{"id":1746,"date":"2020-08-01T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-08-01T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1746"},"modified":"2020-07-30T10:10:22","modified_gmt":"2020-07-30T08:10:22","slug":"vf178","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/it\/2020\/08\/vf178\/","title":{"rendered":"178. Why J.I. Packer Signed \u201cEvangelicals and Catholics Together\u201d (1994) (and Why He Was Inconsistent)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The global church owes a debt of gratitude to James I. Packer (1926-2020). Together with giants of the caliber of Carl Henry (1913-2003) and John Stott (1921-2011), during the second half of the 20th century he has embodied Evangelical theology at its best, especially on issues like the authority of Scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, the interplay between theology and spirituality, the connections between the historical church (especially the Puritans) and our time, and the call to holiness. His lucid and profound writings have nurtured at least two, if not three generations of Evangelicals and challenged them to stay faithful to the historic biblical faith. Together with millions of Christians, the reading of Knowing God<\/em><\/a> as a young believer was a milestone in my life. I consider Jim Packer to be a \u201cfather\u201d of present-day Evangelical theology, along whose trajectory I also wish and hope to be identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is to say that if I dare critique one minor \u2013 albeit significant \u2013 instance of his theological involvement, I do so out of immense respect and hopefully with a similar courtesy that characterized Packer in his own way of handling controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is no secret that in Packer\u2019s theological biography his involvement with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative<\/a> has puzzled many of his admirers. How such a solid theologian could be prone to sign theologically blurred documents and encourage confusing ecumenical activities has been a standing question in many people\u2019s minds. The purpose of this article is to discuss the reasons why Packer signed ECT and to offer some critical remarks in considering them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of ECT Since Its Beginnings<\/strong>
\u201cEvangelicals and Catholics Together\u201d<\/a> (ECT) is the title of a document released in 1994, but it is also the name of an on-going informal dialogue that has been taking place in the US context ever since. Initiated by Chuck Colson and Richard Neuhaus, it gathered Christians who are confessionally divided but who share similar concerns for the falling apart of the Christian ethos of American society under the attack of relativistic trends of thought. In this violent \u201cculture war\u201d, Evangelicals and Catholics found themselves fighting on the same conservative side and discovered a new kind of possible rapprochement, \u201can ecumenism of the trenches\u201d. The convergence, however, is not simply a common view on social issues, but is said to be \u201ca theologically rooted alliance\u201d. Thus, the ECT section \u201cWe Contend Together\u201d, which is centered on \u201cculture war\u201d issues, is preceded by the section \u201cWe Affirm Together\u201d, where a basic confession of faith is reported. This is followed by the programmatic section \u201cWe Witness Together\u201d, where a common commitment to Christian mission is envisaged, entailing the goal of non-proselytization between professing Christians (thinking especially of Latin America in areas of tense relationships between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals). The \u201cWe-Together\u201d pattern is pervasive in ECT and contains the indication of a significant shift in the Evangelical perception of Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have explored elsewhere the historical context and the theological flaws of the ECT initiative, i.e. “Christian Unity vis-\u00e0-vis Roman Catholicism: A Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Dialogue”<\/a>, Evangelical Review of Theology<\/em>, 27:4 (2003) 337-352. There is no need to repeat such an assessment. On the whole, ECT sentimentalizes the sense of \u201ctogetherness\u201d at the expense of theological clarity and confuses the necessity of co-belligerence on moral and social issues with a call to unity and common mission between Evangelicals and Catholics<\/a>. These two faults are serious matters. For the purpose of this article, what is striking to observe is the active participation of Jim Packer in the whole of the ECT initiative thus far. His signature appears at the end of all ECT documents<\/a> up to 2012: \u201cEvangelicals and Catholics Together\u201d (1994), \u201cThe Gift of Salvation\u201d (1997), \u201cYour Word is Truth\u201d (2002), \u201cThe Communion of Saints\u201d (2003), \u201cThe Call to Holiness\u201d (2004), \u201cThat They May Have Life\u201d (2006), \u201cDo Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life\u201d (2009), and \u201cIn Defense of Religious Freedom\u201d (2012). While other Evangelical signatories have come and gone, appearing and disappearing (some perhaps feeling perplexed about ECT over time), Packer has been a faithful and convinced supporter of ECT. Why is it so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhy I Signed It\u201d<\/strong>
Of course, the participation of Jim Packer in the ECT initiative has stirred much controversy among Evangelicals from the very first day, especially as far as his endorsement of the first two statements are concerned: \u201cEvangelicals and Catholics Together\u201d (1994) and \u201cThe Gift of Salvation\u201d (1997). The criticism after the first statement led him to write an article entitled “Why I <\/a>Signed<\/a> It”<\/a> (Christianity Today<\/em>, 12 Dec 1994, pp. 34-37) to respond to it. His reasons are worth considering because they unfold Packer\u2019s approach to issues broadly related to unity and cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After expressing surprise \u201cat the violence of initial Protestant reaction\u201d, Packer states what he considers possible and feasible: \u201cI have long thought that informal grassroots collaboration with Roman Catholics in ministry is the most fruitful sort of ecumenism that one can practice nowadays\u201d. Notice three points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. The level of collaboration he envisaged, i.e. grassroots, informal, and personal, rather than institutional and ecclesiastical.<\/li>
  2. The partners involved, i.e. individual Roman Catholics rather than the Roman Catholic Church as such.<\/li>
  3. The type of relationship with Roman Catholics, i.e. collaboration understood as a form of \u201cministry\u201d and \u201ca sort of ecumenism\u201d.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Then Packer goes on by arguing why \u201cthe Roman system\u201d is \u201cunacceptable\u201d. He is aware that Roman Catholicism is an integrated whole that is \u201ctheologically flawed\u201d, especially because it misconceives the nature of the Church, blurs justification by faith, and attaches infallibility to church pronouncements. As a matter of fact, \u201cProtestant and Catholic church systems stand opposed\u201d. Packer shows awareness of the systemic nature of Roman Catholicism, its unbiblical tenets, and its opposed stance with regards to the Evangelical Protestant faith. In an interview a few years later, Packer argues: \u201cRoman Catholicism as a system has defined itself in a way which is out of step with the Bible on a whole series of key issues relating to the Christian life and faith and it defined itself irreformably\u201d (\u201cDiscipline of Debate\u201d, Evangelicals Now<\/em>, Nov 2000, p. 13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Having said that, in the \u201cWhy I Signed It\u201d article Packer thinks that \u201cgood Protestants and Catholics are united in the one body of Christ\u201d. As already seen, Packer distinguishes between individual Catholics and the Catholic Church. If the Roman Church as system is \u201cunacceptable\u201d, who are these \u201cgood Catholics\u201d? They are \u201cBible-believing, Christ-honoring, Spirit-empowered Christians who will together resist the many forms of disintegrative theology \u2013 relativist, monist, pluralist, liberationist, feminist, or whatever \u2013 that plague both Protestantism and Catholicism at the present time\u201d. In other words, they are \u201cspiritually alive\u201d and theologically conservative Catholics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the second part of the article, Packer recalls three recent examples of collaboration between Evangelicals and Catholics preceding ECT and therefore paving its way forward:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Francis Schaeffer\u2019s \u201cco-belligerence\u201d on the abortion front, which saw Evangelicals and Catholics working side by side;<\/li>
    2. Billy Graham\u2019s cooperative evangelism, which included churches of whatever stripe; and<\/li>
    3. The Charismatic get-togethers where the distinction between Protestants and Catholics vanished.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      In light of these precedents, in Packer\u2019s view ECT should be considered a legitimate and timely development that tries to formulate \u201cat the level of principle a commitment which many have already entered at the level of practice\u201d. Packer is aware of the need to further reflect on the issue. This is the reason why, at the end of the article, he makes reference to a study document, i.e. “Resolutions for Roman Catholic & Evangelical Dialogue”<\/a> (Modern Reformation<\/em>, 1994), drafted together with Michael Horton to provide some \u201cagenda suggestions\u201d for the future. With the help of this seven-point document \u2013 which Packer takes credit for (\u201cdrafted by Michael S. Horton, revised by J.I. Packer\u201d) \u2013 we shall now evaluate his own reasons for signing ECT and for being involved in the whole ECT initiative. The assessment will try to be fair to Packer\u2019s theological criteria as they are presented in these \u201cResolutions\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Why Was He Inconsistent?<\/strong>
      As I wrote in the introduction, I consider Packer a giant of present-day Evangelical theology, from whose scholarship and spirituality we all have a great deal to learn. Still, I think that his \u201cecumenical\u201d involvements have shown a significant weakness in his overall premier theological stature. His own \u201cResolutions\u201d show a degree of inconsistency between what he affirms there and what he did in and through ECT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 1 of the \u201cResolutions\u201d clearly argues that \u201cwhile both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics affirm the ecumenical Creeds, we do not see this catholic consensus as a sufficient basis for declaring that agreement exists on all the essential elements of the Gospel\u201d. While much of the ECT initiative makes a great deal of the alleged \u201ccommon creedal basis\u201d between Evangelicals and Catholics, Packer here readily acknowledges that whatever we can make of that supposed commonality, it does not show that the two constituencies adhere to the same Gospel. Point N. 6 clearly denies that \u201cin its present confession (the Roman Catholic Church) is an acceptable Christian communion\u201d. The alleged \u201cconsensus\u201d between Evangelicals and Catholics is not on the \u201cessential elements of the Gospel\u201d, but ECT argues the contrary. The Packer of the \u201cResolutions\u201d is in conflict with the Packer of ECT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 2 stresses the crucial importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. \u201cWhile gladly noting in modern Roman Catholic exposition a growing emphasis on Christ and the biblical promises as objects of faith and trust, we see justification by faith alone as an essential of the Gospel on which radical disagreement continues, and we deny the adequacy of any version of the Gospel that falls short at this point\u201d. This is the historic Evangelical position. Unfortunately, Packer signed in 1997 the ECT \u201cThe Gift of Salvation\u201d document which, without recanting Trent and the traditional Roman Catholic teaching on justification, says that the controversy on it is over. There is a clear contradiction between what he wrote in the \u201cResolutions\u201d and his signature under the ECT text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 3 points out that \u201cwe radically disagree with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that unbelievers may be saved by their good works, apart from faith in Christ\u201d. Fair enough, but this teaching was endorsed by John Paul II<\/a> and especially Pope Francis<\/a>, under whom the whole ECT initiative has taken place. This non-biblical teaching of Rome is another blow to the ECT claim that Evangelicals and Catholics can affirm together enough of the Gospel to be united in common mission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 4 argues that while common causes on moral and cultural issues in society are warranted, \u201cit is incorrect to regard such cooperation among Christians as common ecclesial action in fulfilling a common ecclesial mission\u201d. The \u201cResolutions\u201d argue that cooperation is one thing, mission is another. As Francis Schaeffer pointed out, while \u201cco-belligerence\u201d is possible among people of various persuasions, Gospel \u201cmission\u201d is only possible among believers in Jesus Christ on the basis of the Gospel. The two must be theologically and missiologically distinguished. However, the ECT documents commonly confuse and blur them. Even Packer conflates the two in his \u201cWhy I Signed It\u201d article when he speaks of \u201ccollaboration\u201d, \u201cministry\u201d, and \u201cecumenism\u201d interchangeably, as if they are the same (which they are not). This is perhaps one of the most negative long-term effects of the whole ECT initiative, i.e. blurring the language of Christian unity and Gospel mission by confusing co-operation in social and cultural battles with unity in Gospel mission. In this respect, Packer has not properly helped Evangelicals to discern the issues at stake. His widely acknowledged precision in theological language was not consistently practiced in ECT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 5 underlines the Evangelical passion for Christian unity according to the Gospel. In this respect, it stresses the fact that \u201cwe deny that the defined doctrines of the church\u2019s infallibility, Papal primacy, justification according to Trent, transubstantiation and eucharistic sacrifice, and the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, can be proved from Scripture, and we cannot accept any form of action that appears to imply agreement with them\u201d. Therefore, visible unity is not possible not only with the institutional Roman Catholic Church, but also with people who are convinced of these non-biblical doctrines. This message is very different from the ECT type of ecumenism that Packer has been involved in, with staunch and devout Catholics who are 100% traditional Catholics in all of these non-biblical doctrines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point N. 6 expands what Packer does mean when he refers to \u201cspiritually alive\u201d individual Catholics. \u201cWe affirm that individual Roman Catholics who for whatever reason do not self-consciously assent to the precise definitions of the Roman Catholic Magisterium regarding justification, the sole mediation of Christ, the relation between faith and the sacraments, the divine monergism of the new birth, and similar matters of Evangelical conviction, but who think and speak Evangelically about these things, are indeed our brothers and sisters in Christ, despite Rome\u2019s official position\u201d. It is striking to notice that all Roman Catholic signatories of ECT (e.g. Avery Dulles, Richard Neuhaus, Thomas Guarino) do not fit this category! They are all 100% convinced of every bit of Roman Catholic teaching (including the non-biblical parts) as it is officially defined. They are fully orbed Roman Catholics: papal, Marian, Tridentine, Vatican I and Vatican II Roman Catholics. They are not Roman Catholics \u201cdespite Rome\u2019s official position\u201d, but wholehearted defenders of it. They may \u201csound\u201d Evangelical in certain respects, but they are fully Roman Catholic in all respects. ECT was not signed with \u201ccreative\u201d Catholics, nor with Catholics critical of certain aspects of their church. When ECT speaks about unity and common mission it does so together with people who identify as 100% Roman Catholics, without any uncertainty about their Roman Catholic identity. Here Packer\u2019s inconsistency with his own criteria is again evident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Wrapping up the evaluation, it is fair to hear Packer again. In defending his involvement in ECT he wrote: \u201cWe do not seek Christian unity at the expense of Christian truth\u201d (T. George, T.C. Oden, J.I. Packer, \u201cThe Biblical Gospel\u201d, First Things<\/em>, June\/July 1998, p. 9). Elsewhere, he again wrote that his efforts were of the sort of \u201can ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation\u201d (\u201cAn Open Letter About the Gift of Salvation\u201d, Christianity Today<\/em>, 27 April 1998). This is all true. However, there were unrealistic evaluations and wrongheaded applications in his own dealings with Roman Catholicism. In the whole area of how to relate the Evangelical faith with conservatives of other Christian traditions (i.e. Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, traditional Eastern Orthodox), he has not been a reliable guide for Evangelicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Packer who helped Evangelicals to see and appreciate \u201cthe logic of penal substitution\u201d<\/a> did not help them to see \u201cthe logic of Christian unity\u201d in the same helpful way. On the latter he was inconsistent to say the least. The Packer who so helpfully unpacked the riches of an Evangelical \u201csystematic spirituality\u201d<\/a> did not help to appreciate its implications in the area of ecumenism. He was rather eclectic on the latter. While we celebrate the bountiful Evangelical legacy of Jim Packer in the desire to follow his steps, we should also be aware of his weaknesses, especially when he tried to work out what the Lord Jesus meant when he prayed \u201cthat they may be one\u201d (John 17:21).<\/p>\n

      \"Share<\/a>