In summary:
1. Indaba demands full participation
2. Indaba is an emergent process
3. Indaba is driven by trust
4. Indaba requires working space
5. Indaba is an expression of respect
6. Indaba is an expression of faith
7. Indaba requires recognition that “there is a real world out there, far more important to God than Ecclesiastical navel gazing.”
Read it carefully and read it all. The Bishop says all this “requires a sense of realism.” I am all for that. But realism has to do with confronting reality, so I am praying for TRUTHFULNESS above all things. And you all know the degree to which TEC is, alas, caught up in unreality–KSH.
This is really quite diabolical. What madness.
Indaba is the latest ‘buzz word’ to hit the church, and will eventually go the way of ’empowerment’, ‘focus groups’, “The Road Less Traveled”, etc.
When will we learn that what endures is the Gospel, not buzz words?
Given the entire reason this divide-and-smother format was selected, Item #3 is a sad joke.
I would say that if “Indaba is driven by trust”, Lambeth is running on empty since TEC has already proven that they cannot be trusted.
What exactly is an Indaba?
Did +Iker and +Duncan get cell phones too? Or only the chosen ones?
Indaba demands the predetermined reflection be achieved and assures it by multiple layers of manipulation. Hocup pocus, indeed!
#5 “What exactly is an Indaba?”
It’s a song from the 60’s by Iron Butterfly.
[blockquote]5. Indaba is an expression of respect. This means radical openness — trying hard to listen to others and understand them in their own terms before pitching in one’s own reaction. Mark Twain pointed out that what makes people dumb is not what they don’t know, but what they think they know, and it’s wrong. Coming from a generally sperficial, low-respect, cynical culture doesn’t help. [/blockquote]
Having the opinion that it is my way or the highway certainly does not help.
This is a nice talking point, but if you toss it up in the air, will it fly?
I am surprised that no one with Southern African experience has so far commented on the use of the word in Southern African English. Southern African English borrows many words from local languages, eg Afrikaans, Zulu, etc. Indaba is used a lot, to indicate much talking, but sometimes much talking to no great effect. eg in Zimbabwe you might say: ‘The boss called all the workers in after the shortages were discovered. There was miningi ndaba.’
The format is useful because it resists the temptation for people to gang up on each other.
It should be pointed out that it is a much better format for community building than, say, blogging – which tends to exacerbate differences and heighten tension.
The format also makes it harder to dismiss other people. It tends to incarnate issues rather than make keep them abstract. Abstractions, ideologies, or even theologies tend to diminish the image of God in the people before us.
Of course, it will make bloggers dissatisfied. As it should. We have the luxury of not having to pay the consequences of our words.
John Wilikins, Delphi technique to allow the minority to control the outcome by layered production of desired liberal outcome. This is a clear reaction to Lambeth 1998 and the new center of Anglicanism in Africa and the Global South. It is a last attempt of the colonial powers to retain their status and control. But it is bravely naive of you to hold otherwise, exhibiting a trust in human nature that the ABC and organizers and bill-footers clearly do not share. The latter know all too well that the discipline due to the ACC and ECUSA/TEC et alia sycophantis would be meted out by the global anglican concensus if Lambeth were held per normal Anglican canon/practice.
Earth to John: said church is on the verge of consecrating *mortal sin*. Can you please re-adjust the rubbish you just wrote in light of this obvious and horrible fact? You are praising the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, my friend.
Make do with indaba,
That’s all we’ve got left.
Of doctrine and order
We’re plainly bereft!
Tridentine… “consecrating mortal sin” is in your imagination. the church is doing no such thing. What the Episcopal church has rejected is the idea that homosexuality is a disorder. It may be wrong, of course, but it must be verified or disproved outside of scriptural warrant. Otherwise its like proving the earth’s rotation by quoting Genesis.
DWstroud – what makes you think its going to be a liberal document? It might not come out with the disciplining action you like. I’m going to be a bit more cautious. I’m also perplexed that prayer and discussion would seem “imperialistic.”
Of course, in my view, perhaps it is time for TEC to abandon its anglophilia and dump the tea. You are right that the “center” of Anglicanism has moved, but I’m not sure why I should care. Our central concern is how the Gospel is preached where we are.
I guess we need to change now that we have DSM 4 in place of DSM 3. The new version removed homosexuality as a develpmental disorder. After all, I understand that the change was done by voice vote at the annual meeting of the American College of Psychiatrists. This is what is left of the three legged Anglican stool.
John Wilkins (#11) is absolutely right.
[blockquote]Tridentine… “consecrating mortal sin†is in your imagination. the church is doing no such thing. What the Episcopal church has rejected is the idea that homosexuality is a disorder. It may be wrong, of course, but it must be verified or disproved outside of scriptural warrant. Otherwise its like proving the earth’s rotation by quoting Genesis. [/blockquote]
This is so very dishonest, John. The issue is not homosexuality per se, but homosexual acts and whether Scripture speaks to them. It does, in universally condemnatory language. No one need refer to any source besides the Bible to come to this conclusion.
[blockquote]John Wilkins (#11) is absolutely right. [/blockquote]
The underlying reality of what he posted is spot-on, but the unctuous spin of his rhetoric conceals that reality. Where he sneers at “ganging up,” think “prevention of a resolution of the mind of the Communion from being expressed” and your understanding of the Lambeth format will be greatly enhanced.
Jefferson, as I’ve said, I find the scripture’s references to homosexual acts to be obscure and incomprehensible. You seem to understand them, and I’m skeptical about what the church has taught about them.
As far as the mind of the communion – I think that there are many minds in the communion. I’d rather not suppress the diversity of views. That’s tyranny. Indaba seems to ensure that the diversity in the church is expressed, rather than just the loudest, most populous or the most angry.
Isn’t “indaba” Zulu for “yada-yada”?
I think your first paragraph speaks volumes, #20, about either your lack of candor or lack of intellect. And you are not a stupid fellow.
I don’t see this as so much a “diversity” issue as one of entropy. A spoon full of sewage in a barrel full of wine yields the same thing as the converse. The goal of the pansexual lobby is to make sure that spoonful stays there.
[blockquote]I guess we need to change now that we have DSM 4 in place of DSM 3. The new version removed homosexuality as a develpmental disorder. After all, I understand that the change was done by voice vote at the annual meeting of the American College of Psychiatrists. [/blockquote]
Hmmmm….. looks like Westerners [i]have[/i] tried indaba before.
Orthodoxy: Kickin’ it old school since 33 A.D.
Orhodoxy: If it ain’t broke…..
Orthodoxy — Ancestors you can’t remember are part of our Church
#23. Yup. Somebody wearing a hood to cover his face, came and said that he was a shrink and felt oh, so hurt because his own collegues thought that homosexuality was a disease, and he didn’t feel diseased, and it wasn’t fair. Boo hoo.
Then there was a show of hands, and democracy replaced the scientific method by a slim majority. Over 69% of those polled later, said they thought “it really was a disorder, but it didn’t matter”.
(Did you think physicians would be any tougher than bishops, when faced with a weeping collegue?)
Indibar. Better than Scripture. Better than the Scientific Method.
Indibar. Better than Truth. Better than Reason.
INDIBAR!
INDIBAR!
Keep repeating INDIBAR and look manically happy, and you will be amazed how much better you will feel. Maybe we can get INDIBAR into the science textbooks, instead of all that hurtful scientific method stuff that completely disrespects the feelings of people who have hurt feelings. We should leave the scientific method to backward folks in Africa and Asia. I like INDIBAR better.
So there.
John Wilkins, #11, 15, 20 is absolutely left, not right – and he is defending a disorientation and behavior that evidence in Scripture, science and medicine have shown is unhealthy and unholy.
As far as the mind of the communion – I think that there are many minds in the communion. I’d rather not suppress the diversity of views. That’s tyranny.
Where is the limit to this diversity? If there isn’t one, everyone in the world is a member of TEC and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof…. and being Episcopalian means nothing at all. I would rather believe and live as God commanded under a tyranny than be completely free without God.
The indaba list can be put together without effrontery in and only if one is working from an agenda, whose premises are beyond examination. Such is the case with this man. To the rest of us, the list is a testimonial to the vacuum that exists between the Lambeth Shadow Princes and the real world. This list SHOULD provoke laughter. It is hard t o offer any critique because there is o common ground for understanding.
And then there is the simplest response: That idiot word by these blockheads makes me barf. Pray for them? Pray for them? Why would anyone pray for them? Ladies and gentlemen, these ARE the wolves and they are in the barn. To the wolves, indaba is the Zulu word for supper. Larry
#27 – that’s actually a good question. Ephesians has a good list of the fruits of the spirit; scripture seems to indicate that abundance has something to do with it.
#27 – that is a good question, about a limit to diversity, so good that the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission seems to have studied it a few years ago, in fact – see this comment on a SFiF thread:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14328/#250463
#30. This is the same critical weakness of tolerance. If it is a virtue, all should practice it. Who then is the perfectly tolerant man? Why, one who has no standards whatsoever, for any standard is exclusive. To be perfectly tolerant is to be, of necessity, amoral, for all practical purposes. My experience with wholly tolerant people is that they they wish to grant to others what they desperately need for themselves. Inclusivity is no different. To include everyone is, at last to include no one because the word becomes meaningless. Larry