“I’m told by people in Africa that you don’t just do indaba groups for two hours, you stick with it for days, and we’ve got two hours each day on a different topic, and with 40 people in a group, two hours, how much is that? You do the maths.”
–The Rt. Rev. Dr. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, in this morning’s Church of England Newspaper
Quantitiative vs qualitative. Do the thinking.
Exactly right, bishop.
I know the indaba format has been criticised as a departure from the parliamentary procedure which is the historical norm for the conference, but the basic indaba idea had potential. If done right, it could be wonderful, and could provide a chance to actually “listen”, in a way that parliamentary debate tends not to encourage. Smaller groups could avoid the posturing so evident in large parliamentary gatherings, and could make it easier to voice one’s opinions.
I’m sure many of us have been at diocesan synods where conservatives struggle to articulate a biblical objection to “the new thing” being debated, but are only given 3 minutes apiece to do it. We’re left spewing sound bites rather than actually presenting our case. Then, when the majority crams the new thing down our throats we are told that we had the chance to “lend our voice to the discussion”, and need to accept the majority decision as an irresistable movement of “the spirit”. Indaba had the potential to break this pattern.
However, the whole indaba idea only works if you really force the discussion to occur in a sustained way. 2 hours in groups of 40? Surprise, surprise, but that leaves everyone 3 minutes to speak. How is that an improvement? How do you articulate a nuanced position? What real pressure is there to let your guard down and have honest discussion? Not much, it seems.
So sad, because what we seem to be heading towards is the worst of both worlds: no resolutions that actually deal with the problems besetting us and at the same time no honest discussion. If we were serious about truly listening to each other and finding a workable concensus on moving forward, why not set up the conference so that people will do just that?
I don’t know how much more heartache and disappointment I can take. Yet, at a communion level, nobody seems eager to grasp the nettle and bring it to an end. So sad.
Stephen+
Sounds to me like this is a variation on the do-it-yourself “small group discussion” model that was crammed down our throats in seminary. Nothing ever got taught because the professor wouldn’t teach, so it devolved into a glorified after Church coffee hour.
Bishop Wright,
Why should the indaba groups be imitated by Christians?
#4 — Why should “parliamentary procedure” be used by Christians? The form isn’t the problem, it’s just a structure. As +Dunelm pointed out, the structure must be used appropriately and responsibly, though, for anything to be accomplished.
#5: I can’t support this with hard evidence, but I [i]think[/i] that our modern parliamentary procedure was originally based on the synod/council form of debate – in which case, it’s clearly a good model. The ‘indaba’ process seems to have been devised to avoid coming to any conclusion, which is probably why each session is to last for a short period with numerous participants. In fact, ‘process’ was a bad choice of words there, since the word means ‘moving forward’, which seems to be precisely what the Archbishop wishes to avoid.
Cynical – [i]moi[/i]?
#6 Sue,
I figured parliamentary procedure had its foundation in Greek and Roman government (read pagans) and this is true. However, I was surprised to read that the modern-day structure mostly closely resembled the governance of Anglo-Saxon tribes (they likely weren’t Christians yet, either). So, for someone to question why [i]Christians[/i] should use a tribal African model for discussion seemed odd to me when we’ve borrowed all sorts of other models from pagans.
As I’m not omniscient, I won’t comment on what the ABC’s motives may or may not be. But I do agree with +Wright that if you’re going to borrow a model, it will only be effective if you use it as intended.
Why were Indaba Groups chosen over other models as a way to conduct meetings?