The theologian Paul Avis, in his handbook for those becoming bishops in the Anglican Communion, makes scarcely any reference throughout the course of the treatise to any distinction between a diocesan and a non-diocesan bishop. At one level this is refreshing, eschewing as it does any notion of a hierarchy within the order of bishops. However, on another level it is somewhat odd, for so much of the episcopal polity and praxis articulated throughout assumes the reader is ‘becoming’ a diocesan bishop, and is, consequently, at times irrelevant to those who are ‘becoming’ a bishop in an assisting role.

In December 2021, the Episcopal Standards Board of the Anglican Church of Australia (the Board) was satisfied that Bishop Roger Herft, the former Bishop of Newcastle between 1993 and 2005, was unfit to remain in holy orders and determined that he be deposed from the exercise of holy orders (the Board Determination). This decision is significant because it is the first occasion in the Anglican Communion on which a senior church leader has had the most severe sanction of deposition from the exercise of holy orders imposed for their inaction in response to allegations of abuse. The context for this decision has been one of allegations of abuse made against church leaders and the concealment of these allegations by senior church leaders in contravention of the statutory requirement to report the allegations to government authorities. There has also been the public scrutiny through government inquiries of the response of churches and their leaders to child abuse.

The process of creating a Safe and Inclusive Church (SIC) Commission within the Anglican Church of the Province of SouthernAfrica (ACSA) is not unique in the Communion. This article seeks to explore ACSA’s specific journey to date, with a view to engaging the Communion in a learning partnership. While some of the process of establishing this ministry may be unique, there are places of commonality as we jointly grapple with the call of our Lord Jesus to continue to build the Kingdom of God in contemporary times. Most specifically, this process has highlighted a need for renewal of the Church in both our theological understanding and how we organize to best serve our call to preach the Good News. These theological and structural dimensions of ‘doing church’ speak deeply into our ‘being church’ and are at the heart of why dialogue is needed as a Communion. We offer this article as an invitation to continue discerning together how best to follow and serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by being His Body to a broken and wounded world.

This article tells the story of initiatives of the Instruments of Communion to enhance the safety of all persons within the Anglican Communion over the past three decades. These Initiatives have taken place against the backdrop of the significant evidence that has come to light in recent years of abuse being perpetrated by clergy and lay leaders against children, young people and vulnerable adults in the provinces. It describes the actions of the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the work of the Anglican Communion Safe Church Commission.

Informed by theories of biopolitics and necropolitics, I argue that Christian orthodoxy is a colonial power formation that manufactures the subjectivities of those within the Church and those without. The operation of biopolitics and necropolitics coalesces around two Christian bodies – the local body and the corporate body catholic – and is thus explicable according to the synthetic framework of ‘body politics.’ Within the body-political calculus, orthodox Christians qualify as genuine lives and, consequently, benefit from biopolitical interventions to promote their flourishing; heretics, by contrast, represent (non-)subjects whose bodies orthodoxy/colonialism consigns to destruction. As a case study to illustrate the import of my theoretical analysis for ecclesiological reflection, I examine the rhetoric of the leaders of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), who, despite presenting their movement as a decolonial project, espouse a body-political theology and, therefore, remain firmly within the matrix of Christian colonial orthodoxy.

Though Anglican theologians, clergy, and laypeople have written and spoken extensively about the current status of the Anglican Communion, the conceptualization and practice of conflict has itself remained largely unexamined. This essay argues for the necessity of a better theology of conflict, one rooted in a Trinitarian account of unity through difference. It shows that Anglicans have tended to think of conflict-as-sin or conflict-as-finitude. The essay commends a semantic shift that develops conflict-as-communion. Conflict is a means of grace that animates the divine life of the Trinity, enables God’s work of salvation in history, and is a natural part of good human sociality. This theology of conflict can allow generative relational practices, some of which are already in use across the Anglican Communion.

In face of uncertainty about the Anglican Communion’s future, this article attempts to rearticulate a vision of Anglicanism’s vocation in terms of its incompleteness and provisionality. Drawing from the thought of Michael Ramsey, Ephraim Radner and Paul Avis, I suggest that Anglicanism’s vocation, like that of any church, is to disappear. At the same time, it is a vocation tempered by the knowledge that, even in its incompleteness and provisionality, Anglicanism has a pastoral responsibility to provide care for the Christians within the Communion. Finally, this is a penitent vocation, and one which is held out as an invitation to all Christian churches.

This article offers a new narrative to reflect on Anglican ecclesiology through the lens of theological and cultural ‘mestizaje’. At a time of increasing signs of fragmentation in the world and the church (including the Anglican Communion), this study affirms elements that have been present in historic Anglicanism and contemporary Anglican praxis: the value of intercultural relations, dialogical processes and theological humility. While recognizing the challenges, complexity and limitations of the Anglican mestizo model, it asserts its intrinsic value as a source of ecclesial koinonia.

In recent years the Five Marks of Mission have become the latest in a long series of mission ‘slogans’ in the Anglican Communion, but little attention has been paid to their origin or theological presuppositions. This paper traces the development of an Anglican definition of mission from the 1984 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, at which a four-fold definition was first put forth, to the present use of the Five Marks of Mission across many parts of the Communion. The strong influence of evangelical mission thinking on this definition is demonstrated, as is the contributions from African Anglican bishops. Anglican mission thinking has shifted from emphasizing pragmatism and coordination to providing a vision for the Communion to live into. Mission thinking has been a site of genuine cross-cultural interchange among Anglicans from diverse backgrounds.

Africa is not only a geographical region but an idea which Westerners, including modern Anglicans, have used ‘to think with’. This includes how accounts of recent Christian growth and decline used by Westerners and Africans alike, and which may require nuance in themselves, have been used questionably in debates about other issues. The real diversity of African Anglican thought and experience offers more complex and enriching possibilities, and should be engaged more directly and fully.

The 2014 publication of the Episcopal Church’s resource for daily prayer, Daily Prayer for All Seasons, invites reflection on recent developments in provision for everyday services around the Anglican Communion. Not only is the new resource considerably different from the material it complements in the Book of Common Prayer 1979, it also represents a departure from a certain commonality that has emerged in material from around the Communion since 1979. While this article does not map those developments in detail, it does chart some of the shifts occurring in various provinces and relates that survey to current discussions about ‘Anglican identity and liturgical diversity’. The article serves both as an introduction to Daily Prayer for All Seasons and as a wider reflection on Anglican forms of everyday services in the period from 1979–2014.

In recent decades Anglicans have developed a largely unquestioned and unchallenged narrative of global growth and decline. This narrative tells a story of Anglicanism’s success being largely due to growth in developing, postcolonial nations which, according to the narrators, is ongoing and unstoppable. At the same time, first-world, mostly postmodern nations have seen a steep decline in church membership and attendance. Numeric growth and strength have been used to define ecclesial identity and to legitimate understandings of ‘Anglican orthodoxy’. This article offers an up-to-date reappraisal of Anglican Communion membership and, in that process, challenges many of the premises of such a narrative.

Each Archbishop of Canterbury has a distinctive style of leadership. To some extent, this will always be shaped and framed by prevalent contemporary cultures of leadership that are to be found within wider society. The paper examines and questions some aspects in the development of the current Archbishop of Canterbury's role. It argues that the combination of a certain kind of charismatic leadership, coupled to enhanced managerial organization, may be preventing the prospect of theological acuity and spiritual wisdom playing a more significant role in the continual formation of ecclesial polity in the Church of England, and across the wider Anglican Communion.

How can we explain the fact that the Anglican Covenant divides people of equal integrity and comparable wisdom around the world? We need to ask whether we have correctly understood both the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion and the terms of the Covenant. What is implied in being a Communion of Churches, where the churches are the subjects of the relationship of communion (koinonia)? What does the Covenant commit its signatories to and, in particular, what does it say about doctrinal and ethical criteria for communion? Is it legitimate to apply biblical covenant language, in which the covenant relationship is between God and Israel, to relations between churches? By addressing some of the concerns of those who oppose it, a case is made in favour of the Covenant and some reassurances are offered. In conclusion, the mystical dimension of being in communion is affirmed.

The origins of the term consensus fidelium lie in the rhetorical tropes of pagans who exhorted unity between friends and within cities – tropes supporting the hierarchy of imperial elites. The earliest Christians adapted this language for the same purpose within churches: to speak of unity and lay involvement in support of Church hierarchy. After the Reformation, Church of England writers used this rhetoric to enforce conformity to church polity and morality. The Tractarians and their successors employed a rhetorical ‘voice of the laity’ as a bolster for episcopal power. While the early twentieth century saw some in the Church of England and Anglican Communion use this same rhetoric to bring the laity into actual decision-making processes, the rhetoric of recent statements by the Communion has left power firmly with bishops.

The Anglican Communion has developed ‘Instruments of Communion’ to aid communication and sharing of wisdom throughout the Communion. When the Archbishop of Canterbury invited bishops from the Communion to attend a meeting at Lambeth in 1867 to consult and seek common counsel for the good order and care of the churches of the emerging Anglican Communion the first of the Lambeth Conferences took place. In more recent decades the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ Meeting have developed to enable the bishops, clergy and lay people of the worldwide Anglican Communion to listen to one another, share their life and join in common mission. In recent years these four elements in international Anglicanism – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting – have become known as Instruments of Unity or Communion. Tensions and fractures in the Communion have raised questions about the value or use of the so-called Instruments of Unity.This article analyses the concept of ‘Instrument’ and assesses its value for understanding the nature of the Anglican Communion. It argues that the Instruments have a gift-like character and function in a quasi sacramental manner. As such they are indwelt rather than used in a tool like way. This approach to the Instruments of Communion gives high priority to the character and disposition of human agents participating in Communion structures and the importance of fostering a deeper communion among the Instruments for the sake of the Church and its witness to the gospel.

In the last several decades, the religious landscape in Nigeria has been transformed by the rise of neo-Pentecostal or ‘new generation’ churches. These churches teach a gospel of prosperity, advance an oppositional view of the world, focus on a supernatural arena of spiritual forces, accord a unique weight to the Bible, and practice a charismatic worship style. One result of the presence of these churches has been to change the face of Anglicanism in Nigeria. Concerned about the possibility of diminished influence and prestige, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has responded to neo-Pentecostal churches by adopting more of its rivals’ beliefs and practices. This paper argues that this changing environment explains, in part, Nigerian opposition to efforts at global Anglican unity and argues that it is impossible to address the future of the Anglican Communion without first understanding the on-the-ground religious context in Nigeria.

As ecumenical understanding of the formation and development of episkopé has emphasized, there are different ways of structuring episkopé collegially, synodically and personally, each with its own theological basis, strength and weakness. This article argues that the proposed Anglican Covenant assumes a normative understanding of the nature and role of the bishop which carries the danger of a kind of ‘puritanism’ in which the focus and energy of the churches in the Anglican Communion are narrowly focused, creating a bureaucratic form of governance that vitiates the mission of the church.

This article aims to identify the significance of George Augustus Selwyn, the first Bishop of New Zealand, for the development of the Anglican Communion. It is based on evidence derived from secondary sources, most obviously the two-volume life of Selwyn written shortly after his death by his former chaplain, and on recent studies of the development of the Anglican Communion, especially the development of provincial synodical government in Australasia, and on the constitution of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

The article concludes that Selwyn had ideal qualities and experiences to enable him to achieve a constitution for a new Anglican province independent of the state, and with self-government, including elected representatives of laity and clergy, as well as bishops meeting together. His commitment to creating a constitutional framework for the dioceses and provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church, enabled a second Lambeth Conference to happen.