It was, to quote the Talking Heads song, "same as it ever was" at Drumcree yesterday where the Church of Ireland was concerned. The Orangemen came. They saw the two Union Jacks flying from that dreary steeple. And they congregated inside once more for morning service.
Yesterday at Drumcree it was as if the General Synod of the Church of Ireland last May had never happened. As if it had not voted 315 votes to 54 that the only flags authorised to be flown on Church of Ireland buildings or within church grounds are the cross of St Patrick or the flag of the Anglican Communion bearing the emblem of the Compassrose.
As if the General Synod had not also voted 352 votes to 67 that, if it was deemed the parade to Drumcree was not going to adhere to the three "good behaviour" pledges required by the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr Robin Eames, the Orangemen's invitation to the service there should be withdrawn.
To simplify a complex exchange between the Orangemen and Dr Eames over recent weeks they insisted they had always abided by the pledges, while he could not be satisfied that they had or would. On Saturday, the synod's general secretaries requested of the rector at Drumcree, the Rev John Pickering, and the local vestry that they withdraw the invitation to the Orangemen to attend yesterday's service.
Mr Pickering said anybody who wished to attend the service could attend, "members of the Orange Order and anyone else".
He and his vestry have always been clear where they stand. In line with a simple, sincerely-held traditional reformed church faith they have always insisted that anybody who wishes to attend a service at their church can do so.
Even if they believed differently, or had they the will to do so, it would be extremely difficult on a human level for them to prevent the Orangemen from attending.
Most of Mr Pickering's vestry (committee of lay parishioners), unlike himself, are members of the Orange Order. So are many in the Drumcree congregation. So is its latest parishioner, Mr Harold Gracey, Master of the Portadown District Orange Lodge, who has been based at a caravan near Drumcree church since last year's march was prevented going down the Garvaghy Road.
That Mr Pickering should be expected to close the church doors on the great majority of his own vestry as well as very many of his congregation and neighbours on the first Sunday of July each year, while hoping to live comfortably among those same people for the remaining 364 days, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
So why this seeming attempt to isolate and scapegoat Mr Pickering and his vestry, the very people, many would argue, least in a position to resolve the Drumcree crisis?
There is the church's tradition of devolved authority which forms so much of the essence of its Reformed tradition, with its emphasis on individual conscience. Its rectors have an extraordinary degree of independence and security of tenure by comparison with Roman Catholic priests, for instance, whereas Church of Ireland bishops are more moral leaders than rulers with powers.
But as Drumcree Five made its debut, and considering how the Church of Ireland has handled the issue over these past five years, it has to be asked whether its tradition of devolved authority in the context has not become one of merely fobbed-off responsibility?
Mr Pickering made his views on the flags and pledges resolutions clear at the General Synod, both before and after the vote. He opposed both. His views and those of his vestry have been well known for many years.
Within minutes of the synod vote in May, overwhelmingly supporting both motions, he was telling journalists that to fly the Union Jack at his church was not illegal, which it is not in either civil or church law (it is simply not authorised by the church) and that nobody would be refused admittance to his normal Sunday service at Drumcree.
His reaction surprised few, probably least of all those who prepared the resolutions. So what was their purpose? In its, in so many ways, excellent report to May's General Synod the church's sub-committee on sectarianism said bishops do not have, "or so it appears", powers to intervene or overrule a rector in parish affairs. This, it said, "posed a particular dilemma in the light of Drumcree".
Many, the report continued, were reluctant to extend the bishops' powers "in special circumstances" as this would, it was felt, undermine the very moral and didactic powers ascribed to them by the church.
Despite this, some sub-committee members were in favour of offering the General Synod new legislation which would provide powers to a bishop allowing him/her determine that "a particular service should not take place because it might be attended by specific scandalous circumstances".
A proposal outlining such legislation was sent for debate to the church's Standing Committee. Wider consultation was also undertaken within the church. Most significantly perhaps, as the sub-committee reported to the General Synod, "also (it is understood) discussion within the House of Bishops, indicated significant opposition to such legislation, including opposition from a majority of bishops".
The report continued: "Not only was it asserted that such legislation was highly unlikely to succeed if offered to the General Synod, but it was also strongly argued that the effect of the legislation would be profoundly to alter the long-established relationship between parochial and diocesan authorities".
Better, it was argued, "to encourage mature counsel and responsible action than to threaten the exercise of individual responsibility by coercion". (It has been suggested that the sub-committee report on this legislation issue, as presented to the General Synod, may have been inaccurate. However, it is quoted above as presented to, voted on and as adopted by the General Synod.)
Following its consultations the sectarianism sub-committee decided not to go ahead with proposing any legislation on the extension of bishops' powers to deal with "specific scandalous circumstances".
This meant such proposals were not put before the General Synod in May which would have allowed Dr Eames, the Church's Primate and Archbishop of Armagh in whose diocese Drumcree falls, "to intervene or to overrule" Mr Pickering and his vestry where yesterday's service was concerned. It also meant the ball was very firmly back in Mr Pickering's court and that of his vestry.
Instead, the sectarianism sub-committee proposed to the General Synod a resolution supporting the efforts made by the church "under the leadership of the Archbishop of Armagh" (Dr Eames) to resolve the Drumcree crisis and inviting Mr Pickering and his vestry to "identify totally with the rest of the church and its leadership" over the issue.
Somebody had to be held responsible. "They" (Mr Pickering and his vestry) had a heavy responsibility and Drumcree was now "their" tragic dilemma. In such a way then did the Church of Ireland deem Drumcree the responsibility of those least able to deal with it, while those on whom a distanced and shared decision may have been a lighter burden seemed to prefer being just talking heads where the issue was concerned.