Editor’s Note: This essay is part of an extended series, February 10-21, focused on the related subjects of the succession at Canterbury and the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals crafted by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO).
What exactly makes a church — a province — truly Anglican? The era of the Instruments of Communion, or at least the era of their current configuration, has implied that to be Anglican entails maintaining a position of permanent reception from the Church of England, the enduring legacy of colonialism. What if an indigenous approach is more in keeping with some key thinking from the original Anglican reformers? Here we face into questions of missiology, inculturation, and indigenization.
The global spread of this English church, through both colonization and missionary work, lacked a clear ecclesiology in the early modern period. One might even describe the situation as presenting an ecclesiological deficit. The development of the Anglican Communion, it should be admitted, evolved from historical accidents and came in waves of internationalization, independence, and indigenization.
First, as colonial settlements grew, settlers brought their religious convictions and practiced their faith in other parts of the globe. At times, clergy were instructed to function as chaplains for European settlers rather than missionaries, but that distinction was not watertight. They constructed places of worship and established religious institutions that reflected English church life. These churches, governed by England, shared faith traditions. But there was a struggle — often a failure to inculturate — to make the gospel and work of the Christian church authentically part of the lives of the local community and not merely an export of English culture. When one was inside the church, one was in England. Stepping beyond the threshold, one re-entered the local culture. The threshold separated. This schizophrenic dichotomy in which the life of the church exists within but never truly reaches a culture is generally known as enculturation, as opposed to inculturation. It should be noted that at times these terms are used differently, but for the purposes of this essay we will use them consistently.
Second, the 1780s presented a unique circumstance: American Anglicanism gained autonomy while maintaining ties with the Church of England. The preface of the 1789 American Book of Common Prayer intentionally quotes the preface of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer to reveal a method of reflecting unity while also allowing for local adaption.
It is a most invaluable part of that blessed “liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,” that in his worship different forms and usages may without offense be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline; and therefore, by common consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, “according to the various exigency of times and occasions.”
The Church of England, to which the Protestant Episcopal Church in these States is indebted, under God, for her first foundation and a long continuance of nursing care and protection, hath, in the Preface of her [1662] Book of Common Prayer, laid it down as a rule, that “The particular Forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent, and alterable, and so acknowledged; it is but reasonable that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those that are in place of Authority should, from time to time, seem either necessary or expedient.”
Note well the framing of reception but also inculturation. And for good measure this preface even quotes the 1662 English Book of Common Prayer to make its point for local adaption. When local churches in the other British colonies moved toward independence from the Church of England, their leadership, generally speaking, insisted on autonomous authority to do ministry in tune with the quest for political autonomy in the colonies.
The eventual appointment of bishops for the colonial churches after 1863 marked a turning point for the Anglican Communion, and reflexively, for the Church of England. Beyond structure, these independent churches triggered tensions of indigenizing doctrine and Bible interpretation. Their churches’ indigenous governance showcased local, not imported, leadership. Henry Venn (CMS secretary, 1841-77) articulated that native churches mature as they attain the “three-self” principle: self-propagating, self-financing, and self-governing. But does Venn’s three-self principle reflect the deep need to make the work of the church and the witness of the Gospel indigenous?
Third, the indigenization wave began when the church included the native people in real and meaningful leadership. Anglican missionaries founded “indigenous” churches in India, China, Japan, and Africa. For Anglican Communion churches, becoming indigenous was a process that was hard to determine when achieved. It is an unsettling process. As African missions historian G.O.M. Tasie wrote many years ago, only churches founded by local Christians can claim the “indigenous” tag, and these became independent, non-Anglican churches. Except for raising up local leadership and the translation of vernacular liturgy and Scriptures, the missionary period did not significantly indigenize the African Anglican Church. They did not become fully indigenous to the host culture. English traditions, brought by religious leaders, permeated these churches.[1]
Archbishop Emmanuel Egbunu of the Church of Nigeria writes that missionary work entailed either adapting the Anglican faith or replacing what missionaries considered unacceptable African religious traditions and cultures. Animistic religious practice and polygamy are oft-cited examples. Colonialism and Western culture nevertheless characterized Anglican churches, and the challenge to inculturate and indigenize remained.[2] But how does one distinguish the universal from that which may be adapted?
This is where a careful understanding of inculturation and indigenization, as distinct from both enculturation on the one hand (that schizophrenic dichotomy) and mere syncretism on the other, is vital. The aim instead is inculturation and indigenization. The mission of God — that is, the movement of the radically other God coming to us in our world and in our life and disclosing himself as one of us — means then that our missionary work includes the hard yet life-giving work of inculturation and indigenization. The church in all ages has a responsibility to translate Christian faith and practice to new cultures. There are universal constants: in worship, for example, Christians gather, hear Scripture, use water in baptism, and use bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper. But such universals must be expressed in a way that can be received, digested, and even owned by a people where they are. These universals must become part of the grammar and life of the local church while still being recognized universally. This is inculturation and it reflects the movement of God toward us, the kenotic self-outpouring of Christ in the Incarnation (Phil. 2:7).
The unity forged through the current instruments, while going some way to forge unity, have nevertheless positioned foreign churches unevenly with the Church of England, placing them in a position of permanent reception. After the disagreement about Bishop John Colenso of Natal, the 1867 Lambeth Conference met to clarify the legal status of overseas bishops. Bishops in Canada wanted to debate and resolve the question of international jurisdiction. The Lambeth Conference established the interdependence of Anglican religious bodies, yet also clarified the extent of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s jurisdiction.
However, the conference addressed the primary issue in Colenso’s affair, which was doctrinal, by requiring the submission of the colonial empire’s religious institutions to the mother church. The churches were to “receive and maintain without alteration the standards of faith and doctrine as now in use in that Church.” Lambeth 1867’s Resolution 8 reflected what we saw in the preface of the 1789 American Book of Common Prayer, including its own quotation from the 1662 English Book of Common Prayer. But did this place other provinces of the communion in a permanent position of reception from the mother church?
The 1930 Lambeth Conference later reinforced this pattern for communion churches to align with the Church of England, or, put differently, to remain in a position of permanent reception (see Lambeth 1930 Resolution 49). The conference required communion churches to be in communion with the See of Canterbury. This implied a fullness of shared faith and life inherited from and centered on the Church of England. With this resolution, the conference configured communion churches as receiving from the Church of England. Many communion constitutions currently cite agreement with the Church of England’s faith or Canterbury.
In the post-colonial era, the sharing in responsibilities and leadership lessened the demand for this unequal and seemingly enduring position of reception. With the founding of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968 and the Primates’ Meeting in 1978, the Church of England and its leading see ceased to be the gateway to communion membership. Anglican churches — provinces of the Anglican Communion — operated in an autocephalic manner, if not simply autonomously. Unity stemmed from the bishops’ mutual loyalty and shared decision-making.
It seems the current configuration of the instruments has worked to move the Anglican Communion beyond imperial chaplaincy, but the work of indigenization, a step beyond a position of permanent reception, seems on the horizon. And, moreover, it appears from the documents I have cited, especially the 1662 BCP, that indigenization is itself an authentically Anglican notion. During the reformations of the 16th century and the Restoration of the 17th century, leaders in the Church of England imagined a self-governing local church. But then there is the challenge of interdependence and communion. That is a challenge of indigenization and inculturation, making the universal adapted to the local while remaining recognizable.
Today’s Challenge
To articulate the obvious situation: the Anglican Communion faces the dilemma of maintaining unity across its several global provinces amid the Western impulse to change significant teaching and practices regarding human sexuality.
The Global South Fellowship (GSFA) has turned to the classical formularies, that is, the work and legacy of the English Reformers, the 39 Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and two books of Homilies. The GSFA bishops affirm this corpus as their faith, passed down from the Apostles, and press that it ought to be received and conveyed as it is. These contain for them, in other words, the universals that must be recognized in a fully inculturated and indigenized church if that church is to be counted in a mutually accountable global family called Anglicanism.
Modifying the teachings in most African Anglican congregations is abhorrent, threatening their continued existence. Although they may domesticate their beliefs, they are cautious about innovations that redefine their beliefs. But this is not entirely new. As noted above, Africans formed independent churches when they could not accept the colonial vestiges still present in Anglican bodies. They founded their churches independent of the Anglican mission, the African Instituted Churches (AIC). Emanuel Egbunnu observed that these churches held greater contextual appeal, being an indigenous church, as they incarnated faith in their cultural milieu. But what of their meaningful connection to other Christians?
We may belong to the Anglican Communion notwithstanding variations in interpreting a doctrine or Church tradition or holding a variant version adapted to the context. Provincial disciplinary mechanisms exist; however, a global mechanism does not. Until we figure out how to become indigenous, namely adapt the universal while maintaining a global recognition, unity in the Anglican Communion will remain elusive.
In most African cultures, receiving Christianity inevitably triggered social changes. People rejected some cultural elements because they conflicted with Christian teachings; however, they transformed others to strengthen the Christian message. Again, this is inculturation and indigenization, the task of making the universal local. The IASCUFO’s inquiry into the suitability of the instruments might better focus on whether expressions of our Anglican faith are contextually appropriate. Can pursuing an indigenous church vision — one in which universals are locally adapted yet recognized — unite the communion?
[1] G.O.M. Tasie, “Christian awakening in West Africa 1914-18,” in O.V. Kalu, ed. The History of Christianity in West Africa (London, Longman, 1980), 293.
[2] Emmanuel Egbunu, “Anglicanism in Africa: History, Identity, and Mission,” Unio Cum Christo 8.2 (222), 167-184.
The Rev. Canon Francis Omondi, PhD serves in the All Saints Cathedral Diocese in the Anglican Church in Kenya and is a canon of Kampala Diocese in the Church of Uganda. He is also a Commissioner at the Anglican Communion Interfaith Commission. He has held appointments in missiology and practical theology at the South African Theological Seminary, the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life in the UK, and at St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya.