Skip to content

September 18, 2013

The Mission of God and the Anglican Tradition

by Admin

In this extract from his 2011 book Saving Power: The Mission of God and the Anglican Communion former General Secretary of USPG (now Us) Bishop Michael Doe reflects on mission and unity.


The “Missio Dei” or “Mission of God” is God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world and is actively involved in and with the world, it embraces both church and world, and the church is privileged to be called to participate in God’s mission. Or in the words of the last century’s great missiologist, David Bosch: “To participate in mission is to participate in the movement of God’s love toward people, since God is a fountain of sending love”.(2)

Twentieth century theology, reacting against the more rationalistic theology which resulted from the Enlightenment, put the emphasis back on the initiative of God, rather than seeing mission as primarily a human activity. This found particular expression in the work of Karl Barth, to whom the concept of Missio Dei, if not the exact words, is often attributed.

The Willingen Statement from the 1952 meeting of the International Missionary Council said that Mission must be first and foremost God’s mission.  It went on to say that we can only understand this mission of God in terms of the triune character of God. It is in the very nature of God to give and receive, to send and return, fundamentally to love the other, and where this overflows in the world, in creation, in Christ, and ultimately in the consummation of all things in Christ, we see the mission of God, the work of God, and the self-revelation of God himself (herself / themselves).

And we are called to join in, as we discover what God is doing and seek to reflect who God is. This raises the question of where the Church fits into the Missio Dei. The Willingen Statement was clear that “the Missionary Calling of the Church is derived from the mission of God”: the Church has a missionary calling rather than a mission, and that calling is to engage in God’s mission. Our mission therefore has no life of its own, only in the hands of the sending God can it truly be called mission, because the missionary initiative comes from God alone.  The Church is both part of what God is doing, as a particular expression or embodiment of the work of God flowing from the very nature of God, and the Church has a particular vocation to engage with God in this work in and for the world. In the words of Jürgen Moltmann, “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfil in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church.” (3)

In USPG’s own theological statement we have focused on the concept of “Communion” (koinonia) as a way of speaking about such things. We say:

Communion is at the heart of God, the very life of the Trinity.
God yearns to draw each one of us into this communion with him.
It is in communion with God that we know and are known, we love and are loved.
Communion is God’s gift to the Church.
We respond in worship, most of all when this communion is made real in the Eucharist.
The Church is called to be the sign, foretaste and anticipation of God’s mission.
We are called to support each other as we engage in this mission wherever God has set us.
Communion is God’s will and desire for all humanity and the whole of creation.
Mission is therefore ‘holistic’, responding to all of God’s liberating activity so that people may ‘grow spiritually, thrive physically, and have a voice in an unjust world’.(4)

One consequence of all this is the need to exercise care when we use the word “Mission” and especially when we talk about the “Mission of the Church”. When I was invited to the Missions Conference of The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. in 2008 they asked me to make a contribution on “The Overseas Mission of the Episcopal Church”. My short response was that it shouldn’t have one! Partly because, as we’ve just said, it is God who has a mission not the church, but also because a proper understanding of this Missio Dei means that mission can no longer be seen as the activity of one Church acting overseas or in another culture. The frontier of mission is no longer primarily a geographical one. Indeed, what we have been saying about the Missio Dei raises fundamental questions about the kind of imperialism which shaped mission in the colonial age, where mission was about moving from the world that immediately surrounded the church to beyond the frontiers of the empire(s) of Christendom. It also questions new and more contemporary imperialisms – geopolitical, economic, and intellectual – which can appear to be shaping mission in our own day.

This mission shift away from such Christendom thinking was described by the 1963 conference of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, meeting in Mexico, in this way: “The missionary frontier now runs around the world, it is the line which separates belief from unbelief, the unseen frontier which cuts across other frontiers and presents the universal Church with its primary missionary challenge”.

So the Missio Dei both challenges each one of us with the need to do mission in our own situation, and also causes us to rethink how we relate what we’re doing with how the rest of the world church is responding.

In “Transforming Mission”, David Bosch summarised how people had seen mission in the past.
“During preceding centuries mission was understood in a variety of ways. Sometimes it was interpreted primarily in soteriological terms: as saving individuals from eternal damnation. Or it was understood in cultural terms: as introducing people from the East and the South to the blessings and privileges of the Christian West. Often it was perceived in ecclesiastical categories: as the expansion of the church (or of a specific denomination). Sometimes it was defined salvation-historically: as the process by which the world—evolutionary or by means of a cataclysmic event—would be transformed into the kingdom of God”.

He went on to describe the new emphases within Missio Dei: “Mission was understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It was thus put in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, not of ecclesiology or soteriology. The classical doctrine on the Missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit was expanded to include yet another “movement”: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit sending the church into the world. As far as missionary thinking was concerned, this linking with the doctrine of the Trinity constituted an important innovation … Our mission has not life of its own: only in the hands of the sending God can it truly be called mission. Not least since the missionary initiative comes from God alone … Mission is thereby seen as a movement from God to the world; the church is viewed as an instrument for that mission. There is church because there is mission, not vice versa”.(5)

John V. Taylor warned against this “gloriously inclusive term” becoming too wide: “There is an inherent, if not deliberate vagueness in the term “Mission of God” which lays it open to abuse. It can be made to include anything under the sun that anyone considers a Good Thing”.(6) This may be true, but it’s also its very inclusiveness which can guard against the two ways in which some parts of the Church have chosen to misinterpret the Missio Dei.

The first, and in part in reaction to its Barthian origins, has been to put all the emphasis on its worldly context and to see God’s engagement in the world as primarily humanistic. This rather modalist God, stripped of any real Trinitarian character or relationship, creates the world, identifies with it in Jesus, and remains active in it through the Spirit who blows wherever he (or she) wills. The Law is not so much transformed by grace as replaced by a new kind of good works. Programmes like the World Council of Churches’ “The World sets the Agenda” – which I have to say profoundly influenced my own training and early ministry – are often accused of having reinforced this trend. It is found in the critique which liberation theology makes of even the global and holistic agenda of someone like David Bosch. It is seen today in many Christian charities, and in Development Agencies who have much to say about “life before death”, but without any larger context of life beyond it. It assesses the Church not as part of the activity of God but in terms of whether it can deliver certain goods.

In the opposing corner is the second direction in which Missio Dei may be said to have been misinterpreted, where the emphasis on God’s initiative and agency is taken to mean that only those who are in conscious relationship with Christ or his Church can be caught up in it. For some this leads to the more Evangelical/Charismatic belief that God only works, or at least works most effectively, through those who have in some way been “born again” or who are filled with the Spirit. For others, the role of the Church is so understood within the Missio Dei as to see little or none of God’s activity beyond its confines. This may be being particularly evident where a more Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology overplays the church as the ark of salvation.


One way of putting some of this into practical form, and to avoid what I have suggested could be distorting directions, has been the Five Marks of Mission.(7) Although these originated within the Anglican Communion, they have been adopted far more widely, perhaps more in Protestant than Catholic circles, and for many people they provide a template for how the Church is engaging with the Missio Dei.

The first thing to say about the Five Marks of Mission is that they begin with the statement: “the mission of the Church is the mission of Christ”.(8) If we see the Missio Dei as the overflowing of God into the world, nowhere is that more evident and more effectual than in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Five Marks can be seen as holding together the various aspects of mission:

1)  To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom.
2)  To teach, baptise and nurture new believers.
3)  To respond to human need by loving service.
4)  To seek to transform unjust structures of society.

And, added a little later:
5)  To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.

Many churches find these five marks a useful check-list for their engagement in mission. But they are not without their dangers. The Anglican Communion’s own Commission for Mission (MISSIO), meeting in Ely in 1996, raised some of these.(9) First, as we’ve already noted, they must not obscure the fact that it’s God’s mission, not ours. Then, do they sufficiently take into account the different contexts in which churches find themselves? Next, do they take seriously enough the life of the churches themselves? For we are called to be not just doers of mission but a people of mission; that is, says the report, “we are learning to allow every dimension of church life to be shaped and directed by our identity as a sign, foretaste and instrument of God’s reign in Christ”.

Within this comes that central activity in the life of the church – our worship. To quote the MISSIO report again, “worship is not just something we do alongside our witness to the good news: worship is itself a witness to the world. It is a sign that all of life is holy, that hope and meaning can be found in offering ourselves to God (cf. Romans 12:1). And each time we celebrate the Eucharist, we proclaim Christ’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Our liturgical life is a vital dimension of our mission calling; and although it is not included in the Five Marks, it undergirds the forms of public witness listed there.” That takes us back to David Bosch, and the way he added “poiesis” – the need for beauty and for worship – to the standard duo of theory and praxis.(10)

So, returning to the Five Marks of Mission, some have wanted to add more marks acknowledging the life and worship of the Church. Others, like Titus Presler in his Ten Marks of Mission, want to stress qualities rather than programmes.(11) Interestingly, the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica in 2009 sought a different sixth mark, on reconciliation. It endorsed a request from the Anglican Church of Canada, and from the Mutual Responsibility and Mission Consultation in Costa Rica, to add one relating to peace, conflict transformation, and reconciliation. We will have to wait and see how this develops.

But there is something still more fundamental to say about the Five Marks, which takes us back to the nature of the Missio Dei: how do we interpret the first Mark, and is it just one amongst five or do the rest follow from it and depend upon it? That 1996 report from the Anglican Communion commission said that the first mark of mission, which was “identified at [the sixth meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council] with personal evangelism, is really a summary of what all mission is about, because it is based on Jesus’ own summary of his mission (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22; cf. John 3:14-17). Instead of being just one (albeit the first) of five distinct activities, this should be the key statement about everything we do in mission.” (12) There is some truth in that if it means that all the marks are to be seen as part of proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom, but not if the first mark is to be reduced to just personal evangelism.

So we are back at the questions: What is God doing in the world and where does it connect with the response of the individual and the life of the Church? The answer to these questions will determine how we engage in mission – including, crucially, how we relate to people of other faiths – and therefore what kind of mission activities we set up.

Let me illustrate this with the thinking that has gone on in USPG over recent years, leading us to three central emphases. The first is holistic mission. All of the issues raised above about the interpretation and inter-relationship of the Five Marks of Mission, and what may need adding to them, come into play. What I would want to affirm here is our belief that the witness of Scripture to the activity of God – in creation, through the saving acts of Christ, and looking to the coming together of all things in Christ – gives us an agenda far wider and deeper than either a crusading evangelism or what might unkindly be called a social gospel. Those who fail to preach Christ (but, remember, Christ crucified), and those who fail to see Christ in the poor, have both minimised the Missio Dei.

The second is our commitment to the Church. When we extended our name to “Anglicans in World Mission” in 2006, we were aware how counter-cultural this could appear. Who, in this day and age, wants to identify with an inherited institutional church? Fundamentalists who (although they pretend the opposite) are the products of Modernism, and charismatic evangelicals who (although they cannot see it) are the children of post-Modernism, prefer to choose their own loyalties. But USPG – and maybe it will be our undoing – works with the Church because we believe that it is an integral part of the Missio Dei and, for us, the Anglican Communion is a “given”, literally our communion is a gift from God. I’ve already spoken about the challenges of being post-colonial and coping with the plurality of contexts. So we have to try, in this post-Christendom era, to play our part in the Communion in the spirit of “inter-dependence and mutual responsibility”, and we need to recognise and respect the different and sometimes conflicting contexts in which our partners are seeking to engage in God’s mission.

The third emphasis needs to be a dynamic spirituality, which can be difficult for a mission agency like ours that continues to have a funding role; and where all the pressures of fund-raising are for the more attractive kind of development projects. So we need to return, as at the beginning of this chapter, to the Holy Trinity. Recent Anglican theology of church and mission has majored on the Trinity, (13) and although aware of the danger of over-structurising what we believe here, (14) it does lead us to see ourselves as part of God’s drawing-in and sending-out activity. In the end, our assurance and the energy for our activity does not depend upon an institution or a book, but from the love of the Father, incorporating us in the Son, through the power of the Spirit.

I believe that the Missio Dei can help us avoid the pitfalls into which other agencies may have fallen. Mission must be about real and costly engagement with the world, embracing all that is meant by prophetic dialogue, but not to the extent where some Christian Development agencies and many Christian charities play down the first and second Marks of Mission, concentrating on humanitarian work and justice issues, and ignoring both personal evangelism and the life of the church. That seems very like the Pelagian heresy.

Equally, mission must be about acknowledging and proclaiming the centrality of Jesus Christ, but not to the extent of those who interpret the first Mark of Mission in such a way that the Missio Dei becomes a marketing and recruitment exercise where success will only be measured by individual conversion and church membership. That seems to me where the Gnostic heretics were heading.

God’s activity in the world is larger and more challenging than all of these. And that’s why we like to say in USPG that “Mission is an adventure”, God’s adventure, which he calls us to join.


The theme of the last Lambeth Conference was “Equipping Bishops for Mission”. Amongst the resources which were prepared I was asked to suggest what might be distinctive in an Anglican approach to mission and evangelism. (15) I offered twelve points, making use of various reports which the Communion has commissioned.

1) The source and goal of all mission lies in the nature and work of the Trinity.

“All our mission springs from the action and self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ… our call to mission and evangelism [is] grounded in the very nature of the God who is revealed to us”. (16)

2) All mission should be centred on Jesus Christ.

“As Anglicans we are called to participate in God’s mission in the world, by embracing respectful evangelism, loving service and prophetic witness. As we do so in all our varied contexts, we bear witness to and follow Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Saviour”. (17)

3) Mission must be holistic, or “integrated”.

“As Anglicans, we value the “five marks of mission”, which begin with the preaching of the Gospel and the call to personal conversion, but which embrace the whole of life: we would wish to see increased emphasis on ecumenism, peace-making and global mutuality as integral parts of God’s mission. Mission is a rich and diverse pattern faithful to the proclamation of the Reign of God in Christ Jesus; a proclamation which touches all areas of life”. (18)

4) Understanding mission needs Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

“Anglicans affirm the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his work in the church and thus enables people to respond with understanding and faith”, but also, “Since the seventeenth century Anglicans have held that Scripture is to be understood and read in the light afforded by ‘tradition’ and ‘reason’.” (19)

5) Theological diversity can be creative in understanding mission.

“As Anglicans we believe that both commonality and difference are sustained by apostolic truth and the hope of the final unity of all things as expressed in our worship” and drew up its own Covenant for Communion in Mission: recognising Jesus, the source and inspiration of our faith, in each other’s different contexts, we need to “to look for, recognise, learn from and rejoice in the presence of Christ at work in the lives and situations of the other”. This will lead to exploring differences and disagreements, and being willing to change in response to critique and challenge from others. Above all we should “live in the promise of God’s reconciliation for ourselves and for the world”. (20)

6) The Church is an integral part of mission and its delivery.

“Because the Church as communion participates in God’s communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it has an eschatological reality and significance. The Church is the advent, in history, of God’s final will being done ‘on earth as it is in heaven’.” (21)

7) Mission must be rooted in the Incarnation of Christ.

“Confident in Christ, we join with all people of good will as we work for God’s peace, justice and reconciling love. We recognise the immense challenges posed by secularisation, poverty, unbridled greed, violence, religious persecution, environmental degradation, and HIV/Aids. In response, we engage in prophetic critique of destructive political and religious ideologies, and we build on a heritage of care for human welfare expressed through education, health care and reconciliation.” (22)

8) Mission must take its cultural context seriously.

“As Anglicans we are keenly aware that our common life and engagement in God’s mission are tainted with shortcomings and failure, such as negative aspects of colonial heritage, self-serving abuse of power and privilege, undervaluing of the contributions of laity and women, inequitable distribution of resources, and blindness to the experience of the poor and oppressed. As a result, we seek to follow the Lord with renewed humility so that we may freely and joyfully spread the good news of salvation in word and deed” (23)

9) In Mission we continue to grow in our understanding of what God is doing.

“[Anglicanism] not a system or a Confession but a method, a use, a direction” so that “its greatest credentials are its incompleteness, with tension and travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy; it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as ‘the best type of Christianity’, but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died”. (24)

10) Mission is the responsibility of all the baptised under the leadership of the bishop.

“The primary task of every bishop, diocese and congregation in the Anglican Communion is to share in and show the love of God in Jesus Christ – by worship, by the proclamation to everyone of the gospel of salvation through Christ, through the announcing of good news to the poor and the continuing effort to witness to God’s Kingdom and God’s justice in act and word”. (25)

11) Mission should be a shared activity across the Communion.

“As the Communion continues to develop into a worldwide family of interdependent churches, we embrace challenges and opportunities for mission at local, regional, and international levels. In this, we cherish our faith and mission heritage as offering Anglicans distinctive opportunities for mission collaboration”. (26)

12) Mission should be part of a larger ecumenical giving and receiving.

“Our common mission is a mission shared with other churches and traditions beyond this covenant.  We embrace opportunities for the discovery of the life of the whole gospel and for reconciliation and shared mission with the Church throughout the world.  It is with all the saints that we will comprehend the fuller dimensions of Christ’s redemptive and immeasurable love”. (27)


This leads us, finally, to broaden out the consideration of Anglican perspectives from mission to the whole life and work of the Church – although if mission were to become the Church’s central concern, as it should be, some of the other and more divisive issues might fall back into a more appropriate place! So where in our Anglican tradition can we look to recover some insights that can help us find a way through some of the current problems?

There has been no lack in recent years of those seeking to define the particular characteristics of Anglicanism, notably Stephen Sykes (28) and Paul Avis,(29) or in more popular form, Alastair Redfern.(30) Three recent writers have focussed on how the received traditions of Anglicanism are to be found in the Communion’s present state, and how they might help direct its future. It will be helpful to take some ideas from each of them.

Ian Douglas,(31) one of the key people in the design of the 2008 Lambeth Conference and now Bishop of Connecticut, defines Anglicanism as “the embrace and celebration of apostolic catholicity within vernacular moments”. He shows how in the Incarnation of Jesus, and in his ongoing body which is the Church, God acts in ways which are both particular and universal. Anglicanism has always rejoiced in its catholicity, as the Lambeth Quadrilateral shows, but it has also celebrated “contextuality”, from the English Reformation – and that particular historical context – to now. The missiologist Lamin Sanneh speaks of “vernacular moments” when the gospel truth is translated and comes alive in a different place and culture. Anglicanism, says Douglas, should be ideally placed in the struggle to hold together the catholic and the local, the experienced and the received.

Bruce Kaye,(32) until recently General Secretary of the Anglican Church in Australia,
also sees Anglicanism as a story which over time and in each place – all very Incarnational – has produced a particular catholicity in which the local and the universal are held together. He traces how the inculturation which formed the Church of England, especially at the Reformation, took shape in many different cultural contexts around the world. He draws out both what is held in common, particularly in ministerial order and liturgy, and how the Anglican leaning towards conciliarity has inevitably reflected the different political realities in, say, the United States and Nigeria.

Kaye says that while Anglicanism’s insistence on the historic episcopate makes it distinctive from other ‘reformed’ churches who may share the rest of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, it departs from the Roman model in understanding itself not as a church but as a fellowship of churches, in which the Province has increasingly been seen as the ecclesial unit and the place where local responsibility, not least for mission, is held together with catholic order. He points out that the Anglican Communion’s Instruments of Unity, are, unlike those of the Roman Catholic Church, fairly recent creations and (at least until the emergence of the proposed Covenant) without their jurisdictional character or aspirations.

One of his most helpful insights is in the contrast among the Doctrine Reports which the Communion has produced in recent years. “For the Sake of the Kingdom”, in 1987, was rooted in the actual empirical experiences of Anglican churches around the world as it sought an extensive engagement with scripture on the theme of creation and the Kingdom of God. It thereby challenged all cultures, and could have led to a much more inter-dependent understanding of Church. However, by 1996 the “Virginia Report”, commissioned in the backlash caused by the American decision to ordain women, and working from what some see as a rather over-structural understanding of the Trinity, resulted in a much more uniform version of what it means to be church and therefore how Anglicans should relate to each other.

Louise Cavanagh (33) takes as her starting point Richard Hooker’s theology of “participation” in understanding salvation and the life of the Church. Hooker saw the Church as participation in the life of God and within the dynamic of God’s ongoing purpose. It is God who gives it coherence and meaning. God’s reconciliation of us with himself at a spiritual level is shown to the world by our desire to be reconciled with each other as “a continual receiving of one another from within the love of God.”

She contrasts this with the more general trend in Reformation thought that saw moral values as autonomous virtues apart from the spiritual character of holiness, which reflects the justice and mercy of God. Then, as now, it led to a non-dynamic and divisive understanding of who God is and the kind of church he wants.

It also led to relationships being based on purity rather than holiness. She says that the life and death of Jesus show how defining holiness on the basis of purity stifles compassion, creates division, causes backward-looking and non-dynamic Christian life, and generates fear and distrust.

It is this, she says, which underlies many of our present problems: “Anglican disunity reveals the way in which non-dynamic thinking generates fixed beliefs in allowing doctrine and polity to become separated from the movement or dynamic of God’s life in the Church as this proceeds from the dynamic of love within the Godhead”.

Her answer is that we need to rediscover Anglican hospitality – “receiving one another unconditionally from within a shared love of God” – expressed in the Eucharist, and the way we work together to find truth in Scripture. When we do this we reflect that hospitality of God which marks all Salvation History. We need to honour each other’s integrity because we trust in God and our covenantal relationship with him.

Who could disagree that if we could find a way to live out together this “hospitality of Christ crucified”, what a different Communion we would be!

© Michael Doe 2010 used with permission

1  This section has been published in “Foundations for Mission”, ed Anne Richards et al, CTBI Publications, 2010.

2  Transforming Mission, David Bosch, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991

3  The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, Jurgen Moltmann, SCM Press, 1977

4  Our Theological Basis and Ways of Working, USPG : Anglicans in World Mission, 2008

5   Bosch, op cit

6  The Uncancelled Mandate, John V Taylor, Church House Publishing, 1998

7  ACC 1984 & 1990

8  Bonds of Affection, Report of the Sixth meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Anglican Communion Office, 1984.

9  Communion in Mission, Report of IASCOM (Inter-Anglican Commission on Mission and Evangelism), Anglican Communion Office 2006

10  David Bosch: South African Context, Universal Missiology – Ecclesiology in the Merging Missionary Paradigm, Timothy Yates, in International Bulletin of Missionary Research, April 2009

11   Horizons of Mission, Titus Presler, Cowley Publications, Cambridge Mass, 2001

12  Communion in Mission, op cit

13  The Virginia Report, in the Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, Anglican Communion Office, 1999.

14  An Introduction to World Anglicanism, Bruce Kaye, Cambridge, 2008


16 Lambeth 1998: Resolution II 1

17 “The Anglican Way: Signposts on a Common Journey” Report from the Singapore Consultation of the Theological Education in the Anglican Communion (TEAC), 2007

18 Lambeth Indaba: Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008 – Equipping Bishops for Mission and Strengthening Anglican Identity.   ACC 2008

19 The Virginia Report, Inter-Anglican Theological & Doctrinal Commission, 1997

20 “Communion in Mission” Report of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Mission and Evangelism (IASCOME) 2005

21 The Virginia Report, op cit

22 TEAC, op cit

23 TEAC op cit

24 “The Gospel and the Catholic Church”, Michael Ramsey, Longmans, 1936

25 Lambeth Conference 1998: Resolution II.6

26 IASCOME op cit

27 “An Anglican Covenant” St Andrews Draft Text 2008

28  e.g. The Study of Anglicanism, (ed) Stephen Sykes, John Booty & Jonathan Knight, SPCK 1998

29  e.g. The Identity of Anglicanism, Paul Avis, T & T Clark, 1998

30  Being Anglican, Alastair Redfern, Darton Longman, Todd 2001

31  The Exigency of Times and Occasions: Power & Identity in the Anglican Communion Today, Ian T Douglas in Beyond Colonial Anglicanism: The Anglican Communion in the 21st Century, ed Ian T Douglas & Kwok Pui-lan; Church Publishing Inc., 2001

32  An Introduction to World Anglicanism, op cit

33  By One Spirit – Reconciliation and Renewal in Anglican Life,  Lorraine Cavanagh, Peter Leng, 2009

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: