The hot topic of the day at synod was the Diocesan losses over the past 12 months or so.

The volume and scope of proposed amendments could only have been complete if there was a censure motion for the Governments of the world for allowing the Global Financial Crisis to happen. ☺ At times, that summed up the tone: a human need to point the finger. Indeed, during some speeches you could have been forgiven for forgetting that there was a Global Financial Crisis.

The Archbishop is to be commended for the way in which he managed the discussion, which started when he asked us to pray in pairs. From there it was inevitable that the issues would become confused. There was the interesting suggestion that 'it was our strategies and not the Global Financial Crisis' that had caused our losses. Certainly, as has been acknowledged, our losses could have been reduced if we could have moved more quickly - which made it all the more odd that the proposed response was to introduce rules that would slow down our procedures!

There was much talk about 'gearing' (a technical term that refers to the borrowing of money to invest). Yes, it accentuated our losses. However, it is just not true to say that gearing resulted in a loss of $160m. The assumption behind this is that one has a crystal ball that tells you when to get out.

The true figure, based on a comparison of the results of an alternative non-geared strategy, is $10m. We have benefited from much, including significant special distributions. And now, under the sovereignty of God those days have gone, at least for the time being.

Yes, members of synod can find it difficult to understand very complex financial matters. I am one for finding the godly experts in whatever field (not just this one) and relying on them. Given limited time and resources, it is just not practical for everyone to be an expert at all things. That's why God has gifted different people differently.

At the same time, it was sobering to be reminded that synod last year was told that significant losses were being incurred in response to a question from the floor. So, within synod there is expertise to ask such insightful questions.

And maybe synod should censure itself for not acting (not that we could have done much), given the information that was before us.

Finally on this particular issue, the suggestion was made that we must not follow the way of the world as argument for some of the amendments. I could not help thinking how much information we have been provided with - in the report before us, at pre synod briefings, and with the opportunity to ask further questions.

In the end, it was a night of grieving that synod had to have. It was tremendously encouraging that blood did not end up on the floor of synod, and for the manner in which these issues were able to be discussed and debated. It showed me how different to the world we actually are.