Paradise Postponed?
The Anglican Communion Addresses its Ecclesiological Deficit by Awaiting Further Consultations and Deliberation after the ACC Belfast Meeting.
“We are called to treat the church with patience, with commitment to our relationships, which are sometimes strained. Care of the Church needs to be one of deep listening, with the study of Scripture, with attention to theological reflection and with prayer. None of this can be rushed…”
Thus did the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, open her comments within her sermon at the closing service of the nineteenth meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-19) which has just met in Belfast from 28 June-4 July. A major element in the work of the meeting was consideration of the The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals: Renewing the Instruments of the Anglican Communion, which would among other things have:
• significantly altered the definition of what it is to be Anglican,
• broadened the leadership structures so that they better reflect the wider Communion
• reinforced the understanding of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as one enjoying a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction by transferring the convening and agenda setting roles for Lambeth Conferences to a wider group.
Archbishop Sarah’s further comments made clear that the outcome of the meeting, on this hugely important topic, was essentially to make no final decision and to, instead, seek further input and deliberation. She thus went on to say that:
“Being with you this week has reminded me that what unites us is greater than what divides us. As Christians, as a Communion, we are a family who love God and earnestly seeks to follow our Lord Jesus Christ. This week, we have treated one another with respect and with dignity. We have spoken openly and honestly and we have acknowledged each other’s pain. Maybe this is the enduring fruit of this week – may it be a gift of grace and blessing to the whole church. In this way, we proclaim with confidence the hope we have found in Jesus Christ, as we become the body of Christ…
As we leave ACC-19, we may not have rebuilt all our cities, we may not yet have planted all the vineyards, but what we have seen is the fruit of the Spirit at work among us and the hope of God’s promise that He will raise up, He will repair and He will rebuild.”
The Service then concluded with a Eucharist celebrated by Archbishop Hosam Naoum of Jerusalem.
All of this once again highlights the continuing challenge that the global Anglican Communion faces in regard to sustaining its unity and identity when there is such radical division within it. Indeed, it is clear that not all member provinces feel that they should await or even abide by the general consensus on controversial issues before taking actions that clearly have further impaired communion between them.
It is very telling, however, that the Anglican Communion is not alone in experiencing profound ecclesiological challenges. The Orthodox and Oriental Churches have long found it hard to express practical unity even if they have long displayed a very high degree of theological unity.
Then, only this last week, the Roman Catholic Church has faced a profound rupture over the consecration of new bishops without the consent of Pope Leo XIV. His response was strikingly draconian in formally announcing the excommunication not only of the bishops involved, but also (at least putatively) many hundreds of thousands of their followers around the world. This action invoked an understanding of the papacy in terms of jurisdiction that has long affronted the main Christian denominations by virtue of claiming the ability to consign all those excommunicated to eternal damnation unless they repent and submit to the said papal authority. (And I shall reflect further on the profound issues this raises at another point).
But returning to the specifically Anglican issues, the location of the recent ACC meeting in Belfast was not without its own historic import – pointing as it did to the fact that Christianity in Ireland, just indeed as in England, long predated by centuries the mission of St. Augustine at the behest of St. Gregory the Great.
This makes clear that Christianity was, from the first, not dependent upon a formal relationship of submission with the See of Rome, an indisputable fact that could also suggest an interesting perspective on the see of Canterbury too! Though it needs to be remembered that the point has the greatest force in respect to being Christian; being specifically Anglican or Roman Catholic is a subsidiary one – telling though that fact is – and once having taken up a specific identity, it is perfectly possible to define subsequently what it takes for that identity to be maintained.
What this historic point does suggest is a disruption of any assumption that communion with Canterbury has to be constitutive in an absolute sense, thereby opening conceptual space for alternative models of Anglican identity. (And it has after all, long been held that fidelity to the teachings of Christ is surely more fundamental). All this leads directly into the terrain upon which the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (NCPs) sought to engage.
In a subsequent addendum to the original document, it was pointed out that the original ones were widely misunderstood and were not merely a binary program for adoption or rejection, but “a raft of practical ideas to move the conversation forwards.”
And that seems to have been the clear perspective of the Belfast meeting where the “strong consensus… was that more work is needed before decisive steps can be taken,” reflecting both theological hesitation as well perhaps as mere institutional inertia.
The problem, however, as such initial commentators as Andrew Atherstone in the Living Church have pointed out, is that there is a tension between calls for patience and the urgency of the crisis. Only four provinces submitted formal responses to the NCPs. In addition, the ACC’s Standing Committee’s resolution was held by some to have been been procedurally flawed and theologically incoherent – with a process some also described as manipulative, since final resolution put forward too late for proper scrutiny. This all risked appearing like an attempt “to bounce the ACC into a decision.” And it was felt to have “undermined trust.”
Then again, the Communion is “identified by full communion with the See of Canterbury,” on the one hand, while simultaneously “some describe themselves as… not in full communion,” which is at best confusing and highlights the important gap between juridical description and lived reality. The emergence of the language of “degrees of communion,” further destabilizes any binary account.
Moreover there is a growing demographic and geopolitical asymmetry within Anglicanism. The rapid expansion of African provinces contrasts sharply with their underrepresentation in governance structures – most notably, the absence of any African member on the Standing Committee despite multiple candidates.
Such realities have informed the earlier and divergent reform strategies proposed by the first Global Anglican Communion (GAC) (associated with GAFCON), which was clearly separatist in its intent of “principled disengagement” and boycotts of ACC structures. While in contrast, and second, came the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Church’s (GSFA) response, which proposed an internal strategy of reform, while participating but signalling impaired communion (e.g., by abstaining from the Eucharist).
In the middle of all this we now have Archbishop Mullally’s emphasis on “hope” and “listening… engaging one-to-one… building personal relationships” – in a clear effort to resist the polarization that has so marked recent Anglican global experience.
The challenge, however, is how then to preserve or recover any real sense of the Communion, in being a true church in which all the member provinces submit to the mind of the whole. Many of the global majority, which is to say southern provinces, hear the suggestion of yet more listening and conversation as merely a proposal that allows radical actions to proceed while responses that take seriously that massive impact are perpetually delayed.
The effective motto of the Communion, inscribed in its compass rose emblem itself, perhaps all too tellingly highlights the central challenge “The Truth shall make you free” (John 8, 32).
The Global South takes this to mean that it is in fidelity to the truth of God that we are most fully ourselves and thus most authentically free. More radical voices seem to take this to mean that, in truth, we are free to pursue all possible options – which is hardly a recipe of unity and any coherent identity.
Additional Note on the 2025 Rome Supplement to the Nairobi–Cairo Proposals (of IASCUFO)
This document theologically reflects on Communion-wide feedback and proposes the concrete structural revisions for consideration by ACC-19 (2026).
Its governing aim is to rearticulate Anglican ecclesial identity and polity in light of historical developments, present fractures, and the enduring doctrinal marks of the Church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
Ecclesiological Framework
The Supplement reaffirms the NCPs’ central theological claim: the unity of the Church is both a divine gift and an eschatological vocation. Anglican ecclesiology is thus framed by a dynamic tension between given communion (grounded in baptism and shared faith) and the imperative toward fuller visible unity. This tension is not resolved institutionally but sustained through practices of charitable disagreement, non-coercion, and synodical discernment.
The classical marks of the Church structure the analysis:
• Unity is wounded but real; divisions do not nullify communion but call for its intensification.
• Holiness is contested in contemporary moral disputes, yet these conflicts are to be engaged as occasions for sanctified encounter.
• Catholicity entails both fidelity to apostolic tradition and the capacious space for intra-ecclesial discernment.
• Apostolicity is understood as the faithful transmission and renewed reception of the Gospel through Scripture, episcopacy, and conciliar processes.
A distinctive Anglican contribution is identified in its “principled variability,” a form of ordered diversity that resists both confessional rigidity and mere federation.
A Re-description of the Anglican Communion
A central proposal is the revision of the Communion’s self-description.
The 1930 Lambeth model—implicitly centred on the Church of England as “mother”—is judged obsolete. The Communion is now a fellowship of ontologically equal “sister churches,” juridically constituted through the Anglican Consultative Council.
Communion (koinonia) is articulated through four interrelated bonds:
• Shared inheritance in faith, liturgy, and canon law.
• Mutual service in mission.
• Commitment to common counsel.
• Historic connection with the See of Canterbury.
This account avoids two extremes: triumphalist claims of full communion already achieved and reduction to a loose federation. Instead, it proposes a pilgrim model of “walking together,” including differentiated or “distanced” communion where necessary.
Canterbury and a Putative New Multipolar Understanding of Anglicanism
The Supplement significantly recalibrates the role of the See of Canterbury.
While retaining its symbolic and instrumental significance, it rejects any notion of juridical supremacy or final appellate authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury is construed as a personal and pastoral focus of unity, exercised within a college of equals and received rather than imposed.
The term “historic connection” is carefully deployed to denote:
• Missionary origins,
• Symbolic apostolic continuity,
• Ongoing relational communion.
At the same time, the Communion was explicitly described as multipolar. Networks of relationship and initiative exist independently of Canterbury, reflecting the global and post-colonial reality of Anglicanism. No single church, including the Church of England, can bear or define the Communion’s faith.
Reform of the Instruments of Communion
The second major proposal concerns leadership reform, guided by the principle that “the leadership of the Communion should look like the Communion.” This entails both greater geographical representation and a deepening of collegiality.
Two principal revisions are advanced:
1. Collegial sharing of the Archbishop’s ministry
Rather than instituting a rotating presidency of the ACC, the Supplement proposes that the Archbishop of Canterbury formally share aspects of the “first Instrument” with the regional primates (Primates’ Standing Committee), potentially constituted as a council. This would:
o Extend pastoral and representative functions across the Communion.
o Allow primates to act in their own right when representing the Communion.
o Preserve the Archbishop’s primatial role while embedding it in a more synodal and collaborative structure.
o Reflect and institutionalize already emerging practices of shared leadership.
2. Abolition of the ACC Presidency
The role of President of the ACC (currently held by the Archbishop of Canterbury) is judged redundant and structurally confusing. Its removal would:
o Clarify governance by strengthening the Chair and Vice-Chair.
o Reinforce the collegial participation of the Archbishop as an ex officio member with voice and vote.
o Support enhanced lay leadership.
o Facilitate the Anglican Communion Office’s function as an impartial servant of all member churches.
Theological and Missional Rationale
Underlying these proposals was an attempt at a more coherent theological vision:
• Communion is constitutive of the Church’s witness; impaired structures hinder mission.
• Post-colonial realities necessitate institutional forms that embody equality and mutuality.
• Structural reform is not merely pragmatic but expressive of doctrinal commitments to catholicity and synodality.
The Supplement also situates Anglican developments within a wider ecumenical context, notably paralleling Roman Catholic reconsiderations of primacy and synodality.
The document concludes with a sober alternative: reform or deepen fragmentation, and advocates for “holding structures lightly,” recognizing their provisional status in service of the Church’s ultimate unity.
Echoing Michael Ramsey, it sees Anglicanism’s very “incompleteness” as something to be interpreted as a charism – its brokenness serving as a sign pointing beyond itself to the universal Church.
In sum, the Supplement advances a vision of the Anglican Communion as a non-centralized, sacramentally grounded, and synodically ordered fellowship of equal churches, sustained by differentiated yet real communion, and reconfigured institutionally to reflect its global, multipolar, and post-colonial character.