The 2010 Synod met at Melbourne Grammar School, an establishment bastion every bit as solid as its Tudor Gothic bluestone walls. Those inside sensed and responded to the frailty of the Church itself. Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Brisbane, the Primate, made a heartfelt call to the Synod to exercise a generosity of spirit, which may often have been in evidence; but it is at times hard to distinguish such generosity from caution or fear.
The question of Sydney’s relationship with the rest was never far from the surface, but only once or twice did it breach it in threatening ways. There was predictable posturing about the divisions in the wider Anglican Communion, but overall a curious sense of avoiding conflict prevailed: a motion ‘welcoming’ the proposed Anglican Covenant was met with ambivalence at both liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum. Both were satisfied with a motion referring it for further and wider study.
When the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’ from the gathering of conservative Anglicans held there last year came up for consideration, Perth Archbishop Roger Herft, who has been a frank critic of the conservative forces, made the generous response of seeking and gaining an amendment that encouraged study of the document and its context.
They say “politics makes strange bed-fellows” (pardon the un-intended pun)! So Baptism is a required Sacrament unto salvation for evangelicals, but not connected with marriage…why? God is deeply concerned for our sacramental new birth…but, not concerned that our marriages are equally yolked? What am I missing here?
Baptism is NOT a required sacrament unto salvation for evangelicals. Making that clear is part of the motivation for the proposed change. Those in favour of the change want to be able to evangelise those who ask to be married at church. At present the rule is that one member of the couple to be married needs to be baptised, which
… does not fit Stuarts logic either.