Fulcrum Blog
Bishop of Croydon blogs from Lambeth 2008

Another scorching day and temperatures rising. And so they should, too. Some real business is getting attended to here and some of the western bishops appear to be rather cross that they can't control this conference in the way they are used to.

In response to Pete Broadbent (who should be here, not shooting from outside), I have not revised my view in the light of the 'briefing sheets' issued to TEC bishops. We have known about these (and have copies) since before the conference began. Is Pete suggesting that he wouldn't do something similar in preparation by TEC (but without writing it down?)?

The point is that some Indaba groups are working better than others. The key difference seems to be that some of the facilitators are more able than others to allow the process to be re-shaped by the group. Our group has a superb facilitator and he allowed us to take the group where we want and address the priorities we decide upon. (I'll say more about today later.) But it is clear that some facilitators come from cultures where you follow the script you have been given - and in these cases there is some frustration being felt. However, this appears not to be the norm, but the exception. Beware of people who extrapolate from their particular experience to the general...

I begin to get cross here not because of over-scrupulous or conformist facilitators, but because of the whingeing of people who should know better. I went to a meeting this afternoon which was like being back in primary school. We are adults and leaders who should be mature and creative enough to take what we are presented with, work it in conjunction with others and then take responsibility for our handling of the process and any outcomes from it. I wonder if some bishops simply want to distance themselves so that when the process gets sticky later next week, they can disclaim responsibility. I hope I am wrong.

As for the conspiracy theorists, I am losing patience. Yes, there needs to be a comprehensible and communicable outcome at the end of next week. Yes, there needs to be a process to enable this to happen. Yes, there is the potential for some people to try to hijack this and 'win' their argument. And yes, the sky might fall in and the Archbishop of York run off with the organist. It is blindingly obvious that these matters are being worked on and that the dangers are obvious and recognised. But it is also blindingly obvious that this Indaba process is opening up conversations and realisations we could only have dreamed of even several weeks ago. Whatever decisions will eventually be made, they will be better informed and made knowing something of the impact they will have on others.

In my view, the process is immensely valuable in itself and offers a model worth looking at in the wider church. I think, in the light of this experience, I would do housegroups differently if I was in a parish again. The General Synod could learn something from this intelligent and respectful and informed way of engaging and ensuring that voices are heard and responsibility taken by all. Indaba cannot be rushed (whihc is difficult in this context), but it is based on relationship and honesty. I genuinely impressed that, if taken seriously and done with integrity, it cannot easily be subverted by the powermongers.

Now, I am not naive. Yes, of course there are manipulative people huddling around the campus (apparently) doing their plotting. But the Holy Spirit is also at work here bringing light and revelation where there has been darkness and misrepresentation - on all sides. How do you think Americans would hear a bishop from the Congo saying: 'We are called 'the homosexual church' and subject to ridicule in our land.'? But, equally, how would an African 'conservative' hear a South American describe how the Anglican Church in his country was the only one to speak out to protect homosexuals when a death squad was established to eliminate gay people?

This morning was informative also because bishops from different provinces explained what is really going on 'back home'. For example, it clearly came as news to some in my group that in England we do not have such a thing as 'gay marriage'. Civil Partnerships are specifically not 'marriage'. The Church of England has no rite/liturgy for the blessing of same-sex partnerships and, therefore, does not sanction them. This is fact, regardless of whether particular bishops agree or disagree whether this should be the case. But many Africans have been told lies and believed them - I was told today that the Church of England 'does man-man marriage'. The discussion this morning was open, passionate, informed and respectful and it felt like a privilege to be there.

What does worry me, however, is a point I had come across in Zimbabwe, but not really connected with until now. When Christianity came in the form of Anglicanism to African countries it came with the cultural accoutrements of English colonial life. When I asked a Zimbabwean bishop last year why they don't write their own indigenous liturgies and why they follow only the BCP (17th century vernacular English), I was told that this is what the missionaries brought with them. Christianity was synonymous with the trappings: BCP language and liturgy, English Victorian hymns, English vestments and robes, etc. To ditch (or 'move on from') any of these would be synonymous with changing the faith itself or moving on from (or 'changing') the Gospel itself.

This has emerged here, too. Many times I have heard African bishops say something like: 'The missionaries brought the faith to us and said what we should and should not do according to the Bible. Now you want to change what the Bible says.' The problem seems to be that only in the case of sexual taboos does this rigidity apply. We don't hear much about the ditching of slavery - although slavery was a 'given' in some colonial missionary environments. It is clearer than ever that hermeneutics lies pretty centrally to our debates.

I was also struck by the analysis of a liberal British bishop this morning (in a positive understanding of Akinola's positioning) according to which a Nigerian 'Sharia' approach to law conflicts with a western 'human rights' approach. This clash of values needs to be acknowledged and addressed, too. The point for us is that the championing of one value can compromise another: for example, mercy might compromise justice. There is much here about which I need to think - when I get the time and space. It certainly helped me re-think Akinola.

Getting back to lessons learned, I think it came as a bit of a shock for some non-westerners to discover that it is only the (Anglican) Episcopal Church in the USA that stands up and opposes Bush on climate change and the effects of global warming. Visitors from, for example, Papua New Guinea and Madagascar have been describing how entire villages (including churches) have been disappearing because of flooding and other changes in the climate. It seems odd to them that the Church they think is unilaterally pro-gay is also the Church that gets accused of being 'unpatriotic' for defending them in the USA. (The evangelicals in the USA generally oppose anything that dares to cut back their power, money or industrial development - they should learn to read the Old Testament warnings to 'empires' that love hubris and reject any sacrifice in the interests of others.)

Incidentally, in the Bible Study group this morning I countered one bishop's proposal for how the Communion might find its way through its present conflict by saying it didn't stand a 'snowball in hell's chance' of being taken seriously. He responded with a smile and the devastating rejoinder: 'Nor did the feeding of the 5000.' Touche!

One of the statements being heard here more frequently is that this is the sort of conversation we should have been having twenty years ago - that we should have adopted the Indaba-style method at the 1998 Conference, but that it is now too late. This is a point Theo Hobson made when I debated with him during the week on the Today Programme on Radio 4. But surely they aren't saying that therefore we shouldn't be doing it now?! Well, I think they might just be suggesting that. But it is nonsense.

Some of us (particularly the younger bishops who have a few years ahead of us...) are really enjoying this conference. We are not politically naive and are not blindly positive. But we are onto something here that I think has the potential to change the way we do our decision-making in the Church in the future.

I'll finish for now with a theme from this morning's Bible Study. Jesus stops the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, then invites those without sin to throw the stones. He goes on to address those 'Jews who had believed him' with some questioning of their memory ('we have never been slaves' - what, then, was the Exodus about... or the exile in Babylon?) and their certainties. Then they start to stone him.

Jesus seems to have quite a lot to do with stone-throwing and how to stop it and escape from it.

Off to the Chinese with my mates, having just knocked off a comment piece for the Telegraph which can be read at www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/25/do2507.xml.

If you want to see what sneering responses you get when you write (unpaid, of course) for a national newspaper, click here. My response hasn't appeared on the site. I suggested that Damian Thompson try harder not to miss the point and try to grow up a little.

On the other hand, I guess it was a hostage and I walked into it (to mix my metaphors rather badly).

I'll think twice before doing anything else for them.

It is great to see Andrew Burnham blogging. I am a bit worried that Mike and I have photos of us looking scruffy whereas Andrew is fully vested with his mitre on. I assume there is no significance in this, but, then again, you never quite know...

I was interested in his comments on 'being marginalised'. I have heard the mantra of 'we haven't moved - it is the rest of the church that has moved from us' many times. I think I couldn't have been an Anglican in the first place is I stood where Andrew stands. I am sure we will discuss this alot in the times to come. But his contribution to the blogosphere is welcome as it is very different in tone and content from mine or Mike's.

I also thought Tom Wright's mid-term letter (on this site) is a good and concise 'state of the union'. I even saw him smile yesterday!

I have come home to Croydon for 24 hours and will be returning to Canterbury later this afternoon. This brief break has allowed a little perspective to be gained and some thinking to be done. I am not sure it has done me any good, though, because I have just listened to Greg Venables on the radio and had a glance at the CEN - and my temperature has risen.

Yesterday I witnessed two American bishops disagreeing with each other. One very angrily and passionately complained about the treatment of TEC by the rest of the Anglican Communion and spoke 'on behalf of' the American House of Bishops. His brother bishop came in later and objected to this (politely and respectfully), making the point that' you were speaking not for the House of Bishops, but for yourself'. He disagreed with the former's analysis and conclusions. I mention this because I am getting sick of hearing people speak 'on behalf of' others or as some sort of unofficial authority on the mood of the conference as a whole. (A blog, of course, is by definition subjective.)

On Radio 4 this morning Greg Venables gave a jaundiced and predictable response to the conference. I could have scripted his answers for him. But he did not represent the mood of the conference and it needs to be said that he only speaks for himself. Given that he spoke to the nation (and beyond) on the BBC, I will respond to a number of points he made:

1. He began by speaking (and I quote) of 'nice people with good will'. Would he prefer the bishops to be unpleasant people of bad will? Is it not good that the conference is characterised by good will? Clearly, what he means is that people who are nice and of good will are ineffectual when it comes to addressing difficult issues. This is patent nonsense and I for one do not like being patronised in this way - especially as the corollary of this is that Venables sees himself as the brave no-nonsense leader who would go straight for the issue, overcoming all hesitation or reservation rooted in consideration of factors beyond 'the issue' (such as language, relationship, etc.). Some of his own bishops do not agree with his stance or behaviour, but I wonder how he will respond if they decided to ask for 'help' from other provinces.

2. He claims that people are 'uptight' and describes the atmosphere as 'extremely tense'. He speaks of 'suppressed anger' and uses the word 'frustrated' several times. I think he is describing himself and some of his mates. It is absurd to speak in this way of the whole conference. Perhaps he ought to mix a bit more.

3. Please, oh please, will people stop referring to 'the elephant in the room' (in Venables' case the animal is more precisely located in the 'living room')? We are meant to infer from this that the matter of homosexuality, the ordination/consecration of gay people, the reasons for the rupture in the Communion and all matters associated with it have been sidestepped in the first week of the conference. This is rubbish, nonsense and a lie. There is no hidden elephant in the room - various aspects of the elephant are being discussed everywhere and in every room on the campus. What Venables means is that we didn't do a plenary debate on day one and have a blazing row which would justify his position. Show me a Bible Study group that has not touched on or focused on these matters. Show me an Indaba group that has not addressed in some way and to some extent these matters. What about the afternoon self-select groups that are focused on these matters specifically? What about the conversations, provincial meetings, etc where these matters are constantly being discussed? The truth is that nothing is being sidestepped or avoided, but the control freaks who want to guarantee their particular outcome have not got the patience to go with the process.

This first week has consciously been about growing the relationships and allowing for conversation, discussion, learning and questioning at  non-confrontational level in order that when we get on to the more focused work this coming week we will have developed relationships of respect and understanding, will have learned things about each other (and each other's real context) we didn't know before and will have understood better the matters we have to address and resolve one way or another.

I think this is a more respectful and wiser way of doing this business than starting off in entrenched positions and fulfilling the self-generated prophecies of those who do not want change, but simply want to be proved right in their miserable predictions. Greg Venables is speaking for himself alone when he says we 'haven't got to grips' with these matters. I think what he means is that we 'are getting to grips with these matters without giving him or anyone else the dominant platform' - and he doesn't like it.

So, what does this mean? Well, let me say something about what I have learned in the week we have just had. In my Indaba group we have gone round and all 17 provinces represented have explained the law on marriage in their own countries and the status of marriage and same-sex relationships both in law and in their Church. It is absolutely clear that not one province authorises same-sex blessings. Not one authorises (or even agrees with?) same-sex 'marriage'. 'Marriage' has been consistently and unanimously affirmed to be between a man and a woman. Civil Partnerships in the UK are not 'marriage'. I  have even heard an American bishop publicly say that despite his liberal views about same-sex relationships and his approval of Gene Robinson, if one of his priests celebrated a same-sex blessing in his church, he would prosecute the said priest in their courts for unlawful activity. I think some non-western 'conservatives' are beginning to understand that the situation is not quite as they had been led to believe and that 'our' context is not equivalent to their's.

I have learned that it is possible for people of vastly divergent view to talk properly and respectfully in the same room. I have learned that there is a more massive gap between cultures than I thought was there and that many differences are rooted not in theology but in culture. I have been asked by a puzzled African bishop why men need to go with other men: 'is it because there aren't enough women to go round?' Unpack that one.

I really want to move on, but I want first to make a comment on the CEN. The front page headline is a scandalous misrepresentation of reality. 'Call for gay bishop to resign rocks Lambeth'. The call for Gene Robinson to resign is hardly a new one! The conference was not 'rocked' in any perceptible way - except, maybe, for the journalists who are desperate for a story of collapse. The Sudanese statement was discussed sensibly all over the place. Like Greg Venables, this is a case of individuals projecting onto everybody else their particular anxieties and neuroses. The rest of the CEN is not worth commenting on.

I have been asked about my view of TEC and the Gene Robinson saga. So, let me address this as concisely as I can. At a purely pragmatic level, TEC should never have proceeded to the consecration of Robinson before having addressed theologically and ecclesiologically the matter of the blessing of same-sex relationships. The fact that they put the cart before the horse has led not only to the problems we now face, but also to an inner incoherence within TEC itself. As an outsider, I wonder why no one had the intelligence to spot this one earlier. To give them their due (and I don't have any inclination to defend the Americans on this or any other front - don't get me started on their unilateralism, ignorance of the wider world, misplaced collective self-confidence and blindness to their own national contradictions), some TEC bishops recognise this and are now realising what they have done. Their plea to be 'talked to' and not just 'talked about' is a fair one and, I believe, is being heeded in this conference.

TEC's polity reflects the polity (and democratic assumptions) of the USA itself. I think its internal polity makes bishops not leaders, but servants of their synods. This further makes clear that there is little in common between the role of a bishop in the USA, South London or Burundi (particularly in relation to authority) and this needs to be addressed within the Communion.

My interim conclusion (which, of course, is subjective and open to challenge or change) is that the process this last week has served us extremely well. We are entering the second week with a better chance of speaking more clearly (and better informed), listening more clearly (and with better 'linguistic' comprehension) and coming to clearer conclusnions than would have been possible had we simply gone at the issues in the same old way as in the past. It still remains to be seen whether we will make it work. I am suspicious of the constant whingers and nitpickers who will probably accuse Rowan of making the sunshine too hot in order to make people feel more tired. I am suspicious of some of the prima donnas who seek out a microphone or a camera and seem to see themselves as important players in their own private dramas - I think we call it narcissism. I am concerned that certain people might try to hijack proceedings. But, more than anything, I remain confident that this process will prove to have been the right one for this time and place. There are no guarantees about outcomes, but I am sure we can, under the grace of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, end next week in a better place.

I will return to Canterbury shortly. I need to check out one or two things when I get there. For example, I was told that the Pidgin language spoken in Papua New Guinea has been heavily influenced by Australia. Apparently, the word for something that is broken is 'buggerupthing' and the word for 'home' is 'arseplace'. I have got to learn this language! More later...

One of the remarkable things about this conference is just how intellectually and spiritually stimulating it is. There are days when I think I change my mind on some matters several times. It is an unbelievable privilege to have time with some deeply impressive people - usually the ones who don't know they are 'deeply impressive'.

In this morning's Bible Study we were looking at John 10:1-10 and the significance of Jesus being the 'gate' not only for us personally, but for the Church and the Anglican Communion. We concluded that the being sent out (led by the shepherd) into the world is not an alternative to working at the unity of the Church, but that one cannot happen without the other. This led us into a reflective and serious conversation (in which everyone contributed - as always) about the Anglican Communion and its current questions whihc are to be addressed in a more focused way this week.

One of the interesting elements of this conversation (which I will need to think about a little more when I get the head-space) was the statement by John Zizioulas (Orthodox) at the end of this month's General Synod that 'it is not a synod, it is a parliament'. The notion of the 'bishop in synod' - or of the Church of England being 'episcopally led and synodically governed' - seems to be a bit of a fiction in our present polity. This also reminds me of the first time I realised that when people shout at bishops to 'lead', they really mean 'lead others to agree with me and my priorities.' We want leaders, but when they lead we try to inhibit them.

The apparent lack of trust in bishops is evident at every turn - and often expressed by clergy in language that would have them appealing to the bishop if uttered by their churchwardens about them. But I wonder if there might be a better model that does justice to our ecclesiology and enables the Church to be led more effectively. The irony, of course, is that (as a traditionalist bishop observed to me) this Lambeth Conference is more of a synod than the Synod.

I also had the pleasure this morning of meeting Ishmael Noko again. He is the General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation and I usually meet him in Kazakhstan. At least he was able to meet my wife and convince her that I really do go to Kazakhstan and really do work hard when I am there - that it isn't just a jolly!

The other thing I have been musing on today is how different people approach a conference like this - especially when they are used to running things and cannot control this one. I attended a conference in Wittenberg, Germany, last year when the German Church (EKD) addressed its ten year reform programme under the title 'Church of Freedom' (Kirche der Freiheit). The 'Impulspapier' divided the church's task into twelve elements that then formed the content of the conference. At the first plenary session a longstanding, more traditional bishop stood up and took the document apart. He claimed that the Church is not the 'Church of Freedom', but the Church of Jesus Christ. This clever statement then enabled several people to dismiss the report and the whole process. They had found the gap - the error - and therefore were absolved from any responsibility to engage with it.

I am reminded of this not because I think this a German problem, but because I think this is how powerful people behave when they don't like being powerless. I think there are bishops here who are behaving like this and find endless fault in everything. I would like to go on a conference organised by them and show them what it is like to have people identify (oh so cleverly) all the other ways in which it could have been done.

I think this process has been remarkable. If others haven't engaged with it and gained from it, that's too bad. But it is only by engaging with it that you stand any chance of getting any gain from it. Furthermore, I am fully committed to getting stuck into whatever we come out with at the end of this conference - whether that be something good or something a bit hopeless. The Church has gone through two millennia of ups and downs and threats and challenges and now is no different. After all, the Church is not the kingdom of God - we are called to be a sign of the Kingdom and that impacts (drives?) not only what we believe but how we live together.

This is significant in the light of this afternoon's second 'hearing'. Of 27 speakers, 23 were westerners (American, English, Irish, Canadian and Australian. Of those 23, 15 were from TEC and they ran the gamut of TEC complexions. Once again, they spoke with passion and clarity, but what was not said about their province was as significant as what they did say. What I think was most significant about this was that the Americans cannot say that their voice has not been listened to and heard. (The other speakers were from Sudan, South India and Egypt.)

This evening we will have the pleasure of listening to Rabbi Jonathan Sacks speaking about 'Covenant'. He is a powerful thinker and is superb on notions around history and memory. I will report what he has to say later, but I am looking forward to further stimulation.

One respondent to this blog has expressed the hope that bishops who have got to know each other so well here will continue their contact and conversation in the future. I have no doubt that this is one of the strongest benefits to the Church of the conference. My Bible Study group will keep in email contact and this will be great for sharing all sorts of stuff.

The last thing I want to say just now is about the journalists here. I have said some quite strong things about them and their presence here in previous posts and I still hold the same views. But I think they deserve great credit fro the way they have handled some of these frustrations. They have not been intrusive and have done their professional image some good in the way they have handled their presence on the campus. I meant to say that a couple of days ago, but ... er ... didn't.

More later.

Thanks to Kendall Harmon for his response to my observations on TEC's process. I did realise that voices had been raised about the order of decision making, but I was picking up on what was said by several TEC bishops about their retrospective view of what they had done. But I am grateful for the corrective clarification.

This evening we listened to one of the great thinkers and orators of the English-speaking world: Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks. He is known all over the world for his books (especially The Dignity of Difference which caused a storm in the Jewish community and had to be revised for the second edition. Jonathan Sacks is an original thinker and, building on the depths of the Jewish tradition, contributes much to British and European society by his clear analyses of contemporary social developments and the philosophical backdrop to them. He and Rowan Williams are equals when it comes to intellectual depth and their friendship and mutual respect are obvious.

Jonathan Sacks had been asked to address the question, from a Jewish perspective, of 'Covenant'. His full address will be available shortly and lots of journalists were present to listen to him; so, I don't need to go into great detail. But I want to give a taste of what he said because it has a significant suggestion to offer us in our current Communion deliberations.

He began by describing politics (the State), economics (the Market) and worship (Religion) and illustrated very vividly how both State and Market operate on the basis of competition and 'winning'. Covenant, on the other hand, has to do with both parties 'winning' and with creating 'arenas of cooperation'. A contract (politics and economics) is an agreement between two parties who come together for mutual benefit (a transaction), whereas a covenant brings two parties together to share their interests (a relationship). He observed that 'contracts benefit - covenants transform'. He developed and illustrated this from Darwin and Dawkins.

He then went on to go back to the beginning of covenant in the Ancient Near East and pointed out that given the religious/political coincidence of the relevant world view (get the gods on your side in order to guarantee your 'gain'), the idea of a covenant between a god and people was simply absurd. And this, via an explanation of covenantal language in Hosea and Jeremiah, led to his central thesis - which is so suggestive for the Anglican Communion.

He compared the three covenants in Genesis and Exodus: Noah, Abraham and Moses (Sinai). He then posed the question: when did Israel become a nation? Deuteronomy 26 says that they became a nation while in Egypt whereas Exodus 19 says they became a nation when they left Egypt. Sacks says that both are true because they are different sorts of covenant. Egypt was a covenant of fate; Sinai was a covenant of faith. The former occurs when the people are bound together by a common suffering, fear and enemy; the latter occurs when they share dreams, aspirations, ideals and a common hope. In Egypt the people were bound by a covenant of fate, in Sinai by a covenant of faith. So, the covenant with Noah was one of fate (destruction of the world) and with Abraham and Moses was one of faith (shaping the world).

Sacks described how the covenant of fate (with Noah) was forged in desperate times of basic survival. Like the rainbow ('the white light of God' perceived as the spectrum of colours), this covenant bears witness to what Sacks has called 'the dignity of difference'. He broke this down into three elements: (a) the sanctity of human life, (b) the environment and (c) respect for diversity. He expanded on each of these before noting that the Isaiah dream of the 'wolf lying down with the lamb' was already fulfilled in the Ark when their common predicament (survival from drowning) made their mutual cohabitation essential. Faith, said Sacks, is particular; fate is universal.

As covenants of faith begin to fall apart in contemporary society, so it is the covenant of fate that is pulling us together.

Sacks went on movingly and poignantly to describe Jewish fears of Christians for the last thousand years before the Holocaust and beyond. He then noted how Joseph (Genesis 50) worked out that even though we cannot rewrite the past, we can redeem it. In the case of Christians and Jews, he said, the past in now being redeemed (at least in the UK). He then noted how, when we marched together through London last Thursday on behalf of the world's poorest people, we (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, etc.) did not share a faith, but we did share a common fate.

Religions, he maintained, needed to show the world how, sharing a common fate, we could live and work together - faiths bound together by a common fate. We should be a blessing to the world by walking together and emphasising the covenant of fate over the particular covenants of faith.

Now, the application of this is obvious. The Anglican Communion is messing about with its internal conflicts and ignoring its role in emphasising the covenant of fate: the need for religious communities to show the world how to live in a world of disintegration in such a way as to make a different world possible - one in which the covenant of faith can be developed.

Following a lengthy standing ovation, Sacks answered questions and received a second standing ovation. He was asked directly for his opinion on the Anglican Covenant and the divisions we are currently experiencing. In response he diffidently, but very affectionately and seriously, described his own experience of having been educated for thirteen years in Church of England schools in North London. He described his respect for Anglicanism as 'awe, wonder and admiration' for how we have held together for the benefit of the 'world'. He insisted we must hold together because what he have and what we offer the world is utterly unique.

He went on to offer reflections on the Middle East and on Jesus, but these observations will have to wait for further reflection by others. The important point I want to highlight by recording all this is the implications of his analysis for where the Anglican Communion is right now. Is his analysis of the 'covenant of fate' being descriptive of our priorities now correct? And, if so, can we find a way through our internal quandaries by focusing on the world's need for the Anglican Communion rather than our sometimes narcissistic preoccupations with internal purity? And what do the Gospels teach us about this (in terms of our mission and purpose in the world)?

I found this lecture extremely powerful and suggestive of a way forward. The world needs not a fragmented church, but one which recognises the urgency of our times and the need to be bound by a common fate that is bigger than the particular predilections of our internal strife.

I hope that gives a flavour of the evening and evokes something of the questions that, raised from outside our community (prophetically?), go to the heart of what we are about this week.

Tomorrow we address questions of power and its abuse. More anon.

Thanks to Art (but who are you really?) for an interesting comment which to took me several readings to fully understand. As a linguist I fully understand what you say about the complexity (inadequacy) of translation. The value of learning other languages is precisely that you learn how linguistic and conceptual equivalence is often a nonsense. Your question about the 'complementarity' or 'contradiction' of cultures is a valid one. However, I am writing shorthand blogs here and not extended essays on culture. Perhaps when Lambeth is over and I have had a holiday, I might return to this theme more fully. Nevertheless, I still support the value of the learning experience involved in people here listening and learning from each other and recognising to some extent the extent to which culture (albeit shaped by particular theological/philosophical assumptions) dictates thinking rather than 'pure' theology (whatever that is).

Today has been an 'interesting' day. The morning was taken up with a plenary session the theme of which was rather enigmatic and the content/process of which was not broadcast beforehand. I can understand why. Had the organisers announced that we were to look at 2 Samuel 13 and address the question of power and its abuse (in various guises), I guess many of the bishops might have chosen not to come. The morning was arranged by the Spouses Conference, but brought us all together in the Big Top.

People have different responses to what we experienced - but that is tru of any conference or any service in church. Some bishops felt they had been manipulated and others thought it had been a very thoughtful and revealing session. I wasn't convinced of some of the links made, but I do think that it was clever to take a chapter from the Scriptures and make us focus on a different sort of sexual question. Read the text and ask why this is included in the Scriptures. Imagine yourself into the situation of Tamar, Amnon, Absalom or David and see how uncomfortable you feel about their experience. It was not comfortable being a man reading about the collusion of men in the incestuous rape of Tamar.

The focus of much Lambeth scrutiny is on homosexuality. But the wrong use of power (and assumptions about it) is to be found more in heterosexual abuse of women and children within marriage. The Churhc is not exempt from this. I have to confess that I did find the leap from Tamar's rape to the abuse of power by bishops a little contrived, but it articulated the fact that abuse happens and needs to be named. It was interesting to note at which points (and on what issues) the women applauded and the men remained quiet - especially when the women expressed impatience with the male episcopal obsession with homosexuality. To have the potential for abuse of episcopal power questioned was important - even though it wasn't rammed home inappropriately. (The facility was available for people to seek counselling in the Prayer Centre during the afternoon.)

The Southwark bishops met our link Zimbabwean bishops (along with our spouses) for a BBQ at lunch time. Typical. The one day we choose to eat outside and it rains. Well, only a little. But it was great - as always - to meet our brothers and sisters from that suffering land and enjoy their company. They are giants of faith and endurance and vision. I don't want to say too much here; but I do want to say that I love them and admire them and feel humbled to know them. Our links will grow even stronger than they already are because of our common experience of this conference.

This afternoon I caught my first glimpse of Gene Robinson. He does love attention, doesn't he?!

The most important element of the day probably came in the Archbishop of Canterbury's second (interim) address to the conference. The Big Top was packed for Evening Prayer (led by and focused on Burma) followed by the address in the presence of the recently arrived Cardinal Walter Kasper from the Vatican. You can read Rowan's address on this site, so I won't repeat it in precis form here. I merely want to make one or two observations on what he said and how he said it.

The moral and spiritual authority of Rowan is obvious. When people criticise him for lack of leadership, they need to realise what he is doing here. In the light of the Scriptures and faithful to Christian history he seeks to enable Christians of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to recognise the call of Christ to a ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the world. He refuses to let us off the hook by allowing us to indulge in politics without being reminded of the challenging and costly vocation to carry a cross and lay down our life (and our rights). His call to different wings of the Church to offer a 'generous love' to those on other sides is not the appeal of a weak man. In true Christian - and cruciform - style, he stands between people and, arms outstretched - holds them together even though in doing so he is pulled apart. To call this 'weak leadership' is to call the Cross a pointless gesture.

Rowan did something risky but powerful. He tried to articulate - give voice to - the thinking and feelings of people on different sides of our current divides. I think he demonstrated his real ability to understand and express what different people are thinking and saying. He gave generous expression to their point of view and enabled us to see what it feels like to think the way 'the other' does. In so doing, he also exposed the dark sides of passionately felt theological and ecclesiological positions. This was a brutally honest expression.

The problem might be, however, that the only people to hear it might be those who are able to hear anyway. Those who are already entrenched in their prejudiced positions will probably prove unable to hear and respond to Rowan's call for the generosity commanded by Jesus. In fact, he said: 'We can only do this [sacrifice for the sake of others] if we are first captured by the true centre - the generosity of God [who laid down his life for us in the first place].' His statement that 'we seem to be threatening death to each other, not offering life' is simply and unarguably true. 'We need to speak life to each other', he said - and the need is obvious.

The questions remain. Will we follow the way of God in Christ and be willing to see through the eyes of 'the others' and offer a sacrificial generosity, trusting one another to be faithful to our common calling in diverse contexts? Or will we stand on our rights (Paul said something about this in Philippians 2) and see the world (that needs to see as well as hear the Good News of reconciliation) suffer because the Communion weakens? Remember Jonathan Sacks...

I was a little surprised that Rowan finished where he did. I expected him to ram his conclusions home. But I think he was absolutely right to leave us hanging by a thread with the challenge to sacrificial love ringing in our ears. When he finished and sat down there was no ovation - standing or otherwise. And this was entirely right and appropriate. He left us with some serious thinking and heart-searching to do as we continue our work.

Before this evening we had had our Bible Study groups looking at John 10:11-18. I just love my group. I feel immensely privileged to know these guys and to be able to have these hours of conversation around the Scriptures and our common (and uncommon) life. Two of our group were missing today and I missed them.

There are some observers out there who will criticise this conference whatever happens and whatever we come out with. Even if we came out with the Second Coming, they would be critical and write us off. There is little we can do about them and they must answer before God and a bleeding world for their attitude and behaviour. I have my own critical reflections on this conference and am not blind to some of the questions raised elsewhere about it. But one thing I will violently object to is any charge that the Lambeth Conference has not taken Scripture seriously.

Not only are the Scriptures read in Morning Prayer, the Eucharist, Midday Prayer, Evening Prayer and Night Prayer, but we spend at least one hour in our Bible Study groups every day. Today we spent three hours engaged with the text of 2 Samuel 13. We are soaked in Scripture and engage with it in various ways and at various points every single day. We pray and talk and think and study. It is hard work, demanding of time and energy, and costly in terms of the emotional and spiritual engagement. This is absolutely right - it is not a holiday. But the bishops here are taking their task seriously under God in the power of the Spirit as we seek to embody the incarnate, crucified and raised Christ.

More tomorrow.

I am intrigued that Andrew Burnham restricts his greetings to those who are 'in the club'. So, I offer my prayers and greetings to and for all the doubters, scoffers, questioners, unholy, dodgy people who might read this blog! I always did feel that the Christmas Carol should really do justice to the Gospel and read: 'O come, all ye unfaithful...'

It is stonkingly hot again on the campus today and it seems that the number of journalists has multiplied. Perhaps they've been learning from the millions of bunny rabbits around the place.

This morning's Bible Study focused on John 11:1-44. Much could be written, but the point that took my mind off into a place of deeper reflection was that of 'time' again. This passage (the dying and later raising of Lazarus) is enigmatic, to say the least. Jesus delays going to his sick friend, eventually hears that he has died, then decides to go, then has a good cry before raising Lazarus. Having been told, Jesus waits a 'further two days'. This brought to mind something I have written about elsewhere ('Scandal of Grace: the danger of following Jesus', St Andrew Press, 2008): the inability many of us have to wait and let things take their course.

Evangelicals are not good at Easter. I grew up in a Baptist Church in Liverpool and then joined (in succession) evangelical Anglican churches in Bradford, Cheltenham, Bristol, Kendal, Leicester and Leicestershire. Only in the last-named parish did we begin to take Easter seriously. What do I mean by this? Holy Week passed by without notice until a sparsely-attended Maundy Thursday Communion sprung out of nowhere. Good Friday involved the triumph of the Cross and a quick leap to the joy of Easter Day. Yet, just as Lazarus's sisters and friends had to wait and live through the experience of loss (bereavement) and bewilderment (why doesn't Jesus come when we need him?) - they can neither rush it nor avoid the agony. After the crucifixion the disciples do not leap into the joy of Easter Day; rather, they live through the agony of a totally empty Saturday in which the world has fallen apart and all they are left with is fear. Sunday cannot happen before Saturday - but you wouldn't believe that from what is often 'celebrated' in churches.

While I am at it, I also think the Easter acclamation is biblically inaccurate! The Easter service begins with the priest proclaiming: 'Alleluia! Christ is risen!' The congregation responds: 'He is risen indeed! Alleluia!' I think it would be more accurate if we reflected the response of the disciples to the resurrection as recorded in the gospels: not joy, but bewilderment. A better congregational response would be: 'Whhaaat?!'

The other element of the Lazarus story is how Jesus responded differently to the two bereaved sisters. One hears he is coming and runs out to meet him. She accuses him and he engages with her in theological dialogue. The other sister stays at home and when Jesus meets her he weeps. Two different responses to two people who are sisters, but are very different people. Now, that is empathy.

I don't know if this suggests something to the Church about appropriate, but differing responses to different sorts of people. Some people need to engage in serious theological argument - perhaps appearing to be insensitive to the circumstances and emotions around them - whilst others need not words and argument but just the empathetic emotional humanity that honours the grief. Now apply that to some of the issues around our beloved sexuality debates and the people involved. I am getting to the point of wanting to do scream when people speak glibly of 'the homosexual issue' or 'homosexuals'. They are people with names and parents and families and friends and all that goes with being human in complex societies. What we are talking about is not an 'issue' that can easily be abstracted; it is about people who can be dehumanised by the language we use.

It was interesting that people responded differently to Rowan's interim address last night. Some I spoke with today thought he had polarised the positions, whereas others think he articulated clearly positions at the ends of the spectrum of responses to the presenting issues. It was also noted that his address followed video of the horrors of Burma and the slaughter of thousands of people. It makes polite and nitpicking debates about sex seem ridiculous.

It is good, then, that the Indaba Groups seem to have taken seriously Jonathan Sacks' call for a 'covenant of fate' to be considered by the Communion at this time - on the grounds that in the same way as the Church does not exist for the sake of the Church, but for the sake of the world for which it must give its life, so the Anglican Communion must be strengthened not for the sake of its internal happiness or purity, but for the sake of a world full of death.

Various proposals are emerging from these thoughtful conversations. There can be no quick fix when it comes to sexuality debates (that would be like thinking you could solve world poverty by having a march and making a statement) - the next decade could be used for education and information and learning through the sharing of experience as it has happened here at Lambeth. This came from an African conservative.

Another African called for an end to what he described as 'ecclesiastical Mugabes' - a new way of exercising leadership and authority in African churches.

A westerner observed that when we want to make big decisions we want to be Roman Catholics; but when we want to make little decisions we want to be Protestants. But we are Anglicans!

All of this reminded me of the lectures by Professor Nicholas Boyle (Oxford University) to the Church of England bishops earlier this year. He observed that nations try to justify who and what they are by appealing to their history. But we should be identifying ourselves by what we want to become. This has something to say to the Anglican Communion and the way we do our business together for the sake of God's world.

More later, maybe...

Just read Andrew's post this morning as I wasn't feeling great (too little sleep?) and decided to take my time starting what might be an 'interesting' day on sexuality. I'll leave it to others to critique Andrew's blog. I have met Kasper several times and like him and respect him. But all this stuff about full eucharistic unity rings hollow every time - as does his stuff on Anglican orders. He speaks as if the Pope had his pen poised to sign the paper that would grant validity in the eyes of Rome to our orders. This is fantasy and I still do not understand how, given Andrew's understanding of the Church, he could ever have been ordained an Anglican when the Church he sees as the 'right' one regards us as 'not a church' in its fullest sense (whatever that means). Andrew, you are Mr Burnham in the eyes of Rome and, therefore, doing something very odd when you encourage people to partake of Anglican sacraments from what, really, amounts to lay people.

I am not trying to make a case in this - just to ask a question. I would really appreciate it if Andrew could address this for a wider audience. However, life is full here and I wouldn't want to add to Andrew's burdens on what promises to be a heavy few days.

Anyway, off for a day of sex now...

Well, today was Sex Day and the rabbits ran for cover. I missed the early morning Eucharist (the first time) and missed what appears to have been the funniest moment of the conference. Each day, immediately before the Dismissal, the congregation watches a DVD of the Daily Journal which catches up on yesterday (or particular themes) and introduces the theme for the day. Rowan was talking about something meaningful when the recording slurred to a halt with Rowan's eyes closed and his head sinking. It brought the house down. But you'll just have to use your imagination - I did.

The Bible Study was as good as ever. I will be really sad to say goodbye on Sunday. We exchanged business cards so we can keep the relationship going after Lambeth. Today we focused on John 13:31-14:14 and Jesus as 'the way, the truth and the life'. Along the way we had an arresting conversation about power and our obsession with 'bigness' or numbers. We noted that it is weakness (and an absence of illusions) that challenges power - not simply greater power that overpowers power. That is the scandal of the Gospel that challenges the norms and expectations of the world in which we live. I noted my favourite chapter, John 6, where Jesus begins with a crowd of 5000 and loses the lot by the end of the chapter. Would you employ Jesus as your Vicar or Parish Evangelist?

This is partly what worries me about the rhetoric of the GAFCon people who cite the numbers they (apparently) represent. Of course, those people represented have never been asked for their opinion, but that is not my point here. What worries me is the hubris that allows size to create arrogance. I fully believe in the growth of churches and that churches can grow - that people can and do and will respond to the Good News of God in Jesus Christ. But church growth does not and cannot prove that the methos or content is right in itself. Numbers (as was discovered at the Nurnberg Rallies) proves nothing. A later conversation with a friend indicated that Willow Creek has commissioned challenging research into its life and that the results pose serious questions about the effectiveness of the church in terms of real discipleship. I will follow this up when I get a chance.

In relation to John 13/14 we went on to consider how manipulative passive-aggressive behaviour can be in institutions such as the Church or academia. Such behaviour can be dressed up as weakness, but needs to be resisted and named for what it actually is.

This led us to consider the ways in which we so easily lionise and idealise people on whom we depend. I have observed in other writings how we dehumanise the saints by sticking them in a stained-glass window with a plate around their head and call them 'saint'. Yet, when you read about Peter and Philip and Thomas and the rest of them, they are like you and me. Hope lies not in our trying to emulate them, but in realising that they are flesh and blood like us - and Jesus still took them with him and built his Church upon them. It has never been any different and never will be - so let's drop our illusions and get on with what God has called us (oh so fallibly) to be and to do.

Anyway, Sex Day was a bit of a disappointment for the thrill-seekers. There were no fall-outs, no hissy fits and no demonstrations of outrageous behaviour on the part of bishops or their spouses. In other words, a media disaster. The funniest bit for me was when Peter Tatchell and his friends from Outrage came and laid out their huge banner in front of the Sports Hall where we were meeting in the afternoon. The banner is pink and covered a mound of landscaped earth, proclaiming 'Stop crucifying queers!' Unfortunately (and purely coincidentally - it was not organised at all), everyone left by the other exit and his demonstration was a bit limp. By the time he got round the other side most people had gone. This also meant that the press missed the photo opportunity provided by the recently-sued Bishop of Hereford cycling past the banner.

I felt a bit sorry for the media people. They have built today up into the day the explosion would happen and the Anglican Communion would collapse in on itself under a weight of sexual tension. But it didn't and we didn't. Mind you, this might have been an appropriate and just reward to the Daily Telegraph for its scandalous, misrepresentative and deliberately sensationalist article about wife-beating by bishops. The American bishop who had been interviewed was horrified to see what the press had done and explained herself to the assembled bishops in the afternoon session. Welcome to the British media! She should sue the journalist concerned. And the journalist should ask whether this sort of story really satisfies any sense of professional integrity.

Back to the conference proper. The most arresting comment from our Indaba Group (sexuality and the covenant) was to with what I have called the greatest gift of Evangelicalism (and Protestantism) to the world: we know how to split. Fragmentation and division is a dominant feature of our time - an immature inability to live with messiness and the unresolved. We see it in divorce and lack of commitment in a range of contexts and relationships. And we see it in the church - despite everything said by Jesus and the Apostles about unity, love and sticking with each other. The church does need to find ways of being countercultural and resisting the narrative of the 'world' whose script is simple: conflict, anger, collapse, failure... and all that adds up to 'news'.

One of the hardest things here is getting some bishops to understand each other and to listen to what is actually being said and heard. One bishop asked a small group of us: 'What would Peter or Paul think if they were here and listening to this discussion about homosexuality?' He didn't like the response which alluded to Peter's insistence on circumcision over against Paul's objection... What we all agreed on is that in the context of the challenges facing the world and the mission of the Church, we are straining at a gnat (homosexuality) and missing the elephant (massive family breakdown in the west, greed and the 'rights' culture...) that's crashing around. This doesn't minimise the sexual agenda, but it does question whether it is the most important issue in the world.

Nevertheless, it is an important matter for us now and, especially, for those Anglicans who suffer because of what TEC did in 2003. And we will continue to work at it until Sunday.

I went to two further sessions in the afternoon. The first was a further 'Hearing' on the 'reflections' document being drafted and compiled by the group of 'Listeners' drawn from each Indaba Group. Lots of drafting suggestions were made. I asked for this report to be supplemented by an 'executive summary' written in 'worldspeak', not 'churchspeak'. We will continue tomorrow.

The second session was an extra self-select session aimed at allowing people to make constructive proposals for how we might move forward. This was a good idea as it called the bluff of those who like to plot in corridors or dark corners. The room was filled and it was hot and sticky. This didn't help the mood which sometimes got a bit negative. Or very negative. But it focused us back onto the challenge rightly issued by Rowan a few days ago: what are we willing to sacrifice in order to be generous to others? Various contributions took us round in circles. I managed to get the final word in and tried to raise the sights again.

Firstly, history tells us that every generation thinks it is the last and that its crises are the ultimate crises. So we need to get some sense of historical and temporal perspective in all of this stuff.

Secondly, we can either identify ourselves by what we have been (our selective history) or by what we want to become. Professor Nicholas Boyle addressed this in his lecture to the Bishops' Meeting recently in relation to England and the United States as nations. But it applies to the Communion as well.

Thirdly, people do not change their mind quickly - not in a conference that lasts two weeks, anyway. Like conversion, any mindset change is a process of the regrinding of the lens behind the eyes and takes time. Therefore, we cannot resolve these matters at this conference, but must continue the conversation.

Fourthly, in order to do this we need a holding framework - one which would hold the line and allow for an informed and respectful conversation to continue without the current pressure and heat. The Covenant is the only game in town and this will be pursued in the next few days. The key bit is not the sensibilities of the particular localities where we live and serve, but the importance of keeping the Communion for the sake of the world we serve and the churches around that world.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. I'm too tired to think creatively right now.

Just read the Times article by Archbishop Henry Orombi in which he criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury (again). It makes it clear again that the real issue here is not sexuality, but a share in Akinola's anti-colonialist anger.

Call me suspicious, but could we have a comment from someone somewhere about the timing of this article, the fact that Chris Sugden's daughter is here working for the Times and that we have come to expect this sort of thing? This is a question, not a statement.

I will comment on the colonial stuff later, but Orombi might just ask if he is also being manipulated by a new form of 'colonialist'. He might also recognise that the Archbishop of Canterbury is also a diocesan bishop. If we want the world to elect the ABC, he would have to be taken out of a diocese - and then we would have a Pope, not an ABC. Think through the ecclesiological statements before making statements that are really a response to a different question or grievance.

I have been musing today on how best to frame some of the questions that are really bugging me. Recognising that I sometimes go to the heart of the matter a little too quickly and frame the questions a little too bluntly, I decided to reflect before writing this blog. After dinner I went for a walk along the seafront at Whitstable and met hundreds of teenagers drinking, socialising, shouting, fooling around and doing whetever a teenager has to do to find some action in Whitstable. I wondered how I would go about interpreting all the stuff that causes so much angst in the Anglican Communion to these teenagers. I asked myself where I would begin to convince these young people that the Church of Jesus Christ is the bearer of good news.

You will be relieved to know that I decided not to try this out on them and came back to the campus instead. But the experience also made me calm down a bit about the things that are bugging me. I'll explain.

There has been a repeated call to remember and pray for those bishops who decided not to come to Lambeth. GAFCon has been remembered in conversation, discussion, address and prayer - and this has been good and right. We have been urged to love our brothers who stayed away and try to make it possible for unity to be achieved again. The good things of GAFCon have been noted and rehearsed time and again and the challenge posed by GAFCon reiterated many times. Indeed, the voice of those absent by choice has been heard - including by people like me who have serious problems with GAFCon, but who believe you sometimes have to ensure that the voice is heard, even if you disagree with it. So what's my problem? I think it will be more helpful if I frame it in a series of questions:

1. Who paid for GAFCon? (If what I have been told is true, then this is a new form of colonialism imposed by people with not-so-hidden agendas - to do with power - to achieve their own goals.)

2. How do they square the language of anti-English (anti-Anglican?) colonialism with the fact that certain white Americans and Brits have arrogated to themselves the right to 'interpret' the Africans to the rest of us? See, for example, Peter Jensen's embarrassing intervention when the Primates of Nigeria and Uganda failed to condemn the torture of homosexual people in their respective countries. Or, see the fingerprints of people like Chris Sugden on every bit of malice that appears.

3. How do the spokespeople of GAFCon square the language of resentment, criticism and personal abuse (aimed at the Archbishop of Canterbury) with their claim to the biblical and moral high ground?

4. How does GAFCon deal with the fact that they are a coalition of people who might purport to unite on a single issue, but (a) include in that coalition people whose 'record' contradicts what GAFCon purports to stand for and (b) bring together people who disagree on just about every other issue? For example, Jensen's (and the Wimbledon conservative evangelicals) commitment to lay presidency won't sit easily with the fully vested and pink-hatted Anglo-Catholics who use very different hermeneutics and cannot consider worship without the dressing up, the altar and incense.

5. How does GAFCon square with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the injunctions of the Apostle Paul their readiness to write the script before the event, decide on their response to what they haven't yet heard and allow their people to engage in what I have elsewhere (in relation to a different context) called 'lying, subterfuge, misrepresentation and manipulation'?

6. Is GAFCon willing to open their accounts with total transparency so that they can be examined openly?

7. Will GAFCon address with honesty and integrity what comes out of the Lambeth Conference and, prayerfully, consider where the Holy Spirit is at work among us?

8. Will GAFCon address the serious matter of authoritarian leadership and the threat of sanctions against those who wanted to come to Lambeth?

9. Does GAFCon believe that the breaking of the ninth Commandment is a serious matter?

10. Why did Chris Sugden work so hard to dissuade bishops from coming to Lambeth and then come himself - as an accredited 'journalist'? Does GAFCon approve of his behaviour here?

11. In what ways have the people ostensibly represented by GAFCon leaders been appraised of and enabled to express an opinion on the matters on which these leaders pronounce? I know people in English churches with GAFCon leaders who have never been properly and fairly informed/educated about the issues, never been consulted on the stance to be taken by their leaders and never been given an opportunity to debate the matters to hand. How does this square with the Gospel?

12. Who engineered the placing and timing of Henry Orombi's article in The Times today?

These questions are not mischievous. They are serious and demand answers. Why? Because notwithstanding my attempts to respond to GAFCon with love and respect - which has been characteristic of the Lambeth Conference towards GAFCon - these questions bug me. The behaviour of certain people does not reflect the Gospel supposedly being upheld.

My further problem is that, as I have indicated elsewhere, even if Lambeth delivered the Second Coming, GAFCon would oppose it. I have expressed this quite starkly because I don't believe GAFCon will respond positively to whatever Lambeth comes out with. Why not? Because the hypocrisy of GAFCon is its power agenda hiding behind the sexuality agenda. This is why the Lambeth Conference must shape itself for the future in such a way as not to seek to accommodate GAFCon, but (taking seriously the presenting and underlying issues raised by the phenomenon of GAFCon), to do what is best for the Anglican Communion which exists for the sake of the world and not for the sake of the Anglican Communion itself.

I freely admit that not all my evangelical brothers will agree with the way I have expressed these matters and some will not agree with my asking these questions at all. But many are asking these questions in private - it is time they were asked in public by an evangelical bishop. I also want to put on record my huge admiration for some of the Global South leaders. I had not met John Chew before, but would trust him with my life now - he is a wonderful man.

Now, back to the Lambeth Conference itself. The morning Eucharist was led by the Pakistani bishops. I looked at Bishop Mano Rumalshah (former leader of USPG and now Bishop of Peshawar on the treacherous and Taleban-run border with Afghanistan) and saw in him the cost of cross-centred obedience to the call of Christ. We know nothing of the price Mano and his people pay for being followers of Jesus Christ. And I fail to see how others who chose not to come here can see in a man like him someone who preaches a false gospel and can be abandoned. It was a privilege beyond words to sit at the feet of the Pakistanis and be ministered to by them with such grace and generosity.

The Bible Study this morning focused on John 15 and what it means to be branches of the vine that is Jesus Christ. It was observed (by a 'conservative' bishop) that the branches themselves don't get a say in which other branches get pruned... We explored what it means to 'abide in Christ' and also shared stories of what this costs.

We had two Indaba Groups today: the first following the Bible Studies and the second later in the afternoon. Today they were focused on the proposed Anglican Covenant and led to lively discussion. The honesty in these sessions has been amazing, even if sometimes hard to listen to. There was general agreement that we need a covenant to create a holding context in which some of the hard questions can be pursued in the years to come. But this covenant needs to be more permissive than punitive. We can either go into it reluctantly and resentfully or commit ourselves to it and to making it work - even if it isn't what ideally we would like it to be.

Serious and penetrating questions were asked and some very good observations/cautions expressed with helpful clarity. There is clearly a fairly widespread fear that we might try to impose tidiness/clarity where there is none or force premature resolutions simply in order to resolve our discomfort with being in a hard place.

I put a proposal on the table in order to test the minds of the 'extremes' in the room (which contains representatives of 17 Provinces). It accepted Rowan's commitment that Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10 is not up for any form of revisiting and represents the 'norm' accepted by the Anglican Communion as voicing the 'mind' of Scripture and Christian tradition. Whether people agree with it not being revisited is irrelevant: 1:10 is simply a fact on the ground, as it were. Consistent with this, however, we would uphold and re-affirm the moratoria (on the appointment of non-celibate gay bishops, the authorisation of same-sex blessings and - very importantly - the incursion by 'alien' bishops into other Provinces and Dioceses). Agreement with this would allow time and space for the Covenant to be worked on properly and not rushed. We would also need to agree to the establishment of the Pastoral Forum.

This obviously is not comfortable territory for either conservatives or liberals. But we have been challenged by Rowan to consider what we will sacrifice for the sake of the 'others'. The sacrifice of 'rights' is involved.

In the 'Hearing' after lunch a couple of matters caught my attention: (a) that we urgently need to set up a group of biblical scholars to do some serious Communion-wide work on biblical hermeneutics and (b) that this conference should be followed by a Decade of Generosity and Sharing. This latter proposal came from a conservative bishop from Asia who recognises the world's need of the Anglican Communion.

So, we continue to work at this. My prayer is that the outcome of this conference will be treated with respect and prayerful consideration and not be rubbished by the prejudiced before a word has been spoken. This, too, is a 'gospel' matter.

The Moscow Patriarchate has issued a statement today expressing its distress at the decision by the General Synod to appoint women to the episcopate. This is hardly hot news: the Patriarch wrote unambiguously about the implications in his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury which was printed in the initial conference ecumenical document. What is surprising is that the Russian Orthodox bishop who has been among us here for a week or more left yesterday without having said a word about this 'speacial statement' which was issued today. Er... why?

And, finally, to Brother Andrew. I haven't misunderstood our relations with Rome at all - or the symbolism of papal rings being given to Archbishops of Canterbury. But it still doesn't address the point that our orders are invalid in the eyes of the 'Universal' Church and our sacraments remain not 'acceptable'. If you move to Rome, you will have to be re-ordained. What does that say about your current status? This circle can only be squared (it seems to me) by the most odd ecclesiological gymnastics. I still don't get it...

Maybe I should stick to watching the rabbits.

It is raining. At last. This means it is a bit cooler. At last. Which begs the question why I walked to the other side of the campus (about 20 miles) this morning in t-shirt and sandals (without socks, of course).

I think Brother Andrew has got it about right in relation to the process and outcome here. There has been a quite remarkable atmosphere (with the odd exception) of mutual respect, attention, listening and learning. I am not surprised that Andrew had a civilised chat with the Presiding Bishop or anyone else. It has been an indescribable and incalculable privilege to meet, eat with and spend time with bishops and their spouses from all over the world and I, for one, will return home humbled and with a more expansive understanding and appreciation of God, the Church and the Communion.

Ruth Gledhill remarks on the 'survey' of 100 bishops about inter alia the leadership of the Communion by Rowan Williams. She goes on to observe that a quarter of the Communion questions his leadership by their absence and the statements emanating from GAFCon (I am summarising from memory). That is a fair comment at one level, but does not address the fact that there are bishops who wished to be here and were threatened by their Primate that if they did come they would be punished. Their absence cannot be taken to mean that they automatically withhold support from Rowan Williams.

The Archbishop has received fantastic support here and has received widespread admiration for his discipline and holiness. He has not responded to the personal stuff dumped on him from great distances by angry people. He has obeyed the Gospel injunction to pray for those who despise you. This morning's Eucharist was led joyfully by the five Kenyan bishops who defied their Primate and came to Lambeth anyway. They introduced the service with a statement of deep gratitude to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the gift of this conference.

Well, the Bible Study group was consistently enjoyable, encouraging, challenging and stimulating. I wish it could be possible for us to continue electronically somehow. I have only this week realised how much I miss doing Bible Study with a group of peers for mutual benefit and learning. It has made me realise again just how lonely a role being a bishop can be. I am not whingeing about it, but just remarking that it is a long time since I experienced this sort of fellowship.

The Indaba Group worked on a statement that will be fed into the system today and be reflected upon at an extra 'hearing' at 5pm. Some of the CAPA bishops met last night and they have made a proposal that says what I tabled in my Indaba Group yesterday and I think this will carry the day. There is still time for it to be hijacked, but I am confident that there is such goodwill here to see it through before we finish tomorrow.

Tonight we have a plenary session at which the young stewards from around the Communion will be sharing with the bishops and spouses their experience of Lambeth, their hopes and fears for the future and their questions to us. I am looking forward to this in order to hear through different ears and see through different eyes - the ears and eyes of those who (a) have had to observe alot, both formally and informally, of how bishops behave and what they see as their priorities, and (b) from whose generation the future leaders of our Communion will come.

The stewards have been fantastic. They have worked hard, been unfailingly cheerful and efficient, worked long hours and helped the conference function in practical terms. They deserve medals. One young woman remarked that her job for the last two weeks has involved herding bishops who don't naturally do 'being herded'. She observed that, although herding cats might be easier, herding bishops was much more fun. If you pray for this conference, remember before God not just the bishops, but those whose practical work has made the whole thing possible.

Add into that the Communications Team. How they have managed to handle a story-hungry media when the media had so little access to most of our 'work' sessions, I have no idea. They have worked incredibly hard and deserve our thanks.

I will go back shortly to the main site to continue work. A number of English bishops seem to be leaving the conference early - which is irritating. It will be misinterpreted by the mischievous... I will stay until Monday when I will bring a couple of South Africans to South London where they will be staying with friends.

Tomorrow we work through the morning before heading to Canterbury Cathedral for the closing service. I'll write again when time allows, hoping that all this has been useful to someone somewhere.