For a little over a year, five Canadian and six African dioceses have engaged in diocese-to-diocese theological dialogue on matters relating to human sexuality and to mission. With one exception, each diocese has established a theological working group to prepare papers and responses which were shared with their partner diocese on the opposite continent (see below for list of participants). Ontario and Botswana exchanged documents related to sustainability in the context of mission. These dialogues have emerged from, and are a deepening of, relationships established during the Indaba and Bible Study processes at the Lambeth Conference of 2008.
From February 24 to 26, the bishops of these dioceses met at the Anglican Communion Office, St. Andrew’s House in London, England. In a context grounded by common prayer and eucharistic celebration we reflected together on our local experiences of mission and the challenges facing the Church in our diverse contexts. Though the initial exchange of papers had been related in most cases to matters of human sexuality and homosexuality in particular, our face to face theological conversation necessarily deepened to explore the relationships between the Gospel and the many particular cultural realities in which the Church is called to mission.
The African bishops appear to be serving in the former South Africa province from whence came Archbishop Tutu. That province is the most liberal of the African provinces. I would have been more interested had the dialogue included bishops from West Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, the Sudan, or Tanzania.
Please read the list of signatories again and you might get more interested.
Mombasa is in the Anglican Church of Kenya. Tanga and Central Tanganyika are both in the Anglican Church of Tanzania. Southern Malawi is in the Church of the Province of Central Africa. While Botswana is in the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, it is a separate country independent of South African politics. That just leaves Capetown as even arguably liberal, although it is really pretty conservative by North American or European standards.
I doubt that any of the dioceses in West Africa or the Sudan have enough money for this sort of thing. I would also guess that there aren’t any bishops from Nigeria or Uganda who would be willing to participate in any meeting including Bishop Ingham of New Westminster. Given those restraints, the participation seems fairly representative of African points of view.
“We affirm together that dialogue cannot be about trying to make someone change their position, but is about working together better to understand the fullness of our stories, affirmations and commitments.”
Well exactly, this is the point of Rowan’s Indaba project funded by a TEC priest. Meanwhile the unholy project continues apace: litigation, breach of moratoria in the rampant SSU’s and now a second gay partnered bishop, and now the attacks on the only growing Christian diocese in TEC, South Carolina. And as for Michael Ingham, well, it says it all doesn’t it?
Useless, manipulative Rowan Williams if allowed to continue to convene and fix the agenda of the Communion and its instruments will wreck it, as sadly now even the CofE is being wrecked in turn by the failure of his non-leadership. The only remaining hope as far as I can see it lies in the Global South.
Yes indeed, in the context of its unrepresentativeness it is fairly representative.
I have somehow repressed all memory of the origin and function of the Continuing Indaba process. Is this the ecclesial equivalent of Bob Dylan’s “Never Ending Tour”?
FWIW I believe the Continuing Indaba Process is not funded by the dioceses but by the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at the Morehouse School of Medicine. (See http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/5/6/ACNS4610).
There seems a lack of congruence between the stated aims of the Process and the Communiqué. The Process’ stated aims include, developing “theological resources to inform the process of seeking a common mind” with intended result of conversations being, “a depth of agreement and the clarification of disagreement resulting in positive missional relationships”. Yet the Communiqué states that, “dialogue cannot be about trying to make someone change their position but is about working together better to understand the fullness of our stories, affirmations and commitments”.
I can see the Process is not intended actually to form “a common mind” but to “inform” the “process’ of “seeking” a common mind. (This despite Indaba being in Zulu a “process of decision making”). Nevertheless “agreement” and “disagreement” can’t be identified without actually spending time reasoning together – that is persuasion must, at some point, be part of the dialogue for it to achieve it’s stated aims.
The Canadian Bishops present are a cross section of the most liberal and progay. It is highly unlikely that they would provide a balanced picture of the Anglican Church of Canada. I wonder how aware the African Bishops are of the lack of conservative representation from Canada in front of them. This deck is stacked.
barthianfinn
#6 “This deck is stacked.”
Stacked you say? Something to do with Rowan Williams is stacked? Well I never.
It would be a wonder if anything Rowan Williams is involved in is not stacked.
No doubt he is spinning and manipulating overtime trying to stack his representatives into and subvert to his ends the upcoming GS meeting in Singapore. All in the most earnest, listening, fully appreciative of local experiences and the challenges facing the Church in its diverse contexts, sincere, serious and mock holy sort of way, no doubt. LOL!
… not forgetting 3D as well.