Many calls for reform have stressed the need to address changes in the church's culture.

However, the history of organisational and cultural change underscores leadership as being the most important element in successful change.

Lessons learned from the leadership of successful cultural reforms stress the importance of focussing on the nurturing of the organisation's culture through the alignment of values and mission.

Inconsistency between culture, mission and values leads to institutional dysfunction and reduced credibility.

Alignment between an organisation's mission, values and culture cannot be left to chance.

Leaders in well-functioning organisations know this. They ensure that structures for governance and administration are consonant with the overall mission; they foster cultures that reflect the organisation's values.

The character and actions of the leaders themselves have a major influence in shaping an organisation's culture. If the call for a synodal church is to be successful, church leaders will need to be able to discern, promote and live the values of synodality.

For Francis, 'synodality' is non-negotiable: 'what God wants' of the church at this time. It goes far beyond the collegiality between all bishops with the bishop of Rome through the Synod of Bishops established by Pope Paul VI in 1965.

Through the lens of theology, the church is a community of faith, the sacrament of Christ and the People of God. At the same time, it lives out its identity and mission through people and through its organisational structures.

Little needs to be repeated about the contemporary loss of credibility of the church, both in Australia and around the world.

The Australian church is not alone in being called to account by Government, rather than by its own leaders, for systemic mismanagement of child sexual abuse.

There are elements of culture in the contemporary institutional church that undermine the church's stated mission and values as a holy nation whose heritage is the dignity and freedom of the children of God and in whose hearts the Spirit dwells.

The 2023 Synod process is a call for all members of the church to take up what Vatican II began by way of both renewal (aggiornamento) and rediscovery of its early essence (ressourcement) to reform its culture and search for an authentic identity and form suitable for the Third Millennium.

The Synod's preparatory consultations carry an explicit focus on the structures and organisational processes within the church — the form, the style, the structure.

The call to synodality is a call to convert, reform and renew the church's organisational culture.

New cultures do not emerge automatically. It is not about turning upside down the present pyramid structure of the church with a clerical hierarchy at the top and the faithful on the bottom.

The church is not a political democracy, but a 'holy people' whose mission is to make God and Jesus present and, in a sense, visible to our world. (GS 21)

Participatory rather than unilateral, empowering rather than overpowering

Reform means change. Change can be uncomfortable and resisted.

Healthy organisations have all changed at some point in their existence, either in response to internal events (eg, loss of key personnel) or external pressures (eg, covid-19).

While leaders have the initial responsibility to drive change in an organisation, it is neither rocket science nor magic: it is all very possible.

For example, leaders can embed culture in an organisation through their allocation of resources (money does talk), how they respond to critical incidents of cultural misalignment (eg, sexual abuse), what is rewarded and how status is allocated (or removed), who they recruit (especially for leadership roles).

Leaders who consciously seek to embed a certain culture (eg synodality) will pay attention to it and assess it regularly.

Culture in an organisation is also shaped by its systems and procedures, rituals and celebrations, the design of physical space (eg, a church 'in the round'), the narratives leaders use and formal statements of an institution's philosophy, creeds and charters.

Among the many theories and models of leadership, one more suited to leadership in a synodal church, is that of the late Denis Edwards.

He described New Testament leadership as service-oriented rather than dominating, non-violent rather than coercive, from below rather than from above, participatory rather than unilateral, empowering rather than overpowering and based on hope in the resurrection of Jesus rather than on personal achievement.

Other models of a leadership sympathetic with synodality emphasise the relational character of leadership; leaders being truly part of the group they are called to lead and of their modelling and practising the values and beliefs of the people they lead.

Leaders who are perceived as having integrity and authenticity tend to elicit a sense of trust that the group is focussing together on a shared moral purpose.

Such leaders both affirm and extend ('grow') the resourcefulness of group members to contribute to the goals of the organisation, thereby shaping it further in that direction.

Such leaders continually seek to align members of the group to the larger realities, the macro context, in which they endeavour to pursue the organisation's goals.

It is difficult to imagine the emergence of a more synodal church culture unless those in leadership understand and exercise the key characteristics of synodality:

• mission-oriented to the pastoral needs of this place at this time;
• open to inclusive dialogue and mutual listening;
• humble and service-oriented;
• open to conversion, change and the bidding of the Spirit; engaged within their local community and discerning decisions with members of the community based on a faith that recognises the priesthood of all the faithful and the unerring sensus fidei of the whole People of God.

If the church is to move in the direction of a more synodal church, then it will need to have in formal leadership roles women and men who understand this vision and who are prepared for and supported in their leadership using the best tools of leadership theory and practice; leaders with the willingness and capacity to search out structures, forms and styles that are more synodal in character.

Local church communities, the faithful, have a right to expect such leadership.

• Anne Benjamin is a writer and researcher. She is an Honorary Professor at Australian Catholic University and was previously Director of Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Parramatta.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

We've learnt that we need to think about "the team of five million" and what is good for us all, and not just for each of us as individuals.

But we've also had times when we've been isolated in our homes.

Many people have felt cut off from family and friends because they haven't been able to travel.

Others have wanted to swim against the tide.

The early Christians had a very strong sense of community.

They seem to have been able to bridge significant ethnic and social divides, and often formed resilient and cohesive groups.

How did they sustain this strong sense of community? What might we learn from them about community in these difficult days?

The early Christians met in each other's homes in small groups of perhaps 10-15 people.

They didn't own buildings for about 200 years, so the home was the primary focus for their gatherings.

Their meetings involved regular meals together.

In the culture of the first century, eating together created a strong bond of belonging and of being a close family, even if there was no biological connection between many members. And so they called each other "brothers and sisters", seeing themselves as strongly connected to each other.

They also saw their community as a body, with many different parts.

The apostle Paul applied the idea of a group as a body (an idea that had been applied by others to "the body politic"), to the group of believers.

It emphasised that, although everyone was different, each person was important.

Paul asked: "If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?

If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?"

Each person was different — but all were part of the one body. Everyone was valued. No matter how insignificant they seemed, the body metaphor emphasised that everyone mattered.

All belonged together.

Because all belonged together, they used the language of "we" and "us", and not of "I" and "me".

The early Christians also believed that God had given each of them a gift or an ability and these gifts were to be shared with everyone else.

The gifts varied from wisdom and teaching to service and encouragement. "To each one," God gave a gift, meaning that each had a contribution to make.

No-one was a passenger; all contributed to the welfare and life of the group.

This involved a re-evaluation of what was important.

"Service" and "caring" were regarded as just as important as up-front leadership roles.

They also saw themselves as servants of one another.

The apostle Paul saw himself as a servant or slave of others — by his own choice.

He urged other believers to "do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others" (Philippians 2:3-4).

In doing so, he urged them to follow the example of Jesus, whom Paul regarded as the greatest servant of all.

Through love, they were to become servants to each other (Galatians 5:13).

They were to bear each other's burdens, to weep with those who wept and to rejoice with those who rejoiced. Their care extended to strangers too.

They sought to do good to all.

These groups meeting in someone's lounge also bridged huge ethnic divides.

The early Christians believed that through what Jesus had done for them, Jew and non-Jew alike were now equal and part of the group on exactly the same terms.

They acted this out in eating together, and caring for each other, despite all the social forces that separated them into disparate ethnic factions.

At the heart of their community was their strong sense of belief.

Because they jointly believed in what God had done in Jesus' life, death and resurrection, through which God had created a new reality, they had a shared faith, shared practices and a shared set of values.

The early Christians were small groups and were often given a hard time by others. But in these communities, ethnic and social barriers were being broken down, leading to an inclusive and welcoming community with an outward focus.

The strength of their beliefs, the resilience and values of their corporate life, and the quality of their care for each other got them through decades and decades of challenges and difficulties.

What can we learn from their experience?

They offer some challenges to our way of thinking about community.

An emphasis on "we" and "us", and not on "I" and "me", means we need to think of each other and not just of ourselves.

Thinking of everyone belonging together as a corporate body where we are mutually servants one of another, sharing each other's burdens, means we need to think of responsibilities and not just of rights.

Such lessons are especially apposite as we face the challenge of keeping our community safe during the Covid pandemic.

• Paul Trebilco is professor of New Testament studies in the theology programme at the University of Otago.
• First published in the ODT. Republished with permission.