It must be an awkward being a Bishop at Synod.

In several debates we’ve heard about the dangers of a rogue bishop. There’s usually then a reflexive caveat ‘not like any of the present wonderful bishops’  followed by an explanation that ‘we are thinking of a hypothetical future bishop who could use any power we give him for ill’.

So whether its a debate on parish relationships or church planting procedures, the default setting of Synod is to beware the rogue bishop. This suspicion of central diocesan authority is one of the defining characteristics of Sydney Anglicanism. It keeps privileging the parish over the diocese, let alone the national church!

Some have suggested this is little more than the descendants of convicts and the Rum Rebellion giving their anti-authoritarian tendencies ecclesiological expression. Others have said it is paranoia.

But I’m one that isn’t embarrassed to speak about the very real dangers of a rogue bishop.   Given the structures we have it would be naive not to see the possibility of a bishop doing great harm. That lesson can easily be learnt as we look around the Anglican communion. That’s precisely why we need to be careful in giving them the powers we do.

So every Synod will probably have its awkward moments for us and for bishops. We’ll rightly thank God for the ones we have and the service they give. But we’ll also keep talking about the danger of giving more power to any bishop.