THE Archbishop of Canterbury (above) told the Methodist Conference on Tuesday that “a sense of urgency of who Jesus is” must be at the heart of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant.
Dr Williams said that the Covenant, signed in 2003, was “unfinished busiÂness”, and they were now working out how to “settle in for the long haul”.
It was the second time the ArchÂbishop has addressed the Methodist Conference ”” the first was in 2004.
Dr Williams took the examples of St Peter and St Paul to show how the Church of England and the Methodist Church should handle disagreements. He contrasted St Peter’s willingness to compromise with St Paul’s confronÂtÂational approach. The apostolic witness embraced both approaches, Dr Williams said. But, he went on, neither “compromise for the sake of a quiet life” nor “confrontation for the sake of feeling righteous” were fully biblical approaches.
No doubt the Methodists have noted and are noting how well the ABC’s leadership and ideas have worked for the formerly Anglican formerly Communion. They should also assiduously observe the effect of such partnership with EcUSA/TEc and the ELCA, because the EcUSA/TEc indtends the whole of the formerly Anglican formerly Communion to look just like them.
Proverbs and worldly wisdom alone would broker that no communion junction now saves no communion later.
The blurb/link cited, gives the impression that the ABC is missing an important and necessary distinction between compromise and consensus. The issue of approach being a secondary consideration, true doctrine is the primary concern. Peter, being the head of the Church, could have rejected Paul’s arguments. Legitimate differences in approach are possible if consensus is achieved regarding the content of the Faith. Importantly, some approaches carry the risk of obscuring the authentic Apostolic Tradition.
Peter, as head of the Church, could have rejected Paul’s teaching. In the instances where Paul and Peter came to disagreement, Paul’s doctrine being sound, Peter could accept Paul’s approach. If Paul’s doctrine was heretical, then Peter would have rejected Paul’s teaching and would have been within his right to censure Paul. The perpetual office of Peter is, among other things, the office designated by Christ to safeguard and preserve the visible unity of His Church. Peter exercises prudential concern for the unity of Christ’s Church.