This is a response and reply to Dr Muriel Porter, ‘The surprise election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe’.[1]
Peter Adam
I greatly enjoyed reading Dr Muriel Porter’s article on the election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe as Archbishop of Melbourne, Australia. She placed this election in the context of significant changes in the Diocese since the 1970s, and also in the context of the Synod elections of our Archbishops since 1990. [Previously, Archbishops had been appointed by a Committee elected by Synod.]
Dr Porter notes the gradual moves the Diocese has made away from what she describes as ‘progressive’ support for the legalisation of homosexual practice and the ordination of women, to ‘conservative Evangelicals pushing a conservative theology’ [p. 1]. She also notes the possible impact that these changes in Melbourne will have in the life of the General Synod.
The new election process first used in 1990 was that of a Nomination Board of 18 people elected by Synod, with 9 clergy and 9 laity. The task of the Board was to present to the Synod names of proposed candidates, from 2 to 6 in number. The Election Synod then voted on those names to accept them as candidates, and then voted on the candidates. To be successful, a candidate had to receive more than 66 2/3rds of both clergy and lay members of Synod. In practice, it has mostly been difficult to achieve an election, the Election Synod has failed to elect at its first round of meetings, and the Nomination Board has been asked to bring another list to a later meeting of the Election Synod.
It was my privilege to serve on the same three Nomination Boards as Dr Porter: the result of these processes was the election of Keith Rayner [1990-1999], Peter Watson [2000-2005], and Philip Freier [2006-2025]. I was also a member of Synod at the election of Ric Thorpe, in 2025.
Here are some responses and reflection on Dr Porter’s article.
I agree with Dr Porter that it was curious that there were no Australian Bishops among the 4 names presented to the Election Synod in May 2025. It seemed to me that there were several suitable candidates.
It also seemed odd that the 4 names were all evangelical candidates. It could have been more helpful to have had a more varied list. I suppose that the reply of the Nomination Board would be that they had surveyed members of Synod to find out what they wanted in a new Archbishop, and they found the candidates they thought had those qualities, and could achieve those desires.
Inevitably, my perspective differs from that of Dr Porter in some matters. Let me respectfully outline some of them.
1. Dr Porter claims that in previous lists provided by a Nomination Board, the Board worked hard to include the name of an evangelical [p. 2].
My recollections differ from this claim.
In the first election of this series, in 1990, the evangelical Bishop John Reid from Sydney was included in the first list provided by the Nomination Board. Though he received a majority of votes, he did not receive the required 66 2/3rds majority. So the Board was asked to produce a second list. There was no reason why Bishop Reid could not be included on the second list, but the Board of Nominators steadfastly refused to do so.
The second list did include the name of Dr Brue Kaye, a good friend of mine. Dr Porter describes him as ‘a Sydney Evangelical’ [p.2], but I think this description is misleading. Though Bruce had been ordained in Sydney, and was then Master of New College in the University of New South Wales, he did not at that stage represent Sydney evangelical qualities and convictions. In addition, his chosen ministry was academic, rather than pastoral and parochial. The evangelicals on the Nomination Board felt unable to support his nomination. In fact we thought that the current list did not contain any candidate we could support, so at the last moment we reintroduced the name of Keith Rayner, Archbishop of Adelaide, who was at least a credal Anglican, and who was competent to do the job. He was, of course, duly elected. So I think that Dr Porter’s claim that the Board always included an evangelical name is not correct.
2. Dr Porter also quotes with approval Colin Holden’s claim that Melbourne evangelicals exhibit a less adversarial style and greater degree of tolerance than Sydney evangelicals, and that they are more like English evangelicals [p. 10].
This claim is often repeated by those who have not met the ‘more adversarial’ English evangelicals, many of whom are my friends! There is a substantial and successful group of English evangelical clergy who are immensely adversarial and intolerant, by Melbourne ‘progressive’ standards! Though in fact Melbourne is not entirely free of adversarial intolerance!
Significantly, it is vintage ‘adversarial’ Sydney evangelical clergy who have frequently been invited from Australia to do ministry in England by Church of England clergy. Both Phillip and Peter Jensen have been frequent visitors, and John Chapman has taken missions at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Not many Australian clergy have done that! Furthermore, David Peterson, a member of the Moore College faculty, was appointed Principal of Oak Hill, the evangelical Anglican theological college in London. There is a close connection between at least some English evangelicals and the Diocese of Sydney. Colin Holden’s claim is not correct. There are English evangelical Anglican clergy who are like Melbourne Anglican evangelicals: there are English evangelical clergy who are like Sydney Anglican evangelicals!
3. Dr Porter claims that I am largely responsible for the regrettable transformation of Melbourne she describes, and points to my policy when Principal of Ridley from 2002-2012 of accepting both egalitarian and complementarian views within the College [p. 11].
As a matter of fact, when I became Principal, there were no women on the faculty. It was my privilege to appoint the Revd Anthea McCall to the faculty.
My policy was, as Dr Porter reports, to accept and support both egalitarian and complementarian students, including Anglican ordinands. Female and male students received exactly the same quality and level of training, and I encouraged a gracious acceptance of a diversity of views, though I was then and am now a complementarian.
The policy of accepting ordinands with both egalitarian and complementarian viewpoints was the policy of the Diocese of Melbourne at that time, and continues to be the policy of the Diocese of Melbourne! So my policy was not unusually eccentric!
4. It is the task of historians to attempt to see the relationship between causes and effects.
With respect, I point out that the revival of historic evangelical theology and practice in the Diocese of Melbourne preceded my time as Principal of Ridley, and has gained more momentum since I left. I do not think that Dr Porter has plumbed the depths of the causes of this revival. Its origins are certainly older than evangelical political action over the past two decades [pp. 16,17].
5. Dr Porter criticises the Diocese of Sydney for ordaining unsuitable and ill-trained people, in order to increase its power in General Synod [p. 16].
As a general policy, I think it is best to assume positive rather than negative motivations in fellow-Christians, unless the evidence to the contrary is over-powering. In fact the Diocese of Sydney has and implements the highest standard of training required for ordination in the Anglican Church of Australia, and invests heavily in the training of candidates for ordination. Whatever the weaknesses of the Diocese of Sydney, low ordination standards is not one of them!
6. While Dr Porter focusses on how the Diocese of Melbourne has changed since the arrival of Archbishop Frank Woods in 1957, a longer historical perspective reminds us that the first and longest-serving Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry [Bishop from 1847 to 1875] was a convinced evangelical, an enthusiastic church planter, who founded a largely evangelical Diocese.
His was the evangelical voice among the Bishops of Australasia at their meeting in 1850. He gathered evangelical clergy to promote the growth of the gospel in Victoria, and secured an evangelical, Samuel Thornton, as the first Bishop of Ballarat. The current movement identified by Dr Porter could be described as a Diocese recovering its earliest traditions, its rich historical roots, a Renaissance movement ad fontes!
However, leaving these details aside, I suspect that the bigger issue at stake is what it means to be ‘progressive’. I observe that ‘progressive’ for some Anglicans means to be progressive in social change and conservative in liturgy.
For me a ‘progressive’ church is marked by a commitment to Trinitarian credal orthodoxy; the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, Mediator and Lord; the substitutionary atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins and our sinfulness; constant reformation by the Holy Scriptures; our Reformed Anglican heritage; gospel clarity, effectiveness, energy and output in the evangelism of unbelievers; the inclusion of new styles and patterns of ministry, adapted to the increasingly diverse communities and sub-cultures in Australia; commitment to God’s global gospel plan for the evangelisation of the world; increased prayerfulness; love of neighbour which includes careful research, practical assistance, advocacy, and speaking of the love of Jesus, and the salvation found in him; turning away from sin, the flesh and the devil; profound engagement with our contemporary world; an acceptance of the Bible’s teaching on God judgement, wrath, and hell; and a passion for God’s glory and gospel plan which trumps commitment to the preservation of Anglican traditions for their own sake!
This, for me, represents Anglicanism at its best, and the heart of its true Credal Catholic orthodoxy. More importantly it reflects and expresses Biblical Christianity. I will continue to pray and work for this progress in the Diocese of Melbourne, while God gives me strength and opportunity!
May the Lord Jesus in his mercy continue to build, reform, revive, and grow his churches and ministries in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne!
1.. Porter, M. (2025). The surprising election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe. Journal of Anglican Studies.. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740355325100739 ↑