Fulcrum Blog
Bishop of Croydon blogs from Lambeth 2008

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...

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...

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.