Indaba Groups - and explanation

Indaba is the hot word at this Lambeth Conference.

It is a word that comes from the Zulu language. It means “business.” And a google of the word turns up some interesting facts: there are “travel indabas,” “design indabas,’ a “mining indaba,” and even a magazine that goes by the name of Indaba. This use is equivalent to “convention” and involves the marketing of some thing or other, usually in or concerning Africa.  

At Lambeth, “Indaba” represents an attempt to do “business” in a different way. It is obviously intended to get around the predominant method of large meetings and parliamentary-like debates that characterized some former conferences. The planners of this conference clearly wanted to offer a different kind of experience, one that presented time and space for getting to know and trust one another and to permit the airing of concerns, hopes and suggestions of all the participants.

The downside of parliamentary debate is two-fold: first, such debate tends to be dominated by a limited number of individuals at home with speaking to large audiences and engaging in debate. Second, parliamentary debate also involves a certain knowledge of procedure, which can sometimes be used actually to obstruct meaningful discussion and decision-making.

Parliamentary debate is a Western invention and tends to favor those who come from Western cultures.   The concern of the planners, apparently, was to seek a different kind of venue in which non-Western bishops might feel more comfortable and where they could be heard. Thus the use of the concept of “indaba.”  

If you were to observe the way “indaba” functions here, you would note that there is no “chairman” of the meetings. There is what is called an “animateur” (a French word, be it noted) who keeps the group on task. This is a bishop who has been appointed, presumably by the planning group, to belong to the group and serve this function.  

The whole group – about 40 persons in all, give or take – is responsible for participating and moving the group along. There is a kind of reporter who is not a participant, and who takes notes of the discussion and keeps records of whatever the group produces. (The members of the group can “correct” or slightly modify what the reporter in consultation with the animateur writes up, but amending or making additions to the record is discouraged.)  

There is yet a third individual, drawn from among the bishops, called a “listener”. The Indaba Group nominates three of its member bishops to serve in this capacity – someone who will “listen” to the group and who will represent its “input” – the predominant and ancillary contributions of the entire 40 (!) – to a second-level body. This latter body will attempt to distill and cast into written form the thoughts of the Conference as a whole.  

The first experiences of the Indaba Groups was focused on non-controversial topics. The first day, the group discussed what “being an Anglican bishop” means. The second day, the groups discussed their roles as bishops in promoting evangelism. The groups were given various materials to read, questions to answer, exercises to do. The participation level seemed relatively high. And yet, the exercises were more typical of seminars or workshop groups rather than problem-solving or reconciliation efforts. I found myself thinking that this was a good introduction, perhaps, to building trust and relationships for more difficult kinds of tasks. But there was nothing particularly novel or helpful  about the process itself. It is the kind of thing anyone familiar with modern educational techniques or group dynamics might expect.  

If you find yourself wondering where this familiar method with an unusual name might lead, you are not alone. In the group to which I was assigned, already questions have been raised about the usefulness of the method and seeking clarity about its purpose. There is much confusion over what the intention of the planners was. All that has been said is that there will be no resolutions. But there will be some sort of written document. What will its nature be? A narrative text, or something more definite in the way of commitments?  

More importantly, several questions were raised about whether there will be enough time in the days remaining to even begin to address the major issues confronting the Communion, let alone have time for decision-making and reconciliation. A couple of bishops asked if the group was fixed on continuing this process or whether it might be possible, with consensus, to “scrap” the process and engage within the group at a deeper level. Clearly, there was no answer possible to that question at this point.  

And whether the good intentions of the planning group and their use of the indaba concept will be helpful is yet to be seen. As some Africans have pointed out, the indaba concept relies on the prior existence of a community (indeed a village) which knows and lives together. In that context the already existing relationships permits the community to meet together and wrestle with its conflicts. But does “indaba” aid in building such a community in the first place?