I wonder if there will even BE an Anglican Communion much longer
there seems to be some serious factures between the American Episcopalians and the Anglican churches in Africa
I think the African Churches have about half of the total Anglicans world wide?
As with Roman Catholicism, Anglicans have made a lot of strides in evangelizing in Africa the last couple centuries, and with lower birthrates and increasing numbers of people leaving the faith or not being born into the faith in Europe, the US, and Canada; both churches are seeing shifts towards what is known as "the Global South" in terms of where the balance of their membership is. I would say with Anglicanism, we generally mean Africa, although there are Anglicans in South America as well (Just not nearly as many), whereas in a Roman Catholic Church we generally mean Africa *and* South America.
Anyway, as you alluded to, Anglicans from Africa are generally more conservative than those from North America and Europe. They have spent the last 13 years threatening to leave the Anglican Communion, beginning with the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, as Bishop Robinson was openly gay and partnered, and the Anglicans in Africa generally believed that to be immoral.
However, with 13 years having past, it begs the question, why haven't they left if they are so outraged about this? After all, in the interim, the Episcopal Church also consecrated a lesbian bishop, and approved a gender-neutral marriage rite for same-sex couples. So, it's not like they are figuring the Episcopal Church is backing off.
My theory is that these global south provinces are mostly just talk- if they were going to do something, they would have already done it by now. The majority of their funding comes from Europe and the United States, because they are generally from poor countries. A lot of parishes and dioceses in the Episcopal Church have in the past even partnered with Anglican parishes and dioceses in Africa and helped them with things like building houses, putting up mosquito nets, and so on and so forth, as well as writing large checks. This isn't something the Episcopal Church and other global north Anglican churches started doing after 2003 to influence them to stay in the communion, it's something they'd been doing for decades prior, just to help these churches and the people in them out. In fact, in general, the Anglican churches in Africa today can trace their founding to Anglican missionaries in the 19th century and funding from abroad.
Now, to some degree, conservative groups that have broken from the Anglican Communion in the United States and Canada have been unilaterally recognized by some Anglican provinces in Africa, a recognition that goes against traditional Anglican Communion practices. And these groups provide funding in a tacit exchange for recognition by some of these "official" Anglicans somewhere. In fact, some early off-shoots in the US received their Apostolic Succession from Anglican bishops in Africa and Asia, as they only had priests initially, so they first were brought under the care of these outside bishops (I am aware that some Roman Catholics don't believe the Anglicans are truly in Apostolic Succession, but Anglicans believe they are, so this next part is relevant for Anglicans from the perspective of off-shoots having valid sacraments), and eventually some of their priests were consecreted as bishops. However, Apostolic Succession once given can not be taken by man, and in recent years some Episcopalian bishops like Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh jumped ship with large groups, in his case most of the members of the diocese of Pittsburgh, so they have those lines, too.
I am not sure these renegade groups in the western hemisphere have enough money and manpower to make up for the lack of donations and help the Episcopal Church has historically provided Africa, though, and, while they won't openly say it, I think that is one factor that keeps these Anglican provinces in communion.
The other factor is that, while the Archbishop of Canterbury is not an Anglican Pope, and has no authority outside his province (the Church of England), he is at least the titular and symbolic head of the Anglican Communion and the person who decides who is in or out of the Anglican Communion by his invitations to the Lambeth Conference. The Church of England is not as liberal as the Episcopal Church, but also is not as conservative as many of the African provinces.
So, the Archbishop of Canterbury could, for example, talk of sanctions against the Episcopal Church or a need to repent, or complain about the African provinces violating the boundaries of their dioceses and provinces by extending their ministries into places that already have Anglican bishops (Like the US and Canada, represented by the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, respectively). However, in the end, he can't make anyone do what he says. He could eject provinces, but that is the only significant sanction he can impose, and recent Archbishops of Canterbury have not wanted to eject provinces.
Actually, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury refused to invite renegade conservative Anglican bishops from North America and Canada to Lambeth the last time that meeting was held of all the world's Anglican bishops- he invited all the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada's bishops as well as all the African bishops in Africa, other than Bishop Robinson (Who is now retired, but was not at the time). So the message was sent that the breakaway churches in North America are not part of the Anglican Communion even though some claim to be, but also that he did not approve of Bishop Robinson's consecration.
Subsequently, there was a big primates meeting, and a bishop from a conservative breakaway group in the Americas was allowed to show up and give testimony, but had to leave the room when deliberations and voting started on some matters related to whether to suspend the Episcopal Church from certain international committees.
The Church of England isn't going to kick the Episcopal Church, though it does wag a finger occasionally, and in fact I think is moving slowly in the Episcopal Church's direction (For example, relatively recently, the Church of England consecrated it's first female bishop, a couple decades or so after the Episcopal Church did.). So, ultimately, African provinces know they would have to break with Canterbury to truly break with the Episcopal Church.
I think the idea of the African provinces breaking with the Church of England presents two problems for them other than the financial ones already discussed. Firstly, can one claim to a communion of Anglicans if one doesn't have England? There are some real identity issues that would present themselves in these provinces if they broke away. Secondly, a lot of these African Anglican provinces honor the memory of the British missionaries who converted them, celebrating their feast days on their liturgical calendars, and so on and so forth. So, there is an emotional thing, I think with them breaking with the Church of England, especially since they can govern themselves anyway, and there's no real reason to split except that they don't like what's going on in some other Anglican provinces (i.e. No one can force them to adopt the practices they don't like- so that's not something they have to worry about- splitting would just be purely because they refuse to be associated with those provinces, which may seem kind of petty relative to the pain that severing those connections would cause for them).
My analysis is that the Anglican Communion will continue and that both the conservative African provinces and the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada and other liberal provinces will all continue to be a part of it together. The Episcopal Church has demonstrated that it will do what it wants, but take any punishments they are given in terms of being off committees and such and count it as suffering as Jesus suffered on the cross (To a lesser degree than Jesus, obviously, but in that spirit). The Episcopal Church isn't going to leave. The African provinces would thus have to be the ones to leave, and while they've spoken of it, that they haven't actually done it yet and also for the reasons discussed above, I think indicate that they never will (Just an opinion).
There is some talk of maybe going to an even less centralized structure where provinces stop mutual recognition of ministries and exclusive control of their areas, and maybe just associate with the ones they want to, and where Canterbury might recognize multiple provinces in some regions. That could happen, but I hope not.
Honestly, were I the Episcopal Church and that happened, and Canterbury recognized the conservative renegades, I'd walk and try to form an Episcopal Communion. But I don't think the Episcopal Church actually would walk. I think they kind of see the Anglican Communion as a nice association to have, but their identity is primarily as Episcopalians, and they'll take the association as long as it's offered to them without strings and they get to continue to govern themselves. Plus, the Episcopal Church was actually central in forming the Anglican Communion in the 19th century- it's sort of their baby in terms of providing a lot of the push and the funding to start it (Previously, you had Anglicans all over the globe, but no formal overarching institution).
Some conservatives have talked about turning the Archbishop of Canterbury into some kind of Anglican Pope by giving him real authority over other national churches and *that* might cause the Episcopal Church to walk if it happened. However, I don't think it will happen. The idea that national churches should be sovereign and not governed from afar was a key principle of the English Reformation. After all, there wouldn't be an Anglican Communion if the Church of England hadn't said that the Bishop of Rome had no authority in their borders. So, how could they turn around and then say that an English bishop gets to govern North American churches or African churches? They can't, really, and they won't (IMO).
It's all a bit messy, but I think in the end it'll work itself out. I agree with the Episcopal Church in these arguments that they are having and I think over time the Episcopal Church's views will slowly prevail. It could be centuries. But eventually. And in the meantime, the Episcopal Church continues to govern itself, so it can do what it feels it needs to do in terms of affirming homosexual clergy and marriages or whatever other issues come along. And the African churches can continue not doing that and complaining loudly about it. And with that freedom on both sides, there's really no reason for anyone to leave, despite all the posturing.
