The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) welcomes the Nairobi–Cairo proposals as a serious and necessary theological and ecclesiological effort to address the crisis of unity within the Anglican Communion. The document is recognised as an attempt to respond to real divisions – especially those concerning gender and sexuality – through dialogue, attentive listening, and shared discernment, rather than through disciplinary sanctions or institutional rupture.

The IEAB reads the text as a step towards a form of communion that strengthens the established principle of dispersed, synodal and post-colonial authority: a family of churches that inherit the same tradition, autonomous and interdependent, in which unity is not confused with doctrinal uniformity but is built upon mutual recognition, co-operation and shared service. The document is understood as a transitional framework, proposing a decentralised and inclusive communion of churches, faithful to the Gospel and open to the action of the Spirit, capable of sustaining a ‘historic and solidarity-based communion’ that holds together past and future without preserving or reinforcing colonial models of authority.

In particular, the effort to reaffirm the ‘bonds of affection’ that characterise the Anglican ethos, and the principle of ‘unity in diversity’ as a hallmark of this tradition, is highly valued. The unity sought is a communion woven within the plurality of contexts, cultures and local expressions of faith, rather than a mere uniformity. At the same time, the IEAB insists that the vocation to unity cannot be used to justify injustice, intolerance or violence – especially where these impact people and groups historically marginalised in the life of the Church.

From a theological perspective, the IEAB considers important the way in which the document brings the marks of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) into conversation with the real diversity of practices and positions within the Communion. Its Trinitarian, Christological and Pneumatological reading of communion – seeing Trinitarian diversity as a paradigm for ecclesial life, Christ the Servant as the model of authority, and the Spirit as the agent of unity-in-difference – offers a rich horizon for a theology of communion that resists both authoritarianism and relativism.

The IEAB’s reflections are also in dialogue with liberation theologies and decolonial perspectives. It interprets the replacement of an institutional bond with Canterbury by a ‘historic and solidarity-based connection’ as a gesture of liberation from a colonised ecclesial imagination and as an opening towards a more plural catholicity, rooted in diverse local realities. At the same time, the IEAB maintains a critical awareness that a change in language alone does not guarantee the overcoming of colonial and Eurocentric hierarchies; concrete processes of review of practices and structures are required. Nevertheless, as a church that has incorporated the Marks of Mission of the Anglican Communion into the vows of the Baptismal Covenant, it understands that this unity must also – and above all – be missional.

In summary, the IEAB receives the Nairobi–Cairo document as a call to live unity-in-difference as a sign of the Kingdom of God, manifested in reconciled communion among diverse peoples, cultures and bodies. This reception is positive, but explicitly conditioned on an implementation grounded in justice, love and solidarity, avoiding any form of homogenisation or subordination of provinces, groups or individuals.

1. Assessment of the Two Proposals

1.1 First Proposal: Revision of the Description of the Anglican Communion

The IEAB considers it both necessary and appropriate to update, for the first time since 1930, the description of the Anglican Communion. The 1930 formulation is recognised as important in its historical context, but it is insufficient to express the present reality of a global Communion marked by shifts in its ‘centre of gravity’, by post-colonial experiences and by recent conflicts regarding gender and sexuality.

The IEAB understands that the new text must clearly articulate:

• the full autonomy of each province;
• the local rootedness of each church in its cultural, social and missional context;
• bonds of communion grounded in shared heritage, mutual service, shared counsel and the historical connection with the See of Canterbury.

This revision is read as part of a broader process of theological and institutional decolonisation: building a historic and solidarity-based communion that helps to shift the weight of Anglican identity away from an English centre towards a more universal, plural catholicity, embodied in diverse local realities.

The IEAB emphasises that this change in formulation will only be meaningful if it is accompanied by concrete mechanisms that ensure equality, reciprocity and the full flourishing of all member churches, and not merely symbolic redistributions of power.

In general, the IEAB supports the first proposal, understanding that it:

• consolidates and updates an already-matured understanding within the Communion concerning the relationship between local autonomy and interdependence;
• offers a theological framework coherent with the IEAB’s experience as an autonomous province, rooted in the Brazilian and regional context and in full historical communion with Canterbury;
• opens space to understand the Communion as a ‘historic and solidarity-based communion’, fostering a post-colonial understanding of catholicity.

1.2 Second Proposal: Expanded Leadership of the Instruments of Communion

The second proposal – concerning the redistribution of leadership among the Archbishopric of Canterbury, the Meeting of Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), together with the envisaged rotating presidency of the ACC – is received with critical openness.

a) Archbishopric of Canterbury

The IEAB recognises the historical and symbolic value of the Archbishopric of Canterbury as a point of reference for unity within the Anglican Communion. It regards as positive the distinction made between Canterbury’s symbolic role and the institutional and pastoral sharing of leadership with the Standing Committee of Primates, as a step towards a communion that strengthens the established principle of dispersed authority.

In terms of ecumenical relations, the IEAB considers that the Archbishop of Canterbury will continue to be the most expressive representation of the Anglican Communion – whether because of the collective imagination or the historic weight of the office – and notes that many churches maintain their relationships with the Communion through Canterbury as its symbol.

Extending this representational role to other ecclesial bodies – whether to the Secretary-General or to the ACC Presidency – introduces an ecumenical challenge concerning who speaks for the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, this expansion increases representativeness and better reflects the plurality of the Communion.

At the same time, the IEAB affirms that the Archbishopric of Canterbury must remain a figure of respect and reference. In the case of the IEAB, it is important to state explicitly that this relationship is one of full communion, grounded in a historical connection that is welcomed as an expression of that communion. There is also concern about the risk of an excessive ‘referential decentralisation’: reducing Canterbury to a purely pastoral presence, without clarity regarding its role in the symbolic cohesion of the Communion, could weaken the public visibility of Anglican unity in an already fragmented context.

The IEAB’s position may be summarised as follows:

• support for the reconfiguration of Canterbury’s role, shifting it from a centre of power to a ministry that is primarily pastoral and symbolic;
• defence of the preservation of the Archbishopric’s function as a visible sign of unity and historical continuity, avoiding both an implicit papal model and such symbolic dilution that the Anglican Communion is left without a clear point of reference.

b) Primates’ Meeting

The IEAB understands that the Meeting of Primates should be strengthened as a space of dialogue, reciprocal listening and shared discernment among the provinces, especially in relation to matters that affect the life of the Anglican Communion as a whole. However, the IEAB firmly maintains that the Meeting of Primates must not become a deliberative or disciplinary body with normative power over the entire Communion.

There is concern that an unclear expansion of powers and of the frequency of meetings could generate imbalances among the instruments of communion, weakening the ACC and, in practice, creating a ‘quasi-synod of primates’ with normative pretensions.

Thus, the IEAB maintains that:

• the Meeting of Primates must remain essentially consultative, pastoral and relational;
• any expansion of its role must be accompanied by mechanisms that ensure transparency, participation and balance with the ACC, which is the body where structural matters are deliberated and which includes the effective presence of lay people, women, LGBTQIA+ persons and Indigenous peoples.

c) Anglican Consultative Council and Rotating Presidency

The ACC is recognised by the IEAB as the primary instrument of unity in the Communion, and as the only body with a broad and representative institutional character. The intention to strengthen the ACC and to establish a rotating regional presidency is welcomed with moderate enthusiasm and prudence. The joint meeting of the Standing Committee of Primates and the ACC Standing Committee already represents a step towards the democratisation and decolonisation of the Communion’s structures, expressing the conviction that ‘the leadership of the Communion must resemble the Communion’, reflecting the geographical, cultural and theological plurality that characterises contemporary Anglicanism.

At the same time, significant concerns arise:

• the election of regional presidents from among the primates may open space for political and theological disputes between blocs of provinces in an already polarised scenario;
• there is a risk of creating, in practice, a kind of ‘Presiding Archbishopric’ that could compete with the representational role of Canterbury and advance the agenda of a particular power bloc within the Communion;
• the ACC must not lose its own institutional and missional dynamism – its ‘agility’ – as a collegial consultative and decision-making body, nor become hostage to individual leaders or regional blocs.

The IEAB therefore adopts a position of critical support:

• it welcomes the intention to diversify the faces and voices in ACC leadership, and to shape a configuration that represents gender, ethnic, racial, sexual, cultural and other forms of diversity;
• it nonetheless maintains that:
  • the proposal for a rotating presidency needs further discussion, taking into account the six-year term, the differing lengths of primatial mandates across provinces, and the fact that the ACC already has an elected chair;
  • the presidency must be an expression of the ACC itself, with strong lay participation, and not simply an extension of the Meeting of Primates;
  • the electoral process must be transparent and safeguarded against ideological or regional blocs;
  • the ACC must retain its character as a collegial body of consultation and decision-making, with broad lay, clerical and episcopal participation.

2. Gaps, Concerns and Disagreements Regarding the Document and the Proposals

2.1 Gaps Identified in the Nairobi–Cairo Text

a) Inclusion, justice and safeguarding

The IEAB identifies as a significant gap the absence of clear references to inclusion, justice and safeguarding – especially in relation to LGBTQIA+ people, women and Indigenous peoples – in a way that is consistent with the Marks of Mission. The exclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons from the Lambeth Conference is recalled as a pastoral trauma and warning, reinforcing the need for clauses that prevent discrimination in any future institutional arrangement.

b) Criteria for recognising new provinces and extra-provincial dioceses

There is concern about the lack of transparent and shared criteria for the recognition of new provinces, extra-provincial dioceses and ordinations, particularly in a scenario marked by the emergence of schismatic groups or dissident conservative provinces. The IEAB fears that, without such criteria, the document could inadvertently legitimise parallel structures that undermine the official Communion and threaten inclusive provinces.

c) Ethics of communion and theological-pastoral grounding

The IEAB considers that the ethical dimension of the proposed model of communion is insufficiently articulated. A direct question arises: what ethic will sustain this new pattern of communion? How will fraternal relationships be secured between provinces with deeply divergent theological and social views, without falling into moral indifference or doctrinal authoritarianism? For the IEAB, it is necessary to state more explicitly the ethical demands of communion regarding human rights, gender justice and sexual diversity – without compromising the gains made by inclusive churches in line with the Five Marks of Mission.

d) Insufficiently explicit structural decolonisation

Although the document addresses colonial residues and proposes more distributed leadership, doubts remain as to whether these changes will in fact break with the colonial Anglican model, or merely redistribute power without altering its underlying logic. The IEAB considers it essential that the decolonising dimension be more clearly linked to concrete changes in representation, participation and decision-making.

e) Absence of deeper theological reflection on the missional identity of the Anglican Communion

The document is recognised for its institutional solidity, but is judged insufficient in terms of pastoral and spiritual grounding. The lack of references to the Marks of Mission, widely accepted within the Anglican Communion, and to the commitment to social transformation, suggests that the text prioritises the accommodation of internal dissonances over the Church’s prophetic mission. This gap is interpreted as a sign of excessive pragmatism and a deficit of theological spirituality, which may weaken the witness of the Gospel and reduce the Communion to a political governance arrangement.

2.2 Specific Concerns Regarding the Proposals

Among the most significant concerns are:

• Symbolic weakening of Canterbury: fear that the Archbishopric of Canterbury may lose such symbolic weight that the Anglican Communion is left without a shared visible reference in a context of polarisation;
• Creation of new, weakly regulated power structures: concern that a strengthened Primates’ Committee and a rotating ACC presidency might become a new centre of power, with the risk of political or disciplinary use, including against provinces with minority theological or pastoral positions;
• Risk of new internal divisions: worry that attempts to ‘accommodate differences’ may end up reinforcing divisions into ‘inclusive’ and ‘conservative’ blocs, without robust mechanisms for mediation and reconciliation;
• Speed of the global process: perception that the pace of global discussions tends to be accelerated, without allowing sufficient time for maturation within provinces before decisions with structural impact are taken.

3. Different Views Identified and Their Possible Convergence

In the internal listening and consultation process within the IEAB, differences of emphasis and concern emerged. These divergences do not prevent the articulation of a common position, but they need to be named and harmonised transparently.

3.1 Rotating Presidency of the ACC

Some internal contributions emphasised the positive character of a rotating ACC presidency as a concrete expression of global representativeness and equality among the churches, reinforcing the idea that the leadership of the Communion should reflect its geographical, cultural and theological diversity.

Other contributions highlighted considerable risks: the possible creation of a figure with excessive symbolic and political weight – a ‘new Presiding Archbishop’ – the politicisation of the election process, disputes between regional blocs, and the weakening of the ACC’s collegial institutional structure.

Proposed convergence:

The IEAB supports the idea of a rotating presidency as a sign of global diversity and shared leadership, but conditions this support on the following safeguards:

• strictly moderating and representative functions, without disciplinary or executive authority over the ACC;
• preservation of the ACC, in its broad composition, as the primary locus of deliberation and discernment;
• a selection process led by the ACC itself, with strong lay participation and guarantees of balance in terms of gender, sexual orientation, ethno-cultural origin and region;
• transparency mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of ideological or regional blocs capturing leadership.

3.2 Degree of Decentralisation of the Archbishopric of Canterbury

In our internal debate, some voices strongly valued the opportunity to shift Canterbury’s centrality towards a post-colonial communion, limiting its authority to a primus inter pares role with pastoral and collegial emphasis.

At the same time, other voices highlighted the risk of losing a common symbolic point of reference, especially in a context of intense theological and political disputes, and therefore defended the importance of maintaining the visibility of the Archbishopric of Canterbury as a sign of historical and doctrinal unity.

Proposed convergence:

The IEAB maintains that reform must:

• displace any claim to centralised disciplinary power in Canterbury, reaffirming the full autonomy of the provinces;
• avoid emptying the symbolic and historical role of the Archbishopric as a sign of communion;
• explicitly affirm that communion with Canterbury, for the IEAB, expresses a shared memory and a commitment to unity-in-diversity, not institutional subordination.

3.3 Scope of the Post-Colonial Reading of the Proposals

Some internal contributions interpret the Nairobi–Cairo document as a significant step towards a post-colonial communion, insofar as it breaks with a Canterbury-centred model and distributes responsibilities among different regions.

Other contributions express scepticism about the real extent of this shift, questioning whether the proposals might merely redistribute power symbolically without tackling structural inequalities of representation, resources and voice between the Global North and South, as well as between majority and minority groups within provinces.

Proposed convergence:

The IEAB adopts a realistic and vigilant stance:

• it recognises the decolonising potential of the proposals and supports them in that direction;
• it insists, however, that this potential can only be realised where there are clear commitments to:
  • the representation of women, LGBTQIA+ people, Indigenous peoples and other indigenous and original peoples in decision-making bodies;
  • equitable criteria for recognising provinces and extra-provincial dioceses;
  • explicit safeguards against any form of discrimination and against the use of the instruments of communion to sanction churches for their pastoral commitment to inclusion.

Conclusion

In the light of this process of listening and discernment, the IEAB expresses hopeful and critical support for the path proposed in the Nairobi–Cairo proposals:

• it affirms the first proposal, revising the description of the Anglican Communion, as necessary and theologically promising;
• it welcomes the second proposal, reconfiguring the leadership of the Instruments of Communion, while conditioning its support on institutional, ethical and pastoral safeguards that prevent new forms of concentration of power, new colonialisms and new exclusions;
• it reaffirms its commitment to an inclusive, just and plural communion, in which unity is not achieved by silencing bodies, voices or experiences, but is built through honest and patient engagement across differences, always seeking reconciliation and the witness of the Gospel of Christ in the world;
• it understands that the complexity of these proposals, and the need for deeper ecclesiological, theological and missional reflection upon them, require more time for study; therefore, the matter should be presented at the 2026 ACC, discussed more broadly within provinces and regions, and a final synthesis should be presented at the subsequent meeting.