical relationship to a contemporary, confessional covenant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, GAFCON's insistence on a Council of Primates as the final source of communion and doctrinal discipline, unanchored from any historic See or specific episcopal office of universal recognition, represents a profound break with Apostolic ecclesiology.  While GAFCON seeks to affirm orthodoxy, its structural method is neither catholic nor traditional in the ancient sense.  By rejecting the necessary role of place and continuity—even the symbolic primacy of Canterbury—GAFCON has constructed a novel, functionalist governance model that ensures its current trajectory remains outside the established frameworks for unity sought by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Communions.

C. The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) and the Cairo Covenant

1. Communion within a Communion

1. The Cairo Covenant (2019) attempted to create a formal, covenanted body within the Anglican Communion that is essentially a “communion within a communion.”
2. Internal Locus of Unity: By requiring member provinces and dioceses to assent to its own Fundamental Declarations and conciliar structure, the GSFA creates an alternative primary focus of unity and accountability for orthodox Anglicans, independent of the traditional Instruments of Communion (like the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, and the Anglican Consultative Council).
3. Challenging Traditional Authority: The GSFA, particularly in subsequent statements, has declared that the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury have “forfeited their leadership role” of the global Communion due to decisions like the blessing of same-sex unions.  The Covenantal Structure is explicitly affirmed by the GSFA as a “locus of structural unity for the orthodox of the whole Communion” to “reset” the Communion on its biblical and historical roots.

2. Deepening the Theological Divide

The Covenant is a direct response to what the GSFA views as the “revisionist” trajectory of some Western provinces (like the Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England) concerning biblical authority and sexual ethics.

1. Insistence on Biblical Inerrancy: The Covenant and related GSFA communiqués emphasize the supreme and clear authority of the Holy Bible, as canonically and historically interpreted, and reject what they call the “hermeneutic of skepticism.” This theological position directly condemns the acceptance of same-sex blessings and non-celibate gay clergy by other parts of the Communion, making shared life and ministry effectively impossible.

2. Impaired/Broken Communion: The GSFA has openly stated that it is in “impaired communion” or cannot be in “full communion” with provinces that have departed from the “historic faith” on these issues.  The Covenant provides the structural basis for this “visible differentiation”—formalizing a split in fellowship based on adherence to orthodox doctrine.

3. Providing an Alternative Path for Dissenters

The Covenantal Structure enables the GSFA to provide “Primatial and episcopal oversight” to orthodox dioceses, networks, and groups of Anglicans who find themselves within provinces that the GSFA considers “revisionist.”

1. Intervention in Provinces: This provision means that the GSFA can effectively cross provincial boundaries to offer an alternative ecclesiastical home and leadership, which is an act that fundamentally undermines the autonomy and jurisdiction of the existing provinces in the Communion.

2. A Solidified Separation: By offering their version of a global body for orthodox Anglicans, the Cairo Covenant solidifies the de facto separation of the conservative majority in the Global South from the liberal-leaning churches of the West.  So in many respects, it is not terribly different from the GAFCON proposal.  This is not about offering a via media, but a structure for a faithful remnant to continue as a global church body apart from the Communion's central authority.

Part 2: The Anglican Idea: Is There Still a Center?

The late Canon Arthur Middleton, a dear friend and colleague who taught at the University of Durham, was a  respected Anglo-Catholic voice, and he warned against “Anglican-ism”— a sectarian mindset—urging instead a return to the “Anglican Idea.” This, he argued, is not a mere compromise or middle way, but the authentic,  orthodox expression of the catholic faith: grounded in Scripture, shaped by the Church Fathers,  and lived out through the Book of Common Prayer.  The Anglican mind is not an intellectual museum, but a way of life, a transformation of the whole person through participation in Christ and the discipline of the Spirit.

The Anglican Communion's institutional framework—parish, deanery, diocese, province— was designed to protect orthodoxy and continuity.  Yet new models for ministry, such as Fresh Expressions or the Anglican  Union, go beyond these borders.  However, the first female Archbishop of Canterbury is a unilateral action by a small representation of the Church of England,  the “Mother Church.” That has created a crisis of leadership and a crisis of faith.  By fully endorsing a practice that is non-catholic (non-universal) and actively rejected by significant parts of the Communion, we have a crisis that cannot be resolved by the unity in diversity position.  For catholics and some evangelicals, if the spiritual head of the Communion is deemed to hold an invalid or defective order, then the entire system is suspect.  For catholic minded Anglicans, finding a compromise would effect the deposit of faith from the Apostolic tradition, forcing catholic beyond what is already considered a state of impaired communion with Canterbury.

The Anglo-Catholic position holds that the Anglican  Communion is not a federation of churches but a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  For this identity to hold, its practices must be broadly consistent with the history and theology of the wider Universal Church (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic).  How can the 106th  Archbishop of Canterbury embody a catholic heritage when she departs from the catholic faith and advocates positions incompatible with global catholicity.  This appointment cripples the Anglican claim to be truly Catholic.

The “Anglican Idea” is being tested: can it sustain the balance between rootedness and receptivity?  The principle of lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) requires some shared order, but contemporary mission—and particularly the explosive growth of Anglicanism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America—often flourishes outside, even despite, established boundaries.  Charismatic renewal, social engagement,  and new forms of worship are emerging not because of, but in tension with, inherited structures.

Reformed Catholicity Lives in Dynamic Tension

The Anglican tradition has always aspired to be both reformed and catholic.  Its greatest moments have come when it turns outward, seeking not self-justification but mission.  The Anglican  Idea has proven over time to be at its best when it is not a monument, but a movement, not a noun, but a verb.  Its greatest moments have been when spiritual energy was expended ad extra, toward the world's needs, when it brought the slave trade to an end, not endlessly ad intra, on internal disputes about churchmanship in Parliament.  Yet the current crisis has left the Anglican Idea injured and, as a result, inward-looking, embroiled in debates over constitution and leadership, dismissed by the eyes of a disinterested world.

This appointment to the historic See of Canterbury is not a theological question or a public relations problem.  It is a spiritual crisis.  The credibility gap about our witness to the catholic faith is real.  And the temptation is strong—to find a quick fix, to paper over the cracks, to move on to “what's next” without doing the hard work of reconciliation and order, which is the approach the Crown Appointments Commission took.  But for Anglo-Catholics,

The uncomfortable truth is that the Anglican Communion cannot simply move on, cannot “get to next” by ignoring the depth of the division this appointment has caused.  The first step must be inward: a recommitment to order, to honor the historic faith and work of to reestablish the integrity of the Gospel is the outward mission to have any credibility.

This is not a call to endless introspection, but to necessary repentance and renewal.  The “Anglican Idea”—if it is to survive—must be more than nostalgia, more than compromise for the sake of political correctness.  It must be capable of both faithful stewardship and Spirit-led adaptability.  The future of the Anglican  Idea will depend on whether it can hold together truth and charity, order and historic faith, tradition and mission.

For Anglo-Catholics, the challenge is acute.  It does not seem likely that we can remain in fellowship with those whose actions are simply an innovation that has gone too far.  Can the structures of the Communion—so fragile, so easily fractured—hold under this strain of decisions by Canterbury and the Counter-Reformation offered by GAFCON?  Or is the future one of parallel jurisdictions, differentiated communion, or even schism, as suggested by the three proposals?

Forging a Renewed Via Media

I. A Statement of Continuity and Conscience

We, the founders and members of The Anglican Union (AU), declare our unwavering commitment to the historic tenets of the Anglican tradition and the greater Catholic and Apostolic Church.  We affirm that we share the historic episcopate and apostolic succession with other ancientvChristian bodies, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops.

On grounds of profound theological conviction and adherence to the historic consensus, we in The Anglican Union are unable to receive the ministry of women consecrated as bishops or ordained as priests.  We acknowledge that this stance is currently a minority position within the wider Anglican Communion, yet we believe it remains firmly within the legitimate spectrum of teaching and tradition of the catholic faith.

We remain committed to finding a pathway to flourish as Anglicans in an ecclesiastical life and structure that honors the historic Anglican Idea—a balance of catholic practice and evangelical teaching.

II. The Ecclesiology of Dissent: A Temporary Primate

The Anglican Union is an ecclesial body, not a mere membership organization.  Our life and order are guaranteed by a Council of Patron Bishops who provide necessary episcopal oversight during a period of deep structural divergence within the Communion.

We recognize the need for a universally acknowledged Primatial Vicar to serve as the focus of loyalty for traditional Anglicans across the globe.  Due to the challenges inherent in recognizing the current occupant of the See of Canterbury, who is both a woman and the Primate of a Province that endorses same-sex blessings, we seek to affirm an alternative Primatial Vicar chosen from the Anglican Communion who can faithfully represent and uphold the historic faith and order.  This is a structural necessity to ensure a guarantee of ministry for those in our fellowship.

III. Guarantees and Purposes of The Anglican Union

The purpose of the Patron Bishops and the Anglican Union is to secure and advance the historic Anglican tradition in the following ways:

1. Maintain the Anglican Idea: To promote and maintain the integrity of the Anglican Idea through upholding catholic practice (sacraments, worship, and order) and securing evangelical teaching (Scripture as the ultimate rule of faith) throughout the Anglican Tradition.
2. Provide Episcopal Oversight: To provide faithful, non-territorial episcopal oversight to all churches, institutions, and individuals who seek to be Traditional Anglicans and cannot, in good conscience, submit to the oversight of bishops who ordain women or embrace the revisionist theology of sexuality.
3. Guarantee Apostolic Ministry: To guarantee a ministry in the historic, undisputed apostolic succession in which all members can have complete confidence regarding the validity and regularity of the sacraments.
4. Assure Full Communion: To ensure that all members of The Anglican Union enjoy a relationship of full communion with their bishops and with one another, thereby expressing the catholic unity that has been compromised elsewhere.
5. Accomplish Christian Unity: Since the Communion's Instruments (like the Lambeth Conference) are fractured and weakened, The Anglican Union is committed to bypassing the compromised structures and engaging directly with ecumenical partners based on shared tradition.

The Anglican Union is not seeking separation from the tradition of the Anglican Communion but is dissenting from its current governance.  By creating this structure and seeking a Primatial Vicar, we are forging a renewed and faithful Via Media that preserves the fundamental integrity of our faith and order for the generations to come.