Church of Nigeria Severs Ties with Church of England Following Appointment of Pro-LGBT Archbishop

[Michie]

With Sarah Mullally now Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of Nigeria has declared spiritual independence from Canterbury, prioritising fidelity to God’s Word over revisionist innovations.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the world’s largest Anglican province, has formally declared spiritual independence from the Church of England.

The decision follows the appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to hold the office and an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, Primate of the Church of Nigeria, called the elevation of Mullally — who has also voiced support for open borders, Black Lives Matter, climate change, and abortion — “the final confirmation of moral decay within the leadership of the Church of England.”

The declaration asserts that the Nigerian church will no longer recognise Canterbury’s authority in doctrinal or spiritual matters, marking a decisive break with Western Anglican structures.

“This election is a double jeopardy,” Archbishop Ndukuba added, “disregarding the conviction of the majority of Anglicans and promoting same-sex marriage.”

He urged members to remain steadfast in upholding Scripture, calling on Christians worldwide to resist “ungodly teachings that compromise the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Continued below.

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/10/09/church-of-nigeria/

 

[Bob Crowley]

I did a search on the Nigerian Anglican Church to see how many members it has.

There were conflicting accounts but an AI summary gave the number as 17.5 million.

There were 17.5 million Anglicans in the Church of Nigeria as of a 2005 report. Nigeria has one of the largest Anglican populations in the world, making it the country with the highest number of Anglicans globally.
Total members: 17,500,000 (as of 2005)
Global standing: The Church of Nigeria is the largest Anglican church in the world based on membership numbers.

That's a lot of members to lose in one fell swoop. Then there is the breakaway GAFCON movement as per another post by Michie.

Orthodox Anglicans create new communion renouncing ties to archbishop of Canterbury

The GAFCON movement of orthodox Anglicans is forging its own path away from the leadership of the archbishop of Canterbury with the launch of the Global Anglican Communion. It will be distinct from the worldwide Anglican Communion that is under the spiritual leadership of the archbishop of...

www.christianforums.com

Way back in the 50's and 60's CS Lewis, who was Anglican, was warning that the writing was on the wall if they didn't stop their worldly drift.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I thought I'd have trouble locating this particular quote by CS Lewis to back up my claim in the above post, but it fell to hand almost immediately when I went looking for it.

It was the closing paragraph of his essay "Fern Seed and Elephants" which was originally delivered under another title in 1959.

Papers

Originally entitled 'Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism', Lewis read this essay at Westcott House, Cambridge, on 11 May 1959. Published under that title in Christian Reflections (1981), it is now in Fern-seed and Elephants (1998).

Such are the reactions of one bleating layman to Modern Theology. It is right that you should hear them. You will not perhaps hear them very often again. Your parishioners will not often speak to you quite frankly. Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the vicar; now he tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more. Missionary to the priests of one's own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.

 

[PloverWing]

I did a search on the Nigerian Anglican Church to see how many members it has.

There were conflicting accounts but an AI summary gave the number as 17.5 million.

That's a lot of members to lose in one fell swoop. Then there is the breakaway GAFCON movement as per another post by Michie.

Yes. Depending on how membership is counted, the Church of Nigeria is either the largest church in the Communion, or the second-largest after the Church of England. This is a major schism.

GAFCON is not a separate phenomenon. The Church of Nigeria has been one of the leaders in GAFCON.

 

[RileyG]

Forgive my ignorance, but if someone split from The Church of England, can they REALLY call themselves "Anglican" anymore?

 

[mindlight]

With Sarah Mullally now Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of Nigeria has declared spiritual independence from Canterbury, prioritising fidelity to God’s Word over revisionist innovations.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the world’s largest Anglican province, has formally declared spiritual independence from the Church of England.

The decision follows the appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to hold the office and an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, Primate of the Church of Nigeria, called the elevation of Mullally — who has also voiced support for open borders, Black Lives Matter, climate change, and abortion — “the final confirmation of moral decay within the leadership of the Church of England.”

The declaration asserts that the Nigerian church will no longer recognise Canterbury’s authority in doctrinal or spiritual matters, marking a decisive break with Western Anglican structures.

“This election is a double jeopardy,” Archbishop Ndukuba added, “disregarding the conviction of the majority of Anglicans and promoting same-sex marriage.”

He urged members to remain steadfast in upholding Scripture, calling on Christians worldwide to resist “ungodly teachings that compromise the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Continued below.

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2025/10/09/church-of-nigeria/

May God bless them for their decision. what harmony does Christ have with Belial, or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? 2 Cor 6:15
Only an utterly degenerate, godless and incompetent political elite could have chosen a feminist, liberal intellectual lightweight to this revered position. Its time to consider a church state separation in the UK with new guarantees for freedom of religion to protect conservative groups.

The joke here is that this is done in the name of inclusivity with a focus on diversity but the fruit is the opposite.

As a baptized Anglican I firmly declare - she is not my Archbishop because she does not have the authority of God.

 

[mindlight]

Forgive my ignorance, but if someone split from The Church of England, can they REALLY call themselves "Anglican" anymore?

True Anglican in accord with the original articles of the church - yes. It is the same as what happened with the Evangelical label. We now have liberals calling themselves evangelicals when actually it is about sola scriptura and the liberals understandings of scripture are politically correct nonsense.

 

[RileyG]

True Anglican in accord with the original articles of the church - yes. It is the same as what happened with the Evangelical label. We now have liberals calling themselves evangelicals when actually it is about sola scriptura and the liberals understandings of scripture are politically correct nonsense.

Thanks for the response!

 

[RamiC]

Forgive my ignorance, but if someone split from The Church of England, can they REALLY call themselves "Anglican" anymore?

Well a group of people can call themselves edliflops but it will not necessarily be true....

To be fair, and serious, they not only regard themselves as sticking to original unchanged orthodox Anglicanism, but the Church of Nigeria have the highest single population of any Anglican Communion Province. So if they are going on either of those things, they have some ground there.

However, I can understand your confusion, because without any connection to the land of the Engles/Angles their name seems a bit out of date.

 

[RileyG]

Well a group of people can call themselves edliflops but it will not necessarily be true....

To be fair, and serious, they not only regard themselves as sticking to original unchanged orthodox Anglicanism, but the Church of Nigeria have the highest single population of any Anglican Communion Province. So if they are going on either of those things, they have some ground there.

However, I can understand your confusion, because without any connection to the land of the Engles/Angles their name seems a bit out of date.

That’s why here in the United States, Anglicans here are called Episcopalians because they were consecrated by the Scottish bishops, not to mention the revolutionary war.

Not teaching or debating. Just looking at the origin of words

 

[FireDragon76]

Forgive my ignorance, but if someone split from The Church of England, can they REALLY call themselves "Anglican" anymore?

Yes, in the same way that somebody that's in the PCA is still presbyterian even though they split off over rejecting women in ministry.

Episcopalian might be a more correct term, and it's widely used in places like Scottland or the US where the term "Anglican" might have been considered offensive or misleading at one time or another.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, in the same way that somebody that's in the PCA is still presbyterian even though they split off over rejecting women in ministry.

Episcopalian might be a more correct term, and it's widely used in places like Scottland or the US where the term "Anglican" might have been considered offensive or misleading at one time or another.

Curious, why would the term Anglican be offensive?

(Random anecdote: My great great grandparents (my paternal grandfather’s father’s paternal grandparents) came from England to the United States, even though they were Catholic as am I, many of my ancestors were Anglican via Church of England records).

 

[FireDragon76]

Curious, why would the term Anglican be offensive?

(Random anecdote: My great great grandparents (my paternal grandfather’s father’s paternal grandparents) came from England to the United States, even though they were Catholic as am I, many of my ancestors were Anglican via Church of England records).

Because Scotts or Americans don't necessarily want to identify primarily as Anglican just because they follow an episcopal form of church governance.

Aside from this forum, and the few Continuing Anglicans (a phenomenon that began in the 1970's as a reactionary movement), American Episcopalians did not identify as Anglican except in specific contexts. It was considered obtuse or even offensive. The Protestant Episcopal church of the US is a self-governing church, and has been for centuries, with episcopal succession through the Scottish Nonjurors who objected to the "glorious revolution" of the 1660's (William of Orange) as being unlawful.

For many Anglicans around the world, their religion is simply part of the ancient Christian Church in whatever local context it finds itself. The idea of Anglicanism as a distinctive worldwide identity has more to do with the legacy of colonialism than serious theological engagement anyways.

 

[PloverWing]

Curious, why would the term Anglican be offensive?

Right after the American Revolution, there were (not surprisingly) hard feelings between the US and England. There was a time when it wasn't clear whether the Anglican church in the US would survive -- partly because the church was associated in people's minds with England (a touchy point just then), and partly because we didn't yet have any American bishops, and any Americans who wanted to be consecrated by bishops in England would have to take an oath of allegiance to the king, which wasn't going to happen. In the end, the first American bishop was consecrated by bishops in Scotland. Our debt to Scotland is why the cross of St Andrew appears on our flag.

We've long since patched things up with England, though. I don't think the term "Anglican" has been considered offensive in the US in my lifetime. It's just that we got used to calling ourselves "Episcopalian".

 

[RileyG]

Because Scotts or Americans don't necessarily want to identify primarily as Anglican just because they follow an episcopal form of church governance.

Aside from this forum, and the few Continuing Anglicans (a phenomenon that began in the 1970's as a reactionary movement), American Episcopalians did not identify as Anglican except in specific contexts. It was considered obtuse or even offensive. The Protestant Episcopal church of the US is a self-governing church, and has been for centuries, with episcopal succession through the Scottish Nonjurors who objected to the "glorious revolution" of the 1660's (William of Orange) as being unlawful.

For many Anglicans around the world, their religion is simply part of the ancient Christian Church in whatever local context it finds itself. The idea of Anglicanism as a distinctive worldwide identity has more to do with the legacy of colonialism than serious theological engagement anyways.

Thanks for the response!

Right after the American Revolution, there were (not surprisingly) hard feelings between the US and England. There was a time when it wasn't clear whether the Anglican church in the US would survive -- partly because the church was associated in people's minds with England (a touchy point just then), and partly because we didn't yet have any American bishops, and any Americans who wanted to be consecrated by bishops in England would have to take an oath of allegiance to the king, which wasn't going to happen. In the end, the first American bishop was consecrated by bishops in Scotland. Our debt to Scotland is why the cross of St Andrew appears on our flag.

We've long since patched things up with England, though. I don't think the term "Anglican" has been considered offensive in the US in my lifetime. It's just that we got used to calling ourselves "Episcopalian".

Thank you as well!

 

[FireDragon76]

Right after the American Revolution, there were (not surprisingly) hard feelings between the US and England. There was a time when it wasn't clear whether the Anglican church in the US would survive -- partly because the church was associated in people's minds with England (a touchy point just then), and partly because we didn't yet have any American bishops, and any Americans who wanted to be consecrated by bishops in England would have to take an oath of allegiance to the king, which wasn't going to happen. In the end, the first American bishop was consecrated by bishops in Scotland. Our debt to Scotland is why the cross of St Andrew appears on our flag.

We've long since patched things up with England, though. I don't think the term "Anglican" has been considered offensive in the US in my lifetime. It's just that we got used to calling ourselves "Episcopalian".

The first bishop ordained in the US Episcopal church, Samuel Seabury, was actually an outspoken Loyalist during the war. In fact, many colonists were, one of the things omitted from many American history textbooks. It does give some context for understanding the politics, or lack thereof. Despite later mythmaking, the revolution didn't necessarily have immediate impact on many peoples sense of identity, which was much more about their local community than any sense of nationalism, and Seabury would have been motivated much more by pragmatic considerations.