"..... At the Lambeth Conference the obsession with ‘Indaba’ meant that the entire emphasis was placed on having a ‘good’ process at the expense of decision-making and truthfulness. So-called Indaba disguised differences but did not ameliorate the divisions in the Anglican Communion merely making it easier to hide them under a veneer of civility. Liberal western bishops felt good about themselves because they were appropriating the consensus decision-making meetings of African villages. They ignored the fact that genuine Indaba is about coming to a decisive conclusion.He is right - the substitution of 'process for truth-telling' is an accurate description of what has happened.
In that sense the small groups operating at General Synod on Saturday at least had a purpose – to decide legislation on women bishops which can carry assent through the General Synod process. But it’s difficult to see what these kinds of structured exercises in reconciliation actually achieve when the final decision-making is still enacted through an adversarial process of standing orders, voting and politicking.
In fact, only 48 hours after these small groups a series of amendments intended to improve provision for traditionalist consciences were being voted down one by one. Speaker after speaker stood up to assure their opponents that they wanted them to be a full part of the Church while at the same time defeating every measure that might have given them some space for flourishing.
These sorts of small group-driven conversations, Indaba and attempts at reconciliation provide the illusion that a real conversation has taken place and people have listened to each other. In reality, they merely substitute process for truth-telling."
One could go a little further and say that Anglican as opposed to genuine 'indaba' is a endless conversation deliberately designed by Western 'churchmen' to continue their very successful war of attrition and wear down the opponents of change (the test is to ask yourself whether you can imagine for one moment Anglican revisionists ever admitting that perhaps their actions have been precipitate, much less ill-judged.)
It saddens me to say so, but, in view of the developing situation with which we are faced, it is hard to see that indaba was ever intended, except by a naive few, to promote a meeting of minds, or to engage rigorously and constructively with the issues which divide us, but only to delay and ultimately prevent effective opposition by the application of a tortuous, evasive and time wasting process in which neither side has any confidence or expectation.