04/10/2025
The Center no Longer Holds
A Theological Response to the Appointment of Sarah Mullaly, a Pro-LGBTQ+, as Archbishop of Canterbury
Introduction
The appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullaly, a pro-gay, as the Archbishop of Canterbury presents a profound theological challenge to the Anglican Communion and the church Catholic. The office of the Archbishop is not merely administrative but symbolic of fidelity to the apostolic faith and continuity with the historic witness of the Church. To endorse positions that affirm same-sex relations or reconfigure Christian teaching on sexuality raises serious questions about biblical authority, doctrinal integrity, and ecclesial unity.
The Biblical Witness on Sexuality:
Scripture remains the norma normans—the norming norm—for Christian doctrine and practice. From the creation narratives in Genesis, where humanity is created male and female (Gen. 1:27; 2:24), to the consistent witness of the Torah, Navi’im, and apośtoloí, marriage is upheld as a covenantal union between man and woman. The New Testament, particularly Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, and 1 Timothy 1:10, presents same-sex practice as contrary to God’s design. These texts do not stand in isolation but are rooted in a broader theological anthropology that sees human sexuality as intrinsically ordered toward procreation, covenantal fidelity, and the mystery of Christ and His Church (Eph. 5:31–32).
To disregard this teaching, which is what Bishop Sarah Mullally and her revisionist cohorts have done, is to adopt a hermeneutic of accommodation that elevates cultural sensibilities above divine revelation. Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, Primate of all Nigeria, in his episcopal response on the election, calls this a double jeopardy. (++Ndukuba, 6th October, 2025) As Karl Barth insisted, the Church’s task is to stand under the authority of the Word of God, not over it. (Karl Barth, 109)
The Witness of Tradition:
The Christian tradition, East and West, has consistently affirmed heterosexual marriage as normative. Church Fathers such as Augustine emphasized marriage as a sacramentum ordered toward fidelity and procreation (Augustine, 399-420), while John Chrysostom spoke forcefully against homosexual practices as contrary to nature and divine order (Chrysostom, 357–360). Medieval scholars such as Thomas Aquinas viewed same-sex acts as violations of natural law, ranking them among the gravest forms of sin against chastity (Aquinas, Q.154, a.12). The Reformers, including John Calvin, upheld this biblical and traditional witness, grounding marriage in God’s covenantal design for creation and redemption (Calvin, 135-140).
The Anglican formularies—particularly the Book of Common Prayer (1662) and the Thirty-Nine Articles—reflect this continuity by upholding marriage as “an honourable estate, instituted of God” for the procreation of children, the remedy against sin, and the mutual help of spouses (BCP, 1962). The appointment of Sarah Mullally, a pro-gay, as Archbishop thus represents a rupture with catholic tradition and undermines the very ecclesial role of Canterbury as a symbol of unity in doctrine and practice. According to Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, Primate of all Nigeria, ‘’this election is a further confirmation that the global Anglican world could no longer accept the leadership of the Church of England and that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.’’ Since they cannot guard and uphold the apostolic faith once received.
Ecclesiological Implications:
The Archbishop of Canterbury functions as primus inter pares (first among equals) within the Anglican Communion, charged with preserving unity and guarding the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). When that office is occupied by someone who affirms teachings contrary to Scripture and tradition, like Bishop Sarah Mullally, it places the Communion, and the Church of England in particular, in a state of doctrinal crisis. This is not a matter of adiaphora (things indifferent), but one that touches on the Church’s anthropology, sacramentality, and soteriology.
If sin is redefined as holiness, the Gospel itself is obscured. Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned against “cheap grace”—the proclamation of forgiveness without repentance (Bonhoeffer, 45). Church of England must understand that a Church that affirms sexual practices contrary to God’s Word risks offering precisely such cheap grace, thereby leading people away from sanctification and into spiritual deception.
Love, Truth, and Pastoral Responsibility:
It must be emphasized that opposition to pro-gay theology is not rooted in animosity but in theological and scriptural convictions. Christian love is not mere affirmation but a call to transformation in Christ. The Gospel invites all people—regardless of their brokenness—into new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). To bless what Scripture calls sin is not pastoral care but pastoral neglect, for it fails to lead people toward holiness. To this end, Archbishop Laurent Mbanda, the Chairman of the Primates Council of GAFCON, calls bishop Sarah Mullally and her likes to repentance.
As John Stott rightly observed, “All true love is costly self-giving, but it never condones what God has condemned; instead, it points toward God’s redemptive purposes.” (Stott, 334) The pastoral responsibility of the Church is therefore to welcome all people, while also upholding God’s design for human flourishing, inadvertently calling men to repentance.
Conclusion:
The appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally, a pro-gay, as Archbishop of Canterbury, cannot be viewed merely as an internal Anglican issue; it has ecumenical and theological ramifications for the Church catholic. It represents a shift from a Christocentric and scriptural foundation to a culturally accommodated ecclesiology. Faithful Christians must therefore continue to bear witness to the authority of Scripture, the continuity of tradition, and the call to holiness in Christ. This is where GAFCON stands according to her official response to the recent election to the see of Canterbury.
The Church is not at liberty to redefine sin or reconfigure God’s design for His Church. Instead, it must remain steadfast in proclaiming the Gospel that saves, sanctifies, and transforms. Only in this way can the Church remain truly catholic, apostolic, and faithful to its Lord.
I believe that GAFCON stands as the new face for Global Anglicans and they are ready to lead the Communion.
References
1.Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936.
2.Augustine, De Bono Coniugali (On the Good of Marriage), trans. C.L. Cornish, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
3.John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily IV, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 11, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
4.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.154, a.12.
5.John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.6.The Book of Common Prayer (1662), Solemnization of Matrimony.
7.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Macmillan, 1959.
8.John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
