Fulcrum Blog
Bishop of Croydon blogs from Lambeth 2008

I have just made the mistake of reading some of the threads and, belatedly, Michael Poon's contribution.

Firstly, Art, I read the Orombi article fully and my question remains. I am not the only one here asking it.

Secondly, Michael Poon rehearses this tired accusation that people beyond the 'Anglo-American axis' are not heard or listened to. The last two weeks have been precisely a seriously attentive listening to these voices. It has been a revelation to many westerners. It has also given us the opportunity to (a) question the assumptions we bring to both texts and encounters, (b) subject our national prejudices to public scrutiny, and (c) press non-westerners to discover what lies behind and beneath their understandings of Bible, Church, society, etc. That is what this conference has been about and I think Rowan (in his second Presidential Address) was trying to voice positions at the extremes and ensure that they were heard. He might have failed, but it was worth a try. Had Michael Poon tried to voice my 'position', I might have been making a similar complaint to his about Rowan.

I expressed respect for John Chew in an earlier posting. Add Ian Ernest (Archbishop of the Indian Ocean) - excellent, in my limited experience. Both live out of real grace.

I have read Pricklypriest's (another anonymous contributor) comment on the thread and have thought about it at some length. This is why I hesitated before even writing that particular post. I do not believe I was at all 'defensive' or 'aggressive'. The questions are serious ones and I await answers. The GAFCon people have been extremely aggressive in their views of the Communion, the Church of England and, personally, of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The questions I pose are not mischievous and I am serious about them.

There is a problem in this sort of conversation. It is a problem we have encountered with some North Americans where, based on a western human rights assumption, they respond 'pastorally' without critical thought and then plead a defence based on hierarchies of pain. It is OK for one party to abuse the other; but when questions are posed in return, they are dismissed as aggressive or unfair. I think it is time to grow up. Don't give unless you are prepared to take.

And this returns me to what I intended to say tonight before getting to bed, and that is that joy and laughter have characterised much of the Lambeth Conference. This evening I had two experiences which almost seem contrary to the same context.

First I went to the final 'hearing' on the 'Reflections' which will report on the conference. This was a rather ridiculous meeting in an overcrowded lecture theatre in which contributors tried to redraft texts they had only just seen. The status of the final report from the conference remains unclear - and will do so until tomorrow - and bishops were clearly struggling with it. Because the report contains the substance reported from the Indaba Groups, it is selective and descriptive rather than prescriptive and final. If there is to be a criticism of the process we have experienced here, it is simply that there is insufficient time to come up with a properly drafted statement that can command the unanimous support of the bishops. The process might have proved to be weak at this point and some people predicted this might happen.

But it also exposes the anxieties of those who cannot bear not being in control. The key outcome of this conference has been the relationships built, the connections made, the learning based on genuine respectful listening and the willingness to commit to a generous space for the future. This cannot be measured on a balance sheet or by signatures on a page. I am not alone in being glad that this is the case as we need to find new ways of having our conversations and disagreements in the Church of God. What we have experienced here offers a new way forward for the future. Bishops of differing opinions and stances have vowed to remain in regular contact in order to belong together in the Communion and further the conversations.

The Vatican observer sitting next to me at the beginning of this meeting was staggered that we would handle textual matters and processes in such a naff way and eventually left expressing some bewilderment before he did.

That said, however, the Spirit is at work here and people are working hard to produce a report that will give the flavour of the conference and help describe what it was about - rather than simply issue a statement  that people can either sign up to or ignore.

Second, I went to the plenary session in the Big Top which was introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and addressed by four young stewards from around the Communion: South Africa, England, The Seychelles and the USA. They spoke in turn about the conference, their experiences, their faith and their hopes for the Communion. The tent was full of explosions of applause, laughter and joy. The four young people took questions from the floor and responded with wisdom, humour, serious faith and straight advice.

• 'Bishops are stewards of the gifts of young people' and we need opportunities to help shape the church of today.
• 'Spend your time with us:listen and share your stories, experience and wisdom with us.'
• 'Encourage young people for both the future and for now.'
• 'You can guide us so we don't make the same mistakes you have made... We want to be part of the Church and there is nothing you can do to chase us out!'

The young people were asked some entertaining and penetrating questions about the Church, the world and their own faith and experience. They responded with confidence, knowledge, wisdom beyond their years and a commitment to Jesus Christ that brough repeated applause. The English girl was asked by a bishop in her home diocese what advice she would give as the diocese appoints three people to work with young people. Her response was immediate: 'Get them into schools... and don't give them an office until they have done that!'

These young people were fresh,uncomplicated, visionary, but not naive. They were encouraging and, along with the other 60 young stewards, received a long standing ovation. The gratitude was real and heartfelt. They have made this conference run smoothly and now helped us end it with joy, hope and faith. They even reminded us of our calling and gave Rowan a bright orange steward's vest with his name on it. It was a wonderful moment at lots of different levels.

And all this brings me back to the comments by Pricklypriest. This conference has been long, tough, honest and painful. But is has also been joyful and real and full of integrity. On more than one occasion we have had to close the door of our Bible Study room because we were so disturbed by the laughter and noise coming from other groups.

I have also heard stories about the joy of GAFCon and I indicated in an earlier post that these stories and challenges have been heard and taken seriously here. I hope that the joy of the Lambeth Conference will be equally honestly reported to those who have not been here. This is not a competition.

I go to bed encouraged and without doubt that the Anglican Communion has been enormously strengthened by the last three weeks. Even the Times leader acknowledged that this morning. Tomorrow sees our final Bible Study, final Indaba and final plenary before we go to the Cathedral to end where we began: where Christianity came to this country and where blood was shed for the Gospel and the witness of the Church established nearly 1500 years ago. We are still here.

Sunday is over and I am finally back in my room. I will probably need to do one further posting after this one, simply to allow the events, experiences and questions to sink in a bit. But, for now, I would like to respond to Andrew Dawswell.

Firstly, I am grateful for you not using a pseudonym. Secondly, I am grateful that you put so much thought into your response to what I had written and that you did so in an eirenic yet direct way. Thirdly, you make several observations with which I do not disagree, but I just feel too tired now to work through each point with the care they deserve. I will try to address a few of the points you raise:

1. I do not see the American and Canadian actions as communion breaking, but I do see them as a serious departure which demands a serious response. However, I also believe that a serious response was needed, but that this would have to take time. The Lambeth Conference could not be arranged five years prematurely - which was what might have been useful. GAFCON leaders have the freedom to do what they have done; I simply object to the biblical and moral high ground being claimed when less than moral/biblical methods and language are used in the process. You are wrong about the bishops here - there has not been a great deal of sympathy for the TEC liberals even amongst liberal English bishops. Your assumptions are understandable, but this conference has enabled assumptions to be checked - and often found wanting.

2. My questions to GAFCON are simply that - questions to GAFCON. They should not be taken to imply that the Lambeth Conference is beyond question. Indeed, this conference has been characterised by considerable questioning. It has also been characterised by considerable grace, generosity and listening. The language used by GAFCON about Lambeth in general and the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular has not been reciprocated here in relation to GAFCON and that has made me (for one) seriously consider why I feel so strongly about GAFCON and question my own reactions to it.

3. I think you are making a false assumption about why I am asking about financial transparency. I agree about the need for subsidies and have no question about that. My question relates to other matters and the principle that accounts should be open and transparent. Part of the reason Lambeth has run a deficit is that money from some quarters was not requested (or accepted). So, my question did not relate to subsidies for poorer people.

4. What Lambeth has allowed is precisely the sort of open questioning, discussion and learning that I think was not there at GAFCON where a particular 'line' was assumed and propogated. I have witnessed some very moving (and sometimes precarious) encounters between people of opposing views from diverse cultures and I will blog on that later. Without necessarily changing their minds on certain issues, bishops have gone away better informed, better educated, challenged in their prejudices and committed to pray for each other. My (and I am not alone) real concern is about what I can only call underhand and manipulative scheming that cannot be justified in Gospel terms, but has been evidenced every day here. My questions about Orombi's article (as one example) relates not to content or authorship (although others more qualified than I are certainly suspicious), but timing.

5. GAFCON has been represented at Lambeth and not only by western bishops. The voice has been heard loud and clear and care was taken to ensure that GAFCON was not misrepresented. I have to be honest and say that I was unsure about such an eirenic approach, but I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has compelled us by example to be humble, loving and open to GAFCON. Despite the personal vilification, this has been remarkable - and extremely challenging (spiritually) to me.

6. I think you are right to limit what you say in your parish - there are far more important things to be considered. But, when referring to the issues under debate, I hope that you will enable people to understand both sides and not just offer polemic. I have no problem with a particular 'line' being pushed, but only when the 'other' has been explained with integrity (consistent with the ninth Commandment). My question about this particular Commandment arises because of the particular behaviour of certain people and one particular person here.

I have tried to write these blogs as openly as possible, recognising that I do not do so from a position of disinterested detachment, but of direct involvement in the hothouse of Lambeth. I will say more later about this experience. For this posting, however, I will leave it here and simply say that I am happy to discuss these matters personally once I have stopped blogging and had a break!

The encounter with the young stewards last night was brilliant, but it didn't stop some people from beginning Sunday with some trepidation. There was still time for everything to fall apart. The Sunday journalists did their best - and one or two English bishops seemed to have erupted rather stupidly in the press. These are the actions (who chose the timings and who did they brief?) of disappointed men who didn't get their way and couldn't 'work' the process. They won't agree with me, obviously, but they have not gained alot of sympathy. In fact, in my experience, none.

We began the morning with our final Bible Study. We talked about resurrection and the impact of the wound marks in the body of the risen Christ. We then went on to ask about what it means for us as bishops to 'be sent'. This conversation was personal, honest and deep. We have only been meeting for two weeks, but there is no competitiveness, no false piety, no self-aggrandizement and no fear of sounding stupid. It has been wonderful and sends me back into diocesan life with renewed spiritual hunger and the knowledge that I will be prayed for by these friends.

This conversation led me later to think about the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Communion itself in the way our wounds are exposed to a watching world. There is a transparency about Anglican troubles that is often uncomfortable, but we cannot be the Body of Christ if we don't hold out our hands and invite people to feel the holes. These wounds also bear witness to the resurrection life that doesn't simply hide away the pain of the past, but enables it to be faced in the light of the day - the only way to healing. I am glad that I belong to a Church and a Communion that doesn't shout its triumphs and weaknesses to the world, but also doesn't shy away from being seen as we truly are.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware joined Cardinal Kasper at this conference in claiming that the questions faced by the Anglican Communion are not limited to the Anglican Communion. In fact, Kallistos referred in our final Plenary this afternoon to the image of the double-headed eagle which faces the past and the future with its heads held up. Encouragingly, he noted that no church can afford to be a double-headed ostrich! 'Your questions are our questions,' he said before going on to state clearly that he has not been following our discussions at the conference as an 'outsider', but 'as a fellow traveller'. Then, remarkably, he said: 'I need you in order to be myself.'

The ecumenical partners could not shy away from the fact that the questions that face us face every church - or will do very soon. We are being watched to see how we handle it all.

But the point is that there is a good precedent for holding up wounded hands to a sceptical world and not being ashamed to be thought weak. Resurrection is not simply a 'make-you-feel-better' resolution of an image problem.

Our last Bible Study concluded with each member being asked to identify one challenge to which we shall return. Each member of the group was then prayed for by another member.

The Indaba Group followed suit. The floor was left open to anybody to reflect on the two weeks we had been together. Some used the opportunity to offer thanks and some used it to apologise for prejudices previously held, attitudes unhelpfully held or words unlovingly spoken. It was inconceivable even a week ago that we would witness a conservative African bishop telling one of the most liberal TEC bishops that he was sorry for having offended him and his brother bishops - that he understood better now how the Americans were thinking. He hadn't changed his mind on the issue, but he had listened and struggled to understand and wanted the Americans to go away knowing they had been heard and understood - even if disagreed with.

The TEC bishop responded by saying that, regardless of what steps TEC might take in the future, never again would he be able to place his vote or make a speech without seeing the African's face, hearing his voice and knowing the impact the vote might have on his brother bishops outside the USA.

This was powerfully moving - and it wasn't the only such conversation. Other groups reported similar things. This is the measure of what this conference has achieved. There are those who will find this really annoying and who would like the Communion to fall apart in a frenzy of accusation and acrimony; they will not be encouraged by this Christlike humility and genuine love. This process has enabled people to listen and learn and love. Is that not a massive achievement?

I nipped off to do a TV interview with German television company ZDF before going to the Plenary at which the Spouses described their conference and both challenged and encouraged the bishops, lots of thanks were expressed, the 'Reflections' document received and, following the honest contributions by two ecumenical participants, Rowan did his concluding Presidential Address.

This was the bit everybody had been waiting for. Rowan surveyed the process we had been through here before going on to face the hard questions facing the Communion. He explored truth and unity, noting that unity is not enough in and of itself - our unity must be Christian unity (rooted in our unity in Christ), which is more than mere human loyalty or tolerance. He reaffirmed Lambeth Resolution 1:10 which he had said (several years ago and repeated during this conference) would not be revisited. He expressed the debt we owe to those who ask the really awkward questions of us. And he then went on to discuss and commend Covenant as a way ahead. He strongly supported our Zimbabwean brothers and sisters and described the likely process from here.

Returning to a theme I have mentioned a number of times, he made it clear that 'absentees' must be invited into this process from here and that bridges must be built. He sent us out to be 'bearers of good news' and, fulfilling his leadership and encouragement role perfectly, commended us to the God who sends us and never deserts us. He received a standing ovation - and I noted that even the unhappy English bishops who spiked the newspapers this morning were also on their feet applauding him. Twice. We did it again after he had been thanked by the conference for his (and Jane's) personal leadership, vision, hospitality, generosity, etc. The personal toll on Rowan was noted and the conference assured him of our love, respect and affection.

From there we went to the Cathedral for the final Eucharist. Rowan preached wonderfully, but the most poignant element of the service came just before the end. The Chaplaincy Team here was made up of four communities form Melanesia. In 2003 seven of their brothers were murdered while making peace between warring parties. Their names were received and laid in the Chapel of the Martyrs of Today. The Melanesian Brothers sang a haunting liturgy as they moved from the nave, up the steps, past the throne of Augustine and to the chapel at the end - their beautiful voices getting weaker as they moved further away. There were many tears as we remembered these young Christians who laid down their lives with enormous courage and humility for the sake of people whom they believed were made in God's image and loved by him. The service ended with the singing of 'We are marching in the light of God' as we left.

This was the last time we would hear the 'new Pentecost' (as one African bishop described it) when 1000+ people said the Lord's Prayer in their own language and the huge sound filled this ancient cathedral.

I am not easily moved to tears. But there were several times today when I almost got there: (a) seeing Rowan and Jane on stage and knowing the cost of their very public ministry and the cost of being constantly battered by other Christians as well as sceptics; (b) seeing and hearing the Spirit of God at work in and through this humble and brilliant man in his address and sermon; (c) the litany sung as the Melanesians laid the names of their tortured and murdered brothers in this ancient place of prayer; (d) the confessions of love, apology and understanding in the earlier Indaba Group; (e) saying goodbye to people I have come to love and respect in the last two weeks.

We got soaked going to the place where we were to eat, but there was a big band and soon there were bishops and spouses dancing. I have the photographic evidence. It is not pretty, but it is impressive!

The conference has ended and people will now be leaving tomorrow. I will reflect again in the next few days on what I will now take away from it. I will also reflect on the experience of doing this blog. But I need a bit of space first.

This will be my last Lambeth blog, but I wanted to wait a few days before writing it. I think that was probably wise because it is important to get away from the hothouse to do some cool reflection.

I was asked late on Sunday night to do the Today programme on Radio 4 on Monday morning. The first question? 'A New Zealand bishop has described Lambeth as 'an expensive exercise in futility'. How do you respond?' I laughed. This question is like being asked, following Chelsea's 5-0 defeat of a Milan club the night before: 'Well, you didn't get a draw, did you?' The media script is still unchanged; I think they actually have nothing to say or ask about reality, just their single story about the collapse of the Church.

The problem is that this conference frightened quite a lot of people simply because it did not conform in design or conduct to the comfortable culture with which many in the Church are familiar. Points could not be scored and votes won. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in his final Presidential Address, thanked the bishops for sticking with the process, despite their misgivings, and for not seeking platforms outside the conference on which to ply their wares. Had I been the Bishop of Winchester or Exeter, I think I might have been embarrassed at this point.

My own view is that the Archbishop showed extraordinary leadership in sticking to the process and not being deflected from it. Lots of others got very jittery before and during the conference, but he held his nerve and deserved the standing ovations he received at the end of the final plenary session. Again, the problem here is that people have a monochrome understanding of what leadership actually is. It is not (as Rowan himself said at a meeting at Lambeth in February this year) about 'heroism' - doing dramatic things. Leadership means listening to advice, but being willing to hold your nerve - in Rowan's case silently - and handle the consequences later.

Are we any further forward than we were before the conference? I think the only answer can be 'yes'. We live in a world in which there have to be winners and losers - a world in which power is gained and lost by either aggressive or surreptitious engagement with the 'other'. The Christian response to this is seen in open arms of the crucified Christ who lays down the power of 'winning' in order to reconcile people (relationship). This conference enabled those who were willing to build genuine relationships, not by avoiding the hard issues, but rather by tackling them head on in a context of prayer, Bible Study, reflection and respect. That, after all, is why we witnessed such moving conversations in the last couple of days where people of opposing views expressed how they had moved in their understanding (if not in their conclusions).

Those who think the conference was about resolving 'issues' once and for all must be disappointed - as well as unrealistic. This conference was not designed to address homosexuality and get everyone to agree; rather, it was set up to enable bishops to listen, learn, argue their case and hear a response, confident that they would be listened to within a safe place of godly respect. This was liberating.

Where do we go from here? Rowan's proposals for the moratoria and for the Pastoral Forum received overwhelming approval. The conference has allowed us to be realistic and prophetically countercultural in our way of taking these discussions forward and shaping a programme of mutual education for the next decade as people are now willing to listen and learn. The big question is, however, how this will be shaped - and this needs to be addressed very soon. The Primates will meet later this year and ACC14 will meet next May. In the context of the entire history of the universe that is not too long to wait.

I sign off with questions still in my mind. I remain both annoyed and embarrassed by the behaviour of certain people at Lambeth and would encourage Anglican Mainstream to address what seems to me to be unbiblical behaviour. I remain unconvinced by Andrew Burnham's wriggling about traditional Anglo-Catholicism and its inherent gay culture - to say nothing of the refusal to address the fact that in the eyes of Rome even his orders remain invalid. Either I am stupid or there is something that just not 'work' here.

I enjoyed blogging Lambeth. I am not sure how useful it was or whether I would have been better off using the time for other things (like sleep). But, there it is. I sign off with gratitude to God for Lambeth, thanks to those who engaged with what I wrote and thanks to Fulcrum for the invitation to blog in this way. I'll re-read what I have written in a year's time and see whether or not it still looks reasonable then. In the meantime, we carry on praying, studying the Scriptures, worshipping, serving our communities in the name of Christ and proclaiming in word and deed the good and liberating news of God's presence in Jesus Christ now to be embodied in the Church that bears his name.