This article examines a central concern for the Anglican Communion, namely how a Communion without a strong central authority structure can maintain its unity in the face of potentially church-dividing issues. At present the major such issue relates to human sexuality, but the underlying problem itself is not new, and the article draws a parallel with the Kikuyu controversy of 1913 and subsequent years. The author questions the customary practice of beginning from a universal doctrine of the Church and seeing it as ‘translated’ or ‘inculturated’ into a diversity of contexts. He argues that the New Testament pattern is different. There, the experience of a variety of local churches is the starting point. Drawing on the terminology of the political philosopher Michael Walzer, he designates the local embodiment of the Church as ‘thick’ and its universal expression as ‘thin’. The concrete local embodiments of the Church should be our conceptual starting point, not an idealized picture of the Church universal.

A series of issues have recently arisen that pose the question of whether or not the Anglican Communion will remain a communion of churches or become merely a loose federation. To remain a communion, Anglicans will have to come to some agreement about the relation between ecclesial integrity on the one hand and tolerable diversity on the other. The right balance between the two cannot be maintained by simple reference to such things as doctrinal statements, episcopal authority, or canon law. Ecclesial integrity and tolerable diversity are often not matters with a fixed and plainly recognizable identity. The right balance is to be found within an ethos defined by common practices that include hearing the Scriptures entire within an ordered form of worship, open theological debate, cohesive episcopal oversight, Godliness, and reluctance to change practice until wide agreement in respect to disputed issues is reached.

For more than twenty years the subject of authority has been in the forefront of discussions in the Anglican Communion and in ecumenical conversations. Authority in the Church was treated by the first Anglican Roman Catholic Commission. Both Communions recognized convergence in the Commission's reports but asked for further work. The most recent report, The Gift of Authority, is still being studied. It contains sharp challenges to both churches about their own exercise of authority. It is one thing to agree ideal statements about authority. It is quite another to move into visible unity with another church whose exercise of authority appears at odds with the ideal. If the two Communions can respond to these challenges then the suspicions that each has of the other will be alleviated and the move to visible unity made more possible. This article examines the content of the ARCIC reports and the challenges put to both Communions, arguing that there is much at stake in this conversation both for the internal life of the two Communions as well as for a life of communion in the future.

This article examines the early development of the Mitchell River Mission and explores how the missionary agenda developed in response to external circumstances. Even though the missionaries espoused a strong commitment to the land and cultural rights of Aborigines they quickly developed institutional practices in the Mission that seemed more designed for control than freedom. The Mitchell River Mission raises questions about Anglican identity especially in its form of expression in cross-cultural situations of frontier mission.

Theology in the time of apartheid in South Africa involved clear choices—either one supported the regime or one challenged it, as did the Kairos theologians. Since democratic elections in 1994, the choices are less clear and the issues more complex. The authors are South African theologians attempting to consider some of the challenges to doing theology in South Africa today. They argue that fundamental to this enterprise is the willingness to search for a new vision.

The relationship between church and state in Australia has been examined on many occasions, though principally by historians and theologians. This article examines how the legislature and courts of Australia have handled problems where there has been a conflict at the interface between secular and religious interests. The article deals with constitutional issues, conflict in education, in town planning and taxation as well as considering what we really mean by ‘church’ and ‘state’ in this context and how problems might manifest themselves in the twenty-first century.