It is difficult to know where to start. Today (Sunday) has been both bizarre and remarkable. I'll do the chronology and then make some observations.

It is amazing how people can write something off before it has even happened. Apparently some people think the process of the conference is a means of avoiding conflict - or even engagement with the serious issues. And this judgement has been made confidently before we have even started the conference proper.

The Eucharist at the Cathedral was impressive in the range of languages and people it involved. 650 bishops processing in did not feel like a Communion of bickering partisans. Yes, we sang a couple of 'let's all be warm and cuddly' hymns that I and some others thought inappropriate to the service (it would have been better to sing to and of God rather than to one another about how we should get on together...). Yes, the Sri Lankan preacher finished his sermon with a reference to a Buddhist chant (in the context of commending us to the 'triune God' though) - which was not what one would call 'tactically sensible' given the sensitivities around. But show me any service anywhere where there is not something with which to take issue. The fact is, we shared bread and wine and recognised our unity in Christ. We also recognised that this was the beginning of the Lambeth journey, not the end.

The really weird thing about this morning (apart from the service lasting over 2 hours) was the protesters who lined the streets again. They are a German group who were expelled from the campus a couple of days ago. They seem obsessed with Sodom and the lusts of the flesh and warning bishops that they will roast in hell unless they stop being bishops. These people speak but will not answer questions; they hold their banners and accuse us of 'being proud' when we smile, but only seem capable of smiling some real nastinesses. I really wonder what drives such people to give up time to express their obsessions with bodily functions and urge us on our way to hell. There is something wrong with the psyche of people who are able to hate so smilingly while being unwilling to address their own neuroses when questioned.

I spoke with several bishops who were unhappy with the Eucharist and wondered what would happen at 4pm when the first Plenary was to be held. It turned out to be quite remarkable. There was a very clear explanation of how the conference programme was designed and how the Design Group expect it to work. The Archbishop of Cape Town explained the origins and nature of the Indaba process and tackled some of the nonsense that has been spoken and written about Indaba being an avoidance strategy.

Indaba involves assembling the community (African village) to identify and then address a crisis, sharing openly and honestly but with respect and integrity. Only then can a way forward be discerned. He made the point that how we do our work here will affect how the world outside will hear the Gospel of reconciliation. The process is designed to enable us to be faithful to the Gospel, faithful to bishops and faithful to the Anglican Communion.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez (Chair of the Covenant Design Group) then addressed the history, process and current status of the proposed Anglican Covenant. The conference makes specific space for every voice to be heard and every contribution to count in taking the process forward (if at all). We will engage with principle as well as with detail of the latest draft. The process following Lambeth was also outlined.

Note that this is taking the serious questions seriously and tackling them head on, but in a structured way what gives all bishops a voice and not just the usual suspects who know how to manipulate the system to their own advantage.

Clive Hanford then brought matters to a very clear head when he described the Windsor Continuation Process in detail and tried out the Group's initial analysis of the 'crisis' in the Communion. This was hard-hitting, unambiguously clear and must have made all 'parties' uncomfortable. The demands of the Gospel were spelled out. He observed that although we had sung 'All are welcome' in the Cathedral, this did not mean 'anything goes'. The limits of diversity in unity need to be examined and defined.

This was clear and powerful and left nobody in any doubt about the issues we face. So the conference has been designed to avoid conflict, has it? We are going to avoid the hard issues, are we? Er... I don't think so. Ignore the journalists and punters who have already made up their minds what the outcome will be and listen to those who are engaging with the process with integrity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury then delivered a magisterial Presidential Address. He systematically, clearly and confidently took us through the events and matters that have brought us here. He began with God and ended with the call of God to the Church. He repeated his charge that 'things cannot simply carry on as normal'. He defended (point by point) the process for this conference, successively debunking the criticisms, some of which I have alluded to earlier. He rubbished the fantasies of 'golden ages' of the Church or the Communion, rebuffed the charge that process is replacing substance, and asked the pertinent question of those who want a conference of debates and resolutions: when did the Anglican Communion ever take seriously the resolutions passed at previous Lambeth Conferences? He asked how effective previous (parliamentary) methods have been?

The need for renewal is obvious and the choices are now to be made. But the manner of their making is as important as their substance. Rowan rightly questioned those processes that allow for weaker voices to be ignored, patronised or manipulated by the powerful who are familiar with parliamentary systems of debate. This conference is designed to ensure that all bishops will have their voice registered and heard - however quiet it might be.

I don't know the answer to this question, but I wonder if the GAFCon process allowed all voices to be heard properly. That is a question, not a statement.

Rowan concluded by encouraging bishops to go and listen to fringe meetings and other seminars in order to hear those with whom we might disagree. He made the obvious (but usually ignored) point that 'learning something does not mean necessarily agreeing with it.'

So, that was the day. Now one or two (possibly disconnected, but pertinent) observations.

I spoke with several African bishops in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral this morning. They accused 'all' English bishops of preaching a false Gospel, re-writing the Scriptures, allowing any ethical behaviour that people like, and so on. They had no idea of the difference in polity with which English, American and Canadian bishops have to work. The African bishop is (in their words) 'a little king' and his yea is yea and his nay is nay. They do not have to deal with the complexities of English law (data protection, faculty jurisdiction, discrimination legislation, etc.) and had no idea what these involved. My explanation of bishops being subject to law led one experienced bishop to say: 'But that puts a different perspective on things.' Africa needs to understand the West as much as America needs to understand Africa and Asia.

Secondly, my heavy involvement in Zimbabwe means that I have to listen to the outpourings of Robert Mugabe rather more than I would like. I have the experience of having been misrepresented on the front page of the state-run Zimbabwean media and know something of the bizarre world of Mugabe propaganda. Mugabe can only be understood when his childhood is understood - his anti-British/-white racism can only be understood when his experiences of the past are examined. But Peter Akinola's recent language suggests a similar process at work. NOTE: I am not comparing Akinola with Mugabe as some sort of a tyrant. (I'll sue anyone who says I am...) But when Akinola uses the language of 'We will win this' or 'We will not be told what to say or think by others' or uses the language of 'slavery', I wonder if there is more being exorcised than appears on the surface. (I thought this was precisely the sort of 'unilateralism' that he objects to in the Americans.)

If we are to question the treatment of conservatives by TEC, then we must be equitable and question the treatment of Nigerian bishops by their Archbishop who threatened them with deposition if they attended Lambeth. The Nigerian bishop who intended to attend was intimidated into returning to Nigeria.

I'll finish on a lighter note. Bishop Miguel Tamayo (member of the Conference Design Group) of Cuba led singing in between the heavy stuff this afternoon. We sang two songs in Spanish, including one where we had to hold hands. It was joyful and funny at the same time. The Spanish-speaking bishop was wonderful and I hope we hear more from him. One bishop leaned over to me and said: 'If you wondered where Manuel went after Fawlty Towers...'. He was brilliant!

The truly remarkable thing about the conference so far is the space there has been for people to simply meet one another and have unhurried time to talk together. Fruitful engagement on contentious issues can only be possible if we have a relationship of trust based on respect and mutual openness to understand.

It is late now, so I don't want to elaborate - but nor do I want to let a whole day go by without writing something.

I will expand later on what understanding needs to be developed in relation to 'episcope' in different cultures and polities and how hierarchies of suffering do not help creative discussion.

It is interesting listening to people's prejudices about Lambeth from the outside. The big wide world seems to think we must be gathering in angst-ridden huddles behind dark curtains hoping all the horribleness will just go away. I understand that there are some people who will be disappointed if Lambeth isn't a disaster. Well, I don't understand this mentality - especially in a community that calls itself Christian.

For example, I heard today a complaint that the conference seems to be going nowhere. What sort of twit makes a complaint like that when the bishops are in retreat for three days of focusing on God, their vocation and the contexts in which that vocation has to be lived out? Retreat is not play time for people with nothing else to do; rather, it is time for the serious business of stopping, listening, self-examining, questioning and learning from God.

What I am experiencing (and hearing from others) is that the Bible Study groups are already engaging in the 'difficult stuff', but in a context where listening has to be done. What comes out of engagement like this is an acknowledgement of the radically diverse contexts in which Anglicans are seeking to be faithful across the globe. One American said to me today that only recently have Americans begun to recognise that there is a wider world out there and a wider Church. Encounters like this, based in mutual respect and attention, must surely be effective in furthering understanding of different missiological priorities even if the process does not ultimately lead to particular parties changing their mind on the principles.

Following Rowan's powerful and intelligent addresses today I have been reflecting on what I have already been experiencing as a bishop for the last five years: that the prophetic role does not involve shouting loudly at people about what they are doing wrong, but has to do with resisting allegiance with any particular group at the expense of losing the big picture of God's call. The bishop is one who must learn the 'languages' of many people and groups as he/she travels a sometimes lonely road, learning to communicate effectively with all. He has to 'listen in stereo' - one ear to God and the other to the voices or language of other people.

(As an aside... why do the British find it so hard to contemplate learning foreign languages when we meet bishops from other parts of the world who are often working in four or five different languages?)

This isn't trivial. When I worked as a professional linguist many years ago I learned that effective language learning requires humility. Translation is not a straightforward art and demands hard work and serious attention. Having begun to receive responses to this blog, it seems that some people are incapable of the humility of listening and learning before screaming their bilious abuse. I think it has been right for bishops in Canterbury to go first into retreat and encounter with one another and God before attending to 'business'.

The 'language' will change tomorrow when the retreat ends. Why? Because then journalists with their own agendas will have access to us and will work hard to find  the stories they want to back up the judgements they have already made. Today I read phrases such as 'Archbishop hits out...' and wonder what evidence there is for this aggressive language. Journalists have their job to do and I will join in the rough and tumble with them; but any pretence that they are reporting 'reality' should be taken with a bucketful of salt. Bishops will change their language and engagement when the media are there as their presence makes openness (to change one's mind, for example) hard to do. We'll see what happens over the next few days.

Anyone interested in all this would do well to read the chapter by Graham James in 'Fallible Church' (Kenneth Stevenson, ed.) where he rehearses briefly some of the history of the Lambeth Conference. It puts into sharp relief the arrogance of those of us who think that 'we have not been here before' and that 'now' is the 'end' on which the future of the world depends.

I am going to further think through the example of the monastic fathers in the Egyptian desert who were (a) rigorous with themselves before God and one another and (b) refused to condemn those who fell short in any way. I recall Richard Burridge's observation in 'Imitating Christ' that Jesus sharpened the ethical demands on people to a point at which no one can stand... but then goes out and treats those who fail with a deep compassion that seesm to break his own rules. For me at Lambeth this means checking the attitudes I have towards some people and some groups and joining the Archbishop in thanking God (first and foremost) for those who cause me grief. This is not easy - all the self-justification comes boiling to the surface and has to be faced.

Thursday has been a great start to the Conference, despite the long queues for meals and the lack of hot water in our block this morning. We met in our Bible Study groups this morning before going to Canterbury Cathedral for the start of the Bishops' Retreat. I wish I could write something profound about this, but I think it will take some time for me to reflect and think it through.

Rowan did two addresses today and there was something very powerful about him standing in his Cathedral teaching, encouraging, challenging and stretching the bishops. The fundamental question arising from Galatians 1:16 was the vocation of Christians to be places/people in whom Jesus Christ is revealed. Noting that Jesus in the Gospels speaks words of healing and forgiveness, promise and judgement, Rowan went on to comment that people change/repent when they see the Kingdom of God - not when they are shouted at to repent.

There is a powerful generosity about Rowan in the face of those who regard him as darkness personified. Speaking about the need to begin with thanks, he went on to insist that we pray for and thank God for each other and, equally, for those who have chosen not to come to Lambeth. The personal vilification he has received will not be reciprocated.

This generosity is not weakness. It is powerful and Christlike and commands respect. I spent the 'reflection' times (when I wasn't falling asleep in the International Centre Library where it was warm...) examining myself, my ministry, my discipleship. I think I am a lousy disciple and probably exercise a deficient episcopal ministry in many ways. I could be overwhelmed by the failures and inadequacies, but am trying to hear Rowan's assertion that 2 Corinthians 11:28-29 makes the 'faithful apostle' unable to separate himself from the weaknesses of others - that to be faithful means to be invaded by the failures and weaknesses of others. This leads to a very real vulnerability.

I don't have the time or space to go through all Rowan's points. But there was, I feel, a serious attentiveness to what he was saying. He does not duck the difficulties, but he does expose the hubris, the fantasy and the sheer loudness of those who confuse their own agenda with God's. The bishop is called to be the symbol of unity not when allying himself or herself to particular parties, agendas or groups, but when articulating on behalf of the Christian community the stuff of the Kingdom of God: justice, righteousness and so on.

The Retreat also involves simple worship and this is good. It is a pity the whole Retreat cannot be held in silence, but I guess that would be impossible given the spread of people involved. It is, however, very important that this conference has begun with biblical and spiritual reflection and self-examination - not with 'issues' and opinions. The preparation for the conference was to read John's Gospel, the Retreat is rooted in Scripture and the worship is riddled with Scripture. Spot on, in my book.

When I agreed to do this blog I had no idea how many people have so much time to spare staring at a screen and writing bizarre emails (with the odd exceptional rational one). Do people not have lives to lead and jobs to do?

I spent yesterday showing a Canadian bishop some of my inner-urban parishes and meeting a couple of inspirational and transformational clergy. One of them serves in a hugely complicated and difficult parish and does so with impressive and costly love. She has quadrupled her congregation in three years and experienced threats I have never been subject to. Another has turned her parish round and brought evangelism and mission to a church that was 'shy' of these words. Both are catholic. The point of the visits was to engage with how we are doing mission, worship and evangelism in hard places and the conversations were great to listen in to.

I arrived at Canterbury this afternoon. The organisation was smooth, clear, welcoming and hospitable. I even got my laptop online at the first attempt - which proves that miracles happen.

I heard Greg Venables on Radio 4 this morning complaining that the last time he came to Lambeth he had to bring a suitcase full of preparatory papers and books, whereas this time he doesn't know even where to register. I guess that if reams of papers had been sent out beforehand the complaint might have been that the conference was too bureaucratic. I am glad we didn't have masses of literature to read before coming here - studying John's Gospel seems to be an ideal way to prepare. Reading the Scriptures without too much 'outside intrusion' is surely something to be celebrated as preparation for bishops meeting together? Or have I missed something here?

Incidentally, the paperwork we have received (downloaded) says quite clearly where to register - under the section marked 'Registration'.

As my wife will be arriving later, I am going to wander around and try to familiarise myself with the site. I have met a load of bishops so far who just walk up and introduce themselves - very friendly.

The business doesn't really get going until tomorrow, but the welcome session this evening should open it up. I still haven't spotted the media circus or the lobbying groups, but I guess they will emerge soon enough.

Just read Mike Hill's blog and share his sentiment that there are big issues out there in the big wide world and we can only hope that these do not get hidden or lost behind the internal proccupations of 'church'. The Pharisees (of popular imagination) spring to mind...

Fidelis (interesting self-description),

The sharing of fellowship is hardly a contentious issue and hardly to be the subject of yet another hierarchy (after 'pain', 'victimhood', 'fidelity', etc.). I am beginning to regret having agreed to blog.

I read this morning the news that Dr Nolbert Kunonga (deposed Bishop of Harare and Mugabe stooge) has claimed the support of Gafcon. I expect that this gaffe which is also a con will cause the Foca leaders one or two moments of embarrassment. At least, it should do.

Yesterday we had a Lambeth Conference Eucharist at Southwark Cathedral, addressed by the Archbishop of Mexico. Also present were bishops from Toronto, Canada, and Zimbabwe. The evening saw a fantastic Zimbabwean Eucharist in a full Cathedral and celebrated in Shona. The whole day (with extra meetings and conversations) seemed to sum up what the Anglican Communion is really all about: unity in Christ despite differences of context and priorities. Around our breakfast table we had Bishop Patrick and Mrs Kathy Yu (Hong Kong Chinese Canadian), Bishop Ishmael and Mrs Elizabeth Mukuwanda (Central Zimbabwe) and me and my wife (white English). We represent three (or four) continents and churches living out the Gospel in very different contexts with very different challenges and opportunities. Yet, we sit united in prayer - and food - as we listen and question and share with one another.

Today we will be having meetings between bishops in Southwark and Canada/Zimbabwe. It feels like Lambeth has already begun even before we get to Canterbury. Relationships are growing and deepening and it is brilliantly encouraging.

I also read this morning that at least one Nigerian bishop is breaking ranks and coming to Lambeth. I pray that more will have the courage to do the same in the face of threats from their Primates. Is this authoritarian diktat-driven style of episcopacy one that Gafcon really wishes to encourage as 'strong leadership'? Or only when it concerns the issues with which western Focas wish to agree? I think we will watch this space...

I guess Lambeth has already begun because we have bishops and their wives living in our house. Ishmael and Elizabeth Mukuwanda (Central Zimbabwe) arrived on Thursday and I will be off to Heathrow this morning to collect Patrick and Kathy Yu from Canada (Scarborough, Toronto).

What amuses me so far is that people keep expressing sympathy and look at me with wet-dog eyes when wishing me well for the torment that lies before me in Canterbury. But I don't feel that at all. I am looking forward to Lambeth and getting to know (and learning from) a pile of bishops from all over the planet.

I realise that Lambeth is a bit of a media nightmare. 'Bishops praying together, studying the Scriptures together, worshipping together, talking together, learning together'... is not a sexy headline and won't generate many stories. The problem is that Gene Robinson andthe lobbying groups will not resist a microphone or a camera and will offer the stuff to sate the media hunger for sex and conflict. I still think we are right to press on with the intention for the bishops to meet and study and pray and talk - regardless of what we have to face from a frustrated press. To whose tune are we supposed to be dancing?

Anyway, before then we have a load of other engagements with our visiting bishops. A reception tonight, services at Southwark Cathedral tomorrow (big one for Zimbabwe in the evening), meetings of bishops on Monday (and a trip on the London Eye - just to annoy the pod hostess by looking south of the river instead of north), preparation on Tuesday before we travel to Canterbury on Wednesday.

Before then I also have to write the foreword for a new book that brings together the writings of William Barclay on Christmas as taken from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The coming of God into the muckiness of the world seems a good point from which to proceed to Lambeth: God not opting out of the conflicts of the world or the obtuse certainties of the people who bore his name (and would eventually nail him to a cross). Lambeth promises to offer a great and unique opportunity for bishops to remember together why they are bishops and what being a bishop means. It will begin, I think, from a renewed conviction of servant leadership and cross-shaped ministry.

Nick Baines has been the Bishop of Croydon in the Diocese of Southwark since 2003. Previously he served as Archdeacon of Lambeth and in parishes around England. He is a linguist and chairs the Meissen Commission. A regular broadcaster on radio and TV, he is also the author of four books (published by St Andrew Press and available online from the Church of Scotland Shop).

You can comment about Nick's blog by adding a post on the Fulcrum Forum thread concerning Nick's Blog from Lambeth.