Part 1: Anglican Trajectories
Part 2: Anglicans and the Abuja Contradiction
Part 3: Anglican Identity after Abuja
In a prescient article from March 27, 2026 the famous (or infamous) Episcopal Priest and journalist George Conger drew attention to three divergent trajectories for the Anglican Tradition that have coalesced throughout March of 2026.
The first, and most long-standing, is the normative Anglican Communion centered around the historic See of Canterbury. However, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally—enthroned on March 25, 2026—is neither fit for the office ontologically or theologically. For all intents and purposes the See remains vacant, and the Communion listless.
The second trajectory is the newly reconstituted Global Anglican Communion bound—as of March 6, 2026—by a confessional identity centered around the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008 (JD) and organized in direct opposition to the Canterbury Communion and its theological relativism.
The third trajectory is the personal ordinariates of the Roman Catholic Church established in 2008 to preserve the living patrimony of the Anglican tradition within the Church of Rome. These ordinariates were recently reinvigorated with a Vatican statement, published on March 24, 2026—notably the day before Mullally’s enthronment—stating positively that as Anglicans entered into “full communion with the Catholic Church, it [the Catholic Church] was enriched.”
So, Conger poses the question: for a traditional Anglican, “where is their spiritual home most securely found?”
As a traditionalist priest in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), I am—presumptively—finding my place along the second trajectory. But for a number of reasons I find little peace with that path. Indeed, of the three options presented (as such), the only palatable trajectory is the third: communion with the Church of Rome and the continuation of the Anglo-Catholic patrimony that I cherish. But are these the only three trajectories? Or, is there a fourth?
Confessionalism vs. Settlement Churchmanship
What is so bad about confessionalism? First, it is worth mentioning that Anglicans—all Christians, Lord willing—are confessionalist. We confess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. More specifically, every Sunday and Principle Feast Day in the ACNA we “Confess our faith in the words of the Nicene Creed.”1 But this type of catholic confessionalism isn’t what is meant by “confessionalism” in the modern sense of the Abuja Affirmation. Abuja binds the consciences of churchmen and women to a strict understanding of the Anglican tradition. This strict understanding gives me profound pause; particularly in what it allows for within those rigid bounds
In a subsequent article, I plan to expound more on the nature of confessionalism and how it relates to Abuja, the Jerusalem Declaration, and Anglican history. But in this article, I want to examine the issue of Churchmanship within the Anglican tradition as it applies to this new-found confessionalism in comparison to the Ordinariates of Rome.
Since time immemorial (or, at least 1559) there have existed two primary churchmanships within the Anglican Tradition. The emphases of these traditions have morphed over the years; a High Churchman isn’t the same as an Anglo-Catholic, nor is a modern reformed evangelical Anglican the same as a Low Churchman; and yet, there is more overlap and similarity than dissimilarity. The genius (and possibly downfall) of the Elizabethan and Restoration settlements is an intentionality to not settle certain disputes between these churchmanships. Instead, a common order of worship was prescribed to bind all in one fellowship around a common table by a common font, through common prayer. This broad settlement pushes fiercely against the concept of confessionalism because what bound the church was not strict dogmatic or doctrinal agreement, but an ability to pray together.
To change from a communion of prayer, to a communion of confession poses some existential problems for this Settlement of Churchmanship. Most notably, I wish to draw attention to the challenge posed by the participation of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa (REACH-SA) within the signatories of the Abuja Affirmation, and what their inclusion means for the future of orthodox Anglicanism.
A Case Study in South Africa
As a parish priest in a rural agricultural town, I have a particular interest in South African Anglicanism. Every year for a couple of months a number of migrant workers from South Africa are granted temporary visas to come and work in the Peanut and Cotton farms of South Georgia. These South Africans are faithful Anglicans and every Sunday they arrive at my parish in a work truck. They receive with attention and faithfulness the preached Word, and they partake with us of the Blessed Sacrament. They then join us for fellowship and teaching—for breakfast and Sunday School. They are just as much members of my parish, as they are the parishes they have come from. Indeed, I have received a gift from their parish priest for my cure of their souls while they are in the states; a priest of the notably Anglo-Catholic province of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA).
ACSA is not a member of GAFCON and it is not a signatory to the Abuja Affirmation. Indeed, I am notably concerned by the direction of this province in recent years, specifically within the capital regions (as opposed to the rural towns my parishioners come from).
In opposition to ACSA, there is REACH-SA which, like the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), was founded in rejection of the Anglo-Catholic revival—in essence, they reject the settlement and its inclusion of a breadth of churchmanship. However, unlike the REC, they have not walked back these puritanical founding principles. Instead, they have doubled down. As a self-styled Anglo-Catholic, my existence as an Anglican stands counter to the very raison d’etre of REACH-SA. What are some examples of them doubling down on their Puritan (and thereby not Anglican) doctrine?
Lay Communion: the Canons of REACH-SA allow (albeit, in extenuating circumstances and with episcopal approval) for lay celebration of Holy Communion, which is a flagrant rejection of Articles XXIII and XXXVI in the 39 Articles and the rubrics of the 1662 BCP (both of which are part of our new confession of faith in the Jerusalem Declaration).2
Rejection of Baptismal Regeneration: the 1992 REACH-SA Prayer Book deftly inverts the language of regeneration in the baptismal rite of the 1662, overturning the consensus of the Prayer Book tradition and the language of sacramental instrumentality in Article XXVII.3
Rejection of the word “catholic” in the creeds: the 1992 REACH-SA Prayer Book replaces the word “catholic” with universal. Although the word catholic does pertain to the universality of the church, the intentionally changing of the ecumenical creed with seeming aim at anglo-catholics and the repudiation of the Prayer Book tradition is impossible to miss.4
“Correction” of Christ’s Descent into hell and the harrowing of Hades: The revision of the 39 Articles for REACH-SA explicitly denies Christ’s Harrowing of Hades, and rather makes Article III about “the descent into hell” simply about affirming that Christ truly died.5
Enforced receptionism: both in their altered means of saying the words of administration (emphasizing the 1552 words) and in their alterations to the Prayer of Humble Access, the normative belief articulated by the 1992 REACH-SA Prayer Book is that of receptionism or even virtualism in the Sacrament, rather than Real Presence as demonstrated by E.B. Pusey in the definitive Real Presence: The Doctrine of the Church of England.6
Grape Juice for the Lord’s Supper: REACH-SA allows grape juice to be used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, going directly against the Articles XIX’s intention that the sacraments be “ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”7
I would consider each of these not just a reformed low church impulse, but rather, a rejection of the Anglican tradition—indeed, of the catholic faith. This has gone beyond the pale. And yet, after Abuja, we now say that we hold to the same confessional identity… Can that possibly be true?
Or, do we just confess that we don’t want there to be blessings of same sex unions or liberal theology in the church? Is that all that binds us together? It almost seems so…
The Roman Alternative
Pope Benedict XVI, who founded the Anglican Ordinariates, famously stated: “A strong Catholic potency has always remained within Anglicanism; [But] Jesus did not found a Catholic party in a cosmopolitan debating society, but a Catholic Church to which he promised the fullness of truth.”8 In essence, to be a catholic is more than just subscribing to a catholic mindset in a pluralistic church, it means joining the catholic church. Historically, down through the English Reformers, Anglicanism has always claimed to participate in the fullness of the catholic church; we truly belong to “the Catholic Church to which [Jesus] promised the fullness of truth.” But what if that’s not true?
To an Anglo-Catholic like me, the inclusion of ardently anti-catholics (like REACH-SA) in the Abuja Communion pointedly undermines that claim. If the only options (discounting for the moment the Canterbury Communion) are Abuja or Rome, how can a catholic side with Abuja for reasons other than sheer convenience?9
It is worth considering the seriousness of this crisis. Personally, it has sent existential shock waves through me.
It was the habitual reflex of the broad churchmanship consensus—which we claimed was truly catholic—that opened the door for these unhappy bedfellows at Abuja. REACH-SA has never been a part of the Anglican Communion, and they have only been accepted now by GAFCON because the mainline Province in South Africa has a theologically liberal center of gravity in Capetown. But if the churchmanship consensus can allow for this, then it has failed. Indeed, maybe this whole experiment was flawed from the start?
It is into these existential questions that Rome offers its answer. The consensus was a flaw; the only way to be truly catholic, is to be a part of the church whose very identity is catholic, rather than to be a catholic in a reformed church. It is a compelling answer. An answer, which, as the Anglican Communion descends into disarray, sounds more and more viable by the day. Or, as Conger says, “Rome has now put its understanding of Anglican heritage on the table in a form that cannot easily be ignored. It has said, in doctrinal black and white, that the Anglican tradition at its best is not a problem to be solved but a gift to be received, purified and shared. Set beside the spectacle at Canterbury, that claim lands with particular force.”
Wither a Fourth Trajectory?
Conger’s question stands: for a traditional Anglican, “where is your spiritual home most securely found?”
As I come to this final portion, my heart fails me. Where is the Anglican tradition which I love? A tradition bound together for centuries by a theological method rooted in Common Prayer. A tradition where the reformational formularies were respected, but lived in light of the Prayer Book; in essence, Prayer Book Catholicism. We must return to the center of our tradition. But does that center exist?
I pose this question to the luminaries of our tradition—to the churchmen and clerics who love the Anglican way. Most especially I pose this question to our bishops; to my bishops, my right reverend fathers in God whom have been entrusted with the stewardship of this faith and this tradition. Can you offer a compelling vision of a fourth way? Or, are we bound to these three trajectories? Can you convincingly answer the question: Where is the Anglican’s spiritual home most securely found?
The Holy Eucharist, Anglican Standard Text, Book of Common Prayer (2019), pg 108.
Canon 1.11:
“In exceptional circumstances the presiding bishop may authorise a lay person to conduct a Baptism service or a Holy Communion service. However, for the purposes of Church order, the bishop will only give his permission for a specific service and not as an on-going authorisation.” (https://www.reachsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HANDBOOK-OF-PROCEDURES-CHAPTER-1.pdf)
Prayer from the REACH-SA Prayer Book after the Baptism:
“We give you heartfelt thanks, most merciful Father that You hear our prayers made in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ to regenerate this child with Your Holy Spirit, to receive him or her for Your own child by adoption and to include him or her in Your holy Church. We pray that he or she may die to sin and live to righteousness, being crucified with Christ and raised with Him, and that with the rest of Christ’s holy church, he or she may inherit Your everlasting kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” (https://reach-zambia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PRAYER-BOOK.pdf)
Compare with the language of the 1662 in two prayers after the Baptism:
“Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.” And, “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own Child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church. And humbly we beseech thee to grant that he being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin; and that, as he is made partaker of the death of thy Son, he may also be partaker of his resurrection; so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom; through Christ our Lord. Amen.”
We ought to note that this change is very different than that done by German Lutherans in changing the word “catholic” to “christian” in the creeds. In the first German translations of the creeds prior to the reformation, this change was made because by that point in time the German word for “catholic” had come to mean only “the Western Church” as opposed to “the Eastern Church.” However, in the English reformation, the word catholic was hard fought over by the English Reformers as part of the deposit of Anglican identity cf John Jewel’s The Apology of the Church of England.
REACH-SA Article:
“As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to believed that the giving up of his life was a reality.” (https://reachsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-39-Articles.pdf)
Actual Article:
“As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.”
In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, words of objective presence “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ” were removed from the words of administration and all that was said to each person was: “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith and with thanksgiving.” While the “this” was left unsaid, the removal of the objective statement was clearly an intentionally was to drive the focus from the “this” to the reception of Christ in the heart. In the 1559 (and ever after in traditional Anglicanism), the objective words are restored and are always kept to together with the statement in the 1552 so that the “this” which the recipient receives into their hand is understood to be “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the REACH-SA Prayer Book the language from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (the liturgical standard of the Jerusalem Declaration) is retained solely as an invitation to communion and then each individual receives the Sacrament hearing only the words of the 1552 formulation clearly deemphasizing the individual reception in the hand of the Body of Christ. (https://reach-zambia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PRAYER-BOOK.pdf)
Rubric before the Holy Communion from the REACH-SA Prayer Book: “The bread is to be ordinary bread; grape juice may be used instead of wine.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 145
And the convenience argument is strong; for a parish priest to go to Rome, he would have to give up his holy orders, disavow his sacraments, and enter secular employment for roughly 2-4 years; a big ask.
 | A guest post by
|