ViaMedia

Category: International Relations

  • GAFCON and CEEC

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion and is Vicar of the parishes of Cuddington and of Stone, Dinton and Hartwell. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group

    Robert Thompson is right to point out that the recent alternative Anglican ordinations of seven deacons raises questions of church order.

    Of course this raises questions for the Church of England, but it is the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) that is in the frontline of the issues raised by this and by the GAFCON movement more widely.

    To understand the problem for CEEC, it is worth considering not only the three questions asked by CEEC’s National Director John Dunnett in a letter from the GAFCON 26 conference in Abuja in March but also Andrew Atherstone’s criticisms of the ‘alternative ordinations’.

    First, it is necessary to chart the major changes for GAFCON.

    Major Changes for GAFCON

    GAFCON was formed in 2008 as a renewal movement for the Anglican Communion for those who believed that churches of the Communion that blessed gay unions and accepted gay clergy should be removed from it. To do this they set out to redefine Anglicanism as a confessional church. They wrote and released their own confession – called the Jerusalem Declaration – unique because of its clause on human sexuality. The argument goes that, if we have one confession, we will all walk together without division.

    In October the GAFCON Primates declared themselves to be the Global Anglican Communion (GAC) and called for compete disengagement from the formal Instruments of Communion – the ACC, Primates’ Meeting, Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Following this, the March GAFCON 26 Conference was being watched carefully. The BBC had noticed that it had been heralded that the GAFCON Primates Council would elect a ‘primus inter pares’ of their own to rival the Archbishop of Canterbury; it was waiting for a big news story. But that did not happen. Instead, the GAFCON Primates appointed a ‘Global Anglican Council’ as a body to ‘provide spiritual and strategic oversight for the Communion’. 

    The ‘Global Anglican Council’ is made up of three categories of people: Primates[i], Advisors, and Guarantors. The propaganda has it that the GAFCON Primates handed over power, but this raises two points. First, they are still on the Council and they have retained the right to remain on it even if they retire as Primates. Secondly, it is right to ask who has taken on power and the answer to that is interesting.

    The Primates

    Only four of the seven Primates are from churches recognised as being in the Anglican Communion: Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Chile. The others are the Primates of the breakaway Anglican Churches in Brazil and North America, along with the Primate of REACH-SA. The General Secretary is also listed as a Primate and he too is very influential.

    Within this group of churches, there are different positions on women’s ministry. The provinces of Rwanda and Uganda were among those who led the way on women’s ordination and on the empowerment of women in male-dominated societies. The Anglican Church in North America is split and has decided not to have women bishops. The others are all against women in leadership and the collective decision is for there to be no women bishops in GAFCON/GAC churches.

    The Advisors

    The Archbishop of Sydney is one of the five Advisors. Sydney Diocese has a semi-autonomous place within the Anglican Church in Australia as a bastion of reformed theology. Three of the other Advisors have strong connections to Sydney; one is a former Archbishop of Sydney who now oversees the Diocese of the Southern Cross, which has only 9 churches all in other Australian Dioceses. The Diocese of Sydney also has close links to the Bishop of the Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa/New Zealand with only 20 churches. Bishop Andy Lines of the Anglican Network in Europe is also closely aligned to Sydney – ANiE shares the same complementarian theology as Sydney and regards itself as ‘Reformed’.

    When you know that REACH-SA and the province of Chile are both very closely aligned with Sydney Diocese, you can detect a very powerful bloc.

    The final Advisor is Bishop Yassir Eric who is said to be the ‘Presiding Bishop of EKKIOS’. Ekkios is a ‘province in formation’ that is dedicated to the non-geographic discipleship of Muslim Born Believers. They do not appear to have a single church. Their online presence is limited to an AI generated website with no content except a link to a Facebook page with 22 followers and one post in 2026, and a YouTube channel with no content.

    The Guarantors

    The chair of the Guarantors is former Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola. He is joined by two businessmen: Mr Olayinka Fisher from Nigeria and Mr Emmanuel Kampouris from the USA.

    There is no reason why ordained Ugandan and Rwandan women could not have been among the ‘Guarantors’. This does not look like an oversight; it looks like a deliberate policy.

    The Council and Power

    Power in GAFCON/GAC has decisively moved towards:

    • Those churches who have never been part of the Anglican Communion and never will be.
    • Churches that assert complementarian theology.

    The inclusion of the Bishop from EKKIOS – a church not only without a single actual congregation, but also without an effective online presence – says something about what counts as a valid church.

    All this becomes important in the relationship with the CEEC.

    CEEC and GAFCON/GAC

    Up to now, the leadership of CEEC has wanted to be part of the GAFCON movement as well as the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA), but they have questions around whether they are welcome or whether there is one big obstacle in the way.

    In his letter from GAFCON 26 John Dunnett asked three questions that expressed his disquiet at the direction of travel. I quote these in full:

    • First, what is not clear is how, and if, the launch of GAC will have a direct impact or relevance for those of us contending within the Church of England (we do however remain grateful for the ongoing commitment of GAFCON to support those contending within the C of E as well as those who have felt compelled to leave).
    • Second, I noted that the stage was dominated (perhaps even exclusively?) by men. This of course might reflect various cultural sensitivities, but if GAC is to be truly global then this needs to be addressed.
    • Finally, it continues to remain unclear how GAFCON and GSFA might relate going forwards. It is to be hoped that the launch of GAC will not exacerbate differences between them.

    I have been waiting to see if there is a public reply to these excellent questions, but nothing has been forthcoming. We can only speculate, based on the membership of the Council which was announced after the close of the conference and from the action in the alternative ordinations.

    1. What impact will the launch of GAC have for CEEC?

    The Abuja Affirmation calls for ‘principled disengagement’ and ‘constitutional disconnection’ from the Instruments of Communion – including the Archbishop of Canterbury. This means it is not going to be possible to remain within the Church of England and be part of GAFCON/GAC.

    The direction of travel of GAFCON/GAC seems to be away from the core aims of CEEC. John Dunnett is right to be concerned.

    1. Male Domination

    I fully support John Dunnett’s comments over the exclusion of women at GAFCON 26. The future looks even worse. For a start, all the members of the Global Anglican Council are men and most of them men who oppose women in leadership in the church. There will not be any room for significant leadership from women in GAFCON given the power dynamics in the Council.

    The line in CEEC is that there can be disagreement on women’s ministry because, unlike LGBTQI+ inclusion, it is not a creation and salvation issue. However, the Diocese of Sydney (and those influenced by Sydney) has a historic commitment to complementarianism where they have consistently argued that male headship and equality in difference is both a creation and salvation issue.

    John Dunnett would do well to heed the warning of Bishop Emily Onyango from Kenya, a member of the original 2008 GAFCON theological group, who describes the current GAFCON as ‘patriarchal’. 

    1. GAFCON/GCA and GSFA

    It must be a huge frustration when your allies are divided and this is the case for John Dunnett as he considers the relationship between GAFCON/GAC and GSFA.

    The GSFA is an attractive prospect for CEEC because they are firm on human sexuality but seeking to engage with the Anglican Communion. This is why they are now unacceptable to GAFCON/GAC.

    The problem is that GSFA will be reduced to 11 provinces in the Anglican Communion – some of those very small. No one can argue that they are even a majority of Anglicans in the Global South, let alone a majority in the Anglican Communion.

    GAFCON/GAC and the Alternative Ordinations

    We are once again very grateful to Andrew Atherstone for his article on the alternative ordinations. He is concerned by them.

    A GAFCON/GAC bishop – a bishop from REACH-SA – flew in overnight to ordain seven men in secret. Their names are not released, the sponsoring churches are unnamed and questions as to safeguarding and supervision are unanswered.

    Andrew’s account of the ordinations last year was generally positive, saying they had ‘launched a grand experiment’ and that they had made a ‘bold beginning’. His account of this year’s repeat is different:

    • Last year he found it regrettable that the event was not publicised and the names not released: this year he comments that ‘transparency over ordinations is essential.’
    • Last year he acknowledged that all of the deacons were men, but only in a response to a blog I wrote on this site: this year, in a challenge to the organisers, he directly asks why no women were ordained.
    • Last year he regretted the need for intervention from abroad: this year he is clear that ‘English problems need English solutions’.

    Andrew is right – transparency is essential. GAFCON/GAC is so focused on doctrinal orthodoxy that accountability is not part of the story. The recent history of John Smyth and the Fletchers should make us very afraid.

    The GAFCON/GAC direction towards complementarianism is writ large in these organisations. He claims that a REACH-SA Bishop could ordain women to the permanent diaconate. He is actually wrong: REACH-SA do not ordain women – they ‘make’ deacons. ‘Lady Deacons’ can read the Bible in public worship, teach children and assist in leading singing while lay men can preach, and even, in certain circumstances, baptise and preside at the Lord’s Table. In the polity of REACH-SA, deacons are not ordained.

    His third concern is the way geographic boundaries are crossed. The original Church of England in South Africa bishops were themselves ordained by bishops from the Diocese of Sydney, so it is unsurprising that such boundaries are regarded as immaterial. The GAFCON/GAC model will not accept that ‘English problems need English solutions’.

    Problems ahead for the CEEC

    The likelihood is that GAFCON/GAC will seek to grow by including other churches that adopt the Jerusalem Declaration. We know that the geographic element of church is low on the priority list from the promotion of the ‘presiding bishop’ of EKKIOS to the Council.

    The Confessing Anglican Church is another church seeking membership of GAFCON/GAC. It has adopted the Jerusalem Declaration and their Archbishops were in Abuja. The Secretary General of GAFCON is to speak at their September synod.

    Why should this be a concern for the CEEC? The CAC has a lot of churches in India, but also around the world and it has a UK diocese. The UK ‘diocese’ has very few churches, but a significant social media reach through their UK Bishop Cei Dewar. Bishop Dewar is closely associated with the Tommy Robinson movement: he led the prayers launching the Unite the Kingdom rally last year.

    Bishop Dewar will have no problem in signing the Jerusalem Declaration and it is hard to see the grounds on which GAFCON would reject his church.

    The CEEC is an organisation that will not want to be linked – however distantly – with Tommy Robinson. His abusive appeal to ‘Christian Nationalism’ will be anathema to CEEC.

    The Core of the Problem

    The problem is that GAFCON/GAC basis itself on a false ecclesiology. The Bible does not support the idea that unity comes from doctrinal conformity any more than through institutional discipline (the GSFA model).

    Chrisitan unity is through relationships. Our relationships with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the relationship of love that binds us in our differences. This is what Jesus and Paul both argued for in the Scriptures. This is what GAFCON/GAC ignores.

    John Dunnett and Andrew Atherstone are asking the right questions. They should be concerned.

    [i] The GAFCON/GAC General Secretary Bishop Paul Donison is listed as a ‘Primate’ indicating a place of influence and power.

  • What Does it Mean to be Anglican in a Post-colonial Communion?

    by Charlie Bell, Fellow in Public Theology and Medicine at Girton College, Cambridge, Associate Vicar of St John the Divine, Kennington, in the Diocese of Southwark, and member of the LLF Vocations and Ministry Working Group

    A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to spend a few days in Atlanta, Georgia, with a remarkable group of people for a conference entitled ‘Living Postcolonial Anglicanism: Prospects for a Polycentric Anglican Communion’, hosted by Episcopal Divinity School, and run by two of the foremost postcolonial Anglican scholars, Kwok Pui-lan and Ian Douglas. It is not to overstate matters to say that it was one of the most remarkable events I have ever been to in any Anglican Communion space, not least because of who was – and who wasn’t – there, and what was – and wasn’t – central to discussion.

    This was a gathering that pulled no punches, and which was determined to move beyond the tired, hackneyed arguments around the Communion that have plagued Anglican debates for far too long. The voices in the room were far more female, far more indigenous, far less white, than at any discussion of the Anglican Communion I had ever been to before. Sex and gender were discussed but were anything but pivotal to conversations. Instead, what was at the heart of the gathering was a serious paying of attention to the things that continue, untested and unchallenged, to poison our common life as Anglicans – power, racism, colonialism and re-colonialism, empire, Englishness, lazy stereotyping, authority, money, and silenced voices. Central, too, was a determination to show that Anglicanism was no longer – and had not been for a long time – synonymous with Englishness (either ecclesiological or colonial), and that something new had been birthed, whether the Church of England wished to recognise it or not. And that something is not merely based on opposition or conflict – it is based on doing the work of decolonising and the recognition of a postcolonial reality.

    I should say that, as a white Englishman, I was in the minority – the serious minority. Indeed, at times I felt that I was being asked to justify why I should even be in the room, given the damage that the Church of England has done – and continues to do – to Communion relations. I understood that impulse, even if I felt somewhat conflicted about it. It was a strange experience being the ‘representative’ (unofficially, I should add, but certainly symbolically) of a church in which I frequently feel myself to be an outsider – frankly, in many Church of England spaces I feel like an intruder, an embarrassment, a queer aberration, and many queer people will know the feeling of being exiled that many of us carry around with us. It was uncomfortable then to have the tables turned, and at times I felt somewhat discomfited by the role I was playing in conversations and the way my words landed, with all the hidden context they carried.

    Yet being discomfited is a position that English Anglicans, particularly white men, need to get more acquainted with, if we are to play any useful part in the future of the Communion. So too is a commitment to intersectionality for those of us who remain beyond the bounds of the normative in the Church of England. This is particularly true in a church which offers courses in Anglicanism (both in England and more widely) in almost none of its theological colleges, despite claiming the role of ‘mother church’. Our arrogance is astonishing – yet so all-pervasive that we don’t notice it.

    It has always intrigued me that the Anglican Communion has an official office of representation at the United Nations. I have never really understood how there can be an Anglican Communion position on anything, really, given we are interdependent and autonomous churches in fellowship (of varying degrees) with one another. Yet this conference gave me some hope that there might be a different kind of Communion in the future, one able to tolerate polyphony and indeed embrace it, allowing voices to be heard in the corridors of power that might otherwise be excluded or marginalised.

    So much talk about the Anglican Communion in recent years has focused on shifting power – on re-colonising, establishing new loci of authority and power rather than questioning the whole premise of power itself. Of course, it’s easy as someone who is part of a church which has historically held that power to call for radical divestment of it rather than its assumption by another location, yet I do think that is the only possible future for Anglicanism – whatever ‘Anglicanism’ might be. Our attempts at structural reform have remained endlessly Canterbury-focused, and hence both Church of England-infused and ultimately centralising. Moving to a rotating presidency of the Anglican Consultative Council, for example, is hardly a radical move, and nor is any change to the Communion that leaves a White English bishop as its spiritual head. It does little for the Anglican Communion, and it does little for the Church of England either – not least any attempt to understand its role and identity in twenty-first century secular England.

    Yet the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans and GAFCON have hardly offered change in any serious philosophical way – instead it’s just been a shifting of power from A to B. It’s a failure of ecclesiology, and it’s a failure to really interrogate the colonial mindset that finds new formulations in the contemporary era, including in the queerphobic and racist narrative that suggests that the ‘Global South’ (an unhelpful term, as discussed here by Phil Groves, one whose vagueness is the key to its utility in abstract discussion) has a single and entirely negative view of LGBTQIA people.

    The way that the Church of England should engage with questions around same-sex relationships in the Anglican Communion remains complicated by the refusal to squarely face the colonial history. In any engagement with other provinces on sexual or gender justice, the living spectre of colonialism remains, meaning that the Archbishop of Canterbury – and by extension, English bishops – cannot speak to other bishops of the Communion on a level playing field, because we have refused to address the power imbalances that still exist. This is our fault – and it is entirely within our grasp to tackle it. We just choose not to, shifting chairs around on the Titanic instead. That there were queer, Black Anglican voices in the room from the ‘Global South’, for whom navigating these realities was anything but abstract, should not have been a surprising fact – but it was, given the way the powers-that-be in the Communion so often self-select and silence.

    English Anglicans have a lot to learn from our Communion friends, if only we would listen. I can attest to the fact that that listening can sometimes be hard, and can challenge our ecclesiological, missional, and ministerial assumptions. It is going to require us to change. Yet if we are not willing to listen, the lip service we pay to the Communion – however much we tinker with the structures – will do very little to change how and who we are. We can stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that Anglicanism is the same as the Church of England, and that we have nothing to learn from a global movement that is no longer ours to control – but we will deservedly be laughed out of town.

    There will always, I think, be a tension between unity and diversity in the Anglican Communion. There will also always be a tension in the ecclesiology, theology, and self-understandings of a global Communion. From my experience of this conference, it is polycentrism and a commitment to postcolonial living which offer a rich, enticing, fruitful way forward. Recognising the other as Anglican is the first step. Whether we are willing to embrace this shift in our mindset in England is, of course, another matter – whether we can afford not to is an open question.

     

  • Representation and Celebration

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion and is Vicar of the parishes of Cuddington and of Stone, Dinton and Hartwell. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group.

    A few months ago, I was infuriated by commentators assuming that the representatives on the Crown Nominations Commission from the Anglican Communion would block the nomination of a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury. I thought it was nonsense, and I was right.

    I am now amazed by the assumption that ‘The Global South’ will be incensed by the nomination of Bishop Sarah Mullally because she is a woman. Give me the evidence.

    I know that the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) objects to the appointment of a woman and claims that the majority of the Anglican Communion do not accept women as bishops, but claims that their churches and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) represent 75% or 85% of Anglicans should not go unchallenged. What does such a claim even mean?

    It takes me back to the 2007 Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania at the height of the controversy over the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson. The primates were divided, with a number refusing to take communion with the Presiding Bishop of TEC – Katharine Jefferts Schori. Some refused to eat with her.

    As the Sunday approached, speculation was rife as to her reception at the public service of Holy Communion to be held on the holy ground of Zanzibar Cathedral. Online, a popular ‘news service’ from an extreme conservative perspective carried a series of comments speculating that she may be taken out and stoned for her heresy (others suggesting being thrown from the spire might be more appropriate).

    All primates bar Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria (who was ill) were present at the service and the host – Archbishop Mtetemela of Tanzania – introduced them one by one. Each one was met with enthusiastic applause. When it came to Bishop Katharine, we wondered what the reception would be. It was astounding.

    The Diocesan Mothers’ Union were prepared and waiting: to a woman they rose in joyful celebration. Around 50, perhaps as many as 100 women in their specially designed dresses burst into song to welcome ‘their’ primate. Other women around the Cathedral stood up to join them and the dancing spilled into the aisles.

    Zanzibar Cathedral is an iconic symbol of the Oxford Movement and a bastion of the High Church movement. Her bishops – especially former Archbishop John Ramadhani who was present at the service – had been outspoken in their opposition to women priests. It was assumed his views were shared – that is he represented the women and men of his diocese.

    Not a bit of it. The women made their views known – Bishop Katharine was an inspiration: a symbol of hope. She represented them.

    No one would claim that her views, especially her views on the inclusion of LGBTQI+ people, were shared by those celebrating her presence; what they were celebrating was their own inclusion in the body of Christ as women.

    So, when GAFCON or GSFA say the small number of primates and bishops who support their cause ‘represent’ so many thousands or millions of Anglicans, I wonder what they mean.

    When the GSFA sought support from bishops at the Lambeth Conference for a renewed commitment to Lambeth I.10 they claimed that the three Church of England bishops who signed their petition ‘represented’ 47,000 Anglicans. Did they seriously think that all 47,000 worshippers in those three dioceses were of the same mind as their bishops? They were effectively claiming that every worshipper in those dioceses opposed the celebration of faithful gay and lesbian relationships. Unbelievable. We should be equally cynical if we think that any primate of any province has the full, unequivocal support of their bishops, clergy, and people.

    GAFCON and GSFA have used the tactic of boycotting to force the hand of a Communion that hates division. They seek to exert power by stamping their feet and walking out. In doing so they often talk of ‘representing’ their constituency. But when Archbishop Mouneer Anis – then Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East – and Archbishop Eluid Wabukala – Primate of Kenya – announced their boycott of the Anglican Consultative Council in 2016, neither of them consulted their provinces and both of their provincial delegations attended. Who were they ‘representing’?

    I guarantee that when the future Archbishop of Canterbury visits Tanzania the Mothers’ Union – with a mighty membership of over 600,000 – will go wild. It will be a week-long ‘sharehe’: a celebration with music and dance.

    In my experience – and I have attended many church services across Africa – women outnumber men in every congregation. They can often be two-thirds or even three-quarters of the worshippers, and yet every leader of both the GAFCON Council and Advisors and the board of GSFA are all men. This is not representation.

    The African Anglican women bishops are celebrating the nomination. Bishop Emily Onyango told the BBC that ‘Gafcon’s view was neither theologically nor biblically sound, but more “patriarchal, which is not very useful to the Church”.’ She knows that Bishop Mullally is someone who listens and listening, she says, is our great hope.

    I first met Onyango in 2008 in Oxford when she was studying for her PhD. She had just returned from the initial GAFCON where she had been a member of the theological commission. She talked to me of her experience of being sidelined and diminished. I later worked with her on Continuing Indaba and she is one of the most brilliant and insightful theologians of our generation. Her reflection on Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham in the context of her experience of fleeing ethnic violence in Kenya and her experience of polygamous societies from a female perspective is the most poignant pieces of biblical exegesis I have ever read. We rarely hear from her is because she is not offered the platforms for her voice to be heard; an exception is a podcast in the ‘Mutuality Matters’ series where she discusses the role of women in the East African revival movement and beyond.

    African Anglican women like Bishop Onyango encounter misogyny every day and they organise and speak out. The Mothers’ Union – often said to be the largest membership organisation in the world – campaigns against gender-based violence, female genital mutilation and for education for girls. African Anglicanism is a progressive movement for liberation.

    These women are not western liberals – they have a different agenda – but neither are they western conservatives. They are passionate followers of Christ. They remind me of the Samaritan woman in John 4, who was perfectly able to engage in theological dialogue, challenge, and be challenged and like her they then go out to proclaim the good news. They may not be ordained, but they are often the leaders of the church.

    When he reflected on GAFCON 2 in 2013, Andrew Atherstone remarked that ‘GAFCON will need to work harder to recruit and retain egalitarians if it is to enhance its appeal as a broad coalition.’ The response of the GAFCON chair to the nomination of a woman – even though he is the primate of a church that ordains women – shows that this work has not been done: the direction of travel is in the opposite direction.

    This has implications for those in the Church of England who are looking to ally themselves to GAFCON. Is their emerging structure sustainable? They are seeking to combine complementarians who believe that leadership in the church is exclusively male and those who do not, including women who are priests and bishops. The common response is that this is a second order issue, but the experience elsewhere is that women are asked to voluntarily forgo roles of leadership to maintain the unity of the movement. In England this is evidenced by the male-only leadership of  The Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) and the recent unorthodox ‘ordination’ of seven male deacons by a Bishop from REACH – a church that regards male headship as a first order issue. I wonder if women bishops and even priests or presbyters will continue to be welcome in the new movement.

    As for Archbishop-designate Sarah Mullally – she will discover that, across the Global South, women will be celebrating. They will recognise that they have someone who represents them. The Church of England has a kind, compassionate leader who exhibits the greatest of spiritual gifts as defined in 1 Corinthians 13. Let’s celebrate with the Global South women bishops.

     

     

  • Alternative ‘Anglican Ordinations’ – A Crucial Question

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group.

    Andrew Atherstone’s account of the ‘ordination’ – more on those quotation marks later – of seven ‘missionary clergy’ as deacons by Bishop Martin Morrison of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa leaves a crucial question unasked and unanswered.

    Andrew is impressed and excited by the event. These ‘seven deacons’, he says, ‘have launched a grand experiment, designed to stress-test a prototype pipeline’. We are told this is a ‘bold beginning’.

    There are many things we are not told. We don’t know anything about the seven, except that they have had extensive training and would not accept an ordination pathway through the Church of England. We don’t know where they are serving, or if they are paid or self-funding. We don’t know to whom they are responsible for safeguarding. The Church of England authorities were given one day’s notice. Only 150 were present – presumably to limit the danger of a leak.

    In contrast to the openness and publicity around the ordination season in the Church of England, this is all so cloak and dagger – why? No one was going to rush in and stop the event. No one would be arrested.

    However, the crucial question neither asked nor answered by Atherton is if all of them were men. And what is not said in his blog about gender is vital for the future of the movement.

    This is relevant to those quotation marks around the word ‘ordination’. We are told that ‘the service was entirely under the auspices of REACH SA’, but the Handbook of Procedures of REACH SA is very specific: deacons are not ordained – they are ‘made’. By ‘ordaining’ deacons Bishop Morrison has broken with the polity of his church. Deacons remain laity in REACH SA; they are ‘made’ not ‘ordained.’

    REACH SA is clear on this distinction because women as well as men can be ‘made’ deacons even though it is not permissible for them to lead worship, or preach in church services (unless all present are women). Women cannot be ordained in REACH SA.

    In the polity of REACH SA, full-time ‘lady-workers’ may become ‘lady deacons’, following lengthy training and discernment and as such they will be able to be ‘used (sic) to read lessons, lead the singing or assist in other ways during Church services.’ There is no requirement in the Handbook that men who want to be deacons are in full-time ministry.

    This is in stark contrast to lay men who may be used to lead services, preach, and, in exceptional circumstances, to conduct a Baptism service or a Holy Communion service. Get your heads around that: ‘lady deacons’ can only lead the singing, lay men can baptise and preside.

    Ordination is only for men as presbyters. As presbyters they are leaders in the church.

    REACH SA seeks to reassure us that the reasoning behind this ‘is not an issue of chauvinism or dismissiveness or even unfair discrimination but arises out of theological reflection on God’s order in His world and Paul’s instructions to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11f).’ The readers of this blog are unlikely to be convinced. It is by the fruits that we know them, not by fine words, and the result is misogyny.

    The question that Andrew Atherstone seems to avoid asking or answering is whether this action is simply about objections to the changes under LLF, or whether it reflects a deeper desire for a church that also removes women from any form of leadership.

    I suspect that there is an internal agenda in play here. This is not just a step on the journey for a unified movement, but perhaps a statement of intent from a branch of that movement seeking to control the internal agenda of the Alliance. There are those who seem to want the emerging church to define gender roles on complementarian principles. REACH SA considers this a first order issue just as much as their opposition to equal marriage, and so must those supporting these ‘ordinations’.

    I can’t see how any deacons of REACH SA can be in full communion with any women priests and bishops even if they agree on equal marriage.

    This leads me to wonder where this leaves those who would have once described themselves as ‘open evangelicals’ who are open to women in leadership, but not to equal marriage. Are they being pushed to the side?

    I can’t see how this alliance can hold.

     

  • Some Things You Never Forget

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group.

    For me, one of those moments you never forget was the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Meeting in 2007. It was my first Primates’ Meeting, and I was there to present my report on the “Listening Process on human sexuality.”

    In those days, national newspapers still sent correspondents to cover these meetings, and more than one journalist told me they expected something I said would be the spark that ignited an explosion. No pressure, then!

    When it was time for me to report, the Secretary General sat next to me. I think he intended to offer support, but I could feel him trembling. I could smell his anxiety. I had to tune him out and focus on Archbishop Rowan, who at least looked calm—though I bet he wasn’t.

    Fortunately, I was on home ground. I had lived in Tanzania for six years and had loved every minute of the event so far. The host, Archbishop Donald Mtetemela, was someone I had known for years, and he asked me to help welcome the primates, as he was recovering from malaria. This gave me the chance to befriend almost all of them—most of whom I already knew. I could translate for them, delighting in the chance to speak Kiswahili again.

    Two Archbishops, however, remained unreachable. The Archbishops of Uganda and Nigeria had withdrawn from all social events, worship, and meals. They were essentially living in another part of the hotel, surrounded by a group of mostly white advisors. Archbishop Orombi of Uganda was an old friend—I had once served on his evangelism team for a year—and he gave me a cheery smile. Archbishop Akinola, meanwhile, was reportedly in bed with a headache, which, I admit, came as something of a relief.

    When I was called to speak, I took a breath and charted the progress—such as it was—of the Listening Process across the Communion. I made it clear that the responsibility for responding to Lambeth I.10 was not mine, but theirs. I was simply there to monitor and assist.

    We then discussed a proposed book for the upcoming Lambeth Conference. To everyone’s surprise, the conversation was not only polite, but positive. Both Archbishop Mounir and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori requested a chapter on the “science” of human attraction. Interestingly, they did so for completely opposite reasons—each believing the evidence would support their view. I hated that chapter, and the “science” proved nothing. But at least they agreed on something.

    Things seemed to be going well—until the Archbishop of Congo, Fidèle Dirokpa, asked to speak. He said he didn’t understand the problem. To him, gays were like any other sinners—no different from thieves or murderers—and we should reach out to them the same way.

    Unless you’re a prison chaplain, you may never have met a murderer. But if you’re from eastern DRC, you might have met a few. Dirokpa was being generous: even murderers can repent and be part of the Church—so why not gays? It seemed so obvious to him, he couldn’t understand why we weren’t all in agreement. Let them repent and fully include them. The response wasn’t anger, but silence.

    Later, Katharine Jefferts Schori would describe this moment as her “low point” of the entire Meeting—despite enduring a session where she had to be defended by other primates from quite personal attacks.

    Dirokpa was puzzled. He was surprised his words found no support. Even his close friend, the Archbishop of Burundi—who had translated for him, since he didn’t speak English—offered no backing.

    After the meeting, Dirokpa—knowing I spoke Kiswahili—pulled me aside. We huddled in a hotel lounge. He wanted to know why his words had fallen flat. Like many African church leaders, he had never knowingly met a gay person. Of course, he had met many gay people, but dominant homophobia in post-colonial African culture ensures that LGBTQI+ individuals often hide—even from themselves.

    This was my job: to enable people in the Church to listen to LGBTQI+ individuals. They didn’t need to agree or disagree—just hear. I wasn’t speaking for anyone, just helping mostly straight Christian leaders open their ears.

    A couple of hours later, he was ready to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons,” and I believe he did take future opportunities to listen and learn. I don’t think he ever accepted same-sex marriage or blessings as right for the Church, but he didn’t campaign for the removal of TEC from the Communion, nor—so far as I know—did he support the criminalisation of gay people. He embraced tolerance, and tolerance is the first step. Without it, we cannot move toward acceptance or celebration.

    I learned that we must keep offering opportunities to listen, rather than take offence and walk away.

    This was echoed by another conversation on the other side of the lounge that same evening. Bishop Jefferts Schori was in deep conversation with the Bishop of Central Tanganyika, one of the largest evangelical dioceses in East Africa—Bishop Mdimi Mohogolo.

    I first met Mohogolo in 1992 and used to play squash with his son (who always beat me). In 1997, he was part of the planning group for the Lambeth Conference and was one of those confronted by ‘Outrage!’ activists in the gardens of Lambeth Palace. After returning to Tanzania, he visited our house and talked about the encounter.

    His words to me have stayed with me:

    “I would much rather have our poverty than your gays.”

    These words were chilling. The poverty in Central Tanzania was and remains devastating. It kills. It is a curse. If you’ve never lived amidst poverty like that, you can’t imagine it. Yet the wonderful gay friends I had from school and university were, to him, a deeper curse.

    And yet—ten years later—this same man was in deep conversation with the Presiding Bishop of TEC, offering support. He advocated for ongoing relationships with TEC within the Tanzanian House of Bishops. Though once an ally of the conservative bloc, particularly through ties with the Diocese of Sydney, he had been on a journey. He had met gay and lesbian Christians, and he had learned tolerance. Again, I never heard him support the blessing of same-sex unions, but he led his diocese into meaningful relationships with TEC—partnerships that bore fruit on both sides. He was instrumental in the majority of Tanzanian bishops rejecting GAFCON.

    To equate being gay with being a murderer—or to see it as a deeper curse than life-threatening poverty—is to dehumanise and diminish an entire group of people. It contradicts the agreed statement of the Primates at Dromantine:

    “The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.”

    When you dehumanise, you open the door to criminalisation.

    The way forward is to listen to LGBTQI+ people as friends. Then “homosexuality” ceases to be an “issue”—first order or otherwise.

    If you dehumanise a whole group, you can justify their criminalisation. “Homosexuality” becomes a curse to be eliminated. That is what has happened in Nigeria. Western advocates once told the press that the Archbishop there quietly opposed the anti-gay law. But in Dar that week, I had a chance to ask him directly.

    We were alone in his official room. I asked about the law. He was clear: he had instigated it and supported it fully. He wanted gays in prison. He supported restricting freedom of speech and the right to assembly so that LGBTQI+ people and their allies could never organise. I was shocked—but not surprised.

    If you see LGBTQI+ people as akin to murderers or more cursed than those starving and homeless, you have dehumanised them. And, once dehumanised, they can be silenced and imprisoned.

    The same happened in Uganda. Members of the Anglican Church were instrumental in pushing through shocking legislation. The effect of that legislation went beyond simple law with the persecution of gay people and the murder of David Kato, which was unequivocally condemned by a later Primates’ Meeting.

    And so to the present debates in the Church of England. A CEEC briefing paper suggests that those opposed to LLF can counter the argument that it is “not credal” by saying:

    “There are plenty of things not mentioned in the Creeds but upon which we would not be willing to accept any level of disagreement (e.g. murder). In short, the argument ‘it is not credal’ does not mean that we can simply have different views.”

    Apart from the obvious response that while murder is not in the Creeds it is one of the Ten Commandments, the real issue is that this kind of reasoning treats LGBTQI+ identity as an issue.

    I welcome the presence of those who disagree with me on the legitimacy of same-gender unions. But we must remember that we are talking about people—human beings.

    To be clear, the CEEC and Anglican Alliance have issued sincere statements condemning anti-gay laws in Nigeria and Uganda. But I see little action to match the words—and I wonder why.

    These laws were promoted by their Anglican allies. They have withdrawn from worship with those of us who promote equal marriage, yet I don’t see them threatening to withdraw from communion with those who promote violence toward gay people. They rejoice in partnerships with churches that have enacted hate-driven laws, while lamenting that Nigerians and Ugandans aren’t represented on the CNC for Canterbury. I know they oppose these laws—but I suspect they do not see them as a first order issue, rather a “cultural difference.”

    The true divide in the Anglican Communion is between those who see “homosexuality” as an issue, and those who engage with human beings of all sexualities—straight and gay—seeking to live and love in the way of Christ.

    For some, following in the steps of Archbishop Dirokpa and Bishop Mohogolo, this may mean continuing to oppose the blessing of same-sex unions—yet listening, respecting, and refusing to break Communion with those they disagree with.

    For others, like me, we believe that God calls both straight and gay people into permanent, faithful, stable, and joyful relationships. We are not issues—we are beloved people of God.

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

     

  • The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, a parish priest in the Wychert Vale Benefice. His PhD is on Anglican Missional Ecclesiology and he was the Facilitator for the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion and Director of Continuing Indaba

    At midnight tonight Justin Welby will have left his role and the search for new Archbishop of Canterbury will soon be underway in earnest.

    This time there will be five representatives from the Anglican Communion on the CNC. They have probably already been selected but, rather like a football pundit on the eve of a big game, I want to offer some speculation.

    It is widely assumed that the Anglican Communion representatives will massively skew the process towards a conservative outcome. In particular, I have heard it said on numerous occasions that they will block any possibility of a woman in Lambeth Palace.

    Call me mad, but I don’t think it is inevitable – in fact it could be quite the opposite.

    At this point it is quite unpredictable who will make the list, but we have a list of names. They will all have participated as members at the Anglican Consultative Council.

    If you are not familiar with the Anglican Communion the process will make your head spin, and even for me who has attended four ACCs, two Lambeth Conferences, and three Primates’ Meetings it is not completely clear.

    As I understand it, Primates from each of the five regions of the Communion – Asia, the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Oceania – will have searched through the list of present and recent ACC members to find people to nominate. Immediately this is a bit complex, because these regions do not precisely reflect the existing boundaries, so I expect Jerusalem and the Middle East to be in Asia and potentially East Asia to be part of Oceania.

    I could be wrong – if you know any information I don’t, please put it in the comments.

    By now the names may have been presented to a group from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to select the five members. From the nominees, the Standing Committee will select at least one Primate, one priest or deacon (who could be a bishop), and one member of the laity. At least two will be male, and two female. A majority should be people of global-majority heritage. Not only that, there should be a youth representative and an indigenous person.

    Is your head spinning? It should be.

    Quite a lot of power is being placed in the hands of the group choosing the representatives. We do not have a clear indication of who is on that group, but it will be impossible for them not to have their bias; we all have bias. However, they have to follow the rules.

    Those rules seem to limit the choice of Primate to one who is a member of the ACC. Until recently, the constitution of the ACC was designed to preclude primates from being members, but there are currently two Primates who attend the ACC as members, the Archbishops of Jerusalem and Tanzania. If they limit themselves to those two, then either the Africa or the Asia and the Middle East place is taken.

    By coincidence, both Archbishop Naoum and Archbishop Mndolwa studied theology in Grahamstown, South Africa and Virginia in the US. These are more liberal institutions than some of the others attended by other eligible primates; neither are linked to conservative groups and both have links with TEC. I have deep respect for both Archbishops: they are people of integrity and wisdom. I suspect that Archbishop Naoum would be a good fit, but as he is Archbishop of Jerusalem and, as I shall explain, there are very good reasons to fill the Asia and Middle East slot with the ‘youth’ representative, it might be that the slot for Primates is taken by Archbishop Mndolwa.

    However, there is another option. Since ACC 14, the Primates’ Standing Committee has attended ACC meetings. As recently as ACC 16 they were only observers, but more recently they have been incorporated as members. I am unclear as to whether this has actually been discussed by the ACC and if the constitution has been amended, but it seems to be de facto in place. This means they could opt for one of the Primates on Standing Committee.

    If that is the case then there will be a focus on the one representative from Africa. The perception is that an African would be ‘conservative’ but such labels can be misleading. An African delegate will not be an advocate of equal marriage, that is certain, but they are likely to be from a province that has maintained its links with TEC and they are unlikely to object to a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury. One reason for this is that the requirement for nominations from those who have recently participated as members of the ACC means the GAFCON provinces of Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda are all ruled out. They have not sent delegations to the ACC for years.

    It is possible that a representative could come from the more progressive provinces such as Southern Africa, but even if they are from the evangelical heartlands of Kenya or South Sudan, they would be unlikely to block a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. For example, Archbishop Ole Sapit – the Primate of Kenya – has consecrated women as bishops. He might be a strong candidate from the Primates’ Standing Committee. Alternatively, South Sudan has taken a lead in the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans but their episcopal delegate to ACC is Bishop Elizabeth Awut, one of many impressive African women on the Council.

    African Anglicanism is not the conservative homogeny that it is portrayed as being. In most places it is a force for the empowerment of women. In the UK some may still think of the Mothers’ Union as an aging organisation concerned with sewing and jam making, but its African membership makes it the biggest member organisation in the world. It is a vibrant and powerful voice for women across Africa and has taken feminist stands on gender-based violence, education for girls, and female genital mutilation. If they choose a woman, there is a good chance she will have a similar feminist agenda.

    While there is so much choice available to the Standing Committee from Africa that it is hard to know who might be chosen, they are likely to celebrate a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Next, we turn to ‘Europe’, which in this context means Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. I think it is unlikely that any of the Primates would want to be in a position of choosing the archbishop of their neighbouring province, so it is likely that they will seek a recent or present ACC delegate. Probably the most qualified is Canon Alistair Dinnie who has just stepped down from the Standing Committee. He was the first gay man to be married in the SEC and so his selection might bring on scrutiny that he would find intrusive. But there is a good chance that the representative could come from a church which is comfortable blessing gay unions, or even marrying gay people, and which would also be delighted with a woman as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    As I hinted earlier, Asia could provide the Youth Representative. Aishi Drong is the official lay representative from Bangladesh, but she is also a youth representative and a member of the Standing Committee. She ticks so many boxes it makes the matrix possible. I suspect they would need a very good reason not to pick her.

    Even if she is not the youth representative, the young person will come from the Anglican Youth Network. All the members of that network are more likely to be energised by Greta Thunberg than to have heard of Mary Whitehouse. The Anglican Youth Network is marked out by a commitment to the environment and to the empowerment of women and girls. I can’t see any youth representative opposing a woman in Canterbury.

    It would be a shock to me if the representative from the Americas was not progressive. The Primate of Brazil – Archbishop Marinez Bassotto – might be a candidate and she delights in being in a church which has full equal marriage. Another great candidate would be Ranjit Matthews, the clergy representative of TEC, who is very well respected across the Communion. There are many people to choose from, but whoever is chosen is likely to be progressive.

    What may cause a problem for the Standing Committee is that there does not appear to be an indigenous person among the ACC members from the provinces of the Americas. That means they will need to look to Oceania to offer an indigenous person. However, this will present a problem. The Anglican Indigenous Network limits its membership to those who are minorities in their historic lands.

    The Network has always been one of the most dynamic of Networks in the Communion. Anglican institutions in some parts of the world were violent oppressors of indigenous peoples, especially in places such as Canada and Australia. However, in recent years the Anglican Church has become a beacon of hope with indigenous leadership and successful campaigns for indigenous rights. The Anglican Indigenous Network is an amazing resource for reconciliation and restoration. However, and here again please correct me if I am wrong in the comments, I can’t spot an ‘indigenous’ person who has been a full delegate to either ACC 16 or 17.

    The closest is possibly the Polynesian Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi who represents the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia. He is an environmental activist and he is likely to want an Archbishop who pays attention to the climate crisis. He is not going to be a conservative voice on the committee.

    The Indigenous Network is not conventionally conservative. The members have been engaged in a conversation on gender and sexuality in their own way and have refused to be drawn into the polarised conflicts. They have many important women among them and again would likely celebrate a woman Archbishop.

    The brief given to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion thus offers a bias that could result in a delegation more progressive than those from the Diocese of Canterbury or the Church of England.

    While this article is complete speculation, I can’t find any reason to believe that the Anglican Communion members of CNC will block a woman for Canterbury.

    The project will work if the Anglican Communion delegation prioritise finding a fantastic leader for the Church of England. If they work to their best they can offer deep insight to help the whole team discern the kind of leader we need. If they do that, they will have someone who contributes to the Anglican Communion without trying to solve its problems.

    If they focus on getting a global leader they will fail to deliver a good leader for us in the Church of England and they will have an impaired Archbishop of Canterbury.

    This is all speculation – let’s see what is announced.

  • The Sovereignty of God and Pastoral Responsibility in Political Turmoil

    Reflections on Privilege, Inequality, and Justice and the Re-election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th President of the United States of America

     

    by Revd Dr Augustine Tanner-Ihm, OMS, Lead Minister of St. Nick’s Kingsway, Manchester

     

    Growing up in the USA, the Pastor would always say, “God is Good, all the time,” and the response was always, “And all the time, God is Good.” This simple but poetic liturgical language was a reminder that God was good all the time. To be honest, we didn’t need to know that because we already had experienced that through the lives of our grand people and uncles and aunties. It was a cornerstone of the Black experience.

    Now as a pastor with much education and theological reflection, I think of the way in church we respond to things when the world is not good all the time.

    The sovereignty of God—a central doctrine affirming that God holds supreme authority over all creation—poses profound theological and pastoral questions, particularly amid politically turbulent times. During election cycles, religious leaders often assure their congregations that “God is in control.” While well-intentioned, these reassurances risk reducing complex theological truths and overlooking the severe impact that political outcomes may have on marginalized communities. In light of God’s sovereignty, pastors must balance their messages carefully, examining how this core tenet of Christian faith intersects with power, privilege, and politics. This reflection explores the importance of approaching the sovereignty of God with a nuanced, biblically-rooted pastoral theology that attends to the challenges of contemporary governance. Using insights from theologians such as Revd Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Cone, Gustavo Gutiérrez, and Tom Wright, this article considers the pastoral responsibility of responding to right-wing governance, particularly in cases where the clergy’s personal privilege may insulate them from the impact of oppressive policies. It also examines how nationalism and authoritarianism threaten the inclusive witness of the Gospel.

     

     Theological Foundations of God’s Sovereignty

    The sovereignty of God, foundational to Christian belief, asserts that God is the ultimate ruler and authority over all things. Scripture emphasizes this from the creation narrative in Genesis to the redemptive arc spanning the Old and New Testaments. Ephesians 1:11 states that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (The Holy Bible, New International Version), underscoring divine authority over human affairs and history. However, the notion of divine sovereignty does not excuse human agency; rather, it reinforces the Christian duty to engage actively in God’s mission through stewardship, justice, and love.

    In his work on the Kingdom of God, Tom Wright argues that God’s reign is not merely a far-off future but a present reality brought near by Jesus’ ministry, inviting believers to participate actively in God’s redemptive work (Wright, 1992). Wright’s theology encourages Christians to resist fatalistic interpretations of divine sovereignty that promote passivity and instead invites them into an active, present-tense engagement with justice and mercy. When pastors appeal to God’s sovereignty amid political outcomes, they should avoid implying that God ordains injustices. As Wright emphasizes, the Kingdom of God is “now and not yet”—a divine reality already breaking into the present, calling believers to reflect God’s justice and compassion (Wright, 2003). This call to action reflects a Kingdom-oriented faith that insists on challenging injustice rather than accepting it passively.

     

    The Pastoral Perils of Simplistic Commentary on Election Outcomes

    Simplistic appeals to God’s sovereignty during times of political instability can hinder rather than empower. While well-meaning, reassurances that “God is in control” may comfort some but seem dismissive to others, particularly to those for whom political shifts directly threaten safety and rights. Pastors must discern how such messages resonate differently across their congregations. James Cone’s Black Liberation Theology warns that the Gospel demands a “preferential option for the poor,” highlighting that Christ’s message is inherently liberative, with a special concern for the oppressed (Cone, 1970). Without careful consideration, pastors may unintentionally obscure or even undermine this liberating aspect of the Gospel.

    The Trump administration’s policies illustrate the impact of right-wing governance on vulnerable communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals. The administration sought to remove legal protections in healthcare, military service, and civil rights, policies that LGBTQ+ advocates describe as discriminatory and harmful (Human Rights Campaign, 2020). To claim God’s sovereignty without a critical reflection on the justice implications of these policies risks trivializing the plight of marginalized groups. Revd Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” reminding Christians that divine sovereignty calls them not into resignation but into action on behalf of the oppressed (King, 1963). For King, God’s sovereignty was not an excuse for passivity but a mandate for prophetic, justice-driven witness.

     

     Privilege, Power, and Pastoral Commentary

    The privilege of some clergy—whether economic stability, heterosexual orientation, or racial identity—can shape political commentary, often without conscious awareness. For pastors relatively insulated from the negative impacts of government policies, there is a responsibility to speak up for the vulnerable. Gustavo Gutiérrez’s liberation theology emphasizes that “theology begins with the reality of suffering” and insists that Christians adopt a “preferential option for the poor” (Gutiérrez, 1973). Gutiérrez’s theology challenges clergy to avoid complacency, encouraging solidarity with marginalized people who may suffer under right-wing or authoritarian regimes. Privilege can distort pastoral perspectives, underscoring the need for critical reflection on social position and an intentional effort to amplify the voices of those most at risk.

    The rise of White Christian Nationalism illustrates this danger starkly. White Christian Nationalism seeks to blend Christianity with nationalist ideology, often privileging certain racial and social groups over others and thus undermining the Gospel’s universal message of love and justice. Such ideologies, while popular in some circles, not only erode the church’s credibility but also distort Jesus’s teachings on compassion and inclusion (Mark 12:31). The Book of Common Prayer reminds the faithful to “pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth” (Church of England, 1662), calling Christians to an inclusive faith that stands in solidarity with the oppressed, rather than aligning with exclusionary structures of power.

     

    Inequality and the Pursuit of Justice

    Inequality within society exacerbates the harm caused by dismissive pastoral commentary. Policies such as those proposed by Project 2025, which aim to advance conservative priorities in the United States, highlight the potential dangers of government decisions that deepen inequalities and reduce support for marginalized communities (Heritage Foundation, 2023). Pastors who invoke divine sovereignty to explain or excuse such policies risk perpetuating systems of oppression rather than challenging them. Proverbs 31:9 urges believers to “speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy,” reinforcing the call to resist structural injustice rather than acquiescing to it.

    Historically, the Christian church has often been complicit in oppressive systems, from colonialism to the Atlantic slave trade. The resurgence of White Christian Nationalism continues this pattern, weaponizing faith to justify exclusionary and harmful policies. Under such ideologies, LGBTQ+ individuals, among others, face increased marginalization. The LGBTQ+ community faces significant challenges under both nationalist and authoritarian regimes, particularly those that exploit faith for exclusionary purposes. For example, policies under Trump’s administration removed federal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in various sectors, creating barriers to healthcare, adoption, and workplace equality (Human Rights Campaign, 2020). White Christian Nationalism distorts the Gospel, promoting a version of Christianity that emphasizes exclusion and division rather than inclusion and love. In contrast, the Gospel’s message affirms the dignity and worth of all people (Galatians 3:28).

     

    Pastoral Response to Right-Wing, Authoritarian Governments

    Pastoral care must engage in prophetic critique, particularly of governments that perpetuate inequality or undermine the rights of marginalized communities. Gustavo Gutiérrez’s liberation theology underscores the church’s duty to challenge systems of injustice. While pastors should avoid aligning too closely with any political party, they are called to uphold values of justice, mercy, and compassion as modelled by Christ. This call may necessitate opposing state policies when these violate the inherent dignity of individuals. Pastoral response must move beyond words to involve tangible actions that support those harmed by discriminatory policies. As the Book of Common Prayer encourages, believers are called to confess their sins—both personal and collective—and seek forgiveness, committing themselves to justice and righteousness.

    The legacy of King, Cone, and Gutiérrez emphasizes that discipleship requires courage and a willingness to stand against injustice, even when such resistance may be unpopular. Their witness reminds today’s church of the Gospel’s call to justice, compelling pastors to engage their communities in resisting structures that dehumanize or marginalize others.

    The Anglican Ordinal outlines the pastoral responsibilities of priests and deacons, particularly emphasizing their call to care for the spiritual and material welfare of all people, especially those who are vulnerable or marginalized. According to the Ordinal, priests are called “to preach the word of God, and to administer the holy Sacraments,” while deacons are entrusted to serve and advocate on behalf of the poor and those in need, living as “a sign of Christ’s servanthood.” In the context of political turmoil or policies that harm the vulnerable, this pastoral role calls both priests and deacons to embody the compassionate, justice-oriented heart of the Gospel. Their charge is not to support the status quo but to challenge injustice with the love and mercy modelled by Christ. By attending to the spiritual needs of their congregation while actively resisting policies that deepen inequality, clergy are reminded that their ordination vows include a commitment to advocate for a just society. In doing so, they fulfil the Ordinal’s call to care for all people, reflecting the Kingdom values of compassion, justice, and inclusivity as embodied in their pastoral vocation.

     

    Conclusion: Toward a Faithful, Justice-Oriented Pastoral Presence

    The doctrine of God’s sovereignty affirms God’s ultimate authority, yet it should not be used to justify passive acceptance of injustice. Instead, it calls Christians to embody God’s justice, compassion, and mercy within a world fraught with sin and inequality. As pastors speak of God’s sovereignty, they must remain mindful of their own privilege, ensuring their message does not unintentionally support unjust political systems.

    The witness of the Gospel compels believers into a life of discipleship that embraces the marginalized and resists oppressive powers. Martin Luther King Jr., James Cone, Gustavo Gutiérrez, and Tom Wright challenge the church to live out a faith that reflects God’s justice, recognizing the sovereignty of God not as a license for passivity but as an invitation to active, justice-driven love for all creation.

  • The Alliance and the Bishop of Oxford

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, a parish priest and convenor of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network. His PhD is on Anglican Missional Ecclesiology and he was the Facilitator for the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion and Director of Continuing Indaba.


    ‘The Alliance’ has written another letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and once again the tone portrays them as the arbiters of orthodoxy. In this letter they make it clear that they will remain within the Anglican Communion while effectively becoming a separate church – a new province – in England.

    They give the impression that it is the Church of England which will be isolated from the theologically uniform Global South, and so from the Anglican Communion itself, while they will be welcomed with open arms. They accuse the Archbishops of Canterbury and York of ‘Western elitism’ in ignoring the views of the Global South and claim they are the ones striving for unity.

    My own bishop – the Bishop of Oxford – has written a response. In it he refers to the consensus at Lambeth 2022 which was to accept different views on sexuality and to walk together. He criticises the Alliance for not mentioning the persecution of LGBTIQ+ people in parts of the world where the [Anglican] church has given its support.

    Replying to Bishop Steven, the Alliance has emphasised its opposition to the persecution of LGBTQIA+ people, but they also make clear their commitment to be in full communion with Provinces at the heart of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) – including provinces such as Nigeria and Uganda which have promoted and rejoiced in laws that have deepened the criminalisation of LGBTQIA+ people and their allies. The members of the Alliance feel compelled to break with those who bless the union of people of the same sex, but not to break communion with those who rejoice that freedom of speech and freedom of association have been removed from those seeking to defend some of the most vulnerable people in their societies. The Alliance says it is ‘deeply concerned about the persecution of LGBTQIA+ people’ and they emphasise that their affirmation of Lambeth I.10 includes a clear repudiation of all homophobia. I don’t doubt their sentiment, but they are still aligning with church leaders who have praised laws that potentially imprison people for even being suspected of being gay.

    The letters from the Alliance frequently talk about the ‘Global South’ representing 75% of Anglicanism. This is an extremely misleading claim. It may be that 75% of Anglicans live in the Global South, but even in one diocese, let alone one parish, there is always diversity. When the Alliance talks about ‘the Global South’ they seem to mean an organisation, GSFA, that according to its leader is defined by doctrine not geography. The GSFA has 8 Anglican member Provinces from a total of 31 provinces with Global South Anglicans. The GSFA has excluded or alienated most of the Global South provinces, and has been a cause of division.

    The Bishop of Oxford is right to point out that, if the Alliance is in partnership with 75% of Anglicans in the socio-economic Global South, then that includes being in partnership with Anglicans who have steadfastly opposed GAFCON and GSFA and with those who are deliberating change. In the terms set by the Alliance, many of them are not ‘orthodox’. The Bishop of Oxford is aware of this because the Diocese of Oxford has a partnership with the Diocese of Kimberley and Kuruman in South Africa, where prayers for those in same sex unions have recently been approved.

    And a further new partnership challenges the charge that the Church of England is failing to listen to Anglicans in the Global South. This week, the Bishop of Oxford announced the launch of a new link with the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands.

    Archbishop Howard Gregory – the Diocesan Bishop of Jamaica and the Archbishop of the West Indies – entered the partnership well aware of the progressive stance of our Bishop and of many in our Diocese. The partnership is for all in both dioceses, not just with those who self-proclaim themselves to be ‘orthodox’. His diocese also has theological diversity and we will find common ground and real challenges. He has chosen to partner his complex diocese with our complex diocese, fully aware of the range of views we have here and the direction of travel under the leadership of our bishop.

    In contrast with the Archbishops of Nigeria and Uganda, Archbishop Howard has followed on from his predecessor – Archbishop John Holder of Barbados – and bravely squared up to the homophobia in West Indian culture and law. Far from being in thrall to ‘Western elites’, the Archbishop is seeking the repeal of the British colonial penal code.

    The place of the West Indies in the story of GSFA is illustrative of power struggles across the Communion. The South to South encounters of the 1990s were intended to enable a post-colonial Anglican voice to emerge, but in the late 1990s some of the leadership partnered with Western conservatives who were seeking support for their opposition to women bishops and a clear stance on human sexuality. Following the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and up to his retirement in 2009, the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, was at the heart of these partnerships. However, his lead role in that organisation alienated him from the bishops in his province. They had their own partnerships with dioceses around the world, including TEC, and they did not necessarily support his views. He was spoken of as ‘representing’ them, but he had no mandate to do so.

    His retirement coincided with the meeting of the ACC in Jamaica in 2009. I was privileged to meet all the bishops from West Indies that week and several of them told me that they had been lobbied by Western conservatives (including one from the Diocese of Oxford) telling them who to elect as their Archbishop so they could preserve continuity with the Global South. By a huge majority they ignored the advice and elected a radical alternative – Bishop John Holder.

    I knew Bishop John well. In 2006 I had just been appointed Facilitator for the Listening Process on Human Sexuality in the Anglican Communion and he sent me a copy of his training manual for all clergy in his diocese. He did so because one of the four sessions was aimed at enabling his clergy to face their homophobia, and change. He was not bowing to any Western elite; it was the conclusion of his deep engagement with Scripture and the result of his deep listening to the experience of LGBTIQ+ people (as mandated in Lambeth I.10).

    When the Bishops of the West Indies chose him as Primate, they did so in order to break with the organisation that the Alliance calls the ‘Global South’ and to ensure that they were part of an Anglican Communion that included TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.

    This pattern was often repeated across the Communion. I saw it in Ghana, Tanzania, Southern Africa and elsewhere and so when the GSFA tried to divide the Bishops at the 2022 Lambeth Conference by encouraging dissent through the signing of a document demanding universal conformity with Lambeth I.10, only a tiny proportion of bishops from the Global South signed up. Not one bishop from the West Indies signed it.

    Calling the GSFA ‘the Global South’ is deliberately confusing. Because it is an organisation that is defined by doctrine not geography, people may be surprised to know that the breakaway Anglican Church in North America is a member! Yet the vast majority of Anglican Provinces in the socio-economic global south are not.

    All this does not mean the partnership between Jamaica and the Cayman Islands and the Diocese of Oxford will be easy. Jamaica has been struck by a deadly hurricane almost immediately after the announcement of the link and this calls for us not only to seek money to help but also to ask hard questions about our responsibility for the environmental crisis engulfing the world. We will also be required to examine our place in the horror of chattel slavery. One of the historic patrons of one of my churches was a slave owner – my guess is that slave-trade related patronage runs deep within our diocese. Effective partnership is going to be uncomfortable for all of us.

    This new partnership indicates that the Anglican Communion has a healthy future. We will need to face difficult conversations with openness, honesty, and humility, but we will benefit from those as we walk with Christ.

  • The Bishops must be Bolder and Braver on Gaza

    by Dr Jonathan Chaplin, a Fellow of Wesley House, Cambridge and a lay member of Ely Diocesan Synod*

    Two weeks ago, Archbishop Welby reversed his earlier refusal to meet prominent Palestinian Christian leader, Revd Dr Munther Isaac, on account of the fact that Isaac had shared a platform with Jeremy Corbyn at a pro-Palestinian rally in London. For the first time, he also used the word ‘condemn’ of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. These are important steps in a much-needed rebalancing of the Church of England’s official stances on the Gazan catastrophe.

    But there is more to do. Since October, the House of Bishops has issued three statements on the war, most recently in February. Coming from the appointed teachers of the established Church, they deserve a respect which must include critical scrutiny. Many elements of these statements are commendable, but they fall short on two fundamental counts.

    First, while the bishops eventually made clear their ‘moral’ disapproval of the Israeli military campaign, they fail explicitly to name Israeli actions as violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.

    At this point there can be no doubt on the matter. As early as late October, a public letter from British lawyers to the UK government – now signed by 1100 – made clear that, even then, there was ample evidence of multiple specific violations of many international laws by the Israeli state. Months later, the extent and severity of these violations has expanded enormously. In January, the International Court of Justice delivered the extraordinary ruling that Israeli actions were ‘plausibly genocidal’, ordering Israel urgently to take all measures to prevent that outcome (which it has ignored).

    The horrifying scale of deaths and injuries has been amply reported, resulting from recklessly disproportionate and indiscriminate Israeli bombardments. Almost all Gazan hospitals are destroyed or dysfunctional. 80% of the population has been displaced and are barely surviving in catastrophically inhumane conditions while still under military assault. Well over 50% of buildings in Gaza have been damaged or flattened, meaning most Gazans will have nowhere to return when the fighting stops. 90% of educational institutions, numerous churches and mosques and irreplaceable cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, and much agricultural land has been rendered useless. Many Gazans now face starvation due to continuing drastic Israeli restrictions on the supply of humanitarian aid – another war crime – and official bodies have reported that children are already dying as a result.

    None of this can remotely be justified under Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, a phrase repeatedly but uncritically invoked by the bishops. As Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, observes, a state cannot invoke this right against a territory that it is belligerently occupying. Israel is not bound by some iron necessity to inflict this level of devastating collective punishment on defenceless Gazans. International law demands that Israel find other ways to protect its citizens against Hamas and retrieve its hostages.

    It is not enough for the bishops merely to express ‘moral’ disapproval of such criminal acts, since this is easily dismissed as a subjective judgment that can be legitimately contested. If what is happening in Gaza is to be truthfully described, these acts must be named as publicly verifiable and culpable breaches of international law.

    Second, the bishops’ statements fail to convey anything like an adequate recognition of the larger historical and political context of sustained Israeli oppression of Palestinians, since at least the 1967 illegal occupation. That complex history is, of course, read through radically different lenses. But there is ample verifiable evidence to support the bishops’ issuing a much fuller acknowledgement of the scale, intensity and recent harsh escalation of Israeli state oppression of Palestinians, which the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem in 2021 named as amounting to ‘apartheid’.

    The House of Bishops urgently needs to speak more bravely into a calamity in which Britain is itself deeply implicated historically. It will thereby send a much more credible message of Christian solidarity to the people of Gaza who have felt abandoned by many western churches.

    *an edited version of a speech in support of Dr Chaplin’s private member’s motion at Ely Diocesan Synod on 9 March 2024, seconded by the Revd James Shakespeare (Rural Dean, Cambridge South). The motion, which was carried narrowly, calls on the House of Bishops to issue a much stronger statement on Gaza that they have so far.

  • The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans – Power and Numbers?

    Canon Dr Phil Groves is a parish priest and convenes the Anglican Peace and Justice Network. His PhD is on Anglican Missional Ecclesiology and he was the Facilitator for the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion and Director of Continuing Indaba. He is Canon of Mpwapwa Cathedral in Tanzania and fluent in Kiswahili. 

    Following the Lambeth Conference, bishops are returning to their dioceses with renewed energy, and an expanded vision as they realise the wonder of being part of a global communion of churches. While the external narrative might be about splits and an obsession with sex, they will tell a different story, barely recognising the conference they attended for the one reported on.

    At Canterbury, the conversations were around being followers of Jesus in a world in crisis. Seminars and private conversations often focused on a world defined by authoritarian and corrupt governments, and climate disaster. The pressures are more acute among the poor, and as our poor face hunger, the poor in the socio-economic global south are facing starvation. Our prophets of justice face ridicule: theirs face death.

    The ‘Lambeth Calls’ focused minds on potential action: especially for indigenous peoples, those still oppressed by the inheritance of slavery, young people facing an uncertain future, those living under threat of persecution for their faith and for standing for oppressed peoples. For a wonderful seminar presentation on justice from an African contributor – please click here.

    However, one group called the ‘Global South Fellowship of Anglicans’ (GSFA), has been driving a divisive message that has distorted the reality of the conference. They claim to speak for those who have historically been marginalised and silenced through the dominance of power in the socio-economic global north. They claim to speak for 75% of Anglicans – an overwhelming majority. These claims are impressive and make them very significant, especially to progressives who are aware of the dangers of racism and the value of democracy.

    But are these claims true? In order to fact check these claims we can look at the GSFA website, which lists 25 Provinces as belonging to, or associated with, the Fellowship. Belonging requires fully signing up to a constitution that relinquishes provincial autonomy in favour of a global ecclesial body. The site no longer says how many are ‘members’ and how many are ‘affiliates’.

    The constitution is clear that, despite its name, the GSFA no longer claims to be defined by ‘geography’: rather, it is increasingly defined by ‘orthodoxy’.[1]

    The Diocese of Sydney and the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) are both listed among the 25 members and affiliates, showing that despite its name it is not exclusively a voice for the socio-economic global south. Also, all members of the secretariat are from the Diocese of Singapore and Singapore is classified as being in the socio-economic global north.

    This means that, rather than being a voice for the complex diversity of Anglicanism in the socio-economic global south, GSFA is claiming to be the voice of ‘orthodoxy’: an orthodoxy defined by a common view over a single key issue. This is reflected in almost every statement issued by the block for the last twenty years. The focus of these statements is on condemning the growing number of Anglican diocese and provinces where LGBTI+ people are included and their relationships celebrated, rather than issues that actually affect people in the socio-economic global south.

    The first thing to note is that only 22 of the members/affiliates are Anglican Communion provinces. In addition to Sydney Diocese (not a province), the ACNA and the Anglican Church in Brazil are breakaway churches. In the Anglican Communion, 31 provinces have all their dioceses in the socio-economic global south with another 4 (Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, Jerusalem and the Middle East, South East Asia, and The Episcopal Church) having dioceses in both global south and global north. For example, TEC’s biggest diocese by numbers is Haiti, the biggest francophone diocese in the Anglican Communion. This means that GSFA claims to speak for 22 of the 35 Anglican Communion provinces with dioceses in the socio-economic global south, not all provinces with dioceses in the global south.

    During the conference, the GSFA-EFAC Lambeth Resource group[2] distributed a letter to bishops asking for them to sign a document to reaffirm Lambeth I.10 and to indicate the number of Anglicans worshipping in their dioceses.

    The voting was monitored by a UK-based accountant and General Synod member, Debbie Buggs. She ‘checked all email reaffirmations to ensure the information was accurately transferred from email to the official record, and that each affirmation recorded has been validated by a relevant Bishop’s Lambeth Conference Pass’. It is not made clear if she ensured that bishops were not supervised as they voted – that is, that they voted without pressure being applied. It is not clear if she validated the numbers of Anglicans declared.

    While this was probably intended as a show of strength, an examination of the result from the press release issued at the conclusion of the process instead brings into question the claim to speak for the 22.

    The reaffirmation was signed by 125 bishops claiming to represent nearly 8 million Anglicans, but the result demonstrates that GSFA neither speaks for the Anglican provinces in the socio-economic global south, nor for a majority of Anglicans globally.

    In their press release, GSFA recognises this, and indicates that they expect bishops from the GAFCON provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda (who stayed away from the Lambeth Conference) to sign up in the future, which would swing the numbers in their direction. This may be the case, but it is not clear that these churches actually support the whole of Lambeth I.10, including the commitment to listening to LGBTI+ experience. The Church of Nigeria, in particular, has made it clear that listening to the experience of ‘homosexual persons’ is at odds with their position. They support the ongoing criminalisation of LGBTI+ people, which they assert is GAFCON policy.

    The Primate of South Sudan, as Chair of the GSFA council, was to the fore in pressing for the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10, and 40.8% of the signatories were from South Sudan (51). The next biggest block comprised IAMA bishops (bishops from the new province of Southern African Lusophone countries).

    The third biggest block vote comprised bishops from TEC (8) – a province not listed as either a member or affiliate. On the other hand, no bishops from 5 provinces that GSFA claims to represent – Bangladesh, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, and West Africa – signed.

    The claim to representation is especially interesting when the Province of South Africa is considered. The pre-Lambeth documents from GSFA include a paper rejecting the ‘Indaba’ model embraced by the design group of the last two Lambeth Conferences. This model was championed by the Primate of Southern Africa, the chair of the design group. GSFA claims to represent Southern Africa in objecting to the Indaba model. Now that we know that it does not have the support of a single Southern African bishop, this appears a hollow claim.

    The number of signatories from Australia (4), Canada (4), England (3), and Ireland (3) was greater than signatories from Burundi (1), Central Africa (3), Kenya (2), and Tanzania (3), all provinces in the socio-economic global south with significant numbers of Anglicans. I had conversations with several bishops in these African provinces who were adamant that GSFA did not speak for them. They asked me who these people were, and said they had no authority to speak for them. I was given access to WhatsApp groups in Kiswahili formed with encouragement to ignore the representations received from GSFA.

    The GSFA does not appear to represent 25 provinces of the Anglican Communion. We can say that it represents one very big one – South Sudan – and some smaller provinces, but not 25. It is a minority group in the global south.

    The next question is whether it represents 75% of Anglicans globally.

    The claim to overwhelming numbers was intended to be reinforced by Bishops being asked to declare the number of Anglicans worshipping in their dioceses. There are two problems with this; firstly, this was not validated and secondly, it is rare for worshipping Anglicans all to support the opinions of their bishop. It is unlikely that all – or even a majority – of the 19,800 Anglicans in the dioceses of the three Church of England Bishops who signed the document agreed with it. While it may be an accurate number, it may not be a useful number.

    The numbers in Tanzania are probably accurate, but again illustrate weakness. The three bishops there claim to have 88,000 worshippers. However, the Diocese of Central Tanganyika on its own has between 700,000 and a million worshippers in just one diocese. The three signing bishops are bishops of very small dioceses.

    This goes to demonstrate just how unreliable numbers are as a way to judge anything: they are a terrible way to judge truth – Jesus would have failed completely! However, what GSFA has shown by its own documents is that it does not represent 75% of Anglicans.

    There are bishops in provinces in the socio-economic global south who support equal marriage. The Province of Brazil has revised its prayer book to welcome same-sex couples. There are dioceses where same-sex unions are blessed. However, they are a minority.

    The clear message of the support for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s carefully worded address was that, although most bishops in most provinces will continue to support Lambeth I.10 in their dioceses and provinces, they are willing to continue in mission with those dioceses and provinces that think differently.

    This is also backed up by what I observed. TEC bishops were planning mission initiatives with African bishops. The South Sudanese bishops were very excited by their invitation to the Diocese of Salisbury.

    And the role of the Bible in all this?

    Archbishop Makgoba has shown that it is the Indaba way that is biblical. He shows that Paul gave local churches such as the church in Corinth the responsibility for cultural integration and dispute transformation. Paul never suggested that conflicts in local churches be referred to the Jerusalem Council. Paul founded a communion of churches, not a single institution. It is a Communion-based global church that images the missiological ecclesiology of Paul.

    In contrast, the GSFA champions a non-biblical approach to conflict resolution based upon Western European understandings where definitive judgements are made by majority in council and imposed on the whole. This way is the way of division. The splintering of the GSFA demonstrated why it must be resisted.

    So where are we?

    No one actually agrees with the whole of Lambeth I.10. They may say they do, but it was a compromise between a desire for a harder line and the sop of the promise of listening. When churches have genuinely listened to LGBTI+ people they have questioned the advice not to bless same gender unions and ordain LGBTI+ people.

    In many countries where Anglicans seek to decriminalise LGBTI+ people, the Lambeth I.10 formula is actually useful to them, because the language of human dignity is better than that of ‘human rights’. The human rights agenda is played as the new colonialism – imposing the will of a powerful Western lobby on the cultural norms of independent nations. The Call to respect human dignity is being seen by some as a call to act for decriminalisation. We should pray for and hope for action here.

    And for the Churches considering the deeper inclusion and celebration of LGBTI+ people? The message should be that the Anglican Communion will not fall apart if they go ahead.

     

     

    [1] Communiqué from the 8th Global South Conference, 2021, Para 10:
    ‘Under this Covenantal Structure, the Global South Fellowship is transitioning from being a grouping based on geography to one based on orthodoxy while appropriately keeping our historical roots.’

    [2] GLOBAL SOUTH ANGLICAN LEADER SETS FOUR PRIORITIES FOR ‘ORTHODOX DELEGATES’ ATTENDING THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE – 7 July 2022 notes: ‘A Resource Group to support Orthodox archbishops/bishops attending the Conference has been set up by the GSFA, and the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion (EFAC).  It comprises Bishop Henry Scriven (Hon. General Secretary EFAC), Bishop Rennis Ponniah (Hon Director, GSFA Executive Secretariat), Bishop Keith Sinclair (National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council), Canon Charles Raven (Director Relay200, The Relay Trust), Rev William Mok (Deputy Director, GSFA Executive Secretariat) and PR Consultant, Revd Paul Eddy.’ Rev William Mok is from Malaysia in the global south, but works in Singapore in the global north.