Dr Williams urged both sides in the dispute over homosexuality in the Church to stop talking to each other through megaphones and to stop behaving as if they were a “persecuted minority”.

His address, at York University, prompted an immediate softening of opposition from his most entrenched critics on the conservative wing of the Church, who earlier called on him to “recant or resign”. Although they remained seated for the ovation, which lasted for more than a minute and left the Archbishop looking pleased and relieved, most of the evangelicals at the synod joined in the applause and said afterwards that they no longer believed he should resign.

With the blessing of gay couples now authorised in Canada, and the Episcopal Church of America preparing to confirm the election of an openly gay bishop, the speech did not represent a victory for the Archbishop in the continuing war over homosexuality throughout the Anglican Communion. But it was seen as a step forward in winning over the key lay and clerical constituencies of his own church, increasing his chances of keeping the communion together as disputes over the gay issue continue to threaten a schism.

Dr Williams knew that his leadership was being seen as vulnerable after the opposition from evangelicals and their threats of schism persuaded him to put pressure on his friend, Dr Jeffrey John, to withdraw from his appointment as Bishop of Reading. The episode has been a test of the Archbishop’s leadership and it was crucial that he re-establish his authority to avoid being regarded as terminally weak.

He said: “It’s been said in recent weeks that we have too often been seen as a community that rewards dishonesty or concealment. It’s been said also that some are intimidated in raising critical questions for fear of being stigmatised as fundamentalist or bigoted. These levels of fear and mistrust on both sides are cause for grief and repentance.”

Change would not be possible overnight, he admitted, and there would be no immediate agreement where none had existed before. But he said: “I hope we can do something rather urgently about the widespread assumption that my pain or our pain is automatically more real and serious than ‘theirs’ or ‘yours’. There is no possible reconciliation while we are stuck in this mindset.”

In a politically astute use of humour, he spelt out the characteristics of the different factions within the Church. He said: “One thing that recent weeks and months have reinforced for me is that there are several different Churches of England, that they do not communicate with each other very effectively, and that they need to learn how to do this better if they are to fulfil their primary task of witnessing to God’s transforming promise.”

English Anglicanism was a “mosaic” of groups, all of which believed their way to be the natural, historically justified and faithful way of being an Anglican Christian.

“Some of these, for example — as in the 16th century — believe that the English Reformation is still incomplete, or barely begun,” he said. “Others are clear that being an Anglican Christian now, in just as natural and faithful and historically justified a way, is to offer a hospitable place for a wide variety of people engaged in spiritual exploration.” There was the Church of England depicted in the media: “This is a soap opera. Its life is about short-term conflicts, blazing rows in the pub so to speak, mysterious plots and unfathomable motivations. It is both ridiculous and fascinating.” This soap opera had a cast of “unlikely characters” with extraordinary titles and bizarre costumes.

Then there was a more nebulous form of the Church which provided a “spiritual hinterland” for national life and surfaced at times of national trauma or in connection with the monarchy, or when liberal intellectuals felt spiritual yearnings. “The result is that when the Church shows signs of believing and acting upon things that do not derive from or are at odds with a progressive consensus, much anger and disappointment is voiced.”

He said: “The various ‘churches’ I’ve described so often talk to each other, as I’ve said, through megaphones, through all kinds of indirect means.” The Church was at a watershed, not primarily because of the dispute over homosexuality but because it needed to adapt to new forms of worship and new styles of church life. “I would say that, in spite of everything, this is a moment of great promise,” he said. Church leaders were encouraging congregations to plan for growth and working out how to accommodate new churches that did not fit the traditional parochial model.

The Rev David Banting, chairman of Reform, who remained seated while most stood to applaud the Archbishop, later said: “If everyone does what he said, we should be in for a better debate. I did not stand because I did not want to lionise him. The applause was deafening enough. It was a masterly speech.” He still had reservations about him but said: “It would be churlish for us to go on calling en bloc for his resignation.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Milk: do we need a dairy godmother?
• DIY: the women doing it for themselves
• First double portrait of Princes unveiled