Archbishop Laurent Mbanda   By Archbishop Laurent Mbanda October 3, 2025   To my dear brothers and sisters in our Gafcon family,   Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.   The news has finally arrived after months of prayer and long waiting. But it is with sorrow that Gafcon receives the announcement today of the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This appointment abandons global Anglicans, as the Church of England has chosen a leader who will further divide an already split Communion.   For over a century and a half, the Archbishop of Canterbury functioned not only as the Primate of All England but also as a spiritual and moral leader of the Anglican Communion. In more recent times, the See of Canterbury has been described as one of the four “Instruments of Communion,” whilst also chairing the other three Instruments, namely the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.   However, due to the failure of successive Archbishops of Canterbury to guard the faith, the office can no longer function as a credible leader of Anglicans, let alone a focus of unity. As we made clear in our Kigali Commitment of 2023, we can “no longer recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion” or the “first among equals” of global Primates.   We had hoped that the Church of England would take this into due consideration as it deliberated over the choice of a new Archbishop of Canterbury and would choose someone who could bring unity to a divided Anglican Communion. Sadly, they have not done so.   Though there are some who will welcome the decision to appoint Bishop Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury, the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy. Therefore, her appointment will make it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve as a focus of unity within the Communion.   However, more concerning is her failure to uphold her consecration vows. When she was consecrated in 2015, she took an oath to “banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine contrary to God’s Word.” And yet, far from banishing such doctrine, Bishop Mullally has repeatedly promoted unbiblical and revisionist teachings regarding marriage and sexual morality.   In 2023, when asked by a reporter whether sexual intimacy in a same-sex relationship is sinful, she said that some such relationships could, in fact, be blessed. She also voted in favour of introducing blessings of same-sex marriage into the Church of England.   Anglicans believe that the church has been given authority by God to establish rites and ceremonies and to settle doctrine controversy, “and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word” (Article XX). The church cannot bless or affirm what God has condemned (Numbers 23:8; 24:13). This, however, is precisely what Bishop Mullally has sought to allow.   Since the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture and “the Church’s historic and consensual” interpretation of it (Jerusalem Statement), she cannot provide leadership to the Anglican Communion. The leadership of the Anglican Communion will pass to those who uphold the truth of the gospel and the authority of Scripture in all areas of life.   Gafcon gathered in Jerusalem in 2008 to reset the Anglican Communion back onto its biblical foundations. Today’s appointment makes it clearer than ever before that Canterbury has relinquished its authority to lead. The reset of our beloved Communion is now uniquely in the hands of Gafcon, and we are ready to take the lead.   For such a time as this, Gafcon has summoned global orthodox Anglican bishops to Abuja, Nigeria, from 3 to 6 March, 2026, for the G26 Bishops Assembly. This may be the most significant gathering of faithful Anglicans since 2008.   Today’s announcement will cause sadness and dismay among Anglicans worldwide.  Yet, every morning, Anglicans throughout the world recite the words of Psalm 95: “Today, if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”   Today, that is our prayer for all bishops and leaders within the Anglican Communion, including Bishop Sarah Mullally. We pray that as she takes upon herself the weight of this historic office, she will repent, and earnestly work with the Gafcon leadership to mend the torn fabric of our Anglican Communion.   May all our hearts be softened to hear the voice of God in Scripture, and may we all be inclined to obey, as we move out in gospel mission to a lost and hurting world, for the glory of God.   Yours in Christ,   The Most Reverend Dr Laurent Mbanda is Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council

Sept. 24, 2025   JAFC Refutes False Narrative from ACNA Archbishop's Office   PELHAM, AL – The Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy ® (JAFC) issued a statement in response to a press release from the Office of the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The JAFC notes that the Archbishop’s letter presents a false and misleading account of the events concerning both the JAFC and Bishop Derek Jones.   Inaccurate Account of Events   The letter from the Archbishop's office inaccurately portrays the sequence of events and conflates distinct matters. Most notably, it misrepresents the relationship between the JAFC and the composition of the ACNA’s Title I, Canon 11. It was mutually understood and agreed upon during the JAFC’s transition from the Church of Nigeria to the ACNA that Canon 11 would be inoperative. This agreement was made in recognition of the JAFC's unique history and structure, which was established in 2007, prior to the formation of the ACNA.   Charges Against Bishop Derek Jones   Rather than relying on the Archbishop’s unsubstantiated narrative, the JAFC's Executive Committee encourages the public and fellow clergy to view the linked video below. In this video, Bishop Jones directly addresses the charges against him, providing a chronological, transparent, and factual account of the situation. Bishop Jones has consistently stated his full cooperation with any lawful investigation or accountability process. His only requirement is that such proceedings be conducted in accordance with established legal and canonical norms. View Full Video History of the JAFC and the Complications of Canon 11 (5:58) Charges against Bishop Jones (20:55) Response from JAFC Chancellor (30:50) Provincial Reply and JAFC Response (37:40) Correspondence between Archbishop Duncan and Bishop Jones (51:00) Discussion of Inhibition (56:00)   Refusal of Reconciliation    Several ACNA Bishops reached out to Bishop Jones, requesting that he consider having a conversation with Archbishop Wood with the aim of initiating reconciliation. Bishop Jones readily agreed, encouraging these ACNA Bishops to move forward. Regrettably, Archbishop Wood vehemently refused their requests for attempts toward reconciliation.   Contact: JAFC Communications Office communications@anglicanchaplains.org www.anglicanchaplains.org   JAFC News

PRESS RELEASE October 3, 2025   While we shall of course pray for Bishop Mullally as she assumes this historic position, we feel compelled to say that we feel this appointment is a missed opportunity to reunite and reform the Anglican Communion.   In June, we issued an open letter to the Crown Nominations Commission urging that ‘the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be someone who will uphold the orthodox faith shared by the great majority of global Anglicans’. So we are deeply saddened that the person still perceived by many to be the spiritual leader of now some 100 million Anglicans worldwide has played a leading role in the Church of England’s departure from Anglican tradition and the clear teaching of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality.   When the Church of England’s General Synod opened the door to the blessing of same sex relationships at its February 2023 General Synod she described this as ‘A moment of hope’.   For us, it was a moment of lament because we believe that the teaching of Jesus and the whole of Scripture is fundamental to human flourishing, both now and for eternity, and should not be compromised by the pressures of a particular culture.   Sadly therefore, our position must remain as it was in our Ash Wednesday statement of February 2023 when we stated that we were no longer able to recognise the then Archbishop of Canterbury as the ‘first amongst equals’ leader of the global Communion.   Grievous though this turn of events is, it is not unexpected and is one further symptom of the crisis of faith and authority that has afflicted the Anglican Communion for the past quarter of a century. To remedy this, the GSFA offers to all orthodox Provinces a framework of covenanted relationships, rooted in an explicit commitment to orthodox Anglican doctrine and mutual accountability which we commend to the whole Communion as a matter of urgency.   Only in this way, we believe, will it be possible to restore confidence, clarity and unity as we continue to obey our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations.   The Most Rev Dr Justin Badi Arama Primate of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan and Chairman of GSFA

PRESS RELEASE October 3, 2025   To my dear brothers and sisters in our Gafcon family, Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.   The news has finally arrived after months of prayer and long waiting. But it is with sorrow that Gafcon receives the announcement today of the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This appointment abandons global Anglicans, as the Church of England has chosen a leader who will further divide an already split Communion.   For over a century and a half, the Archbishop of Canterbury functioned not only as the Primate of All England but also as a spiritual and moral leader of the Anglican Communion. In more recent times, the See of Canterbury has been described as one of the four “Instruments of Communion,” whilst also chairing the other three Instruments, namely the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.   However, due to the failure of successive Archbishops of Canterbury to guard the faith, the office can no longer function as a credible leader of Anglicans, let alone a focus of unity. As we made clear in our Kigali Commitment of 2023, we can “no longer recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion” or the “first among equals” of global Primates.   We had hoped that the Church of England would take this into due consideration as it deliberated over the choice of a new Archbishop of Canterbury and would choose someone who could bring unity to a divided Anglican Communion. Sadly, they have not done so.   Though there are some who will welcome the decision to appoint Bishop Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury, the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy. Therefore, her appointment will make it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve as a focus of unity within the Communion.   However, more concerning is her failure to uphold her consecration vows. When she was consecrated in 2015, she took an oath to “banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine contrary to God’s Word.” And yet, far from banishing such doctrine, Bishop Mullally has repeatedly promoted unbiblical and revisionist teachings regarding marriage and sexual morality.   In 2023, when asked by a reporter whether sexual intimacy in a same-sex relationship is sinful, she said that some such relationships could, in fact, be blessed. She also voted in favour of introducing blessings of same-sex marriage into the Church of England.   Anglicans believe that the church has been given authority by God to establish rites and ceremonies and to settle doctrine controversy, “and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word” (Article XX). The church cannot bless or affirm what God has condemned (Numbers 23:8; 24:13). This, however, is precisely what Bishop Mullally has sought to allow.   Since the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture and “the Church’s historic and consensual” interpretation of it (Jerusalem Statement), she cannot provide leadership to the Anglican Communion. The leadership of the Anglican Communion will pass to those who uphold the truth of the gospel and the authority of Scripture in all areas of life.   Gafcon gathered in Jerusalem in 2008 to reset the Anglican Communion back onto its biblical foundations. Today’s appointment makes it clearer than ever before that Canterbury has relinquished its authority to lead. The reset of our beloved Communion is now uniquely in the hands of Gafcon, and we are ready to take the lead.   For such a time as this, Gafcon has summoned global orthodox Anglican bishops to Abuja, Nigeria, from 3 to 6 March, 2026, for the G26 Bishops Assembly. This may be the most significant gathering of faithful Anglicans since 2008.   Today’s announcement will cause sadness and dismay among Anglicans worldwide. Yet, every morning, Anglicans throughout the world recite the words of Psalm 95: “Today, if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”   Today, that is our prayer for all bishops and leaders within the Anglican Communion, including Bishop Sarah Mullally. We pray that as she takes upon herself the weight of this historic office, she will repent, and earnestly work with the Gafcon leadership to mend the torn fabric of our Anglican Communion.   May all our hearts be softened to hear the voice of God in Scripture, and may we all be inclined to obey, as we move out in gospel mission to a lost and hurting world, for the glory of God.   Yours in Christ,   The Most Reverend Dr Laurent Mbanda Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council Friday 3rd October, 2025

Where does such forgiveness come from?   By Mary Ann Mueller VOL Special Correspondent www.virtueonline.org October 2, 2025   On September 10, Erika Kirk watched her husband slain before her eyes. Like Jacqueline Kennedy before her, she is now the grieving single mother of two youngsters. She's lost her husband and the father of her children. As a new widow she stood before the nation as her husband's untimely death was publicly mourned.   Mrs. Kirk stood before God and the world and proclaimed her willingness to forgive her husband's alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson.   "My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life. On the Cross, Our Savior said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' That young man … I forgive him," Mrs. Kirk said. "I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and it's what Charlie would do."   Forgiveness is a bold act. A very difficult step to take particularly just days after her husband was killed plunging her into instant widowhood and stripping her children of their Daddy. Children so young they will lose the memory of his hug, of his voice, of his fatherly love … "The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the Gospel is love — always love,” the young widow continued. “Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us."   President Donald Trump vehemently disagreed with the Kirks and their views on hate and forgiveness, and he was not shy about proclaiming his opposite view.   “Charlie was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them,” the president explained. “That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them.”   Turning to Mrs. Kirk Trump said: “I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erika. But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that's not right, but I can't stand my opponent.”   Mrs. Kirk’s forgiveness had to be born out of her strong Catholic faith and wrenching tearful prayer.   The young grieving widow is following in the footsteps of others who have been stripped of spouses, children, siblings and parents through purposeful violent death.   Charlie Kirk's accused murderer has been charged by the Utah County (Utah) Attorney’s Office with aggravated murder which is a capital offense in the State of Utah.  Utah County is where Utah Valley University is located, the place where Kirk met his death. Robinson’s next court date is at the end of October. Until then the 22-year-old is being held without bond in the Utah County Jail.   THE AMISH FORGIVE Nineteen years ago, in early October 2006, an Old Order Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, forgave the shooter, their neighbor – Charles Roberts – who shot up the West Nickel Mines School killing five school girls and wounding five others.   In fact, the Amish prayerfully, emotionally and even lovingly supported the shooter's widow, Marie Roberts. Charles Roberts died at his own hand. The Amish, grieving themselves, attended their neighbor’s funeral.   Following the tragic schoolhouse shooting in 2006 it was reported that the Amish responded with forgiveness in their hearts.   One Amish grandfather was reported to say: “We must not think evil of this man.” While one of the Amish dads is quoted as saying: “He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God.”   This level of Christian forgiveness was shocking and not understood. The media, which converged on the one-room schoolhouse, were flummoxed that the Amish were so willing to forgive and even reach out to Marie Roberts, the shooter's widow, with loving compassion.   “Some commentators criticized the quick and complete forgiveness with which the Amish responded, arguing that forgiveness is inappropriate when no remorse has been expressed, and that such an attitude risk denying the existence of evil,” Wikipedia writes.   In fact, a delegation of 30 Amish attended Roberts’ funeral. Mrs. Roberts thanked the Amish community for its forgiveness, grace and mercy extended to her during such a tragic time for them as they had their own funerals to plan.   THE CHARLESTON CHURCH FORGIVES In 2016 Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people after attending their midweek Bible Study at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.   Again, the deeply committed Christian community of believers choose to forgive, not hate, Roof for his actions.   “I forgive you, and my family forgives you,” Anthony Thompson, the widower of 59-year-old Myra Thompson, said during Roof’s initial court appearance. “But we would like you to take this opportunity to repent. Change your ways.”   “You took something really precious from me. I will never talk to her again,” the daughter of 70-year-old shooting victim Ethel Lance, said. “But I forgive you and have mercy on your soul. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people. But God forgives you. I forgive you.”   Forgiveness is not automatic. It is a work in progress. Sometimes it takes a while to overcome the shock, anger and loss.   “For me, I am a work in progress,” admitted a relative of 49-year-old Depayne Middleton-Doctor. “I am very angry, but we are the family that love built. We have no room for hate, so I have to forgive.”   Roof’s family responded to the forgiveness being offered to Dylann. The Roof Family expressed their "deepest sympathies and condolences” to families of the shooting victims.   In an issued statement the Roof Family said: "Words cannot express our shock, grief, and disbelief as to what happened that night. We are devastated and saddened by what occurred. We have all been touched by the moving words from the victims’ families offering God’s forgiveness and love in the face of such horrible suffering.”   Again others challenged the ease at which Mother Emanuel parishioners forgave. Especially since Roof went out of his way to target black church members.   In 2017 the International Network for Hate Studies (INHS) posted: “The controversy surrounding those who forgave Dylann Roof betrays the complexities inherent in the practice of forgiveness. His actions still resonate painfully both for the families of his victims and for those who recognize the persisting threat of racially motivated violence. While we (the INHS authors) occupy a position of privilege and are far removed from the experiences of Roof’s forgivers, we’ve argued that the practice of forgiveness is not exempt from the distortions and burdens of power. The circumstances of oppression can make forgiveness incredibly difficult, perhaps even impossible, and to find oneself in such a position is to be doubly harmed.”   Roof was a young adult at the time of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting. In late 2016 he was convicted of the mass murder in federal court and he was sentenced to death by the United States as the result of the federal government adding hate crime enhancements to his murder indictments.   In 2017 he pled guilty to the State of South Carolina charges against him and was sentenced by South Carolina to nine consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole plus 95 years. He will spend the rest of his life in prison, no matter if he lives a long life or short life. He has already spent nearly a decade behind bars.   Imagine unending prison life. The rest of a person's life lived in a room with walls made out of bars.   Imagine waking up every morning, until the moment of death, within prison walls. A penitentiary is a violent place, it is a crucible of concentrated evil – an accumulation of sin: violence, murder, burglary, arson, rape, kidnapping …   Born in 2004 Roof was 21 at the time he committed the mass murder at the Mother Emanuel Church and he was arrested on June 18, 2015 for his crime – his sin. Today, at 31, he has already spent more than 3,750 days behind bars. Endless days stretch before him. He doesn't know how many.   In another 10 years (2035) Roof will be behind bars for 7,305 days. In 20 years (2045) he will have awakened behind bars 10,957 times. If he is still alive in 2055, and turns 60, he will have spent two thirds of his life in a prison jump suit – 14,610 days. If he spends a half a century (2015-2065) locked up he would be spending 18,262 days marking prison time.   Roof is seeking to vacate his death penalty. In the meantime, he is on the death row of a maximum security federal prison in Indiana. He only has death, his death, to look forward to. He'll never walk out of prison a free man, even a free old man. His fate was sealed when he pulled the trigger and the jail door clanged shut behind him.   CHRIST HAS PAID THE DEATH PENALTY Roof is under a federal death sentence and Robinson may be facing a similar state death sentence. But no matter what the crime (sin) which has been committed the death penalty has already been paid for by Christ on the Cross.   Capital punishment and state sanctioned execution is redundant because Christ was executed. He received capital punishment for all of us – Dylann Roof and Tyler Robinson included.   In her statement of forgiveness Mrs. Kirk quotes Jesus from the Cross: “On the Cross, Our Savior said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do …'”   “That young man – I forgive him," Mrs. Kirk said. "I forgive him because it was what Christ did …”   FORGIVENESS DOES NOT REMOVE PENANCE But forgiveness does not mean there is no punishment, there is no penance. If the death penalty would be taken off the table a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, is a reasonable punishment – a just penance – for breaking the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder.”   King David learned about penances the hard way.   David was infatuated and committed adultery with Bathsheba and then orchestrated the death of her husband, Uriah, to cover up for his sin of lust. After his death the King took Uriah’s widow for his own wife. (2 Samuel 11)   “… but the Lord did not like what David had done.” 2 Samuel 11:27b)   The Lord sent the Prophet Nathan to deal with the situation. By using a parable the Prophet confronted David about his adultery and the underhanded way he devised the demise of Uriah and the taking the pregnant Bethsheba as his wife.  (2 Samuel 12:1-4)   David got angry at the parable’s injustice.  (2 Samuel 12:5-6)   Nathan revealed to King David that he was the offending man.   “You are that man.”  (2 Samuel 12:7)   Convicted of his sin David confessed to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  (2 Samuel 12:13a)   The Lord accepted David's repentance.   Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die. (2 Samuel 12:13b)   But a punishment would be exacted. The death of his baby boy, the love-child he conceived through the adulterous affair with Bathsheba, was the Lord's penance David would pay even though the Lord granted him the forgiveness for his multiple transgressions.   “But since you have shown total contempt for the Lord by this affair, the son that is born to you must die.” (2 Samuel 12:14)   For seven days David pleaded with the Lord for the love-child's life. The King fasted and prayed and slept on the ground in a sackcloth. (2 Samuel 12:16)   On the seventh day the baby died. (2 Samuel 12:18)   After the child's death David got up off the ground, washed and changed his clothes and first went to the House of the Lord to worship God. He and God were reconciled. David was forgiven and his penance had been paid. (2 Samuel 12:20a)   King David then returned home and comforted his new wife Bathsheba, the mother of the dead child. Then the couple had relations and she conceived Solomon. (2 Samuel 12:20b)   Solomon became a great king in his own right and is known for his extraordinary wisdom.   Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline.

Feast of St. Andrew, 2003   The Rt. Rev. George E. Councell Bishop of New Jersey 808 West State Street Trenton, N.J.  08618-5398   Dear Bishop Councell:     It is with the deepest sense of pain and regret that I must resign as a member of the Cathedral Chapter and bring to a conclusion my service as the Senior Warden of St. Andrew’, New Providence.  Over the past few months since the 74th General Convention I have prayed and sought to discern God’s guidance as I have come to these difficult decisions. I still remember the excitement that filled the Cathedral last May when you were elected the Eleventh Bishop of New Jersey, and I believe that it was indeed your sincere desire to be the Bishop of all Episcopalians in this Diocese.  However, your actions since General Convention, I believe, make this vital objective impossible.     Your letter of August 15th to the Diocese, and your decision to participate in the consecration of Gene Robinson only two weeks after your own consecration, make clear that you are decisively and actively committed to one side of a complex theological debate now dividing both the Episcopal Church and the entire Anglican Communion.  As someone on the other side of that theological divide, I find that your actions now make it tragically impossible for you to fulfill your express wish to worship and serve our Lord in communion with those who disagree, within the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion.     We need to be absolutely clear what this debate is and is not about. The difference between us is not ultimately about either homosexuality or about the inclusiveness of the Church.  Nor is this even a disagreement about the interpretation of Scripture.  I have yet to see any serious effort to justify either the blessing of same sex unions or the consecration of a divorced and actively homosexual bishop from Scripture.  You certainly offered no Scriptural justifications in your own letter to the Diocese, referring instead only to your belief in the process, that led to these decisions.  What lies at the heart of the current controversy is a much deeper and more profound disagreement about the nature of Scriptural authority, and of Scripture itself, in the contemporary world.     The unique genius of the Anglican witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been intricately tied to the ability of Anglicans to understand Scripture in the light of both tradition and reason.  In steering a middle course between extreme Protestant assertions on the one hand, and equally unacceptable claims extending Roman authority, on the other, Anglican theologians not only bridged the great divide in Western Christianity opened by the Reformation, but also managed to reconnect the Western Christian heritage with that of the Eastern Church.  These accomplishments have placed Anglicans at the center of important global efforts to reunify the Church as a whole efforts now gravely imperiled by the radical actions of ECUSA.     The tragedy of the current situation is that the leadership of a small but important province of the Anglican Communion, completely convinced of its own moral righteousness, seeks to unilaterally recast the classical triad of Anglicanism, thereby elevating human reason, informed principally by ever-shifting and culturally determined values, to the status of primary vehicle through which the will of God is to be discerned.  Scripture and tradition, meanwhile, are to be relegated to the role of interpretive lenses that anyone is free to employ or ignore as circumstance dictates.   Fortunately, the historical transformation of Anglicanism into a worldwide communion has made it impossible any longer for a single province, including the original province itself, to define Anglicanism unilaterally.  In fact, the global realignment provoked by the current crisis is almost certainly part of the necessary and historic evolution of Anglicanism on the verge of its fifth century.  Out of the current crisis will surely emerge a revived and stronger Communion, one more capable of guarding the authentic faith and doctrine of the Church in the new millennium than the present arrangement is able to afford.  The decision of at least 20 Primates, representing over 50 million Anglicans worldwide, that a state of impaired communion now exists with you and allied bishops of ECUSA is itself a tragic though ultimately necessary step in this process of realignment and evolution.     One of the great accomplishments of Anglican Christianity has been its capacity to hold together multiple understandings and diverse experiences in a dynamic tension that simultaneously remains firmly rooted within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.  But that wonderful informative tension is clearly not infinitely elastic, as the current leadership of ECUSA has demonstrated by moving decisively beyond fundamental and widely recognized boundaries of Christian doctrine and faith.  Despite the historical failure of ECUSA in this respect, I remain hopeful that the current crisis will ultimately serve to renew the capacity of Anglicanism globally to hold together diverse understandings and experiences within the framework of authentic and recognizably Christian doctrine.  As for the future of ECUSA itself, I am much less hopeful.  It is already becoming difficult for many to feel themselves part of a church articulating and acting unilaterally upon culturally inspired understandings of Christian doctrine and morality that the vast majority of identifiable Christians, across both time and space, would not recognize as genuinely Christian. Unfortunately, the self-assured righteousness of current ECUSA leadership in pressing ahead aggressively with its own post-modern interpretations of Christianity -- even in the face of overwhelming opposition within and beyond the Anglican Communion – while breathtaking in its arrogance and audacity, offers little comfort or reassurance for those of us in doubt.     Anglican realignment is now upon us, whether we want it or not.  The time for difficult decisions is approaching.  In many parts of the Episcopal Church there is substantial resistance to the position and actions that you and other leaders have taken.  Even as hopelessly impractical and ultimately doomed arrangements for alternative, episcopal oversight are explored, lawyers on both sides are evaluating legal options and refining their strategies.  Clearly a great and completely disheartening fight looms over the considerable material patrimony of the historic Episcopal Church.  I doubt anyone is under the illusion that this process will be resolved either soon or amicably.  In the meantime, those of us who cannot accept the direction in which you and your fellow bishops are leading the Episcopal Church must find our own places in the realignment process.  There are various options, both within and outside the framework of ECUSA, and we must each seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we attempt to discern God’s will.  Although I, like over 50 million fellow Anglicans around the world, now find that communion with you is impaired under the present circumstances, please know that I will continue to pray for you, for your ministry, for this Diocese, and for the Church     Sincerely,   Christopher S. Taylor   A LETTER TO THE VESTRY     Dear friends,     As most of you know, over the past several months I have been struggling with the decisions reached by ECUSA at the 74th General Convention in August.  This period of prayer and reflection has recently led me to some very painful decisions, which I now need to share with all of you.  As you will see from the attached letter I have sent to Bishop Councell, I have decided to wind up my service as Senior Warden effective at our annual meeting in January.  This decision has nothing to do with issues at St. Andrew’s, but rather with the direction in which the national church is moving.  There is, I suppose, a certain tragic irony for us in this parish in having all worked so hard over the past year to bring St. Andrew’s to the much healthier place it is now in, only to have the national church implode around us. As I know you are all aware, I love this parish deeply and I only wish it were possible for me to shut out the issues now engulfing the larger church.  However, as we all know, St. Andrew’s is part of a wider church, and I cannot ignore what is happening in that arena.     As I explain in my letter to Bishop Councell, I do not believe that the great struggle now dividing ECUSA, and the worldwide Anglican Communion, is fundamentally a debate about homosexuality. Unfortunately, I think it’s about a much more profound issue: the nature and meaning of Scriptural authority for Christians in the 21 st century.  I also think that the current struggle is about what it means to be part of a worldwide communion of over 70 million people on six continents.  Having said this from the outset, I still think it’s necessary for me to state as plainly and as completely as possible what my own views of homosexuality are, since many people are convinced that this really is the central issue.     First, I firmly believe that gay people are as fully human and created in the image of God as every other person is.  I also believe that they are no more or less sinful than the rest of us.     Furthermore, no one is beyond the redemptive love of Jesus Christ, including gay people.  I also believe that gay people belong in the Church.  The Church should embrace all people, including gay people.   It certainly has no business excluding anyone, especially people who have been marginalized in the way gay people historically have been. This fact is made clear to us by the earthly ministry of our Lord, who repeatedly explained that the Good News of the Gospel message is for ALL people.  As Christians we certainly have NO business judging others-- that is God’s business, not ours.     I also believe that homosexuality is NOT a “lifestyle choice.”  I believe that it is a fundamental sexual orientation that is either genetic or established very early in life by environmental factors (or a combination of both).  In this way I feel that homosexuality is like virtually all other human sexual orientations in that it is not self-selected.     Unfortunately, as Christians, I also believe that Scripture teaches us that not all human sexual orientations or desires are beautiful or acceptable in the sight of God.  I believe that other equally basic and primal sexual urges, orientations, and acts are also rejected by God.   Among these are: lust, incest, consensual sado-masochism, bestiality, pedophilia, heterosexual sodomy, bi-sexuality, any non-marital intercourse, and masturbation.  These forms of human sexual experience are, like many other basic non-sexual human desires, orientations, drives, and actions, not pleasing to God.  They are instead only signs of the brokenness of the world and of the human condition.     It is, therefore, not possible for the Church to bless what God does not accept.  In fact, I deeply believe that the ONLY model of human sexual union that God accepts is loving and consensual intercourse between one man and one woman within the estate of holy matrimony.  And that is the ONLY form of human sexual union that I believe the Church is permitted to bless.  Most certainly the Church may not bless before the altar of God that which Scripture specifically and repeatedly tells us is not acceptable in the sight of God.     I am convinced that those who support the blessing of same-sex unions are genuinely motivated by sincere commitment to a fundamental and central tenant of Christianity: the inclusiveness and universality of the Church.  That is what makes this whole thing so deeply painful. Unfortunately, however, their desire to be inclusive has led to a terrible distortion and disfiguring of the entire concept of Christian inclusiveness.  There is, and never will be, I would argue, a more radical document of human liberation, redemption, and salvation than the Christian New Testament.     And central to the Good News of the Gospel is a powerful, inescapable, and unrelenting message of self-denial and self-renunciation of MANY basic and fundamental human orientations and drives, including sexual ones.  The Christian message is a deeply mystical message.  It is a message of reunion with God through the struggle to overcome ourselves and live up to the extremely high standard which Jesus set for us.  We are not called to a new life by validating our own broken selves, driven as they are by all sorts of basic orientations, desires, and urges, but rather we are called to transcend our limited selves and live in the image of the God who created us all.   The most powerful agent of idolatry always has been and always will be human desire.  Like sexuality, most desires are basic and integral to our very being.  God calls us back to unity with him, but at a price. That price has never been easy, but it has always been the same: let go of all loves, desires, and drives except the love of God: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.     Like sexual desires, greed too is basic to the human condition.  Greedy people belong in the Church too, but not so that we may bless their greed, but so that they can hear the Gospel message and hopefully be liberated from the greed that imprisons them.  Jesus accepts ALL of us, broken as we are, but he most certainly does not allow ANY of us to remain, broken as we are.  He calls us ALL to a new and better life in him.     To bless at the altar of God that which Scripture consistently and repeatedly tells us is unacceptable in the sight of God requires that one holds a view of Scripture and its authority that is fundamentally and profoundly different from that held by the vast majority of Christians, living or dead, at all times and in all places.  And this brings me full circle to my original assertion that this whole debate now enveloping the Church is not about homosexuality, per se, but about fundamentally different understandings of Scripture and its authority in our lives.     I am convinced that we are now on the verge of a great global realignment of Anglican Christianity.  My long-term view is very hopeful in this regard.  I am convinced that in a decade the Anglican Communion will look very different than it does today, but that it will also be very much stronger than it is today.  My short-term view of the future of the Episcopal Church, USA is not so sanguine.  I am greatly pained by what I see as a very long and disheartening struggle within ECUSA over the historical patrimony of this church.  Anglican realignment will leave none of us untouched in the end, and ultimately we must find our own place in that realignment.  Accordingly, I have begun exploring options, both within and beyond the framework of ECUSA.   I cannot in good conscience, therefore, continue to serve as the Senior Warden in a church I may no longer be part of a year from now.   During this process of discerning God’s guidance and will for me in the process of realignment, I fully expect to continue to worship with you at St. Andrew’s.  Although I believe that I must now bear witness to the historic faith and doctrine of the Church by abstaining from partaking of the elements during the Eucharist, please know that during the ministering of the elements I will be praying with you for our Church and for our Diocese.     I have assured our interim Vicar that it is my full intention to make the process of transition to a new Senior Warden in January as easy as possible.  I have absolutely no desire to hurt this parish or anyone in it.  After the transition I will continue to offer my advice and whatever information the Vestry needs, for as long as that help is needed. Please know also that it has been an enormous personal privilege for me to work with all of you over the past several years to revitalize this parish.  If I ultimately do end up leaving St. Andrew’s, I will continue to hold in my heart a great deal of love for this place and all the people who make it what it is.     Faithfully yours in Christ,   -Chris   Dr. Christopher Taylor is Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at Drew University in Madison, N.J. He is a specialist in Islamic Studies. He is a cradle Episcopalian. Dr. Taylor has served actively on the Vestry of St. Andrews Episcopal Church in New Providence. He has also served on the Cathedral Chapter in the Diocese of New Jersey.  He is currently working with other concerned Anglicans in north-central New Jersey to establish a local lay-led discussion and prayer group that will offer support and an opportunity for ECUSA laity who cannot accept recent theological innovations in the national Church to explore together the options orthodox Anglicans have in the aftermath of the 74th General Convention. He has not formally left ECUSA.

By The Denver Post     Colorado Episcopal Bishop Jerry Winterrowd expressed regret Thursday about supporting the election of the nations first openly gay bishop, saying the church was not ready. Winterrowd, who is retiring Dec. 31, said he went into August's General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA intending to vote against the election of Gene Robinson as New Hampshire bishop.   His rationale: Robinsons election would fly in the face of the Church’s desire to delay setting policy on blessing same-sex unions.   But Winterrowd said he became convinced that each diocese had the right to elect its own bishop.   Subsequently, I would say that I am on very thin ice there, Winterrowd said Thursday.   Winterrowd said he supports same-sex blessings, but some people perceive Robinsons election as tacit approval of such blessings.   That, Winterrowd said, is not the right forum for weighing same-sex blessings.   We have ordained a gay man as bishop, Winterrowd said. Personally, I favor that. But this diocese, and the whole American church, was not ready for that, and a lot of damage has been done.   Asked if he would vote for Robinson again, Winterrowd said he was not sure.     END

(Ventura, CA) - Any objective social analyst would conclude that the United States faces its fair share of moral and spiritual problems. A new research study from the Barna Research Group suggests that a large share of the nation’s moral and spiritual challenges is directly attributable to the absence of a biblical worldview among Americans. Citing the findings from a just-completed national survey of 2033 adults that showed only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making, researcher George Barna described the outcome. If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus. Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stem s from what we think – our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions.     Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate  core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to  the challenges and opportunities of life. Were often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance.     Not Just Any Worldview     The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2% ) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).     Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosaics).     For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.     The Difference a Biblical Worldview Makes . One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people’s behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.     People’s views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview . Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical  worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%) ; and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).     Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matter s with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.     Some Groups Are More Likely to Have a Biblical Worldview . Adults who have a biblical worldview possessed a somewhat different demographic profile than those who did not. For instance, individuals who attended college were much more likely than those who did not to have this perspective (6% versus 2%, respectively). Married adults were more than twice as likely as adults who had never been wed to hold such a worldview (5% versus 2%). Whites (5%) were slightly more likely than either blacks (3%) or Hispanics (3%) to hold this ideology. One of the largest gaps was between Republicans (10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents (2%) and Democrats (1%).     Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation’s largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview).   Attributes such as gender, age and household income showed no statistical relationship to the possession of a biblical worldview.     Some Churches Are Helping People     The research found that one of the most effective methods of enabling people to develop a biblical worldview is by addressing seven critical questions that consistently lead to beliefs and behaviors that are in tune with biblical teaching. Outlining that process in a new book he has written as an outgrowth of the research, entitled Think Like Jesus, Barna also noted that many churches are already helping their congregants to implement such a way of addressing daily challenges and opportunities.     The emphasis of these churches is to not only teach biblical perspectives, according to Barna, but also to help people connect the dots of the core principles taught. Rather than simply provide people with good material and hope they figure out what to do with it, these are churches whose services, programs, events and relationships are geared to weaving a limited number of foundational biblical principles into a way of responding to every life situation. The goal is to facilitate a means of interpreting and responding to every life situation that is consistent with Gods expectations. These are not perfect people, but once they catch on to the critical principles found in the Bible and train their minds to incorporate those views into their thinking, their behavior varies noticeably from the norm.     Research Source and Methodology     The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 33 adults conducted during September through November 03. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is B12.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.   The data from the 03 survey was compared with figures on worldview possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in 02 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 02 surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9% of the born again segment ha d a biblical worldview. Other repeated measures were compared, producing virtually identical results to the current measures.     Born again Christians were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still import ant in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as born again. Being born again is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement.   The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company located in southern California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would  like to receive regular e-mailings of a brief overview of each new bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna .org).     END

by George H. Gallup Jr. Senior Staff Writer   After dipping to an all-time low in the wake of the recent sex abuse scandals afflicting the Catholic Church, weekly church attendance among Catholics appears to be on the rebound. However, historical Gallup Poll data show that Protestants have now clearly overtaken Catholics in church attendance, for the first time in Gallup polling history. Between March 2002, when the news of the scandals broke, and February 2003, weekly church attendance among Catholics fell nine percentage points to 35%, the lowest measurement since Gallup began asking the question in 1955. By November 2003*, however, the figure had climbed 10 percentage points to 45%. Protestants levels of church attendance, meanwhile, remained fairly stable during this same period.     While it is up from earlier this year, that 45% figure among Catholics is 29 percentage points lower than the 74% recorded when this question was first asked in 1955. Comparatively, Protestants church attendance is actually slightly higher in November 2003 (48%) than it was in 1955 (42%).     George Gallup Jr. is the Chairman of the George H. Gallup International Institute and is recognized internationally for his research and study on youth, health, religion, and urban problems.     END

Associated Press     COLUMBUS, Miss. - The Rev. Sandra DePriest has become the first Mississippi Episcopal priest to step down to protest the ordination of the church’s first openly gay bishop. DePriest told The Commercial Dispatch newspaper in Columbus that he could no longer actively serve as a priest until the gay bishop issue is resolved.     DePriest finished up with the Church of the Good Shepherd in Columbus and St. John’s Episcopal Church in Aberdeen on Christmas Day.     DePriest told the newspaper she was not resigning her vows for the time being, but could no longer actively serve as a priest until the gay bishop issue was resolved.     Earlier this year, Bishop V. Gene Robinson became the first openly gay man elevated to that rank in any major Christian body.   Robinson was ordained after an August vote at the Episcopal Church USA General Convention in Minneapolis.   Many Episcopalians who believe in a traditional interpretation of the Bible want Robinson removed as bishop and have won the support of several American bishops.     DePriest said she is one of those opposed to Robinson’s ordination and her stance on the issue meant she could not continue leading worship.     I believe that my vows have been placed in conflict, DePriest said. I took vows to uphold Scripture when I was ordained ...and at the same time I took vows to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church of the United States. And I cannot teach those doctrines and disciplines.     DePriest joined the priesthood after a 17-year career as a lawyer. She joined the seminary in 1996 and was ordained in 1999.   After spending two years as the priest of Christ Episcopal Church in Tuscaloosa, Ala., DePriest took her position with the two churches in Columbus and Aberdeen.     DePriest said the appointment of Robinson to a senior position within the church was a deal breaker for Episcopalians who believe in a traditional interpretation of the Bible.     DePriest said these Episcopalians consider homosexuality a sin that must be repented a belief completely at odds with Robinson’s openly gay lifestyle.     DePriest said for the moment, she is not willing to leave the church completely while there is hope that the rift can be repaired.     DePriest said the Episcopal Church USA was willing to provide alternative pastoral care for priests and congregations who were opposed to Robinsons ordination. This arrangement, she said, is supposed to keep disgruntled members of the faith under the Episcopalian banner by allowing them to shift their churches under the authority of another bishop. DePriest said this is unacceptable to members of the faith who are thinking about splitting from the church because they no longer support its leaders. DePriest said under present arrangements, those Episcopalians would have to abandon their churches and sever financial links with the church.     Bishop Duncan Gray of the Mississippi Diocese said the Anglican faith that Episcopalians practice - founded in England over 400 years ago - was based upon diversity of belief and tolerance.  We were founded in theological conflict, Gray said.     Gray said the church had the ability to broker a compromise with in its DNA. He claimed a number of the 13 bishops who had been identified as working against the church’s leadership had since clarified and even retracted earlier statements.     Gray said a great deal of work is going on behind the scenes to broker a compromise.     This is certainly something that will be ongoing, but I’m very pleased with the efforts (of the church) to respect individual conscience, Gray said.     END

By Dr. Chris Seitz   As President of the Anglican Communion Institute, I am pleased to announce the appearance of a new document drawn up for the orthodox Anglican presence within the United States and Canada. It is titled The Theological Charter for Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. It follows in the same line as other ACI documents, including Claiming Our Anglican Identity and Steps of Discipline but is meant to serve as the theological mission statement for Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes in North America. It has been adopted as such by the Bishop’s who form the leadership for this network, whose Moderator is the Rt Revd Robert Duncan.     The Theological Charter will be a topic of discussion at the ACI January Conference in Charleston, SC on The Future of the Anglican Communion (St Philips Church, 8-9 January). The Archbishop of the West Indies, The Most Reverend Drexel Wellington Gomez, will be the keynote speaker at that event. Please join us for a lively discussion of important issues now facing Anglicans in the United States and in the wider Communion.     This site has on it the Theological Charter for our times. Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes is the umbrella organization in communion with the wider Anglican Communion, with oversight by an international coalition of Primates, Bishops, Clergy and Laity, and exists for all those in their various situations who want the Episcopal Church to more than a mere reflection of the culture, but to be again a real witness to the joy a lives dedicated to obedience and discipleship.     Here is offered a place where Dioceses, individual parishes or congregation, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Laity can register their opposition to the current leadership and error of the national church, but more importantly express their hope and plans for the future, for rebuilding the Anglican presence in the United States.     The central document that undergirds the work of this coalition is available at VIRTUOSITY'S website www.virtuosityonline.org .   For more details see anglicancommunioninstitute.org , or contact The Revd Donald Armstrong at GraceRector@aol.com .   http://www.AnglicanCommunionDioceses.org/     END

Michael Higgins National Post December 23, 2003     An Anglican church defying its bishop by refusing to support same-sex unions has been terminated only days before Christmas.     The decision by Bishop Michael Ingham to close Holy Cross in Abbotsford, B.C., is the latest action in a dispute that is threatening to split the Anglican church worldwide. Despite the closure, the priest at Holy Cross, the Rev. James Wagner, vowed yesterday to celebrate mass on Christmas Day with parishioners.     As far as the diocese is concerned, we do not exist. We are a non- entity, Mr. Wagner said yesterday. But I will not abandon these people. I will continue to pastor and pray for them in the midst of this crisis.     He said the decision to close the church was a surprise because its so close to Christmas.     Ronald Harrison, executive archdeacon of the Diocese of New Westminster, said Holy Cross brought the closure upon itself by seeking episcopal oversight from another bishop. He said that a result of the church declaring itself independent was that its funds had been stopped and eventually the bishop was forced to close it.     The decision by Bishop Ingham to sanction same-sex unions and the broader issue of homosexuality are dividing Anglicans. In October, church leaders met at a crisis conference in London called in part because of Bishop Inghams approval of same-sex unions. The Canadian House of Bishops has also set up a task force to look at parishes opposed to Bishop Inghams decision.     Holy Cross, a mission church that relies on its funding from the diocese, is part of a group of breakaway churches in New Westminster that was seeking episcopal oversight by Bishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon.     In October, the Diocesan Council of New Westminster voted to close Holy Cross but needed Bishop Inghams approval. However, funding was withdrawn from the church.     In a letter dated Dec. 18, Bishop Ingham informed Mr. Wagner that he had decided to close the church.     Mr. Wagner said he told parishioners the news on Sunday. They were shocked and surprised that it would come at this time. When they got the news, it was four days before Christmas.     None of the other churches in the breakaway group has been closed. Because they are incorporated individually, and don’t rely on funding from the diocese, they have been able to carry on.   Mr. Wagner said his church was being ostracized within the diocese though it is aligned with Anglican thinking worldwide.     Substantially we are right in step with Anglicans throughout the world and that has great consolation for them [the parishioners] because they very much want to be Anglicans. They are not doing things rebelliously and very much want to be a part of the family of Anglicans throughout the world, Mr. Wagner said.     The termination of the church meant they were like sheep without a shepherd, he said.     He said although they would celebrate Mass on Christmas Day, they would not be recognized as Anglicans. Its not just that the Diocese of New Westminster will not recognize us as Anglicans, the really sad thing is that, unofficially, there are many Anglicans who want to recognize us, but, officially, there is no one that will recognize us as such.     Mr. Wagner had already had his pay cut off by the diocese and said he now needed to consult with his lawyer to see what his position is.     I don’t regret what I am doing or the circumstances I find myself in. I think that Jesus often talked about his disciples having to count the cost and having to take up their cross, he said.     He called on the Canadian House of Bishops and primates internationally for clear leadership.     Mr. Wagner said the parish had already been in discussion with the House of Bishops task force.   The task force was set up to establish adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities.     It followed a call from Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who warned the Anglican Church was in danger of splintering over the issue of homosexuality.     After the task force was set up, Bishop Ingham wrote to Holy Cross offering to restore its funding if it accepted his authority.     Mr. Harrison said the bishop had never had a satisfactory reply except from Mr. Wagner, who said he was consulting his lawyer.     We support and fund all kinds of things, including mission initiatives, but if they have openly declared their hostility to the diocese and the diocesan bishop and will not rescind that even when the bishop has stepped back from the plate, the question is: Why would we fund that?     The decision was made months ago and the bishop withheld his decision while he waited for the parish to respond favourably. They didn’t correspond with him. It has nothing to do with Christmas. We have been waiting for their response for some time.     END