I can’t agree with Graham’s assessment of Nick Baines’ blog post as ‘amazing’. I don’t think he has captured how significant it is that the sermon paraded that liberal notion of ‘inclusion’, rather than the gospel value of hospitality. After all, it is the Archbishop of Canterbury himself who laid the knock-out blow on ‘inclusion’ with his statement that it was not a value in itself, whereas ‘welcome’ is. It just shows how quickly the Anglican Communion is being led in a liberal direction that this sermon gains hardly any critical comment from evangelical bishops.  

As for the advantages of Indaba over other systems of taking decisions I remain unconvinced. It doesn’t seem any more likely that this process will allow everyone to be properly heard and included than any other method. Okay they’re meeting in smaller groups and ensuring that everyone is able to speak, but how can you craft a common statement without ignoring some voices? It seems to me that behind closed doors this process is open to manipulation by a bureaucracy which many of us from close dealings over long periods of time simply do not trust.

It is all a matter of trust. And one of the reasons for the frighteningly small amount of trust there is around, is that even the recommendations of the Windsor Report, Dromantine etc have not been properly followed through.

Finally, the unfortunate comparisons between Akinola and Mugabe. I think there are questions to be asked about extent to which we are all captive to culture on all sides of this. Furthermore, there are clearly expressions of African nationalism, geo-politics, post-colonialism etc in some of the expressions of antipathy both to homosexuals and Americans, but this sort of comparison is irresponsible because it’s so open to misunderstanding (despite the strange throwaway remark, ‘I’ll sue you..’)

Finally, it’s not clear what happened to Cyril Okorocha and I’m sure I’m not the only one trying to find out more. Trouble is there’s so much news to follow up in relation to Lambeth (bishops briefing against each other etc – giving the lie to the idea that peace has broken out). Cyril was in Britain for a personal engagement and may have been planning to attend Lambeth for the whole time or just a short time. He’s well known in the Communion because he used to be evangelism officer (before his contract was prematurely cut short, prior to the end of the Decade of Evangelism, amid some controversy). The question is did he fear for his job because the Church of Nigeria stated that Nigerians attending would be disciplined, or did he fear for his wife’s safety? It’s more likely that he returned because his wife felt insecure – not in the unlikely event of reprisals from the Church hierarchy, but perhaps from groups of people who might have harassed her. I interviewed Cyril many years ago and he and his wife, had both experienced persecution and violence at the hands of Muslims earlier in their ministry. All this is just speculation, as are Nick’s claims about what happened.

I'm quite sure that the archbishops in Nigeria are autocratic - and the bishops for that matter - but that is where the comparison between Akinola and Mugabe stops in my view.  I lived there five years in the 80s, was confirmed by a previous Bishop of Jos and taught the present bishop (recently made archbishop) New Testament theology! Akinola was himself a graduate of our college some years before that and I had lunch with his wife on my last visit back.  On that visit (in 2002), I also stayed with the Archbishop of Kaduna, Josiah Fearon, who has been something of a leading figure in the Anglican Communion and a regular visitor to the UK.  I spent a day with him and it was quite amusing being driven round in the back of his white Mercedes!  A Nigerian colleague once told me that their bishops very much carried on like 'little princes'!  Rightly or wrongly, that's part of the scene and stepping out of line is not something most would even consider.  Having said that, all the people I have mentioned are very impressive both for their love of the Lord, the dynamism of their leadership which has contributed to exponential growth in their congregations and their courage and endurance in the face of persecution.  I heard Archbishop Josiah at a conference in Durham some years ago.  He described the regular prayer and Bible Study sessions in Kaduna for all the clergy and the annual missions they all went on to unreached areas.  For the first week, he said, they listened to the people and got to know them.  The second week, they preached the Gospel and many would come to faith.  After that, he would take counsel as to which clergy would stay behind and pastor the new churches!  All very exciting and all the more tragic these people are not there at Lambeth.  The excellent article I read in The Times on Saturday by an associate of the missiologist Andrew Walls suggested that as much as half the Anglican Communion is actually unrepresented.

The blogs are really informative and helpful - a very big thank you from me too to our 'blogging bishops'.

I’m grateful to Nick Baines for responding so frankly and robustly to my post yesterday. I don’t think my role is to undermine trust (and I couldn’t do that very effectively from my little column in the CEN) but to constantly question and critique. I’m also very pleased that his particular Indaba group is going so well.

Don’t confuse me with Theo Hobson though. The thing I want is unity in the Anglican Communion. I’d loved to be proved wrong about the Indaba process (of which I think it’s ridiculous to suppose that it has any real relationship to actual decision-making in an African village). My point is that it is just as manipulable as any other process of decision-making – even more so because it’s a process without any public or outside scrutiny. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s likely to be manipulable by the bishops, but by the bureaucrats, some of whom have particular outcomes in mind. This particular application of Indaba is clearly biased against taking controversial decisions because to do so would plainly create winners and losers.

And beyond expressions of regret, I can’t see that the Lambeth Conference is addressing one of the fundamental issue that over 200 bishops are actually missing. How do you bring three of the most populous provinces back into the Anglican structures? Or do you just accept that they’ve gone and hope that they’ll come back in their own good time?

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread, or distract Bishop Nick. I’m incredibly grateful to both bishops for blogging from Lambeth and helping to create some transparency.

I've been reading bishops Nick and Mike's blogs avidly. Thanks for letting me glimpse what it's really like at the conference.  I was particulary interested to read the conversation Nick had with some of his African colleagues regarding legislation in the UK and how this affects his work; their response was telling!!

Is it possible for either of the bloggers to have an occasional guest blogger from another continent. I would love to hear their experience of the conference and what insights they have gained.

Can I suggest that Fulcrum also offers a blog spot for Bishop Andrew. His insights alongside those of Bishop Mike and Bishop Nick would be useful to us all, even though he's not coming from the same open evangelical standpoint.

Excellent comments by Bp Nick on yesterday's events - especially the address by the Vatican official. No doubt the press will bill it as a further disaster caused by us ordaining women etc. but really should not someone say out loud that which +Nick says here - Rome does not accept the ordination of any Anglican. And reunion is not just around the corner.

Thanks, Nick. Yes it was great fun having dinner last night here at the Lambeth Conference with the Fulcrum Lambeth bloggers.

Apologies for Fulcrum newswatch not be updated yesterday - too busy meeting people! We've caught up a bit now.

I'm here for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and led a Self Select Session yesterday with John Chew, Duleep de Chikera and Iain Torrance on 'Jesus Christ, Salvation and People of Other Faiths'.

My general impression so far is that the Archbishop of Canterbury's Presidential Address has been crucial in setting the scene of the Conference and has given some hope to the 'communion conservatives'.  In particular his use of the word 'intensification' concerning the Covenant is being widely discussed. It seems to me to be a typical word of Daniel Hardy, who was a consultant to the 1998 conference.

The address implies that not all are likely to sign up to the Covenant, and so its content is not likely to be just bland. The Anglican Communion is involved in 'intensifying' its current relationships and those who do not wish to continue on that 'intensifying' trajectory may remain where they are, while the Communion moves on. Not exclusion, but intensification.

In developing my own thinking on this word, perhaps Jesus Christ could be seen as the 'intensification of the Word of God.'? The crowd followed him, and the intensification of the call to discipleship meant that some remained in the crowd and did not become disciples. Some within the wider group of disciples were shocked by Jesus' words in John 6 and remained where they were, but there was the intensification of relationships of the twelve. 

It seems that the original process of the conference, mostly indaba groups, was shifted somewhat in the months leading up to the conference to include more sessions of 'Hearings' for the Windsor Continuation Group (on the future shape of the Communion). This is crucial and the second of three at the conference is about to start now. Both some members of the Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group itself are working throughout the conference and, I believe, will produce substantial reports for the plenary hearings on the 'Conference Reflections' on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday next week.

Dear Graham,

I appreciated your reference to my late mentor and friend, Dan Hardy.  He was enormously influential in the development and articulation of my ecclesiology as it relates to conflict.  I miss him dearly but rejoice that he is in the nearer presence of God.

Nathan Humphrey+

http://communioninconflict.blogspot.com/

http://covenant-communion.com/

Whoops.  Andrew Carey's kind remark makes me think I was piggy-backing on some one else's blog (+Nick's) rather than contributing to the discussion.  I do think, however, that some of the subtleties about the Roman view of Anglican ordinations are being missed.  I should happily explain what I mean by that if it were not thought too tangential.  The two centenary books on Apostolicae Curae - ed. Franklin (Mowbray) and Hill-Yarnold (Canterbury) - give us something much meatier and it is interesting that the CW Ordinal quietly went past the Roman authorities for comment.  So there is huge hinterland to this which is rather begged by the remarks on +Nick's blog. 

God bless 

+ Andrew 

Bishop Nick....my name is Nersen.....I can forward you my birth certificate! Hope you will give me "the time of day"!

I am using my real name but don't mind people who do not as we should be engaging with what people say rather than being swayed by who is saying what and deferring to those we respect or attacking those we know have a certain agenda.