The Governance of a Global Communion (Jerusalem Declaration 7.2)
Editor’s Note: This is the twelfth in a series of articles by Dr. Stephen Noll, titled “The Jerusalem Declaration: A Personal Commentary.” Dr. Noll draws on decades of experience in the GAFCON movement, especially his role as Secretary of the Statement group that drafted the Jerusalem Declaration and its accompanying Statement.
When the Gafcon Primates announced a Global Anglican Communion of churches committed to the Jerusalem Declaration, it naturally followed that they would order it with the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons.
Sponsored
Clause 7 states:
We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
Jerusalem Declaration, Article 7
One might argue, I think, that this definition implies a fourth order: the laity, “all the people of God.” The Old and New Testaments imply the role of the people of God—the Good Shepherd’s flock, the household of God, the Body of Christ—and the Articles name them as “the congregation of faithful men [and women].” By adding “women” here, I note a change in Anglican polity that emerged from the democratic revolutions after the establishment of the Church of England in Cranmer’s and Hooker’s time.
The History of Synodal Governance
This new form of church government first appeared in the re-formed Episcopal Church in the United States (1787), established by a constitution and canons and governed by a bicameral House of Bishops and House of Deputies, the latter equally divided between clergy and laity. All emerging provinces of the Anglican Communion gradually adopted this pattern, and since 1970, even the Church of England has had a General Synod. This modern governance is often called “episcopally-led and synodically-governed,” with bishops overseeing doctrine and worship and representative synods handling institutional organization, policy, and finances.
Anglican Communion governance evolved somewhat differently. The two original “instruments” of communion were exclusively episcopal: the Archbishop of Canterbury convened the Lambeth Conference of bishops in 1867. Although the Lambeth Conference has the form of the early church’s ecumenical councils, from its inception the “conference” has abjured legislative authority and relied on non-binding Resolutions. This ethos of tea-party rule worked more or less adequately until 1998, when the Conference passed a resolution touching on biblical authority and fundamental doctrine, which two “autonomous” provinces chose to defy and violate. When the Primates pressed Rowan Williams to refuse them invitations to the next Lambeth Conference, he rejected their appeal and announced that Lambeth 2008 would proceed exclusively by conversation (indaba).
The period between these Lambeth Conferences revealed another aspect of modern politics: the dominance of elite bureaucracies over constitutional assemblies. Bureaucratic centralization, whether through hard power or soft power, marks our age, as does the adage “he who holds the purse strings holds the power.” In a study of Anglican Communion governance published for GAFCON II in Nairobi, I concluded that true power in the Communion resided in an executive bureaucracy under the aegis of the Anglican Communion Office, which controlled the agenda and funding of the “Instruments.”
A Constitutional Framework for the Global Anglican Communion
Any polity requires a “constitution,” whether formal or informal. The Gafcon movement has taken important first steps in articulating its reason for being and first principles in the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. Understandably, the Jerusalem Statement has only a brief section establishing the Primates’ Council; since then, various other bodies have evolved, e.g., Advisors, Guarantors, General Secretary, Trustees, Regional Secretaries, Branch Chairs, Network Leaders, and Secretariat. Some are constitutional; others are advisory and administrative. As the Global Anglican Communion matures, it needs a more detailed and transparent account of its governance framework.
Below, I attempt to offer a “political” principle and elements of an emerging constitution of the Global Anglican Communion. Many elements reflect the Abuja Statement and fit the flow of previous Gafcon statements. Without proposing specific phrasing, the italicized comments suggest ways to strengthen this constitution.
Constitutional Identity: A Communion of Confessing Anglican Churches
The founding provinces of Gafcon and such additional provinces as the Global Anglican Council admits constitute the Global Anglican Communion. It is a fellowship of autonomous provinces* subscribing to the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON 2008 and committed to extending the Gospel of the Kingdom to the ends of the earth.
- It seems to me that “self-governing provinces” would be preferable. The term “self-governing” has a respected place in mission history (“self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating”), whereas “autonomous” is reminiscent of the failed Canterbury-based Anglican Communion.
Governing Principle: Primatially-Led and Conciliarly-Governed
The phrase “episcopally led and synodically governed” commonly appears today in church governance and in the constitutions and canons of contemporary Anglican churches. The phrase “primatially led and conciliarly governed” may better describe a communion of churches in which primates lead the chief provincial jurisdictions, and subsidiary structures operate by “advice and consent.”
- Gafcon has been ordered by its Primates Meeting from the beginning. Gafcon governance is thus “conciliar,” practiced through a consultative means of deliberation, whereas provinces and dioceses are governed “synodically” through constitutions and canons.
Governing and Consultative Bodies
Global Anglican Council
The Global Anglican Council governs the Global Anglican Communion, represented by Primates of its Provinces along with representatives of other non-provincial Branches. The Council will deliberate in the fashion of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), with the advice and consent of provincial representatives and theological advisors.
- In my view, the Council is not the right place to seek “diversity” of membership. That can be accomplished in the Panel of Advisors, chosen by each Province or Branch. However, recognized “Branches” are essentially provinces-in-formation and can be represented in the Council by their heads.
Panel of Advisors
[A] Panel of Advisors, comprising bishops, clergy and lay representatives from each Gafcon Province and Branch, provides counsel and advice to the Primates Council and includes elected representatives (bishops, clergy, laity) of each province or branch, elected by local synod.
- This quotation and recommendation come from “The Letter to the Churches” of GAFCON III. It was never implemented, possibly because it included the term “synodical council” (now omitted), which suggested that the Panel was a legislative body alongside the Primates. A Panel of Advisors provides the Global Anglican Council with an additional resource for its deliberations. It also allows for a diversity of clergy and laity, men and women, involved in various levels of subsidiary leadership. It strengthens the link between the Primates and their provincial synods in communicating with local churches.
Assembly
The Assembly, with representatives of every member body of the Global Anglican Communion, meets every five years for teaching and fellowship and to ratify major decisions and initiatives of the Global Anglican Council.
- This is, I believe, the current understanding of Gafcon governance, in which the Assembly approves Communiqués by voice vote.
Theological Commission
The Theological Commission, representing the various constituencies of the Communion, defends and expounds the Jerusalem Declaration and advises the Council on matters of doctrine, discipline and worship.
- At G25, Abp. Mbanda called for the re-establishment of a Gafcon Theological Commission. Such an entity has a continuous history. A Theological Resource Team (2008-2012), of which I was a member, developed and expounded the Jerusalem Declaration. A second Theological Commission was formed in 2013 with representatives from each Gafcon Province (I represented ACNA). I served as Convener of a Task Force on Women in the Episcopate (2015-2020). Currently, the Theological Educators Network coordinates work with Anglican theological colleges.
General Secretary
The General Secretary is the chief executive officer, serving the entire Communion and reporting to the Council.
- The Secretariat needs adequate staff to carry out the variety of initiatives of a Global Anglican Communion. While noting the danger of bureaucratic bloat, the Secretariat has, to date, had too little staff and funding.
Church Discipline
Biblically and historically, we would be naïve to imagine that no serious controversy will arise among members of the Global Anglican Communion. Sadly, certain member churches may swerve from biblical orthodoxy. Clause 13 recognizes this possibility but sets out no specific disciplinary procedure. A resource exists in this regard. In 2000, Archbishops Gomez and Sinclair presented a careful, step-by-step proposal titled To Mend the Net (see “The Proposal” on pages 9-15) to the Primates’ Meeting. Archbishop George Carey “deep-sixed” the proposal, an early sign that Canterbury was unserious about disciplining heresy. I think “To Mend the Net” merits attention as a safeguard for the future of the Global Anglican Communion.
Thickening the Global Anglican Constituency
The bare bones of a constitution do not suffice to form a political culture. The Established Church in England had several starts and stops, as noted in Part 1. At the local level, reform often did not seep down, with various holdovers of indigenous festivals, not to mention plain indifference to church life. I have seen the same feature in Africa, where nominal Anglicans resort to local healers and have “customary wives,” while others attend “miracle churches” and appear at their parish church only when the bishop visits.
After GAFCON IV in Kigali, I highlighted the need for thickening the constituency in an article titled, somewhat provocatively, “Indigenizing Global Anglicanism: Resetting the Anglican Communion.” Indigenization, I argued, involves fostering a new culture at every level of the church. I used the image of a church signboard with descending attachments identifying the parish, the diocese, the province, and the Global Anglican Communion. I argued,
[E]very member of the Global Anglican Communion should have an awareness of and rejoice in being part of a biblically orthodox, catholic, and apostolic church, for which they pray and thank God.
Coming now to the purse-strings, how will the Global Anglican Communion finance itself? To date, Gafcon has, in my impression, largely relied on financing from wealthy individuals and churches. Grateful as we should be for this startup funding, it is not the biblical way for a church or a communion of churches to operate. The biblical tithe concerns not so much the amount or percentage of support as the call for each constituent to participate and have a share in the good of the whole. Clearly, great discrepancies of wealth exist among Gafcon provinces, but as we know from Jesus’ teaching, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21), which includes the rich man and the widow.
Quickening the Body of Christ
Finally, a church body’s structure is nothing more than a skeleton without the quickening of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we find the language of clause 7 rooted in St. Paul’s vision of ministry
for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
Ephesians 4:12-16
Equally, we respond to the work of the Spirit through prayer, thanksgiving, and praise. Every Gafcon assembly has been suffused with prayer and praise. I would urge global Anglicans to take a step forward and include the Global Anglican Communion specifically in your regular prayer for the church, as in this example for World Mission Sunday:
O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on your whole Church [and most especially the global Anglican communion of churches], that wonderful and sacred mystery; by the effectual working of your providence, carry out in tranquility the plan of salvation; let the whole world see and know that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new, and that all things are being brought to their perfection by him through whom all things were made, your Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Book of Common Prayer (2019), page 646
Image: Scripture Study at GAFCON 2008, by Peter Frank. Used with permission. Digital editing by Jacob Davis.
Published on
Explaining Abuja: What Is the Global Anglican Communion?
On March 7, 2026, Gafcon’s G26 Conference concluded with the release of The Abuja Affirmation. This lengthy communiqué declared the failure of the Anglican Communion’s existing instruments of unity and outlined a proposed remedy.
The Global Anglican Communion: From Canterbury to Jerusalem
Someone may ask: “Hasn’t the Anglican Communion been around for a long, long time?” This depends on what you consider a long time and how you define the Anglican Communion.
