PCUSA Evangelical Identity: Yesterday and Today Guided by JI Packer and NT Wright

 In light of all that is going on in the denomination of which I am ordained, the PCUSA, I sat down and read with great interest ANGLICAN EVANGELICAL IDENTITY: Yesterday and Today by JI Packer and NT Wright. My reason for engaging this text was to ask the question as whether there significance as to how the Evangelical Anglicans within the worldwide Anglican Communion and Evangelical Presbyterians within the PCUSA and the worldwide Presbyterian Church addressed their future. The book says that it seeks to ask: "What does it mean to be an Anglican? And Evangelical? Can these two identities be held together with integrity? Where the church seems to be fragmenting, how should we relate to the rest of the Anglican Church?" I and many others are asking the same questions in relationship to the PCUSA, especially after the gathering in Orlando last week and with so many seeking to discern what this relationship will look like in the near and long-term future.

Thirty years ago two influential Anglican thinkers, J.I. Packer and N.T. Wright, addressed these questions in short and provocative Latimer Studies. Their work remains stimulating and important, and is republished here for a new generation, with fresh prefaces from each author reflecting on recent developments. "The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem" (Packer, 1978) addressed Anglican evangelicals who were unsure whether it was warrantable to continue as Anglicans. "Evangelical Anglican Identity: The Connection Between Bible, Gospel & Church"(Wright, 1980) builds upon Packer's study, addressing Evangelical attitudes to the church. "A Kind of Noah's Ark?" (Packer, 1981) had in view clergy and laity who were baffled and discouraged by the continually broadening spectrum of tolerated unorthodoxies within the Church of England, and in particular the hesitations felt by young men called to be pastors who were unsure whether it made sense to pursue their vocation as Anglicans. All three pieces were thus tracts for the times, but are astonishingly relevant today. J. I. Packer is Board of Governors' Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is one of the most important evangelical theologians of the last fifty years. N. T. Wright was the Bishop of Durham and now professor at St Andrews University in Scotland, and a highly respected New Testament scholar, publishing at both academic and popular levels.

While it must be admitted that there are obvious differences between the Anglican and Presbyterian situations, the book raises some excellent points for discussion and further engagements. From the outset, the more recent reflections by Packer and Wright have great import for us as Presbyterians. Packer argues that the two main issues which have brought us to this point in our respective histories seem to be around the issues of sexuality and the convergence/plurality/relativism of all religions. For him, the future lies in "thinking globally rather than domestically" and secondly in "thinking of the future rather than the past" and thirdly in "thinking theocentrically/christocentrically rather than institutionally." Wright takes a totally different approach and suggests that Evangelical Anglicans and other Evangelicals within mainline churches should first appreciate their "membership in a worldwide fellowship"; secondly, that there is a need to understand that the issues evangelicals face have shifted and particularly around the issues of theology and ethics; thirdly, that the unifying factors of evangelicals in the mainlines that once kept us together have eroded and disappeared, particularly around the styles and modes of public worship; fourthly, that there has been a significant shift away from how leadership has been viewed in Anglicanism (the role of bishops) and Presbyterianism (whether representative (presbyterian) or populist (congregational) democracy centered upon elders/presbyters). Wright concludes that "we need to pray and seek an Evangelical Anglicanism/Presbyterianism Identity that is "rethought once more around the Bible, the Gospel and the Church, always rooted in prayer, and always should be. God is God. Jesus is Lord. The Holy Spirit is powerful and unpredictable" and that "the only identity that really matters is that of the humble Christian holding the world and the church before God in earnest and fervent prayer and ready then to work when, where, how and with whom God directs."

Packer and Wright then go on to explore THE EVANGELICAL IDENTITY PROBLEM. First, Packer's perspective. He calls evangelicals to take seriously its attitudes towards doctrine and the church by reminding us that we need to have a deep commitment to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the Church of Jesus Christ. Secondly, that we are committed to a practical, pure, unifying and rational witness which reflects our fundamental convictions of the supremacy of Holy Scripture, the majesty of Jesus Christ, the Lordship of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of conversion, the priority of evangelism and the importance of true Christian fellowship centered upon the triune God.

Then Wright speaks of "the connection between Bible, Gospel and Church in relationship to the problem of evangelical identity" within the mainline church. He speaks of a tale of two circles as to how evangelicals within the mainline churches perceive themselves. First, is that of Dogmatic Exclusivistswho see themselves as separate entities in relationship to the denominations to which they 'belong'. Second, is that of Establishment Inclusivists who see themselves as one party within the denomination. Third, is that of Idealistic Constitutionalists who see themselves (in the case of Presbyterianism contra Anglicanism) as Presbyterian Evangelicals rather than Evangelical Presbyterians. Fourth and lastly, is that of Contemporary Realists who see themselves as being "in the denomination but not of the denomination".

After engaging several issues between evangelicals and their place in the mainline, Wright returns to ask the question "Evangelical, Anglican/Presbyterian...and Confused?"Wright says that it is absolutely necessary for evangelicals to engage in the issue of how "the Biblical Gospel is to be rethought creatively by every generation of Christians, not to undercut what we already know but to develop and mature our understanding of it [and that] our aim will be to encourage our fellow [Presbyterians] to join us in a continual reformation so as to grow into the full truth of Bible, Gospel and Church in such a way that the [Presbyterian] circle may be enlarged and re-centered."

Packer concludes the book with the question "A Kind of Noah's Ark?: A Commitment to Comprehensiveness" which I found to be fascinating if not at times troubling as to the future of being an evangelical within the PCUSA, where he seeks to define Evangelical Identity within the category of Anglican/Presbyterian Comprehensiveness and in terms of "Virtue or Vice? A Likely Story? and The Hard Made Decision." Here Packer says that evangelicals should "see themselves as holding in trust for the rest of the church a heritage of truth and insight, perceptions of reality and duty, and traditions of stockpiled wisdom and spiritual experience which form part of the wealth laid up in Jesus Christ for all."

Packer saying that the fundamental truths to which evangelicals are identified and defined are:

1.) The Supremacy of Scripture. 2.) The Majesty of Jesus Christ. 3.) The Lordship of the Holy Spirit. 4.) The Necessity of Conversion. 5.) The Priority of Evangelism and Mission. 6.) The Fellowship of Faithful Believers.

He then asks whether or not evangelicals should pursue  an "unlimited comprehensiveness" within the mainline (Can we just not all get along?) or a "withdrawal" (come out from them and be separate). To answer this within the Anglicanism he looks to Charles Simeon (1759-1836) and JC Ryle (1816-1900) both of whom valued the evangelical witness within mainline Anglicanism.

It is Packer's challenge in the last paragraph of the book that is most telling..after speaking of being an "Anglican by choice" and recognizing the "ongoing doctrinal conflict" and a deep "sense of proportion" and perspective ("By God's mercy the Church though disorderly is far from dead and there is no solid reason to suppose that those who contend for the historic Gospel are fighting a losing battle.")...he concluded that "The argument that I have been using to justify the hard-made decision of allegiance is one of principle, namely that the way in which tolerance obliges you to cope with the doctrinal disorder is, though taxing, the best way both for you and the Church as a whole; and this argument does not draw any of its forces from rosy hopes for the future...particularly on the the doctrinal/ethical front I do in fact entertain rosy hopes [for] all 'reduced Christianities' will no doubt always be with us and it is not my though that a good heave now would rid us of them for all time. I simply urge that the way of dealing with them which has been described will continue to be the right and proper/faithful way, however angry and upset their existence makes you feel and whether the Church seems for the moment to be gaining doctrinal/ethical purity or losing it. The motto of Oak Hill Theological College [in England where Packer once taught] is "Be Right and Persist" and that is the practical summons to which, as it seems to me, is the right one."

Much to think and pray about. Again I am grateful for those who have fought the good fight and sought to live out a Christian Faith seeking Understanding and being faithful to the evangelical, ecumenical and orthodox faith of Christianity in its Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant forms. Would value your insights either from within or outside Presbyterianism.

 

Comments

[Samuel]

from Basic Stott - interview with John Stott
The article originally appeared as the cover story for Christianity Today's January 8, 1996, issue.

But no Christian can give unqualified allegiance to any institution. What, for you, would be the signals that it is time to leave the Church of England?

(1) The major doctrinal errors concern the person and work of Christ. It's clear in 1 John that anyone who denies the divine-human person of Jesus is anti-Christ. So, if the church were officially to deny the Incarnation, it would be an apostate church and one would have to leave.

(2) There's the work of Christ. In Galatians, if anybody denies the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone, that is anathema: Paul calls down the judgment of God upon that person.

(3) On the major ethical issues: the best example is the incestuous offender in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul called on the church to excommunicate him. If you want me to stick my neck out, I think I would say that if the church were officially to approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage, this so far diverges from biblical sexual ethics that I would find it exceedingly difficult to stay. I might want to stay on and fight for a few more years, but if they persisted, I would have to leave.

[Bryan Burton]

I would go back and read Stott's The Living Church (also see one of my earlier blogs) and his essay entitled "Why I am Still an Anglican". One of the interesting realities is that Anglican ecclesiology has allowed someone like JI Packer to recently leave the Anglican Church of Canada to be part of another Anglican community and still be included in the worldwide Anglican communion. This is one of my concerns that we are being very "typically" US-American in our ecclesiology. That NT Wright has chosen not to leave but to continue to bear faithful witness is also significant. My wife and I were fortunate to be able to visit Dr Stott during his final months and his words were "Fight On with the Love of Christ and the Truth of the Gospel". This still remains a difficult issue to navigate. My problem is that I do not hear, read or see a strong ecclesiology among evangelicals in the PCUSA. For me, I am simply trying to inject this voice into the conversation by those who have engaged it with grace and wisdom, love and truth, humility and conviction.

[Dave Moody]

Bryan,
Thanks for posting this, great discussion and helpful.

The Anglican system does seem to have certain advantages, not available to us presbyterians, when it comes to 'thinking globally' instruments of unity - that allow for greater space and freedom of conscience than we have. Southern bishops who will give pastoral oversight to parishes in distress, etc.. The Anglican communion is more organic than anything we have - WARC (or whatever we're calling it now), etc... I'm just not sure how our polity and the vows we take, can flex enough to allow many evangelicals to remain - even as the 'loyal opposition' - without searing consciences. Especially in light of the third, ethical challenge, Stott said was a deal breaker for him back in 1996.

Does a multiplicity of presby denoms necessarily point to a weak ecclesiology? If so- in light of the christological and ethical challenges foisted upon us- what is one to do- other than look for oversight and fellowship in one of those other presby denoms?

As you can tell- I'm confused as to the wise way forward... thanks for writing about this...

[Brian Moss]

There is a lot of good stuff to wrestle with here. I'd like to hear your response to the following from 1st Presbyterian in Colorado Springs.

http://www.faithpres.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ten-Theological-Challenges-Facing-the-PCUSA.pdf

As you are no doubt aware, their session, after "great thought and fervent prayer", has voted to leave the PCUSA and move into the ECO.