In the end it was a surprisingly narrow margin. The decision was 249 to 218 not to sell Bishopscourt. If just 16 people voted differently, the outcome would have been the opposite.

Only a few weeks ago, I commented that the sale of Bishopscourt was a no brainer. My reason was simple, and ended up being presented as the major argument by the movers. It was the opportunity of freeing up some of the 'lazy' asset, to be more productive so that ministry could be funded.

I am not saying that Bishopscourt is of no use. I have had the opportunity of benefitting from the facilities on countless occasions, as have hundreds of others. But could the funds tied up in it be released for even more benefit?

For me this was a perfectly legitimate question to ask in the absence of any other circumstances.

Furthermore, every time I go there, it feels like a world a long way away from Toongabbie - and I don't just mean geographically.

And even at Synod, realising the full extent of the financial situation and sustainability facing the Endowment of the See (which essentially funds to office of the Archbishop and bishops) pushed me even further in this direction.

Others have added to these arguments. It is not hard to do.

But I changed my mind. The truth is that, on my ballot paper, I initially wrote 'yes' (ie that we should sell). But I then crossed it out and wrote 'No'. Why?

One word: Governance.

I remain convinced in principle that Bishopscourt should be sold (perhaps the investment in St Andrew's House should also be 'realised'). However, I was not convinced that our current governance structures could pull it off.

I am not sentimental about building, nor particularly attached to it. To the contrary, while it is a resource that has served well for many years, there are many reasons I still think it should be sold.

However, given a list of significant unsuccessful endeavours, I thought that the risk of another one (and of this magnitude) was too great. The most compelling evidence came from the nature of the argument itself. The 'sell' case was been driven by the EOS commission. The 'not sell' case was driven by the Property Trust. In other words, two of the most significant stakeholders were on entirely different pages. I may be wrong, but it seemed that there was little attempt to reconcile their positions.

There were minor variations on the theme, but almost everyone I spoke to in the subsequent 24 hours felt the same way.

It is ridiculous to think that Bishopscourt can now never be sold. That was not the decision I thought I was making. The governance, and underlying trust issues, must be resolved. If they cannot, we deserve God's judgement most severely.

And once these issues are resolved, and we can see the different stakeholders working together even though they may think differently, I hope the idea of the sale of Bishopscourt is back before us.