The first was the ubiquitous Michael Ingham, former bishop of New Westminster and the first Anglican bishop to challenge the sacredness of marriage. In 2002, Ingham authorized homosexual blessings, a move that brought opprobrium from orthodox archbishops across the globe. Undeterred, Ingham further raised the middle finger at orthodox Anglican bishops by authorizing a Rite for the Celebration of Gay and Lesbian Covenants. It was he who dropped the first ecclesiastical nuclear bomb on the Communion, from which it has never recovered.

The second was Bishop Jane Alexander of Edmonton, an uber liberal on marriage muttering the tired mantras of the social gospel with nothing about the gospel of God's saving grace. Heaven forbid.

The third bishop was the thin skinned Michael Bird of Niagara, whose most recent assault on orthodoxy was to sue an orthodox Anglican journalist who caught on to how shallow an individual he is and had the audacity to satirize the little man's "theology". The journalist had documented Bird's penchant for closing dying parishes, suing orthodox parish priests out of their properties and in the course of doing so, alienating and upsetting dwindling aging congregants.

Canadian Archbishop Fred Hiltz also made a cameo appearance and uttered his usual Pablum about how the Bishops' consultation helps keep the Communion together, while totally ignoring the GAFCON elephant in the Accra cathedral. Also in attendance was the 'don't worry be happy' US Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry.

It was a gabfest to die for, if not to die of.

Hiltz committed the politically incorrect sin by using the opportunity to bring up the Canadian church's upcoming vote on same-sex marriage. How very thoughtful of him.

"I plunked it right on the table: the marriage canon [vote]. Some of them, I think, were actually relieved that the elephant in the room was no longer the elephant in the room, that I actually had put it right on the table." Wow.

Hiltz said the consultation has come under fire in the past couple of years from critics who accuse it of shying away from facing the very real divisions that exist in the Communion. But, with The Episcopal Church voting to allow the marriage of same-sex couples in 2015, and the upcoming Canadian vote, avoidance was no longer possible, he said.

"I think the fact that [Curry] and I were both there, and both of us named it was good."

So there you have it, just drop the sodomite hand grenade right on the table and shove it down the throats (if not the pants) of our dear African brethren who have seen the Church's homosexual agenda directly threaten the safety of Christians in places where anti-homosexual Muslims have the upper hand, and use it as a stick to beat Christians with - something about which the African bishops have repeatedly spoken. Why not indeed. Just hit 'em in the face with the West's pansexual agenda, and then run away from Africa just in case some sodomite hating Muslim comes a calling with his AK-47 loaded for bear or bare bums.

This group, however, did come up with a whole new concept to replace the old decaffeinated Indaba idea. It's called sankofa.

One wag described Sankofa thus: "It is not a taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind". It is a catchphrase taught to English bus drivers to be used as they watch old ladies in their rear view mirrors running after the bus. If that isn't clear enough, the definition goes on to say: "the narrative of the past is a dynamic reality that cannot be separated from consideration of the present and future". In other words, the past is dynamic, or changeable by the present, a concept made popular in the '70s by those consuming an excessive quantity of magic mushrooms. Since Canadian bishops seem to fall into that category, many of them -- Hiltz, Bird, Ingham and Alexander -- were present at the latest salacious sankofa exercise to ponder together homoerotic sexuality under the pretext of conjuring a prior dynamic reality that conforms ancient perversions to 21st century delusions of normalcy."

A pusillanimous church -- and that's what Western Anglicanism has become -- grovels and trembles before the culture in which it finds itself. Hence, as Ingham notes at this gabfest, the church is content to let the culture determine its theology. A church can sink no lower than that.

So this "unity in diversity" confab is the quicksand into which the strained theological diarrhea of Western pan-Anglican toilet bowls must inevitably fall and disappear.

According to Hiltz, meetings such as the consultation have become some of the most functional tools in keeping the communion together. Really!

With the more formal "Instruments of Communion" frequently jammed by very public disagreements over human sexuality, it is in the informal bodies, like diocesan partnerships and the consultation of bishops, that a lot of important work gets done, said Hiltz.

And, if bull manure could fly across the room on its own at 50 miles an hour, it would hit everybody.

"We have these four commonly held Instruments of Communion, [but] we also have another whole list of things that really speak to the life, the vitality, the compassion, courage, the pastoral and prophetic witness of the communion," said "colonel" (S)Hiltz.

Actually, no. The four instruments of unity represent the dysfunction of the Anglican Communion now ignored by the GAFCON primates, archbishops and bishops who make up the majority of the Communion, and who long ago decided that it was an inconsequential "instrument" unfit for purpose and irrelevant to their life and order.

This gathering was just one more attempt by the West to dump the twisted sexual pretzel of pansexuality onto a now fully dysfunctional Anglican Communion in the vain hope that, even as it lies dying of theological AIDS, it can still penetrate and impose its morally bankrupt worldview on Africa and the rest of us who insist on remaining faithful to Scripture.

END