Indaba!: A Way of Listening, Engaging, and Understanding across the Anglican Communion

~ 1 ~

Indaba as an Anglican Communion Adventure

WHEN YOU COME TO THE END OF A ROAD, your life is about to change. This saying illustrates a major shift that the Anglican Communion made at the dawn of the twenty-first century when it set aside its common Western forms of decision-making and invited indaba into its midst. The signposts of this coming change had been clear for at least three decades, especially as bishops from across the world came together for the Lambeth Conferences.

Bishops at the 1988 Lambeth Conference had remarked on the growing cultural diversity of its participants. About fifty African bishops had met as a region for the first time and put together a platform setting forth their concerns. They spoke at that meeting with a message that economically, politically, and theologically challenged those from the West.¹ Discussions over the ordination of female bishops were called out as a first world concern, one that was trivial in relation to the pressing issues of apartheid, poverty, and polygamy that faced their own societies.² Out of that meeting came a resolution encouraging bishops to seek dialogue with those whose views differed, in the hope that deeper cross-cultural understanding might emerge. A process of consultation also was encouraged on matters that threatened the Communion’s unity.³

Both the cultural and theological diversity of bishops at the next Lambeth Conference (1998) and the politics and tensions surrounding that meeting made it clear that the familiar Western format of study papers, resolutions, parliamentary debate, and voting was poorly equipped to express the mind of an increasingly diverse Anglican Communion. Political networks and coalitions that crisscrossed churches and continents were becoming commonplace. The issue that coalesced these networks was the place of homosexual persons in the churches, although other complex matters lay just under the surface, such as authority, autonomy, and imperialism. Along with the passage of Resolution I.10, which set forth a traditional heterosexual understanding of marriage and human sexuality, another call was made for a listening process, in this case to hear the voices and experience of homosexual persons who had not been part of the discussions.⁴ The road of business as usual at Lambeth had ended. Lambeth’s future and that of the Anglican Communion itself were at stake.

When Archbishop of Cape Town Thabo Makgoba offered indaba from Zulu culture as a possible format and way forward for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, he sought to put forth another way of having sensitive conversations, one that might help the bishops hear and understand a little better some of the cultural and contextual differences that affected both their beliefs and how they understood others’ concerns. Through mutual listening, they also might be able to explore points of common ground. This new direction would present its own adventures, challenges, and transformative insights.

INDABA: ANOTHER WAY OF GATHERING

Indaba in Zulu culture is a way of gathering the community together for a serious discussion. The word does not translate neatly into English, partly because of the different cultural contexts out of which these two languages arise. In an indaba, members of a community meet for the specific purpose of listening to others’ views about a concern facing the community.⁵ Everyone gathered is encouraged to speak, which helps the community understand the matter from a variety of viewpoints. As a concern becomes more fully understood, the community is better able to identify those places where common ground may exist, despite differences that remain, and to find a way forward together.⁶

In its traditional Zulu context, indaba isn’t an explicitly religious process. Yet Archbishop Makgoba believed that it could be applied to religious matters when he suggested it for the Lambeth meeting. As he pointed out:

[A concern in Zulu culture] might be stock theft [or] poor service delivery, but in the case of the Anglican Communion it might be questions related to the way we handle the Bible, sexuality, post colonialism, autonomy concerns and our many missional challenges.⁷

Indabas are expected to have outcomes. Some may lead to a practical decision. Others may sort out the underlying meanings and seek deeper understanding of differences or clear tensions away in order to maintain good relationships and improve cohesion in a community. They also may offer advice, build relationships, seek reconciliation, or strengthen commitment to a shared purpose. Because indaba depends on listening and considering all views and what might give rise to them, an outcome may be unexpected and sometimes quite creative.

Other cultures have practices that share similarities with indaba, such as the baraza, a Kiswahili word for a comparable form of communal discussion in parts of Kenya and Tanzania;⁸ padare among the Shona of Zimbabwe; and imbizo or lekgotla in other Southern African cultures.⁹ Indaba also shares some common features of practices such as sacred circles among Canadian First Nations or Indigenous cultures and talking circles of other North American tribal peoples. Similarities between indaba and addaa in Bengal and manji in Punjab (India) also have been noted.¹⁰ The Loya Jirga (great council) in Afghan tradition brings together tribal elders and other leaders to deliberate and offer advice as a communal process as well.¹¹

Indaba as Community Engagement

Community holds different meanings across cultures. In the West, its meanings can range from one’s residence in a geographic location or one’s civic participation to a group having a shared interest, background, identity, or other characteristic that sets it apart from others. Our English word community comes from the Latin roots com-, meaning together with, and münis, ready to serve.¹² From these roots also come diverse words such as ministry and communication. The concepts underlying these words all express relationship and mutuality through both serving and being served.

In some Westernized cultures, this relational notion of community has eroded over the last several decades.¹³ Individuals with a high degree of mobility often move in and out of communities and relationships based on shared interests. As a result, it is relatively easy to leave rather than to remain and struggle to live with differences and conflict. Although leaving may reduce feelings of tension, it also robs people of needed skills to develop and maintain cohesion in both their faith and civic communities, as well as in wider society. Moreover, it can lead to isolated thinking and a breakdown of the ability to live together in complex societal and global relationships.

In small towns, villages, and rural areas, or in some cultural groups, community tends to remain more homogenous. It may be strongly identified with a particular place, or perhaps an ethnic, tribal, clan, or other network system of family and kin relationships. In some African cultures, the community provides its members with both identity and agency that arise from a sense of common belonging. This interdependent relationship can be expressed in the saying A hand does not scratch its own back.¹⁴

Within Chinese cultural traditions, interdependent relationships are expressed through family networks, symbolized by the family name preceding one’s given name.¹⁵ In these contexts, a person’s identity and actions are deeply rooted in the larger group, which makes leaving or disidentification a far more serious decision than what is typical in more Westernized contexts.¹⁶ Consequently, many Chinese, African, and other communities that highly value interdependence put more effort into lessening tensions that surround conflicts. The task at hand becomes one of holding people together as an integral part of the community despite the differences and conflicts that remain.

Indaba as a form of community engagement comes out of a particular cultural context where both the community and its members have a strong mutual identity and commitment. It assumes that everyone belongs and that differences can be worked out even if not resolved. Paradoxically, indaba offers a way to bring both of these perspectives—contemporary Western and communal tradition—into conversation. Each can learn about the other’s cultural understandings of community that inform differing views and actions on given issues.

As such, indaba calls participants from Western cultures to reflect more deeply on the value of remaining in community, especially when strong differences and tensions arise, and to search for mutually acceptable outcomes. It also asks those from communal cultures to hear earnestly the differing cultural contexts of others who value being in relationship despite views or practices that produce tension. This type of mutual interaction can create a fresh understanding of catholicity,¹⁷ of living in unity amid diversity, which suggests a postimperial way of building relationships across the world in the twenty-first century.

Indaba as a Challenge to Western Ways

Communal processes such as indaba put priority on hearing different viewpoints and maintaining relationships as a key part of any decision. These differ from the parliamentary debate and majority-rule decision-making typically used in Western cultures and in many of their religious as well as secular organizations. Parliamentary decision-making can be very efficient in large communities, organizations, and societies, especially where a solution is needed quickly. But in Western debate, where an argument favors one position over others, often by critiquing the weaknesses of competing views, a competitive relationship between views emerges. This typically results in a win-loss outcome, especially when decision-making is finalized by a majority vote. Moreover, the debate and voting easily can become politicized, with negotiation little more than trading concessions among competing groups. When the process hardens into adversarial relations, it inhibits the likelihood of exploring and finding any common ground.

Parliamentary processes also have perpetuated elitism among ruling groups, which historically have been dominated by Caucasian men in Western colonial and postcolonial societies. Participants highly skilled in public rhetoric and debate have held an advantage over others not as eloquent or fluent in those discursive forms or perhaps in the language being used. Many historically have relied on relationships with ruling elites to have their concerns represented, which have perpetuated relationships of dependency on others’ dominance and power. At its extreme, parliamentary debate and its outcomes have become a performance and its context a stage or theater that is both a contested and managed site for attention and political actions, such as what occurred at the 1998 Lambeth