Synod 2011 has been characterized by a remarkable absence of conflict. If you came looking for great debates you’d go away disappointed. There was plenty of potential for  much fiercer debate over financial and governance issues. Instead Sydnod has pretty meekly agreed to many matters in principle and referred further work to Standing Committee. I can’t recall a Synod with less controversy.

I’m sure that isn’t down to laziness or lack of attention to detail by Synod members. Nor has the agenda been cooked to avoid debate. Intentions are good. The pre-Synod briefings were well attended. Questions at synod have been sharp. Each session seems well attended.

The lack of debate raises serious questions about the effectiveness of Synod though. Most synod representatives don’t speak. They can, of course - but the reality is that most don’t. Instead the floor is largely dominated by those putting business before the house - usually members who are also members of Standing Committee. Time at Synod often won’t allow all those wishing to speak to be heard.  So most this year have sat passively through a lengthy and complex five day sitting.

As long as Synod is representative and structured on parliamentary lines it is hard to see how this could change. It will inevitably be big & unwieldy and require a formal and legal process. In practice this is softened by large doeses of grace and humour.

I wouldn’t argue for a more ‘efficient’ system though. Efficiency would be simple - reduce the numbers to say 20 and have them operate like a cabinet or an executive board. I prefer the messiness and inefficiency of a parliamentary system over the centralised power of an autocracy. It does provide for some level of accountability and for Synod to make its voice heard.