What J.I. Packer Said--

[Cajun Huguenot]

Recently (2007) the 81 year old Packer spoke about the turmoil that is on going in the Anglican Communion, that has been produced by the rise of liberalism in the Anglican Churches in Western World and a large growing, orthodox, evangelical Anglican church in Africa and Asia.

In that talk Dr.Packer said this about theological liberals, "Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The intrinsic goodness of each “in thing” is taken for granted. In following this agenda the church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss."

I think Packer's assessment is a good one. I would like to know what some of you think about what Packer said.

Thanks,
Kenith

 

[semper_virens]

Completely true! The quest for "relevance" is like chasing Will o' the wisp.

 

[Secundulus]

Recently (2007) the 81 year old Packer spoke about the turmoil that is on going in the Anglican Communion, that has been produced by the rise of liberalism in the Anglican Churches in Western World and a large growing, orthodox, evangelical Anglican church in Africa and Asia.

In that talk Dr.Packer said this about theological liberals, "Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The intrinsic goodness of each “in thing” is taken for granted. In following this agenda the church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss."

I think Packer's assessment is a good one. I would like to know what some of you think about what Packer said.

Thanks,
Kenith

You are either going to be flayed alive or ignored in this forum.

 

[MKJ]

You are either going to be flayed alive or ignored in this forum.

That maybe true. So I'll say that in general I agree with Packer, though he is speaking in very general terms.

I think though the idea that we are essentially good creatures and religion is in part meant to support that is a move away from a more Reformed theology to a more traditional view, and in that sense I think it is ok. The purpose of religion is in part to make us increasingly the dwelling place of God, and increasingly God-like.

That being said, I think theological liberalism does tend to give only lip service to what sin really is and how it needs to be treated, and it especially tends to see Scripture only as what the Canadian Book of Alternative Services calls "a repository of symbols" for our use, and Tradition as even less than that.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

You are either going to be flayed alive or ignored in this forum.

Are you saying that most folks here are more in the modernest camp and don't hold to, or deny, the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith?

Kenith

 

[Secundulus]

Are you saying that most folks here are more in the modernest camp and don't hold to, or deny, the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith?

Kenith

Most of the conservatives have left.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Most of the conservatives have left.

Pity.

Liberal Churches have been hemorrhaging members for decades and it seems that trend will continue. TEC is now loosing whole dioces,e but still it chooses to move further from the historic Christian faith.

My own parish, while still in TEC, has changed the church name to Anglican and removed the name Episcopal from the church.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Polycarp1]

Pity.

Liberal Churches have been hemorrhaging members for decades and it seems that trend will continue. TEC is now loosing whole dioces,e but still it chooses to move further from the historic Christian faith.

My own parish, while still in TEC, has changed the church name to Anglican and removed the name Episcopal from the church.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Forgive me for saying this, Kenith, but the last thing STR needs is people intentionally flaming others or their churches within Anglicanism. I don't post here often because I know that, sure as I do, someone is going to get on the "ECUSA is apostate" kick. And I'm fairly sure the conservatives feel the same way about people mocking their sometimes-painful choices.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Forgive me for saying this, Kenith, but the last thing STR needs is people intentionally flaming others or their churches within Anglicanism. I don't post here often because I know that, sure as I do, someone is going to get on the "ECUSA is apostate" kick. And I'm fairly sure the conservatives feel the same way about people mocking their sometimes-painful choices.

Thanks for the heads up. I have not posted here often and perhaps it would be best to let this thread fad away.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[TomUK]

That's a great quote.

 

[ebia]

I'm always wary of anyone telling someone else what they believe or what their motivations are

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'm always wary of anyone telling someone else what they believe or what their motivations are

I may be misunderstanding you but, I think telling someone else what you believe is an important part of communication.

Kenith

 

[Polycarp1]

I may be misunderstanding you but, I think telling someone else what you believe is an important part of communication.

Kenith

You are here saying that A is (properly) telling B what A believes. What Ebia said she was chary of (properly) is A presuming to tell B what B believes, or more accurately what A has concluded that B must believe.

I am proudly a liberal in the best sense of the term; my reactions range from angry startlement to amusement to dismay at what some conservatives think "liberals" believe and why.

 

[ebia]

I may be misunderstanding you but, I think telling someone else what you believe is an important part of communication.

Kenith

Sorry, I wasn't clear. You telling me what you believe, and what your motivations are, is important. You telling me what I believe and what my motivations are is often an exercise in strawmen.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. You telling me what you believe, and what your motivations are, is important. You telling me what I believe and what my motivations are is often an exercise in strawmen.

What you say is generally true. I do know what I believe, but I don't know what you believe are anyone else on this forum.

I did start this thread by a quote from an Anglican theologian (J.I. Packer) whose opinion I hold highly. He is 84 years old and has been an ordained Anglican minister for 58 years. He has written many books that I believe to be very good. He was also strongly influenced by another Anglican that I greatly respect (C.S. Lewis).

I quoted Packer to get the opinion of what he said from folks here.

In don't believe I built any straw man here. I did state the truth about liberal denominations loosing members, and the truth that TEC still chooses to move away from tradition Christian beliefs.

If there a strawman in that, please show me what it is and I will happily repent of it.

I know what I believe and I know what Dr. Packer believes. I don't know what anyone here believes, but I am interested in getting to know what you believe.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ebia]

In don't believe I built any straw man here.

"You" and "I" can be reversed in the above, or either replaced with "he".

I wasn't suggesting that you were creating a strawman, but that Packer is in danger of doing so when he ascribes particular beliefs and motivations to "liberals". If I want to know what liberals believe and what motivates them I need to ask them (and respect the range and diversity of the response I'll get), not a conservative, however reputable.

 

[MKJ]

"You" and "I" can be reversed in the above, or either replaced with "he".

I wasn't suggesting that you were creating a strawman, but that Packer is in danger of doing so when he ascribes particular beliefs and motivations to "liberals". If I want to know what liberals believe and what motivates them I need to ask them (and respect the range and diversity of the response I'll get), not a conservative, however reputable.

It depends I think though on whether one is trying to talk about people who identify themselves as liberal, or something more abstract that one might term "liberal theology".

I think it is a rather vague term, and there are other reasons I don't like it(identification with political terms) but it is a well recognized category of theological thought. I don't think it is far out to define the characteristics of this type of theology, even if one does not subscribe to it.

Packer of course also seems to be commenting on why people have embrased liberal theology. I think there are people who have for some or all of the reasons he mentions, and some who don't. It may be that he is mostly interested in those who are driving the movement and those who have a more coherent POV about it, and so he is really only talking about those people.

I do think that he is to some extent correct though. Liberal theology does have a different understanding of the place of Scripture and Tradition, and that is pretty significant. It may be that some individuals don't think that is so, but I would say they are wrong, even if they don't percieve it. I don't think I am telling those people what they think - I am making a statement about the compatibility of certain theological methods and arguments.

So to sum up, I think he is really trying to make an argument about the necessary corollaries of a liberal theological outlook, but presenting it in an individualized, personalized way. That is, I think, a very common American form of polemical rhetoric. I agree that it tends to make thinngs worse instead of better, and focuses on individuals instead of ideas.

 

[higgs2]

Isn't he the fello who did a bible paraphrase?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Most of the conservatives have left.

Nah, they're wearing camoflage and on manoevers.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The reverse also applies. TEC likes to talk down to ACNA Anglicans as rogue, backwards conservatives who are "intolerant" and uncharitable or hate-mongers because they reject the 21st Century re-molding of the Christian faith into this pro-gay, pro-abortion, anything-goes style morality. The TEC crowd tends to call Anglicans like me "intolerant" because I'm opposed to women's ordination just as bishops like Jack Iker and John-David Schofield are.

And take a look at the lawsuit scene and who is suing whom all the time. It doesn't make for warm fuzzies between Episcopalians and ACNA Anglicans. There's a lot of bad blood. I guess the best thing to do is for both camps to go to their corners, TEC to stop suing the pants off Anglicans who left TEC, ACNA Anglicans to quit thinking about TEC and posting blogs about them and worry more about their own ministries, for both sides to pray for each other, and take a good, long, hard look at historic Christianity and compare it to the feel-good "gospel" we're hearing from modernity that has re-packaged the Lord into a vague, wishy-washy, anything-goes God who rubber-stamps our will and doesn't seek to make us uncomfortable at times.

You are here saying that A is (properly) telling B what A believes. What Ebia said she was chary of (properly) is A presuming to tell B what B believes, or more accurately what A has concluded that B must believe.

I am proudly a liberal in the best sense of the term; my reactions range from angry startlement to amusement to dismay at what some conservatives think "liberals" believe and why.