The Anglican Church of South America, led by its primate, the Most Rev. Brian Williams, Bishop of Argentina, has issued a strong endorsement of the Nairobi–Cairo structural reforms while warning that the real crisis in global Anglicanism is doctrinal, not institutional. At the same time, Bishop Williams’s visible role at GAFCON’s Abuja gathering shows the province aligning with the orthodox Global South while not formally joining the new Global Anglican Council.
South America’s response: reform welcomed, doctrine flagged
In its official “Response of the Anglican Church of South America to the Nairobi–Cairo Proposals and their Supplement,” the province thanks the Inter‑Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) for the “care, theological reflection, prayer and ecclesial commitment” behind the Nairobi–Cairo Proposals (NCP) and their Supplement. It emphasizes that its observations “do not arise from resistance to change, but from a desire to contribute constructively to discernment about the future of the Communion.”
South America describes the Anglican Communion as “a gift to be cared for, strengthened and renewed for the sake of the gospel and for the mission of the Church of Christ in the world,” grounded in a shared inheritance of faith, liturgy, mission, and episcopal order. That language reflects the province’s conservative theological background—Scripture‑centered, mission‑focused, wary of Western innovations—while signaling its desire to remain in conversation with more liberal provinces rather than disengage.[Attachment]
Backing Nairobi–Cairo’s structural reforms
On IASCUFO’s structural proposals, the Williams‑led province is firmly in the reform camp.
South America welcomes updating the Communion’s description in NCP §§73–76, saying paragraph 76 “represents more adequately the contemporary reality of the Anglican Communion as a communion of autonomous and interdependent churches united by a shared inheritance of faith, mission and common life.” It supports replacing a strictly juridical bond with Canterbury by the phrase “historic connection with the See of Canterbury,” arguing this recognizes Canterbury’s historical, spiritual, and relational importance “without making that relationship the sole constitutive criterion of belonging or communion.”
The response backs proposals to strengthen the collegial dimension of the “First Instrument of Communion.” It explicitly supports the Supplement’s suggestion that the Archbishop of Canterbury invite regional primates on the Primates’ Standing Committee to share collegially in his ministry and to explore more stable patterns of cooperation and common discernment over the coming years. Far from seeing this as diminishing Canterbury, South America calls it “a natural development of the collegial dimension of Anglican life and an appropriate response to the increasingly global character of the Communion.”
In line with broader Global South concerns, the province endorses proposals to widen shared leadership and regional representation in Communion structures, citing NCP §§82–85, 94–98 and Supplement §§16–21, and says these developments “contribute positively to enabling the structures of the Communion to reflect more adequately the reality of the churches that compose it.” It supports revising the Anglican Consultative Council’s constitution to remove the ACC President’s office, currently associated with Canterbury, while maintaining the Archbishop of Canterbury as an ex officio member of the ACC and its Standing Committee, seeing this as simplifying structures and clarifying responsibilities.
“For these reasons,” the paper states, “we express our general support for the structural reforms proposed by IASCUFO and encourage ACC‑19 to consider them favorably,” while insisting that these reforms must form part of a broader process that includes renewed reflection on the doctrinal foundations of communion.
“Structures do not create communion”
The heart of South America’s response is theological. The paper insists that “the central question facing the Anglican Communion today is not, in essence, structural.” Structures, Instruments of Communion, and leadership forms are important, but “structures do not create communion. Structures exist to serve a communion that is given by God in Jesus Christ and received by the Church through the apostolic faith.”
The province distinguishes between “the renewal of the structures of the Communion” and “the renewal of the Communion itself,” warning that “a more adequate structure cannot, by itself, resolve a weakening of the common faith” and “a more representative model of leadership likewise cannot automatically restore doctrinal agreement among the provinces.”
“Institutional reform, although necessary, is no substitute for theological clarity,” it concludes.
Citing Ephesians 4:3–5 and 2 Timothy 1:13, the response presents unity as inseparable from doctrine: the Church is called not only to walk together, but to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and to “hold to the standard of sound teaching” received from the apostles. Unity is “not merely relational; it is also doctrinal.”
A wounded Communion: doctrinal, not just institutional, crisis
South America accepts Nairobi–Cairo’s acknowledgment that the Anglican Communion is experiencing “forms of differentiated communion” and agrees that “The Communion is wounded.” Relationships between provinces have deteriorated, trust has been weakened, and “Some provinces no longer recognize in the same way the teaching and practice of other provinces.”
However, the province argues that these tensions “did not arise primarily because of deficiencies in the structures of the Communion.” Rather, “They arose because provinces have reached profoundly different conclusions regarding matters that affect doctrine, Christian ethics, biblical interpretation, theological anthropology and the moral teaching of the Church.” As a result, “structural reform alone cannot resolve the present situation. The Communion faces not only an institutional challenge, but also a theological one,” and many structural questions are “the consequence of deeper doctrinal disagreements.”
At this point, the paper warns, “the visible communion of the Church cannot be sustained indefinitely solely on historical, affective or institutional bonds. Christian communion also requires a shared and recognizable faith.”
Communion and truth: two temptations
The response places its analysis in classic Anglican terms, noting that the tradition has sought “to hold together truth and charity, doctrinal fidelity and visible communion, unity and holiness.”
South America warns the Communion against two opposite temptations:
• “The first is to assume that institutional unity, in itself, is sufficient.”
• “The second is to abandon altogether the search for the visible unity of the Church.
“Neither of these options adequately reflects the will of Christ for his Church,” the paper states. It cites John 17, John 15:10, Matthew 7:21, and Jude 3 to tie unity to obedience and contending for “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints,” and concludes that “The unity of the Church and the truth of the Gospel never appear separated from one another. On the contrary, they belong together.”
Differentiated communion “may describe a painful present reality,” but “it should not become the permanent horizon of our ecclesiology. The vocation of the Church remains a deeper, fuller communion, reconciled in the truth of Christ.”
Nairobi–Cairo: “important but incomplete”
South America describes the Nairobi–Cairo Proposals as “an important but incomplete contribution to the future of the Communion.” They help Anglicans “reflect again on the structures through which communion is expressed,” favor wider and more global representation of leadership, and invite honest recognition of present realities. “All of this is valuable,” the paper says.
“However, the documents do not substantially address the question that today lies at the centre of the life of the Anglican Communion: what is the common faith that holds together the churches of the Communion.” Nor do they propose “a process specifically directed towards clarifying, examining and—if God grants it—reconciling the doctrinal differences that currently impair communion between provinces.”
This, South America argues, is “the principal limitation of the proposals.” The Communion must reflect “not only on how to organize its common life, but also on the doctrinal foundations that make that common life possible.”
Call for a global doctrinal consultation
To address this gap, the Williams‑led province proposes “a second, complementary process.” If Nairobi–Cairo focuses on structures, “the Anglican Communion should also undertake a process dedicated to reflecting on the doctrinal foundations of that communion.”
Such a process, South America suggests, could include renewed reflection on:
• The authority of Holy Scripture within Anglican theology.
• The relationship between Scripture, tradition and reason.
• The limits and possibilities of legitimate diversity within Anglicanism.
• The doctrinal foundations of Anglican identity.
• Questions that currently impair communion between provinces.
“The purpose of a process of this kind should not be coercion or the imposition of one sector of the church upon another,” the paper insists. “Its purpose should be the patient pursuit of greater theological clarity, deeper mutual understanding and, where possible, renewed doctrinal convergence.”
The province recalls that the Communion has repeatedly shown “a capacity to address complex theological questions with seriousness, depth and fidelity,” and says “the present moment once again requires that effort.”
Concretely, South America proposes that ACC‑19 request IASCUFO “to initiate a global consultation on the doctrinal and structural foundations of the Anglican Communion,” taking into consideration the Anglican Covenant, structures developed by provinces and networks, and other recent ecclesiological developments. That consultation should present ACC‑20 with “concrete recommendations regarding the content, methodology and possible mechanisms for strengthening doctrinal communion, mutual accountability and common discernment within the Anglican Communion.”
Brian Williams, GAFCON, and Abuja
The response of the Anglican Church of South America to Nairobi–Cairo takes on added significance when read alongside the South American primate’s role in recent global gatherings. Williams became diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Argentina in 2020 and has served as presiding bishop and primate of the Anglican Church of South America since 2023. He has attended Communion‑level meetings such as the 2024 Primates’ Meeting in Rome as the South American primate.
In early March 2026, 347 Anglican bishops and 121 lay and clerical leaders from 27 provinces gathered in Abuja, Nigeria, for GAFCON’s G26 mini‑conference, generously hosted by the Church of Nigeria. Bishop Williams participated in the Abuja events as presiding bishop of the province.
The G26 meeting produced the “Abuja Affirmation,” calling conservative Anglicans to renewed fidelity to Scripture and historic doctrine and signaling a shift from GAFCON as a fellowship within the Communion toward a more self‑conscious “Global Anglican Communion.”
During the conference, GAFCON leaders announced the dissolution of the GAFCON Primates’ Council and the establishment of a new Global Anglican Council, designed to expand leadership to primates, bishops, clergy, and lay members and give structural form to this emerging orthodox coalition.
Bishop Williams’s presence in Abuja places the Anglican Church of South America clearly within the GAFCON‑aligned orthodox bloc, sharing its concerns about “repeated departures from the authority of God’s Word” and its desire to form global structures independent of Canterbury’s oversight. At the same time, membership lists and communiqués announcing the Global Anglican Council do not list Brian Williams or his province among the founding officers or voting members. South America attends GAFCON, participates in its councils, and endorses its theological emphases, but has not formally shifted its institutional allegiance from the historic Instruments of Communion to GAFCON’s new council.
That cautious stance mirrors the tone of the Nairobi–Cairo response: Bishop Williams and his province press hard for doctrinal clarity and mutual accountability, and they stand shoulder‑to‑shoulder with the conservative Global South on theology, yet they still seek to work within existing Communion frameworks—ACC, IASCUFO, and reformed Instruments—rather than declare a clean institutional break.
Conservative, but still committed to common witness
In its conclusion, the Anglican Church of South America says it receives the Nairobi–Cairo Proposals “as a serious and valuable contribution to the future life of the Anglican Communion,” and supports continuing conversations about structures and Instruments of Communion, which it calls “necessary and timely.”
At the same time, it urges the Communion “not to regard structural reform as the culmination of its task,” insisting that “The deeper question remains before us: how the churches of the Anglican Communion will bear common and faithful witness to the apostolic faith in our generation.”
“The future of the Communion will finally depend not only on the way in which its structures are organized, but also on the faithfulness with which its churches receive, proclaim and live the Gospel entrusted to them,” the province writes. It commits itself “to continuing to pray and work for the unity of the Church,” trusting in Christ “who is the head of the Church and who alone can lead his people into the fullness of truth and communion,” and closes by quoting Ephesians 4:15: “But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”
The next steps now lie with the Anglican Consultative Council and IASCUFO. If ACC‑19 takes up South America’s suggestion and commissions a global consultation on the doctrinal and structural foundations of the Communion, Bishop Williams and his province will have helped set the agenda for how Anglicans move beyond managing “differentiated communion” toward seeking genuine convergence in faith. Nairobi–Cairo may well be adopted, and GAFCON’s Global Anglican Council will continue to gather orthodox provinces, but the question South America has pushed to the front—whether the Communion is willing to face its theological disagreements with the same seriousness it is bringing to structural reform—will shape Anglican politics for years to come.
For Anglican.Ink readers, the picture is now clearer and more accurate. The Anglican Church of South America, under Bishop Williams, stands with GAFCON doctrinally and sits in its councils, yet remains engaged with official Communion processes. It backs Nairobi–Cairo’s structural reforms and presses for rebalanced leadership, but insists that unless the Communion takes up the doctrinal disagreements that have wounded its common life, new structures will manage division rather than heal it.
