Can anyone add a list of member churches? --Chonak (talk)05:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cross posted toTalk:Global Anglican Future ConferenceThe Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans seems to have rebranded itself as GAFCON and the host of subsequent GAFCON provinces. I think it would be wise to restructure the FCA and GAFCON articles to reflect the current status and structure of these entities.https://www.gafcon.org/about/global-movement --Dclemens1971 (talk)17:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear many outlets have picked it up yet, but GAFCON members seem to have declared a break with the Church of England:https://gafcon.org/communique-updates/the-future-has-arrived/
Something to watch for the future of this page as more RS's pick it up.Seltaeb Eht (talk)17:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The GAFCON communique by the Primatial Bishop of Rwanda stated in bold that they are not (currently anyway) leaving the Anglican Communion; they are making the case that they control the Communion. This is indeed something to monitor, but so far the Anglican Communion remains intact with the same internal divisions and states of impaired communion as before.SeminarianJohn (talk)03:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They can claim to be the Real Anglican Communion all they like, but as the communique calls for them to reject all the Instruments of Communion, this is in practice GAFCON splitting off from Canterbury. However, we shouldn't rush to editorial judgement, but watch the situation and edit judiciously.GenevieveDEon (talk)11:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the Canterbury point; however, Canterbury does not have jurisdiction or authority over any other autocephelous province; so, rejecting Canterbury (which has been done before) does not legally end the Anglican Communion affiliations. As you said, agreed it is something that may happen formally and legally and we should monitor the situation for reliable updates.
SeminarianJohn (talk)21:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I want to add that editors should collaborate to monitor promotional GAFCON claims; for example, an editor has added that GAFCON claims to represent 75% of active Anglicans. It is true that GAFCON claims this; so, it makes sense to include the claim. However, both for accuracy's and neutrality's sake, it should also be noted that this claim is disputed and is contradicted by peer-reviewed research published in the Journal of Anglican Studies by Cambridge University Press. Although not directly contradicting the claim, there are also other peer-reviewed studies that show that the largest GAFCON churches have far fewer self-identifying and even fewer active members than claimed by the denominations. This is not unusual. Most denominations report a total membership that is much higher than actual participation. This is true for Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and much of Protestantism.SeminarianJohn (talk)02:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GAFCON lists its members on its official website; some editors are claiming there are members who are not listed.SeminarianJohn (talk)00:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While the GAFCON official membership list leaves off Alexandria, the primates' council includes them. Adding citation for their inclusion.SeminarianJohn (talk)01:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is undoing revisions that even just replace older citations that seem to have been incorrectly left behind without explanation. For example, the editor undid the revision of adding two RS (one secondary and one primary) for the Church of Nigeria's 18 million members. The membership claim was not adjusted, just two citations were added to replace the World Council of Churches which does not include 18 million (the WCC says 1,750,000). The second example is the Church of Uganda; the previous cited source said 8 million and the article text said 11 million. I added the 2024 Uganda census as RS and changed to 13,311,800 per the 2024 census. Both were undone. Also, the same editor removed a citation for GAFCON's membership from GAFCON itself, also without explanation.SeminarianJohn (talk)01:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to readd those citations. I just didn't feel like tracing back through those other edits to be able to restore the accurate reading of Muñoz's study.natemup (talk)02:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I made sure to do separate edits on purpose in case you objected to the wording including "Global South." However, no harm done. I had the citations available pretty quickly. As I said on the other talk page, I can live with your current phrasing "GAFCON-aligned provinces,"; I think that is more accurate. I disagree that your reading is the "accurate" reading. I know how to read academic journals. However, I am going to assume you didn't mean to be offensive there. Also, I support your other suggestion to merge the two GAFCON pages.SeminarianJohn (talk)02:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support such a merge, but I can't actually find the proposal.GenevieveDEon (talk)23:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Percentage of Anglicans represented by GAFCON
[edit]Hello editors! I've reviewed the article. Although GAFCON's own sources say it represents 85% of Anglicans (and we should maintain this information as the organization's own statement), censuses, independent surveys, etc., are listed inAnglican Communion#Organisation#Provinces that include the numbers of practicing, self-declared, and baptized Anglicans, according to various independent sources and the churches themselves. The 10 provinces of the Anglican Communion (previous structure, linked to the See of Canterbury) , now at GAFCON, together represent 55.6% of the active members of the Anglican Communion churches and 46.5% of all self-declared Anglicans, as well as 46.7% of baptized Anglicans. We could transfer the dozens of sources from there to here, but I think it would be complicated. However, this information can be verified by anyone who transfers the data to an Excel spreadsheet, selects the data from the 10 GAFCON provinces that represent a percentage of the previous Anglican Communion, and divides the sum by the total number of Anglicans in each definition (active, self-declared, and baptized).Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk)00:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would unfortunately representoriginal research orsynthesis. However, it appears that there are already reliable secondary sources for claimed membership numbers more in line with the lower estimates you mention, so we should reference those.GenevieveDEon (talk)07:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Daniel, for joining in, friend. I agree with Genevieve that because the study cited gives specific percentages based on that research, we have to leave those numbers and that sentence the way they are. It's not because I disagre with you; you're right that there are those other estimates. However, as Genevieve says, we can and should add additional RS to give an accurate reflection of both the claims of GAFCON and the research done on the numbers.SeminarianJohn (talk)02:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
