But a source told VirtueOnline that Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold totally undercut the "covenant" by saying that, "Of course, everyone will have to follow their own conscience regarding it."

There you have it, another form of local option.

The bishops who met in Camp Allen this week made a unilateral statement without reciprocity saying they would leave the decision of whether to allow such blessings to the bishop of each diocese.

The status quo, therefore, is maintained. Every diocesan bishop will do that which is right in his/her own eyes.

To say they would perform no consecrations is right up there with the suffragan bishop of Olympia, Bavi Edna Rivera, the first Hispanic woman bishop, who said she would never sign a marriage license until she can sign it for gays and lesbians.

So the largely revisionist HOB after 14 hours of deliberations said they would withhold consents to any person, gay or not, elected bishop between now and the church's next General Convention in mid-2006.

The Christian Challenge magazine noted, with a touch of irony, that it was Bishop Otis Charles, who "came out" as homosexual and left his wife after retiring as Bishop of Utah in 1986 who declared that he would only endorse the Windsor Report's requested moratorium on the ordination of gay and lesbian bishops if there was also a moratorium on the consecration of heterosexual persons, too. He's apparently gotten his way.

By saying no bishops will be consecrated it punishes those dioceses who need bishops. The Diocese of South Carolina will now have to put on hold the election of a new bishop to be in sympathy for another Vickie Gene Robinson who is waiting in the wings to wear a miter.

The truth is the HOB is just playing for time. The "covenant" has not yielded one thing of substance but merely put off any final statements or decisions to the next triennial Synod.

Furthermore there is not one single statement that active homosexual persons should not be ordained or that the blessing of homosexual couples is a grave error. So the HOB repents only of upsetting their Global South superiors but not of "upsetting" God's unchangeable moral law or the teaching and tradition of the Church tradition.

Even the HOB reaffirmation of its commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 is merely a commitment to what the American House of Bishops many years ago saw as the minimum basis for union with other Churches by Churches of the Anglican Way, notes Prayer Book president, Dr. Peter Toon.

"The Primates' Communiqué/Meeting made a major mistake by allowing the possibility that this Quadrilateral can be the basis for unity amongst Anglican Provinces, rather than the historic unity based upon the received, classical Formularies of the Anglican Way." - why not Lambeth 1.10 of 1998?"

Why not indeed.

With absolutely no repentance for violating biblical norms on human sexuality the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and Global South Anglicans will continue to see a church that is radically disobedient to the gospel, tradition and Holy Scripture.

The HOB's covenant says that the Episcopal Church has never authorized same-sex liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. How disingenuous can you be? This has been going on privately in diocese after diocese for years with no revisionist bishop being chastised for doing so. There is nothing about stopping "private" same sex blessings in this covenant. Local option always prevails over General Convention resolutions.

Furthermore by calling for a moratorium on boundary crossing it gives revisionist bishops time until GC 2006 to eliminate those orthodox remnants in the Episcopal Church and gives "cover" to cowardly orthodox bishops to do nothing. The prohibition on crossing diocesan lines, which the covenant calls for, is yet another way to get at orthodox bishops. It is dangerous and will create more problems than it solves.

Does this covenant cut any slack for the orthodox Network bishops? Not at all. It ties Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan's hands. He has been told that he cannot do anything, and if does he could be liable for presentment as well as the "Akron Five" bishops if they think they would do a replay of their scenario in Ohio.

Any orthodox bishop who voted for this is either a fool (because he couldn't see what it did), or a coward (because he wanted an excuse not to cross lines).

One middle of the road Episcopal magazine said that Duncan and five other orthodox leaders were identified by Griswold as having a satanic influence at Dromantine (Northern Ireland) with Griswold quoted as saying, "the devil is a liar and the father of lies and the devil was certainly moving about Dromantine. A bishop, VirtueOnline spoke to, confirmed this, adding that Griswold said bishops should act based on their consciences - presumably this will not apply to Duncan and the Network bishops, or if it does, then watch the sparks fly.

So if the orthodox bishops in the ECUSA cannot come to the rescue of evangelical and Anglo-Catholic parishes caught in revisionist dioceses then the only recourse they have is to leave the Episcopal Church with out without their properties. There is absolutely nothing in the "covenant" that offers one ounce of hope or cover to these godly men and women. They will either have to put up, shut up or get out and that is what the largest parish in the Diocese of Kansas did last week. DEPO is clearly dead; it has not worked once in the Episcopal Church and the offer by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Dromantine to set up a commission to provide cover won't be acceptable either. It has no canonical teeth.

Orthodox bishops seem not to care that clergy and parishes are left under the thumb of false teachers and bishops; not to mention that those few remaining parishes where there are rectors who stand on the whole counsel of God cannot be replaced because revisionist bishops will not allow orthodox priests into their dioceses!

This covenant is both phony and dangerous. It is filled with a lot of high-sounding 'graciouspeak' language but its long term aim is corrosive and designed to wear down the remnant orthodox so people will grow tired thus depleting them of whatever resources they have left to fight the revisionist stream-roller. Where is the vision and care for the whole Church in this Covenant? The truth is there is none.

Once more Frank Griswold has offered up stones instead of bread, the only two questions that remains are what will orthodox ECUSA bishops do now and how will the Global South and the Archbishop of Canterbury respond?

The "bonds of affection" so often talked about are nothing more than broken chains. It is clear that nothing will change now or in the foreseeable future. GC 2006 will not see any repentance for the actions in consecrating V. Gene Robinson. The Global South Primates don't need the ACC in June, GC 2006 or Lambeth 2008 to make up their minds.

The die has already been cast, all that remains is for the Primates to act and to declare themselves fully out of communion with the Episcopal Church USA and let it continue its gadarene slide into the abyss.

END