Could this be the key to a harmonious election synod?

Penny Mulvey

13 March 2025

I was a synod representative the last time the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne had an election synod. You might have similar memories to mine. The election synod was political. Some of the candidates being put forward as potential archbishops (they were not present), had their characters publicly besmirched by individual synod members; or the different political groups within the synod voted en masse either against or for a particular leader who had been nominated.  

My first experience of a synod meeting was the meeting prior to the election synod. It was reasonably straight forward. Discussions about matters impacting the diocese, voting taking place in the Houses of Clergy and Laity, the synod service etc.  

The election synod was a different matter as I mentioned above. Why any clergy person would want to have their name put forward for archbishop was beyond me. Just to go through that process meant that their character was on full display, as members of the two houses gave their opinion about the different candidates. It became a character assassination. Some of the behaviour of synod members was shameful.  

One well known member of the clergy agreed to have his name put forward for election, and in one voting round he scored quite highly. No decision could be reached so another vote took place. The same person received two votes! 

Ultimately, no outcome was reached at this first election synod. The voting process was put on hold while the nominations committee searched for a new round of potential candidates. 

During this time of hiatus, Archdeacon Richard Condie (now Bishop of Tasmania) created a document titled A Model for Conversation. I remember it well, and am grateful that Bishop Condie was able to locate this document.  

Read more: Should Melbourne abandon synod elections for its archbishops?

In the opening paragraph of this model for conversation, Bishop Condie wrote: “What follows is a model that is designed to get us talking about important issues, to come towards some agreement about what binds us together, and to identify issues where we have differences of opinion, with an aim to live in harmony over them.” 

His model was to enable conversations between synod members to take place, represented by three concentric circles, the smallest labelled 1^st order, then 2^nd order and finally the outer circle 3^rd order.  

Those interested in participating in these conversations were put into random groups and we were invited to look at a table consisting of 17 “issues” and think about whether we saw it as 1^st order (essential, unifying), 2^nd order (matters of contention) and 3^rd order (the non-essential things over which we have liberty). 

You might like to consider how you might rate this list of 17 issues. Are they still current? What would you remove and what might you add? This original list is in no particular order: 

• The incarnation of Christ 

• Singing hymns in church 

• Celebrating the Holy Communion weekly 

• Inter-faith worship 

• The ordination of individuals who are LGBTQIA+  

• The divinity of Christ 

• The use of liturgical colours 

• Attitudes to workplace relations laws 

• Lighting of candles 

• The authority of Scripture 

• Adultery and the fitness for ordination 

• The bodily resurrection of Christ 

• Women in the episcopate 

• The size and composition of Archbishop in Council 

• That the Church should be growing 

• Using a pipe organ for hymn singing 

• Feeding the poor  

It was an eye opener for me. One of the people in my discussion group saw “the use of liturgical colours” as a 1^st order issue. I was amazed. I didn’t even know what liturgical colours were. I don’t think “women in the episcopate” was much of an issue for me then, but it was important just a year or two later when I started to understand the significance of women in ministry. “The divinity of Christ” and “the incarnation of Christ” would be at the top of my list. 

The discussion group enabled us to see things from a different perspective as people from different Anglican traditions sat down and talked to each other. It was a helpful process and has stayed with me.  

My prayer for this May’s election synod is that members will be respectful of each other and too, for those whose names are being put forward as potential archbishops.  

For more faith news, follow The Melbourne Anglican on Facebook, Instagram, or subscribe to our weekly emails.