He had this to say: "As I listen to those other parts of the Communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship; any authorization of any person to undertake same sex blessings; any stated intention not to seriously engage with The Windsor Report -- will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the Communion as it is, or as the Windsor Report has articulated a vision...of how it wishes to be."

The Church of England bishop continued; "As I look at the Anglican Communion at present I see its life threatened by two intersecting fault lines, each with its own totem. The first is the issue of same sex relations, with its focusing in Lambeth 1.10. The second is the nature and future of Communion, with its focus being the Windsor Report and the Windsor/Dromantine process."

Langrish made it abundantly clear that if the Episcopal Church persisted in further gay consecrations it would immediately become impossible to claim that there was any body that spoke for the Communion as a whole, and several existing relationships would be irrevocably altered. "All the signals seem clear that for example there would be no further round of ARCIC and that the dialogue process with Al Azhar would end."

Langrish's words did not fall on deaf ears, but one orthodox ECUSA bishop who was present noted with a certain amount of cynicism, "We have not seen the final version of what the Commission will present, but it is my opinion that it will lean as far as this Church can lean toward the Windsor recommendations. But not far enough. Whatever we pass will be ignored by many."

He continued: "I suspect that another gay elected to the episcopacy would not be confirmed by a majority of the bishops today. And we will probably agree not to "authorize" the blessings. But many bishops will look the other way while their clergy go right on performing them. Not forbidding is, of course, authorizing."

Clearly Bishop Langrish is not familiar with something called "local option" an almost hallowed and sacred "doctrine" observed by revisionists with more ardor than they recite the creeds.

Cynical? Not necessarily, but realistic in terms of how we know the HOB operates.

But clearly there is concern and consternation by bishops of all stripes at the recent HOB meeting. Several raised flags of concern.

The Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson, the orthodox Bishop of the Rio Grande said this: "There is now evidence that a majority of bishops are beginning to rethink the position staked out by the General Convention 2003 when it approved the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire."

"In everyone's mind is the May 6 episcopal election in the Diocese of California, where three candidates have identified themselves as having same-gender partners. If one of these persons is elected, the consent process at General Convention will in effect become an up or down vote on Windsor, and the special commission's efforts to find a solution to hold things together until Lambeth will be for naught."

And liberal Arizona Bishop Kirk Stevan Smith also expressed misgivings at the HOB meeting. He spoke of a restatement of our commitment to the Communion and the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury; an endorsement of the Windsor process as the way forward for all of us and an expression of "repentance" (and that is the word used rather than "regret") for actions of our church, which have caused pain to the wider Communion.

"I think one might say this represents a "go slow" approach for our church. Without backing away from decisions we have made, it is nonetheless a clear message that we will work to conform to the requests of the majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the Windsor Report."

"I know that some of you will have questions about my point. There are at present three openly gay candidates (out of six) for the next Bishop of California to be elected in May. If one of them should be elected, consent would have to be given at the June General Convention."

In that scenario, and given the mood of this meeting, my sense is that those consents would not be forth-coming from a majority of the bishops.

Interestingly enough a recent survey of Episcopal Bishops by Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) revealed that if the HOB had been able to vote secretly they would have opposed the church's stance on the ECUSA's homosexual agenda with nearly 58 percent of respondents opposing the church blessing of same-sex partnerships, and 56 percent opposing the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson. Those votes, in a confidential and secret blind-research environment, reversed tallies in open voting at the 2003 General Convention.

While the fear of expulsion hangs over the heads of ECUSA's HOB, they do not have the final word. At the upcoming General Convention resolutions must be passed by both the HOB and House of Deputies, and then there is the inevitable 'third wheel' of gay and lesbian lobby groups who will be out in force, and who will wreak havoc not only on the orthodox but on liberals who they think may betray them in this there 11th of hour of full pansexual acceptance.

Any notion of a climb-down must be viewed with an enormous canister of salt.

Repentance will never be forthcoming from ECUSA's HOB unless it can be nuanced in such a way as not to make New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson feel any guilt or any more pain than he needs too. After all Frank Griswold would not want to be held responsible for Gene heading back to a gin bottle.

Any notion of blocking a second openly gay or lesbian bishop in the Diocese of California would be temporary at best. After all we know what Griswold did in 2003 when he promised the Primates in London that he would not perform such consecrations; within three weeks he was the chief consecrator at Robinson's ordination!

He has said, (and so would any future presiding bishop) that he or she cannot interfere with the election decisions of a diocese, the fury and rage of orthodox Global South bishops notwithstanding, as well as appeals from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even the threat of being given observer status at Lambeth 2008 will not change anything. There will be groans of disapproval from gay lobbies, a sharply worded statement from the Anglican Consultative Council, about how wonderful ECUSA is, (after all they pay the bills), and life goes on.

Above all the American Episcopal Church's Integrity and other pansexual organizations have made it clear that there can be no turning back; too much water has gone under the bridge. They have won all but official rites for same-sex "marriages".

Consider the words of ultra-feminist lesbian Integrity leader Susan Russell: "I've heard it a lot in the last few years as the pressure has mounted on the American Episcopal Church to sacrifice its LGBT members on the altar of ecclesial unity...I'm reminded once again that the challenges we face in the Episcopal Church are about power and privilege and patriarchy and the witness we have to offer of a church striving to fully include ALL of the baptized into the Body of Christ has perhaps never been more critical than it is right now. The cost of discipleship is high -- but not as high as the cost of capitulation."

The Episcopal Church's pansexualists couch the issues not in terms of biblical proscription but as "justice" which they see over-riding whatever the church has taught for 2,000 years. And ultimately they do not fear expulsion. They will never admit they are wrong, and even if the rest of the communion thinks they should not act unilaterally, they don't care and will continue to do whatever it is they want to do in the name of 'local option.'

The danger of a U-turn is remote at best. Liberal Arizona Bishop Smith has articulated a good case scenario that he hopes will not further jeopardize our standing with the rest of the Communion, but he is naive to believe that things will not continue as they are.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold has not spent the last nine years of his episcopacy chasing windmills. He has relentlessly pursued sodomite acceptance from one Primates' meeting to the next. He has publicly rejected repentance for the softer "regret" for the pain it may have caused others, (not for the damage ECUSA caused), but only when forced to do so, but he will not in the final months of his reign suddenly admit he was wrong and publicly do an about face. It will never happen. There will be no U-turn. A "go slow" is only that. It is not a "STOP" sign. Not now, not ever.

Richard Kirker, the general secretary of the British Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said liberals would be furious if the convention backed down. He added: "Not even the General Convention can stop the inevitable flow of history." He is, regrettably, right. There will be no turning back for the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church leadership's untrustworthiness and stubborn resistance in the past portends no change for the future, it is now written forever in the ECUSA history textbooks.

The war now being waged will reach its climax in June in Columbus, Ohio where the gay victory flag will be run up the mast, a victory Eucharist held, and there is not a damn thing the cautions of the Windsor Report, The Dromantine Report, Lambeth 1:10, Bishop Langrish, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, the Global South bishops can do about it. The die has been forever cast.

The only morally acceptable step is to not only stop, but turn around in an act of public metanoia, and toward the Gospel, recognizing that what was done was morally wrong-not unwise or too soon.

END