I hope you enjoyed last month’s Blog where Greyson told us his story. I have long wanted to have a trans Christian tell about their true-life experience, as so much in the Christian media tends to be written from an anti-trans position. I hope that at some point I will be able to have others, because Greyson’s experience is Greyson’s story, and other trans Christians will have their own story to tell, and it will be quite different.
Through October I had been wondering what to write about. There was no real headline‑grabbing event from an LGBTQ+ perspective. Trump continues to wilfully damage lives, but I don’t want to write about him too often. But then on Friday (17th) the Christian press in the UK reported on the major split in the Anglican Communion, where the conservative GAFCON-affiliated churches, mainly but not exclusively, based in the southern hemishere (Africa, Asia, Latin America), “decided that “the Anglican Communion will be reordered, with only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible”; [and] that they would “reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates’ Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion”; and that they [GAFCON] “cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate a revisionist agenda. [ ]
“Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.”” (Church Times but also see GAFCON)
GAFCON went on to say that “Today, Gafcon is leading the Global Anglican Communion. As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion.” The formatting in those sentences is as they present it in their statement. This sounds effectively like a take‑over, but you decide; and I suspect emphasis in that final “we are” should be “WE are the Anglican Communion“!
In March next year, when they meet in Nigeria, they will formally ratify their position.
I am not an Anglican, and my roots are in Baptist churches so my understanding of the governance of the Anglican church is a bit sketchy, even though I have family members who have close links with the running of the Church, so please excuse me if I don’t get the terms right all the time throughout this piece.
Why is this split significant?
This division is largely attributable to the gradual shift in Anglican perspectives on issues related to sexuality over the past two decades. Although progress has been made, it remains limited and uneven, with considerable resistance still present—paralleling developments in other Christian denominations. Nonetheless, even minimal change has prompted concern among supporters of the GAFCON position, leading them to initiate this separation from the parent church.
I suspect that those resistant to change who currently still remain within the General Synod (the Bishops, the Clergy, and Laity), will probably drift away to GAFCON affiliated churches in the coming months and years, and that this will leave those who are more sympathetic to resolving issues around sexuality holding a greater sway within Synod, though I’m sure it’ll be much more complicated than I’ve made it sound!
My hope is therefore that following this schism, a more predictable (I nearly used the word “rapid” but thought better of that!) progress might be made towards truly welcoming those from our community.
How does GAFCON differ from what we have understood as being the CofE?
In essence the GAFCON position is that Biblically they treat the Bible as without error and that every word should be taken literally. Anglicans have until now, also relied on traditions, experience through the centuries, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer gets the occasional update to the language of the day, to make it easier for people to read, but at it’s core is the same as it was in 1662.
Tradition in Anglicanism is seen as the lived expression of the Church’s faith through history—what the Church has believed and practiced over the centuries. This includes the early Church Fathers, councils, creeds, and the liturgical practices that have developed over time. These are all incorporated into how scripture is understood, but from my reading of the statement, it sounds like GAFCON are loading the backup tape to turn the theological clock back to the Victorian ideas of 1867, because they state: “Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867”.
You’ll have to research the meaning of “Formularies of the Reformation” should you be interested. My brain was turning to sludge as I lost myself in the details!
To me this sounds like if you were in a GAFCON-affiliated church, the Book of Common Prayer is probably still in play but you wouldn’t be attending interfaith gatherings. I’m not sure how they view relationships with other Christian denominations – it’ll probably depend on those denominations view of Scripture. However, I suspect that the idea of asking “what does that word used by Paul in this passage, mean in this context?”, and “what was Paul addressing?” is for yesterday. I’m sure they would affirm that the Bible must be taken at face-value. So from an LGBTQ+ perspective the clobber passages are exactly as written, without any context, caveats or questions, and without the Spirit of God inspiring and exciting our thinking. With that sort of fundamental thinking, I wonder how they would teach about Paul’s writings, where he says: “12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence but much more now in my absence, work on your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Philippians 2: 12-13 The implication from that passage is that we cannot know everything and that we should strive to make sense of things with our best efforts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, knowing we might make a mistake – but that it’s okay, whatever happens. There are lots of theological positions that are unknown, and can change depending on the context.
What is triggered the schism, and what was its history?
This is a split that has been coming for years/decades, and at it’s root is mainly, but not exclusively, over the issue of sexuality. In my original essay (pp311-312, in the current downloadable version), going back to 2017/18, I speculated that this was the issue that would split the church. It took a lot longer than I thought it would, and that is all credit to the hard work of Justin Welby, but we finally seem to have reached the point of no return. All of the press pieces I’ve read seem to view this as permanent, with no hope of any reconcilliation, so I’m expecting to see further English/British churches leave the See of Canterbury and join GAFCON in the coming months.
In the immediate short term, I suspect there were two straws that broke the camel’s back:
- the appointment of a female Archbishop of Wales (who has a female spouse). This didn’t get received well by GAFCON! I mentioned the appointment of Cherry Vann in my August Blog.
- the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, who will take up office early in 2026. This probably put the icing on the cake, since she is obviously a woman, and she is also known to be supportive of the LGBTQ+ community — as well as abortion in certain circumstances. (She had a long career in the NHS prior to her call to ministry.) GAFCON commented that “the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy. Therefore, her appointment will make it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve as a focus of unity within the Communion.” They also said “the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture and “the Church’s historic and consensual” interpretation of it (Jerusalem Statement), she cannot provide leadership to the Anglican Communion.” Gafcon communique
The comment about failing “to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture” is a comment about her stance on sexuality. Both of those appointments occurred within weeks of each other.
GAFCON can be described as orthodox and conservative, so this must have been complete anathema for them. Some of their heirarchy probably needed oxygen or defribulators when they heard the news of Dame Sarah’s appointment!
The background history of the schism goes back to the Lambeth conference in 1998 when the first stirrings of the debate about sexuality were recognised, but rejected. At this event a position was taken that homosexual practice was incompatible with Scripture. However, it acknowledged the existence of individuals with a homosexual orientation within the Church and emphasized the need for pastoral care. This was “Resolution I.10, of the 1998 Lambeth Conference”. GAFCON now argue that as this resolution has effectively been overturned, the Rubycon has been crossed.
Then in 2003, there was the appointment of the first gay bishop (Gene Robinson) in the US Episcopal church of New Hampshire, and this turned out to be the main catalyst for what occurred in 2008. This was when 291 Bishops and over 1100 lay and clergy participants attended a conference in Jerusalem because they were dissatisfied with the direction the church was taking. Those meeting in Jerusalem were also disquieted about the general trend in Biblical teaching coming from the See of Canterbury because over the years they had seen overtures to the Pope to try and have a closer relationship between the two churches and there were other inter-faith dialogues, which GAFCON interpreted as the church compromising its belief that salvation can come only through personal belief in Jesus.
GAFCON probably feel vindicated in their decision, given King Charles meeting and praying with the Pope a couple of days ago, at which they both exchanged honours linking King Charles with a Catholic Basilica, and the Pope to an Angilcan Chapel: “The Pope gave Charles the title of Royal Confrater, linking him to the Basilica of St Paul’s Outside the Walls. It shows he’s part of the confraternity of the historic church, which holds the tomb of St Paul and was associated with the English monarchy before the Reformation. In return, the King made Pope Leo the Papal Confrater of St George’s Chapel in Windsor, as a sign of spiritual fellowship.” BBC News Live
As a result of the meeting in Jerusalem in 2008, the Jerusalm Declaration was issued, offering an alternative oversight and support for those churches across the world who agreed with their theological stance. The declaration sought to affirm their commitment to biblical authority, traditional Christian doctrine, and historic Anglican identity in response to what they saw as theological drift within parts of the Anglican Communion. It upheld the supremacy and inerrancy of Scripture, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the historic creeds. (Look up those you don’t understand and want to know more about!) The declaration rejected the authority of churches and leaders that have departed from orthodox teaching, particularly regarding sexuality and the “uniqueness of Christ”. It called for a reformation within global Anglicanism and affirmed the formation of alternative Anglican structures “for faithful churches and dioceses sidelined by liberal shifts” in the Communion.
Just to clarify the phrase about the “unqueness of Christ”, as I wrote earlier: it was felt the church was becoming too ecumenical and was watering down its core beliefs to cause less offence to other faiths. The key issue here was a recognition that some people never get to hear the message of the Gospel, and others get a very distorted picture of an angry intollerant God. Still others are put off by Christians who just shout and condemn them in the streets. Why would anyone be attracted to a God like that? Under the orthodox understanding, they all get used as fuel for the fires of Hell because they haven’t accepted Jesus as their Saviour. That picture is at odds with a God who is Loving, Merciful, Gracious, Compassionate and Just. In line with the writings of C S Lewis (The Last Battle), many of us would argue that to fulfill His character, God must look into the heart of each person and see whether His image is shining back out even though they may never have heard of the name “Jesus”. This chimes more fully with what we are told about the character of God. To condemn someone who has had no chance to respond, denies those attributes of God I listed above.
In “The Last Battle”, Emeth, the servant of Tash, (Tash parallels Lucifer), comes face to face with Aslan the Lion, an imaginative supposal of how Jesus might appear if Narnia really existed. Lewis writes: “He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.”
This is not a salvation by what we do, but a salvation by the grace of God and therefore the love of Jesus. I don’t know what criteria God will utilise to judge, but I believe I can trust God to make the right judgement for each person, individually, and I’m sure I’ll be surprised by some of his choices. From what I read, I believe the Anglican Communion is prepared to ask questions like this, but GAFCON would see this as compromising our faith. If you know differently please let me know.
What are the implications for the church – both worldwide, and in the UK?
The Anglican Communion has for a long time functioned as a global fellowship of autonomous national and provincial churches (e.g., Church of England, Church in Wales, Episcopal Church of Scotland, Anglican Church of Australia, Anglican Church of Nigeria, etc) which nevertheless recognised the Archbishop of Canterbury as a symbolic “first among equals”. The so-called Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates’ Meeting) offered mechanisms of shared structure that helped provide guidance on matters of faith and leadership over pressing issues.
With this schism, that common recognition is challenged. That means:
- The notion of a single worldwide Anglican Communion under Canterbury, is undermined – you will have two competing communions
- Authority structures, decision making, relationships between provinces will shift in terms of the way they work, and how the organisation is constructed.
- The Church of England (as the “mother church”) may lose its global moral and structural leadership. The legitimacy (in the eyes of many global Anglicans) of decisions made by the Church of England may be weakened.
- Financial, institutional, canonical questions will arise (who owns what, who is bound by what, how to handle cross province oversight and inter communion). You will have duplication with two different “Communions” providing for different churches in the same diocese. St Judes’ may opt for GAFCON and St Mary’s, half a mile away, opt to remain with Canterbury.
- When the press ask for a statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury on any particular issue (assisted dying, sexuality issues, two child benefit, urban deprivation, etc.), the number of people she represents will be significantly diminished, possibly UK‑wide, but certainly globally. Although there are a lot of orthodox conservative Christians in the UK, I suspect that as far as progressive Anglicans are concerned, there is a greater percentage of them here, than in the “global south”, so it remains to be seen what percentage of churches and members remain under the See of Canterbury.
- Finally, if the press want to know the Anglican position on…., who do they turn to? Do they turn to the Anglican Communion (Canterbury) or GAFCON, or as we should call them, the Global Anglican Communion?
The importance of this split cannot really be under-estimated because there are Anglican churches in the UK, who, years ago, already split from Canterbury and are now covered by GAFCON. There are currently no figures that I’ve seen to indicate how the balance will pan out between those splitting from Canterbury and those remaining under the umbrella of Canterbury. Hence, within the UK, this split reflects and amplifies its internal divisions: between those on the liberal or progressive wings (in reference to gender, sexuality, governance) and those on its conservative/traditionalist wing. Which Communion will end up representing the most people, and therefore seen as biggest?
It will be messy, because some may be forced to ally themselves with the Global Anglican Communion, even if they may not support its position. There will be a few local African churches where the regional body belongs to the Global Anglican Communion, and so by default they will as well, even if they don’t hold to its orthodox values.
By way of example of the diversity of views, the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA), is one of the largest and most prominent Anglican provinces in Africa, encompassing South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho, and Eswatini. ACSA has generally taken a more progressive stance on social issues like the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions. This stands in contrast to GAFCON’s more conservative position. The province has been open to engaging in dialogue and has taken steps toward inclusivity. There is a useful page about Women and Gender that shows that not all African churches are closed to the women and gender debates.
There are other African churches where debate about the role of women in ministry is ongoing and may make membership of the Global Anglican Communion unlikely, so as this is a developing situation, we need to wait and see.
Within the UK, it is likely that tensions become more pronounced reflecting the global divisions. On the one hand many UK churches already have women in a leadership role, so even if they don’t support relaxing their attitude around sexuality, they may not take, or may not be able to take the additional, backward step of joining the Global Anglican Communion. Looking forward, if significant numbers of UK churches defect to the Global Anglican Communion, it may well prompt a more focussed debate about the church and state disestablishing themselves. A future coronation might then be a purely state ceremonial occasion with no religious input, and there are arguments on both sides for that. Other state occasions, like Remembrance Sunday are likely to become purely secular. Currently there are 26 bishops providing a spiritual and ethical dimension within the House of Lords. Assuming the House of Lords continues for the time being, I would be sorry to see the loss of the bishops, although I’d welcome greater representation from other major religious groupings. There are likely to be many other unforeseen consequences.
There might be future denominational realignments triggered by this split as all the major denominations in the UK are currently wrestling with this same issue of sexuality. Some embrace our community and some utterly reject it, and over the last year or two, we have watched as Premier Media have worryingly become more hardline in its reporting of issues around sexuality, and their listener/readership covers all the major Christian denominations. Their stance is quite puzzling at times, as many of their articles have a negative bias, especially about trans issues, and then unexpectedly they have a more positive one to buck the trend. I don’t know whether it is a policy, or whether it is just my imagination, but it seems to me that the more positive or open articles tend to be published under Premier’s “Woman Alive” title, as that last link was.
What has been the response of the Anglican Communion?
As another article from Premier explains: “So far, the formal response from the Anglican Communion has been muted, with a statement from its secretary general simply urging Anglicans to persist with its own more plodding reforms to international structures. And while many Gafcon voices have celebrated last week’s statement, it remains to be seen if others fully cut ties with the CofE or not.”
How does this affect the LGBTQ+ community?
The Anglican Communion hasn’t gone very far in embracing our community at the moment, but they have taken a couple of tentative steps forward with clergy being allowed to bless same-sex civil marriages/partnerships using newly approved liturgical prayers (“Prayers of Love and Faith”). I hope they continue taking steps forward, even if it is slow. If however, the Anglican church was taken by surprise by this move, and sought to backpedal, it would be a huge mistake. They would lose a lot of credibility and it would paralyse the church. Archbishop Justin was hamstrung throughout his time as Primate, as he tried eveything he could to keep the church together, and I admired his efforts on that score.
However, I am left wondering whether the church commissioners knew what would happen if they appointed an LGBTQ+ sympathetic woman Archbishop, and felt it was time to lance the boil and get it over with. I suspect so, and that earlier GAFCON comminique adds weight to my suspicion. This would mean that Dame Sarah could give her time, when she takes up office to re-building a damaged church and help make it ready to face a new future, rather than to keep trying to keep the ship afloat that was already holed below the waterline. Clearly there will be huge difficulties ahead, as people work out which church they want to be part of, and there will be people who won’t want to be part of either, but I hope and pray that this schism will result in a better church for our community, one that can eventually openly embrace and affirm us in leadership positions, but also offer services of marriage, not just blessing, in the presence of God, even if “marriage” might not be in my lifetime – but really I hope it is.
Changing Minds 