In December 2024, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) offered a new take on the divisions within the Anglican Communion. The IASCUFO Nairobi-Cairo (2024) proposals are the official statements of the Canterbury-led and TEC-funded Anglican Communion. These IASCUFO proposals call for a “reset” of the Anglican Communion on the basis of mutual loyalty to a common faith, doctrine, and order. So far so good. But in the process they proposed significant amendments to Resolution 49 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference, which describes the requirements for following Jesus in the Anglican way and therefore membership within the Anglican Communion. It is these changes proposed by the IASCUFO Nairobi-Cairo (2024) proposals that simply fail to bring about the Communion—much less “the highest level of communion possible”—within the global communion of Anglican Churches on the basis of a mutual loyalty to biblical and apostolic faith and order.

By contrast, and with the exception of being in communion with the see of Canterbury, you can find this mutual loyalty to doctrine, faith, and order among Anglicans in Sections 1 and 3 of the Cairo-Covenant (2019) Covenantal Structures of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA). Section 1 of the GSFA Covenantal Structures recites the historic Anglican Formularies to which all members must ascribe, and Section 3 describes both the benefits of a covenanted-conciliar Communion in which all member churches (regardless of their relationship with Canterbury) participate in fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:16-20). Section 3 also provides a Faith and Order Commission of member bishops who have ratified the Cairo-Covenant, and in whose sacred authority the discernment of faith and order rests, based on the authority of Scripture and with reference to the teaching or “mind” (the consensus fidelium) of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church across time. This is what ensures full and genuine Communion, as defined in Section 3.6.[1]

But Section 3 also defines what will happen to member churches if they forsake their mutual loyalty to the Doctrine, Faith, and Order—namely, removal from the Communion of Anglican churches that ratified the Doctrinal Foundations of that “full communion” that members of the GSFA Cairo Covenant enjoy[2]. It is this very discipline under the Cairo Covenant that finally addressed the fatal “ecclesial deficit” that tore the fabric of the Anglican Communion, and continues to tear it apart, from false teaching and practice regarding human sexuality, marriage, and leadership in the Church that spread over the last 20 years– from The Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA to other Anglican churches all over the world.

To their credit, IASCUFO Nairobi-Cairo (2024) proposals include some primates who sit on the GSFA Primates Council. To their credit, IASCUFO commends the Covenantal Structure of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (Cairo Covenant) as a legitimate attempt, through common counsel, at greater coherence in doctrinal and ethical truth (Nairobi Proposals, sec. 56).  Like the GSFA Covenantal Structures, the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals include broadened participation in the governing structures among all members of the Communion, including a rotating presidency that is not located in the See of Canterbury and an enhanced role for the primates meeting. Moreover, the removal of the requirement of communion with the See of Canterbury as essential to membership mirrors the same removal of this requirement for membership in the Cairo Covenant.[3] What this means is that churches that have not been recognized by Canterbury[4]may conceivably be admitted to the current Canterbury-led and TEC-funded Anglican Communion.

But why would any of us want to be included in a Communion of Anglican Churches that are held together by conversations rather than a common faith, order, and mission? 

You see, this is where the IASCUFO proposals fall woefully short, for the following reasons:

First, the IASCUFO Proposals embrace the belief that “walking together,” even at a distance in the midst of irreconcilable differences on essentials of faith and order, can somehow hold us together. I am referring to the differences over matters of human sexuality, marriage, and church leadership that the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to allow even to be considered at Lambeth 2022 when he tabled the GSFA’s request for debate on Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998). Looking at sections 41-43 of the IASCUFO proposals you will find the same embrace of pluriform truth on fundamental biblical doctrines of creation, marriage, and human sexuality that divided us for over 50 years. In the face of the clarity and authority of God’s word on these differences, the IASCUFO Proposals demonstrate the same reckless interpretation of Scripture to justify same-sex marriage, leadership in the Church, and even the procreation and nurture of children in the knowledge and love of the LORD with these words:

“For others, the refusal of the Church to bless committed same-sex relationships perpetrates an unholy offence against the love of Christ and a rejection of persons made in God’s image, whose natural affections are understood to be innate rather than chosen. The sin described here is against charity, the more when committed same-sex relationships reflect some of the goods of marriage, such as faithfulness in mutual support, companionship, and the nurturing, if not begetting, of children…” (Sec. 42)

This relentless refusal to come to grips with what the Scriptures have to say about God’s creation and his creative intent, including the dignity of all people on the basis of our being created in the image of God, as well as the twisting of “love” into unconditional acceptance without repentance and amendment of life[5] makes it impossible for us to walk together. Period. There is no way to reconcile these interpretations of Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Two close friends put it this way, in light of the “Living in Love and Faith (LLF)” prayers championed by many bishops of the Church of England to bless same-sex partnerships within the Church:

“In essence, the key issue is whether LLF and the twisted anthropology within it are a matter of apostolic significance. If it is such a first order matter, we cannot walk together. As the bishop in charge of LLF put it, ‘if there are those who feel this really doesn’t work then there’s not a lot I can do about that.’ The language being used is that if we can’t agree to disagree, then we are like the rest of the world, choosing to go our own way – and that is the lie, surely, for it is exactly that we aren’t choosing to go our own way, but rather to stay true to God’s ways of being male and female and the sexual beings He created us to be.” (emphasis added)

Secondly, in the face of this impasse, the IASCUFO Proposals continue to state that “this is no counsel for despair” (sec 43) by abandoning the classic definition of Full Communion and exchanging in its place all members “seeking interdependently to foster the highest degree of Communion possible with each other.” (Sec. 76)[6]

And what is the cost of reformulating “Anglican communion” in this way?

One need only look at the track changes offered by IASCUFO in amending Lambeth 1930 Resolution 49, until now “the mind of the Church” on what it means to follow Christ in the Anglican way. Here is the summary, from the Appendix to the IASCUFO Proposals, “Updated Description of the Anglican Communion,” on page 42:

• Removes “in communion with the See of Canterbury,” as a condition for membership in the Anglican Communion. This is a welcome concession to the reality that majority Churches in the Anglican Communion such as Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda and others removed that phrase from their own Constitutions long ago due to the failure of the See of Canterbury to discipline false teaching.
• Changed the requirement of membership from “Uphold[ing] and propagate[ing] the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer,” to “seek to uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order” of the Church. This change makes faithfulness to biblical and catholic faith and order a purely subjective rather than objective standard.
• Substituted the word autonomous for “national” as a description for the Churches of the Anglican Communion. Despite all the language in the IASCUFO Proposals regarding interdependence and mutual respect in conversations, if not practice among the churches, the bottom line is that each member church is autonomous—meaning each church can ultimately do whatever it wants with impunity.
• Removes the phrase mutual loyalty to the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Church. In its place it declares that the Communion of Anglican churches are “bound together” by characteristics other than catholic and apostolic faith and order. Those characteristics include “their shared inheritance, mutual service, common counsel of bishops, and others in conference and historic connection with the See of Canterbury, by which they seek interdependently to foster the highest degree of Communion possible with one another.”

And therein lies the rub. “Common counsel” without mutual loyalty to catholic and apostolic faith, in the context of autonomy and merely seeking to propagate such faith and order means that the Churches of the Anglican Communion will be held together merely by conversation without any greater commitment to each other. This is an impoverished aspiration which falls short of the recovery of full communion that the GSFA Cairo Covenant embraces, with genuine interdependence, and both mutual loyalty and mutual accountability to the biblical and apostolic faith and order of the Church. The future of the Anglican Communion depends on this, as does the majority of GAFCON and GSFA Anglicans. May others follow in their footsteps and join in the structures that have already been established to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Full Communion: ‘Full communion’ means each Church believes the other to hold the essentials of the Christian faith. Consequently: (a) subject to such safeguards as ecclesiastical discipline may properly require, members of one body may receive the sacraments of the other; (b) subject to local invitation, bishops of one Church may take part in the consecration of the bishops of the other, thus acknowledging the duty of mutual care and concern; (c) subject to church regulation, a bishop, pastor/priest or deacon of one Church may exercise liturgical functions in a congregation of the other body if invited to do so and also, when requested, pastoral care of the others members; (d) it is also necessary and complementary that there should be recognized organs of regular consultation and communication, including episcopal collegiality, to express and strengthen the fellowship and enable common witness, life and service. NB: This definition of Full Communion was first formulated by the Bonn Agreement (1930).

[2] 3.1.4 Termination of Membership When a member diocese, province or regional Church chooses no longer to accept the Doctrinal Foundation of the GSFA as expressed in Section 1, or is found to have violated in its teaching and practice the Doctrinal Foundation, it may voluntarily withdraw or be suspended or removed from the GSFA by decision of the Board and the Primates Council.

[3] 3.1.2 Admission to Membership a) Any duly constituted diocese, province or regional Church from the Anglican Communion, and any otherwise duly constituted diocese, province or regional Church recognized as such by the GSFA, may apply in writing to the Board of the Assembly. b) The application shall include acceptance of the Doctrinal Foundation of the GSFA as expressed in the Fundamental Declarations and Relational Commitments (Sections 1 and 2), as well as a statement that the Fundamental Declarations of the diocese, province or regional Church applying are not inconsistent with the Doctrinal Foundation of the GSFA.

[4] This could include those churches recognized and authenticated by the majority GAFCON and/or GSFA churches—including the Anglican Church in North America, The Iglesia Anglican no Brasil (IAB), the Anglican Network in Europe and the Confessing Anglican Church in New Zealand.

[5] Note Jesus’ mercy, love toward and defense of the woman caught in adultery, with his loving call to “go and sin no more.” (John 8:2-11)

[6] (Proposed) Statement of the nature and status of the Anglican Communion, as that term is used in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council. The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches, which have the following characteristics in common: a. they seek to uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their distinct Churches; b. they are autonomous, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a local expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and c. they are bound together through their shared inheritance, mutual service, common counsel (of bishops and others) in conference, and historic connection with the See of Canterbury, by which they seek interdependently to foster the highest degree of communion possible one with another.