Friday, June 25, 2010

Final Pre Hui Thoughts

Some final thoughts before the Hui next week.

(1) This next Hui is part of a work in progress, building up to a final Hui next year. Please do not expect some 'conclusion' of great seminal importance to emerge from next week.

(2) It remains quite unclear to me how any conclusion we reach next week will be translated into resolution of this church, be it via General Synod or diocesan synods and hui amorangi. Any conclusion reached by a small group of our widespread church will need to be received, and the character of that reception is not at all clear to me.

(3) A great challenge for the particular task of the forthcoming Hui will be to engage members in real communication with each other (not talking past each other), and in real communication with the texts (not talking solely about each other's experiences and doing so disconnected from the text).

(4) Please pray that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture will illuminate it for us. Thank you!


  1. Thanks for the clarification of the "product" and what to expect.

    Maybe you could also clarify for us the "process":
    How many are at the Hui?
    How were they chosen?
    Is the list public anywhere, online, in diocesan synod reports, general synod reports? etc.
    It appears your paper is the only one available. Very strange. But thanks at least for yours.
    How much interest & knowledge by ordinary church-going Anglicans is there about this series of Huis?

  2. Hi Anonymous,
    I think there will be about 89-90 at the Hui.
    People there come via diocesan or hui amorangi representation, chosen by each bishop, the numbers per episcopal unit being the same as their General Synod representation numbers, but without any requirement as to how many lay or clergy. (Additional folk will be there as presenters, organisers, Anglican media and administration).
    The list is not public; diocesan reports may or may not report names.
    Hard to gauge re your last question. But "little" may not be wrong :)

  3. I am obviously not wanting an "orientation test" for those at the Hui, but of the 90 present approximately how many would publicly identify themselves as homosexual, and how many are in committed same-sex relationships, including Civil Unions? Ie. how many are out - and how has care been taken in the process of appointment that you describe, that the voices, perspectives, and insights of those who are out is heard in this key forum?

  4. Hi Anonymous,
    I do not know the full answer to your question as I only know of one 'out' person in the mix of representatives. This Hui consists of reps sent from Dioceses and hui amorangi; it is up to the sending body to determine how best it is to be represented. The Hui is not part of 'the listening process' per se and so no particular requirement has been made that some voices are represented ahead of others.

  5. So – the following is all organised and paid for by ACANZP:

    90 participants meeting for the third of four huis (like conferences). (Cost?)
    They have been appointed by dioceses and hui amorangi but without particular criteria as to who appoints them and why.
    There would be an outcry if the variety of cultures were not reflected, if the gender balance was uneven, if there was an overabundance of liberals or conservatives, if no or very few evangelicals were present. But there has been no outcry that only 1 of the 90 is known to be gay at 4 conferences focusing on homosexuality and the Bible.
    Because the gay perspective is not the focus here.
    That will come at something called the “listening process” (when? cost?)
    The relationship between these huis and the “listening process” is unclear.
    There is no relationship between these huis and General Synod. (Who funds this – General Synod or the dioceses?)
    There has been little to no feedback to dioceses and diocesan synods.
    Only one paper presented is online (yours).
    This site promises a 'whole of ACANZP' site. I cannot find it. There is no link to it.
    Presenters have been invited.
    The Presiding Bishop was invited and then uninvited. Because, what was your phrase, it would be impossible to continue the hui normally if she was a presenter? Maybe her scholarship overwhelms NZ’s training?
    There is little interest & knowledge by ordinary church-going Anglicans about these huis.

    Wow. You must be so proud.

  6. Hi Anonymous,
    You are making assertions from a distance. I have not done any head counts re women/men, liberals/conservatives/neither, and have heard of no one being anxious about those things.
    I am not going to run through your other assertions. Things will work out in the long run. Good conversations are being held. But it is not for me to say whether these will yield fruit in one month, year or decade.
    It is neither here nor there whether I am proud or ashamed of the hui!

  7. Hi Anonymous,
    One point you make above is based on inaccuracy: PB Schori was never invited to present at the Hui. The pertinent comment made on ADU was, "the protocols of the Hui would be difficult to sustain with such a distinguished international visitor present". That phrasing is not the phrasing you give above.

  8. Thanks Peter, I had misremembered it and could not find the thread - what date was it please? It should be "be present" rather than "present".

  9. Try: