(Opinion) In the wake of the historic schism that has fractured the worldwide Anglican Communion, lazy and ignorant narratives have already begun to emerge. The secular media and even some progressive Christian outlets would have you believe this is a simple story of progress versus bigotry—a misogynistic, homophobic, and unenlightened conclave of Global South bishops mostly from the African continent breaking away because a woman was put in charge.
This narrative is not only wrong; it’s an insult, deeply rooted in racism and white progressive paternalism, to the 75 to 85 million Anglicans who just declared their independence from the Church of England’s failed leadership.
No, the issue is not that a woman was elected Archbishop. The truth is far more damning.
This schism isn’t primarily about gender or sexuality.
It’s about decades of cowardice, fecklessness, and theological colonialism from the See of Canterbury, the historic seat of the Anglican Communion’s “first among equals,” which has repeatedly sent the message: your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is irrelevant, not as enlightened as ours, or, worse, abusive and backward.
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “Gods of the Smoke Machine” by Scott Latta, click here.
It’s Not About Women in Holy Orders
Let’s dismantle the first lie: that this was a rejection of female leadership.
While some GAFCON-aligned provinces do not ordain women to the episcopacy, many do. In fact, the Anglican Church of Kenya, a major GAFCON province, consecrated the Right Reverend Dr. Emily Onyango as a bishop in 2021. While GAFCON’s leadership did issue a letter expressing “regret” that this broke a moratorium, the consecration happened and Kenya remains a core member.
The issue with Archbishop-elect Sarah Mullally was never her gender; it was her theology.
Had the Church of England elevated a conservative or traditionalist woman (like Jill Duff, the respected Bishop of Lancaster), GAFCON and GSFA bishops would have at least been open to dialogue. Instead, Canterbury chose a self-described pro-choice feminist and the chief architect of the divisive same-sex blessing liturgies. Indeed, Mullally’s regrettable appointment is the final, unambiguous sign that it had abandoned biblical authority.
What did the Anglican Communion leadership think was going to happen? Truly, the Church of England never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity!
It’s Not About “The Gays”
A similarly simplistic charge is that of homophobia. For over a quarter-century, the standard for the entire Anglican Communion was Lambeth Resolution I.10 from 1998, which upholds the historic definition of marriage and does not permit the blessing of same-sex unions. The same resolution also calls for compassion and love for LGBTQ+ persons and condemns discrimination and prejudice against them. But it is the Church of England, not the Global South, that has abandoned the consensus.
To understand the Global South’s position, particularly in Africa, one must look past Western cultural lenses and into history. In Uganda, for instance, the church was forged in the blood of martyrs who were executed for refusing the homosexual advances of a pagan king.
It is a profound historical ignorance to equate their theological descendants’ stance with mere bigotry.
Does this mean GAFCON is without its own issues? No.
Inhumane laws against LGBTQ+ people in some member countries are a serious problem. But this often stems from a worldview that lacks the modern Western category of “sexual orientation,” viewing homosexual practice, not identity, as the primary issue.
The West’s failure to seek to understand this different framework is a failure of its own.
Church of England: What is it Good For?
This brings us to the real sickness that killed the Anglican Communion: the impotence of its leadership.
As my bishop and I argued in Baptist News Global two years ago, the Church of England’s compromise on same-sex blessings was a “disastrous” and “lose-lose position for everyone.” It has left orthodox and compassionate non-affirming believers, like the Communion Partners in The Episcopal Church, isolated while failing to satisfy progressive activists.
By refusing to admit that two contradictory positions on sexual ethics cannot both be true, the Church of England abandoned not only Scripture and tradition, but basic reason.
For decades, the Church of England has treated the Global South not as partners, but as a colonial outpost. While church attendance in England plummeted, the faith exploded across Africa and Asia. Yet, instead of listening, Canterbury chose to placate a dying, progressive institution at home.
This paternalism is now financial. As Global South provinces have stood their ground, they have been met with a progressive chorus of “good riddance,” with the implicit threat of cutting off the English money on which many of them rely. That is not communion; it’s coercion.
Archbishop Mullally’s election was the final act of this theological colonialism. It was a declaration that the faith, the numbers, and the concerns of the global majority meant nothing.
This wasn’t a schism born of hate. It was a long-overdue divorce from a parent church that has become, in its cowardice, worthless.
David Bumgardner is a writer, theologian, and educator living in Columbus, Ohio.
English 
Spanish 
10 Responses
” the church was forged in the blood of martyrs who were executed for refusing the homosexual advances of a pagan king. ”
Are you suggesting that if the king made heterosexual advances on young Christian women, they refused the advances, and they were executed as a result, that would be okay? If this had happened, would African churches be justified in refusing to bless heterosexual marriages?
I hope you can see that this would be crazypants.
I suggest that the crime done to the martyrs had little to do with homosexuality, because it would be just as wrong if the pagan king had done it to girls.
Instead it has everything to do with abuse of power and denial of consent, regardless of the sex or gender of the people involved.
There are plenty of stories from Europe about female saints who were killed because they didn’t want to marry pagan kings (and in a few cases their own biological fathers). If we were being consistent here, marriage blessings would not be done by the church for anybody based on that logic.
I believe that the African churches should keep their own counsel on what they’re willing to do. It’s not my place to do otherwise. But as you’ve stated, “well a thousand years ago a king wanted to sleep with these guys and murdered them when they said no” is a tissue paper thin excuse.
Many of the mainline denominations have abandoned Biblical authority on a host of issues…the result is what we see…
So it’s not about “the gays” but about the “divisive same-sex blessing liturgies.” And you oppose colonialism but think that the Anglican church should continue funding GAFCON even if they leave the communion, but also providing that funding is “paternalism.” And the “inhumane laws against LGBTQ+ people are serious problem” (which include the death penalty in Brunei and Nigeria), but not as serious as holding different interpretations of Scripture, tradition and “basic reason.” You claim that “contradictory positions on sexual ethics cannot both be true.” But apparently they can on a wide range of other ethical questions.
To call a church, or Christian movement, “worthless” is extreme. I understand the issues with the Church of England and Episcopal church. Trust me. I do. I understand the issues of white liberals treating black Africans as less than. I do. I agree that this is just as much the issue as the liberalism of the Church of England.
At the same time, calling a church “worthless” is the type of extreme and absolute statement that people who fear the Lord should fear making. Does God view these congregations as “worthless” to Him or is He still working there? Has He left? Who are we to declare an anathema over them? Is this someone who claims to have heard from the Lord on this?
Many years ago I said something similarly unkind about the church that I grew up in. It had sold its original building, moved to a new location, and its original building had been turned into a literal pagan temple filled with golden idols where the Lord’s table once was. I said something quite unkind about the church. I don’t remember what I said, but it was something akin to calling it worthless, and the Holy Spirit in no short order told me to close my mouth and stop talking.
I did. Do you know what happened? The liberal church I grew up in, whose building was turned into a pagan temple when they downsized, today has a genuine gospel teaching church that is a light in its community. What I saw as worthless, God saw a purpose for in His kingdom.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this, having grown up in the CofE (Anglican Church). It was always a “broad church” — you could find many different traditions, from Hot Prot to more Catholic than the Pope. Not sure that was always good, but my main concern is about faithfulness to Jesus’ Gospel, and there have been problems with that for a while.
Anyway I hope that GAFCON has learned or will learn to live without the money from the UK. Not that the charity was wrong, but it fostered a wrong relationship.
Thank you very much, David Bumgardner for this perceptive and informative summary.
The author, David, writes a great article on the subject, and based on my own observations, I agree.
I wish this same nuance had been applied to the United Methodist Church split several years ago.
I agree that Anglicanism in Africa has not always served black Africans well, and has sometimes treated them abominably.
Yet I must point out that The Sermon on the Mount tells us “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” I’m afraid that dismissing an entire communion as worthless seems quite judgmental, especially for someone who has taken vows of ordination.
I think as Christians we can all agree that Jesus was and is the most important teacher of the Bible, without question. Thus, in closing, I’ll simply quote a notably devout Christian who had no skin in the Anglican game, as it were:
“Homosexuality was well-known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.”
~ Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States
This is about not accommidating fundamentalists
99 percent of heresies have come from fundamentalists
Fundamentalism always tends towards nihilism
At its core fundamentalism is terrified of faith
Trump went to school on your pastors and then monetized you
Thanks for screwing up the country
The article and comments are horrifying