For a moment this writer felt that he was back in a Moore Theological College lecture theatre asCollege principal Mark Thompson got up at General Synod (the Anglican Church’s national parliament) to introduce a motion affirming “the biblical and apostolic conviction that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of all who will come to him. ‘Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to humankind by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12).”
Thompson preached Christ. “The motion before you gives us an opportunity once again to affirm before the world in the churches and to each other the most basic element of our Christian faith recognised as such by the Anglican articles of religion. Jesus Christ is the only one who can save us. There is, always was and always will be only one genuine saviour. Without him, we and every human being would still be lost. But the eternal son of the father became genuinely one of us so that he could rescue us through his death and resurrection. That is the unequivocal testament of the New Testament. Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal son incarnate, the crucified and risen saviour is the only one we can and must trust in order to be saved.
“In John 6, when some of those would followed him left after Jesus had said publicly, no one can come to me unless it’s granted him by the Father. He asked his disciples, ‘do you want to go away as well?’ And that’s when Peter called out, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life and we have believed and have come to know that you are the holy one of God.’ And it was that same Peter. to those who wanted to silence him and the other disciples who spoke the words included in this motion, ‘there is salvation in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given among humankind by which we must be saved.’
….
“The living God can be known. He has provided the way and Jesus, Jesus alone is the way. Why is it good for us to affirm these words in a motion like this? Because in our world, increasingly secular, increasingly hostile to Christian faith and discipleship, we need to encourage each other to stand firm and proclaim as boldly and winsomely as we are able that he is the only saviour.”
Natalie Rosner from St Judes in Carlton, Melbourne was the seconder: “This is a world in which people are looking for hope. We saw that really beautifully reflected in our Hope 25 mission. And in that context, God gives us one message to share with all peoples. Jesus Christ, the hope of the world. What could be more unifying than that? One message for every people group in the world. One message for every nation. One message for every language. One message for every culture. One message to draw very different peoples together into one new humanity. One very beautiful message that there is indeed salvation found in no one else. For there is no other name under heaven given to humankind by which we may be saved.”
Curiously there was in effect a “thirder”, who had engaged with Thompson in rewriting a couple of sentences in the motion. Peter Boyland minister of Christ Church Claremont in Perth, endorsed the motion but took it in a slighly different direction, or from his perspective expanded it. “I gladly affirm that salvation is found in Christ alone. The motion rightly declares that Jesus Christ is the only saviour. It is important, however, to expand on how we are called to bear that witness… The church’s task is not merely to tell people that Jesus saves. It is to become by grace the kind of community in which people glimpse what salvation looks like. Reconciliation, overcoming hostility, dignity, overcoming shame, hope, over fear, and love overcoming every barrier we have been tempted to build.”
It was clear as the debate went on, that most progressives were not going to oppose this motion.
Tim Anderson, minister of Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Hastings in outer Melbourne, recalled a similar event in his diocese: “22 years ago, we moved a similar motion in the Melbourne Synod. The motion passed. There was spirited debate, but it passed with the two thirds majority. [Evangelical leader]Peter Adam burst into tears of joy. He said he thought he would never live to see the day when Melbourne Synod would pass such a motion. Peter Adam is still alive. I’d love him to have the joy of hearing that the general Synod has passed this motion before us today.”
Phillip Gerber of Sydney ended his speech in song “Catholics have liturgy and ritual and ceremonial – helpful and great things – but they won’t save us. Progressives have causes sabout people and creation and so on and so forth. That won’t save us. Charismatics have worship. We will get to express our feelings. And I like a good song just as much as anybody else, but that won’t save us. We evangelicals have our doctrines and our words, but they won’t save us. This motion affirms that all those different parts of the church and many others that you can think of won’t save us on their own, but we need the name of Jesus.
“So I urge you to [burst into song] turn your eyes upon Jesus. Look full in his wonderful face and the things of earth will grow strangly dim in the light of his glory and grace.”
[Edited for repetition]
Perhaps the only “anti” speech came from Canon Aunty Di Langham of Newcastle “This might be interesting. We have many names for Jesus and we have had for 60,000 years. We call him [to avoid cultural appropriation I am leaving the names out] and many other names. The Bible isn’t 60,000 years old and the name that we have for God is in creation and speaks to us all the time. I think one of the comments that was made many times is you gave us your Bible and you took away our land. “
UPDATE: Aunty Di has said it is okay for me to repeat those names of God, via reader Greg Colby, they are Bunjil, Biraban, and Buttaba.
The motion passed on the voices with no dissent.
The Motion:
General Synod affirms the biblical and apostolic conviction that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of all who will come to him. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to humankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Article 18 also states that it is a mistake to say people shall be saved by diligent observance of the law or religion they profess, “For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men (sic) must be saved”.
Therefore, in this era of confusion and doubt in which we live, we encourage every member of the Anglican Church of Australia to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed, sharing with humility and love the good news of salvation in him alone, and inviting all people to come to him in faith and so discover real hope and new life.
From your report on Rev Dr Mark Thompson’s motion: “Risen and prison saviour”. Whilst I can agree that Jesus can save the imprisoned, I also know what word you intended there. I trust that error arises from auto-correct or similar. Surely your content is not created by AI?
transcription software, thanks Allen.
I find this intriguing, for I have known this fact for at least 77 of my 85 years. BUT I pause there, for I would like to read and digest the whole article. So far I like what I read, and maybe, just maybe, a prayer for revival and renewal of the Anglican Church of Australia may be on its way
Why on earth is GS wasting its time debating this. Would not the time of GS be better spent discussing how to show Christ to this suffering world? What actions we as Christians should be engaged in to challenge oppression, injustice, cruelty, despair, hopelessness; to show God’s love to God’s people. While debate spends time on what we state we believe in the three Creeds, as Christians, innocent children continue to be slaughtered in Gaza, our First Nations sisters and brothers continue to be oppressed and die in custody, the world faces the threat of nuclear war, climate change is causing drought in countries which have never before experienced it. The motion is devious, a blatant trick question. It is not calling for honest theological debate on redemption, it is daring anyone to vote against this statement. It is seemingly stating the obvious, however its intent is to cause dissension. And to avoid any real discussion on the challenges faced by the world and our church. I am all for an informed, honest, challenging, open theological debate. This motion is not inviting that. Neither is it inviting reflection on articles of faith. It is a simplistic ploy to waste time.
To the refrain “Anglicans took away the land” is false, the Article on Predestination and Election which is to be believed by all ordained clergy states that, not 60 000 years ago, but, and a very big but, “before the foundation of the world God in counsel secret to us, Predestined humans to come to salvation in Christ”.
I also believe in the Great commission and the spreading of the gospel starting with St Paul in the New Testament.
Thanks to Almighty God I was born 11 weeks premature in 1963 and was clinically dead during my first few weeks of life.
I was born in a a Roman Catholic Hospital in Hobart and I was saved by the prayers of the Nuns and my family, the Anglican Church belief in the land being stolen is not a belief from the Bible.
This conformity to the world as expressed every time Christians gather in many churches using words for the acknowledgement of country like “we meet on land that was taken (stolen”) and not the words being “custodians of the land” .
It’s because of this that on the Census for the first time in my lifetime I didn’t tick the Anglican box but in the “other” and placed the words “Christian non denominational”
I believe that the institution churches have totally lost moral authority, but they have also lost belief in the Bible.
The fact that the GAFCON Australia conference is in Melbourne is evidence of the lack of belief in the Bible at the General Synod and as I have read the church has not funded a domestic violence awareness campaign, this is evidence that the Synod was at times a talk fest.
I have had time to sit quietly and read through this article and write down some notes;
1, The article bar for one segment is spot on.
2. The comments attributed to Cannon Aunty [ she is not my aunt] Di Langham caused me some trouble, for they paint an inaccurate and false picture.
3. Then, as one read through other comments [Val Edwards, mt soul started to groan], though Hayden Robson’s gave one some uplift.
I am a Christian, an Anglican by denomination, and one who has had a tremendous walk with Christ, enabled by the evangelical teaching of Scripture in my boyhood, 80-odd years ago.
The crux point of that teaching was [and is] that Jesus Christ was the only door that leads to salvation. As I write, the picture of Jesus with the lamp knocking on the door comes to mind.
So what is that trouble me? It is that the church I was brought up in and have belonged to for 85 years has lost its way. It has adopted the teachings of the world, whether that be the communistic social justice gospel, or the Ordination of Woman, [ which in itself stems from Nanna the goddess of the ancient Sumerians and adopted by Nimrod’s mother as her mother god and comes down to us today, via Baalism, Jezabelism, and Nicolationism [ the latter two being noted in Revelation 2 and 3 ] thence Gnotism which came from Simon Magus and the Simonians of Rome down through history to the feminist movement of out time. Added to this is the subjects of SSB and SSM, which, after a duel encounter on a real mountain, one can categorically say are not of God or from God or His Son, whose church we profess to belong to and follow.
In respect to Di Langham, I do not believe I have read such an inaccurate word picture in my life. I dispute the 60,000 years and the whole synopsis of the comment.
a. There were no names for Jesus before his virgin birth 2026 years ago
b. The god of the Aboriginal peoples was not the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, and black magic, like pointing the bone, has nothing to do with him but his adversary.
c. The Bible [ Job] tells us that it is Almighty God who allocated the territories and sets the boundaries.
d. So we can go directly back to 1788 and the First Fleet, who raised the flag THREE DAYS –[NOTE THAT] before the French arrived. On encountering the British fleet, there was no attempt to dislodge them, but an acceptance they were in place and sailed off.
e. The point is that had the French taken possession, I wonder how they would have interacted with the inhabitants
f. We have both WW1 and WW2 in which over 103,000, including some of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, gave their lives in our defence. Thus saving Australia from invasion.
What disturbs me most is the ungratefulness that comes through all this, and to read “You gave us the Bible but took away our land” to me emphasises this state.