Why is J.I. Packer Anglican?

[jinc1019]

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for awhile, with no luck. I know it sounds like a strange question, but having read and listened to a decent amount of Packer at this point, it's clear he's very Reformed theologically. It seems strange to me that he would choose to be Anglican over Presbyterian or continental Reformed. Anyone know what his reasons are for being Anglican?

 

[Albion]

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for awhile, with no luck. I know it sounds like a strange question, but having read and listened to a decent amount of Packer at this point, it's clear he's very Reformed theologically. It seems strange to me that he would choose to be Anglican over Presbyterian or continental Reformed. Anyone know what his reasons are for being Anglican?

I don't know of anything that Packer believes which is unlike Anglicans--not every Anglican, of course, but then again we have Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans and plenty that's in between the two.

He is said to have been influenced by the writings of C. S. Lewis, so that might be part of a more direct answer to your question.

 

[jinc1019]

I don't know of anything that Packer believes which is unlike Anglicans--not every Anglican, of course, but then again we have Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans and plenty that's in between the two.

He is said to have been influenced by the writings of C. S. Lewis, so that might be part of a more direct answer to your question.

Hi Albion,

You are absolutely right about that, of course, but he is quite fond of the Puritans, and it seems quite strange to me why someone who rejects images of the Trinity, supports the Puritan objections to the Church of England, and is definitely a five-point Calvinist who has had close ties to R.C. Sproul to stay Anglican when Presbyterians seem to support virtually everything he does. In other words, what does Anglicanism offer that Presbyterianism cannot (in Packer's view)? Presbyterianism appears to be a better fit on the surface. The ONLY thing I could think of is that maybe Packer views the episcopacy as an essential part of church ecclesiology. I don't know what his position is on that.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

You are absolutely right about that, of course, but he is quite fond of the Puritans, and it seems quite strange to me why someone who rejects images of the Trinity, supports the Puritan objections to the Church of England, and is definitely a five-point Calvinist who has had close ties to R.C. Sproul to stay Anglican when Presbyterians seem to support virtually everything he does.

I guess we could ask that, but unless there's some reason for him NOT to be an Anglican--the national faith of his country of birth--I can't think of any reason why he or anyone in his situation would feel that they ought to make such a change. What's more (and I don't know about this for sure in his case) we all know that there is much about Anglicanism, including Low Church and Evangelical Anglicanism (both of which are stronger in the UK than in North America), which a person would have to give up in order to be a Presbyterian--the liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer, for example.

In other words, what does Anglicanism offer that Presbyterianism cannot (in Packer's view)? Presbyterianism appears to be a better fit on the surface. The ONLY thing I could think of is that maybe Packer views the episcopacy as an essential part of church ecclesiology.

Well, there's another example. Even among Evangelical Anglicans, the Episcopacy is held to be important.

 

[jinc1019]

I guess we could ask that, but unless there's some reason for him NOT to be an Anglican--the national faith of his country of birth--I can't think of any reason why he or anyone in his situation would feel that they ought to make such a change. What's more (and I don't know about this for sure in his case) we all know that there is much about Anglicanism, including Low Church and Evangelical Anglicanism (both of which are stronger in the UK than in North America), which a person would have to give up in order to be a Presbyterian--the liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer, for example.


Well, there's another example. Even among Evangelical Anglicans, the Episcopacy is held to be important.

Fair enough. My thinking was that the fact Presbyterianism is closer to Packer's theology (in the sense that it's a unified church on those issues Packer supports) is a reason to give it up and go in that direction. There are Reformed churches that embrace liturgy, of course, but you're right that Anglicanism has a much stronger liturgical tradition (obviously).

 

[Albion]

Fair enough. My thinking was that the fact Presbyterianism is closer to Packer's theology (in the sense that it's a unified church on those issues Packer supports) is a reason to give it up and go in that direction.

I understand the thinking, but there's a lot of difference on other matters between these churches. I'd say that, even today when there are Anglicans/Episcopalians who think their church has gone off the rails and they look around, Presbyterianism--even if one is a 5 pointer--has quite a different feel and style.

To be fair, I do know some people who have gone this route, but I couldn't do it and didn't do so even during the dark days before there was any Anglican alternative to TEC in most of this country. Lutheranism seemed a possibility, but Presbyterianism?? That's a tough transition. Plus, you referred to "Puritans," so that's to suggest an even less comfortable alternative.

And one more thing. Packer has long held positions of responsibility and influence in Anglicanism. If he had become (for some reason) an outcast among his own people, I'd think your suggestion might have been somewhat more appealing, but that's a desperation move, and the circumstances never warranted it.

 

[jinc1019]

I understand the thinking, but there's a lot of difference on other matters between these churches. I'd say that, even today when there are Anglicans/Episcopalians who think their church has gone off the rails and they look around, Presbyterianism--even if one is a 5 pointer--has quite a different feel and style.

To be fair, I do know some people who have gone this route, but I couldn't do it and didn't do so even during the dark days before there was any Anglican alternative to TEC in most of this country. Lutheranism seemed a possibility, but Presbyterianism?? That's a tough transition. Plus, you referred to "Puritans," so that's to suggest an even less comfortable alternative.

And one more thing. Packer has long held positions of responsibility and influence in Anglicanism. If he had become (for some reason) an outcast among his own people, I'd think your suggestion might have been somewhat more appealing, but that's a desperation move, and the circumstances never warranted it.

Any chance you could elaborate more on why it would feel so uncomfortable (my word, not yours) in a Presbyterian church? I've been to several Presbyterian services, but I've been to many more Anglican services and grew up Roman Catholic, so liturgical worship is something I'm much more familiar with. I won't put words in your mouth, but the biggest differences I've noticed are: 1. Infrequent lord's supper; 2. less of an emphasis on the sacraments in general; 3. tends to be a loose liturgy. At one local Presbyterian church, they sing more traditional hymns, have a moment for private confession, recite the creed (sometimes sing it), and they follow a simple liturgy for some of the service. It's probably comparable to low-church Anglicanism in England. Some other differences: no kneeling when receiving lord's supper, no kneeling at any point, no bowing, no crucifix, no stained glass windows.

 

[Albion]

Any chance you could elaborate more on why it would feel so uncomfortable (my word, not yours) in a Presbyterian church?

All right.

They aren't liturgical. Their polity is wrong (IMO). Their view of Real Presence is unique but very questionable. Anglicans are not Puritans and there's still a lot of that prohibitionist thinking still around in Presbyterian circles. In addition, the conservative Presbyterians are inclined towards fundamentalism, nit picking every last iota of every issue of faith and practice.

They're dignified and some at least are conservative, and they share some values and beliefs with us, but it's really quite a different 'world' over there, IMO.

I've been to several Presbyterian services, but I've been to many more Anglican services and grew up Roman Catholic, so liturgical worship is something I'm much more familiar with. I won't put words in your mouth, but the biggest differences I've noticed are: 1. Infrequent lord's supper;

Good point. I neglected to mention it.

2. less of an emphasis on the sacraments in general

True.

3. tends to be a loose liturgy. At one local Presbyterian church, they sing more traditional hymns, have a moment for private confession, recite the creed (sometimes sing it), and they follow a simple liturgy for some of the service. It's probably comparable to low-church Anglicanism in England. Some other differences: no kneeling when receiving lord's supper, no kneeling at any point, no bowing, no crucifix, no stained glass windows.

Yep.

 

[jinc1019]

All right.

They aren't liturgical. Their polity is wrong (IMO). Their view of Real Presence is unique but very questionable. Anglicans are not Puritans and there's still a lot of that prohibitionist thinking still around in Presbyterian circles. In addition, the conservative Presbyterians are inclined towards fundamentalism, nit picking every last iota of every issue of faith and practice.

They're dignified and some at least are conservative, and they share some values and beliefs with us, but it's really quite a different 'world' over there, IMO.


Good point. I neglected to mention it.


True.


Yep.

Very interesting. Thanks for the perspective, as always. I think their view of the real presence could be correct (as taught by Calvin), but that it's better just to call the whole presence thing a REAL presence (in whatever form) and a mystery, rather than try to explain exactly how it works (although, I do understand why they do try to explain).

I haven't spent enough time around Presbyterians to say I've experienced "fundamentalism," although I have read some writers who seem to lean in that direction. R.C. Sproul and other popular Presbyterian apologists aren't fundamentalists, in my view.

 

[Albion]

Very interesting. Thanks for the perspective, as always. I think their view of the real presence could be correct (as taught by Calvin), but that it's better just to call the whole presence thing a REAL presence (in whatever form) and a mystery, rather than try to explain exactly how it works (although, I do understand why they do try to explain).

I like that answer, but isn't the Reformed idea a bit much? I am very comfortable with the idea that the Supper is real but only in a spiritual way. However, to stipulate that we are transported to heaven to be in the presence at that moment, etc. etc. is just unwarranted IMHO. It's nice in a way, almost grand, but it's without any basis that I can see.

I haven't spent enough time around Presbyterians to say I've experienced "fundamentalism," although I have read some writers who seem to lean in that direction. R.C. Sproul and other popular Presbyterian apologists aren't fundamentalists, in my view.

I don't want to name names or point fingers, but I have been interested in this possible alternative in the past, mainly because (as I noted before) I know some Anglicans who have made that move and I consider them to be careful and conscientious. This was before you asked your question here. But when I check into the only possible choices--OPC or PCA--I find such legalisms and hair-splitting definitions, coupled with a real self-righteousness, that I'm just turned off. I'm referring to what is posted on the denominational websites.

 

[jinc1019]

I like that answer, but isn't the Reformed idea a bit much? I am very comfortable with the idea that the Supper is real but only in a spiritual way. However, to stipulate that we are transported to heaven to be in the presence at that moment, etc. etc. is just unwarranted IMHO. It's nice in a way, almost grand, but it's without any basis that I can see.

I can definitely relate to this. The whole idea is driven by Christological concerns, namely that the Bible clearly states Jesus ascended into Heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will only come again at the final judgment. In other words, if Jesus is in Heaven, how can Jesus be here on Earth in the Lord's Supper (either spiritually or physically)? That's the concern they have. If you say, "spiritually," they'll say that now you're separating Jesus' divine and human natures (or mixing them, depending on your response). This concern has been addressed in a lot of different ways. Lutherans suggest that "the right hand of the Father" isn't really a location in the way humans normally think of it, for instance. Others, such as Eastern Orthodox, just affirm a real, local presence but say it's all a mystery. John Wesley also held to a "mystery" view, although he leaned more in the Calvinist direction on that one.

In my opinion (and I am, of course, no one important), it makes far more sense just to say, "Jesus is present, Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, and I don't know how all that works, but it does."

With that said, when you understand the underlying concern, I think the idea is more reasonable that it may appear at first glance. Also, if you read Calvin in the Institutes at length on this point (beginning with his chapter on the sacraments), what you see is that the view is much more nuanced than what you described, even though that's the view many people attribute to Calvin (including many Presbyterians). His actual position is much more careful (again, in my opinion).

I don't want to name names or point fingers, but I have been interested in this possible alternative in the past, mainly because (as I noted before) I know some Anglicans who have made that move and I consider them to be careful and conscientious. This was before you asked your question here. But when I check into the only possible choices--OPC or PCA--I find such legalisms and hair-splitting definitions, coupled with a real self-righteousness, that I'm just turned off. I'm referring to what is posted on the denominational websites.

When I have read OPC sources, that has definitely been true in my experience. PCA sources have seemed less strict and Puritanical (not that the Puritans were all bad; J.I. Packer loves them!)

I've also spent a lot of time reading/listening/watching things produced by R.C. Sproul and others affiliated with Ligonier Ministries (which is led by Sproul). They tend NOT to be the kind of nit-pickers you mentioned before. In fact, Sproul has taken heat over the years for some of his "odd" views (by Presbyterian standards). For instance, at his church in Florida, he has murals of Jesus, etc. and has openly advocated for displaying pictures of Christ (although, he says people should be very careful with how they depict him). This man is an active PCA pastor and clearly not a fundamentalist. Further, John Frame, who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary (if I remember correctly), has spent a ton of time writing about a non-traditional view of the Regulative Principle that many Anglicans would feel more comfortable with (although, Anglo-Catholics would not).

I guess my experiences have been different than yours, and that it probably one reason I feel a little more comfortable. I think within the PCA and probably parts of the OPC, you'll get people who would be evangelical Anglicans in England, and you'll get others who are much more strict in terms of how they interpret and apply the various Reformed confessions, such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.

 

[Albion]

I can definitely relate to this. The whole idea is driven by Christological concerns, namely that the Bible clearly states Jesus ascended into Heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will only come again at the final judgment. In other words, if Jesus is in Heaven, how can Jesus be here on Earth in the Lord's Supper (either spiritually or physically)? That's the concern they have.

Well, you asked what made me uncomfortable, and this kind of rationalization reminds me of the way Catholics justify saint worship or Purgatory. We have the words of Christ and we know that transubstantiation is nonsense, so to believe it's really Christ's body but not the literal physical one that he had on the occasion of the Last Supper is, to me, the most Scriptural and yet also the most sensible view. In any case, it's a significant point of disagreement.

If you say, "spiritually," they'll say that now you're separating Jesus' divine and human natures (or mixing them, depending on your response).

They'd be wrong, then.

In my opinion (and I am, of course, no one important), it makes far more sense just to say, "Jesus is present, Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, and I don't know how all that works, but it does."

OK. That's often heard from Anglicans. I stand with the Articles of Religion and the Prayerbook, myself, so that's probably why I went into more detail about the Real Presence.

When I have read OPC sources, that has definitely been true in my experience. PCA sources have seemed less strict and Puritanical (not that the Puritans were all bad; J.I. Packer loves them!)

I've also spent a lot of time reading/listening/watching things produced by R.C. Sproul and others affiliated with Ligonier Ministries (which is led by Sproul). They tend NOT to be the kind of nit-pickers you mentioned before.

Oh, I don't doubt this for a moment, but way back a number of posts ago the idea was about changing churches, not just appreciating Calvinist thinking. That being the case, and neither Packer nor I being theological liberals, the conversation almost has to turn to the OPC and PCA specifically.

I guess my experiences have been different than yours, and that it probably one reason I feel a little more comfortable. I think within the PCA and probably parts of the OPC, you'll get people who would be evangelical Anglicans in England

This is probably right, too, but almost academic since neither Packer nor I live in England.

 

[jinc1019]

Well, you asked what made me uncomfortable, and this kind of rationalization reminds me of the way Catholics justify saint worship or Purgatory. We have the words of Christ and we know that transubstantiation is nonsense, so to believe it's really Christ's body but not the literal physical one that he had on the occasion of the Last Supper is, to me, the most Scriptural and yet also the most sensible view. In any case, it's a significant point of disagreement.


They'd be wrong, then.


OK. That's often heard from Anglicans. I stand with the Articles of Religion and the Prayerbook, myself, so that's probably why I went into more detail about the Real Presence.


Oh, I don't doubt this for a moment, but way back a number of posts ago the idea was about changing churches, not just appreciating Calvinist thinking. That being the case, and neither Packer nor I being theological liberals, the conversation almost has to turn to the OPC and PCA specifically.


This is probably right, too, but almost academic since neither Packer nor I live in England.

All good points. I think you and I probably agree (nearly completely) on the Lord's Supper and many other things. Theologically, I doubt there is much we don't have in common. I guess the reason I'm a bit confused by J.I. Packer's decision is because it mirrors a lot of my own struggles. I'd love to know his reasons since I think it would probably help me sort out my own issues.

For me, the biggest worries about Anglicanism have to do with its really, really big tent and my concern for female bishops (which hasn't happened yet in orthodox Anglicanism, but I see as something that could definitely occur within the next decade or two). To elaborate more on the big tent comment: I don't have a problem worshiping with people who think differently than I do. I've probably gone to more worship services in other denominations than 99% of Christians in America today. However, I do think there are some Anglo-Catholic teachings (especially intercession of the saints, statues of Mary) that I feel really uncomfortable being a part of. I also would feel really uncomfortable with a pastor who is Wesleyan. You're not going to get those issues in Presbyterianism. Of course, you also have some important things missing, too. Plain worship spaces (not every church is that way, but most are), trying to over-explain every little detail of the faith (such as debating whether we should have wedding rings, etc.), and infrequent communion (in most churches) are big problems for me.

I know there is no such thing as a perfect church, and most people today wouldn't worry about these "minor" theological details, but after reading the various debates held by the Reformers and Catholics at the time of the Reformation, I guess their concern for these problems (or potential problems) rubbed off on me.

 

[Albion]

...You're not going to get those issues in Presbyterianism. Of course, you also have some important things missing, too. Plain worship spaces (not every church is that way, but most are), trying to over-explain every little detail of the faith (such as debating whether we should have wedding rings, etc.), and infrequent communion (in most churches) are big problems for me.

I completely agree. There is a trade off. And from my study of Christian churches, that's going to be the case with just about any denomination short of a cult. Look at Presbyterianism in general in the way that we've been discussing "Anglicanism."

It's NOT as though it is uniform and united on doctrine and practice. The PCUSA has recently lurched Left and is moving to catch up with TEC, ELCA, and the UCC. Sure, we can focus on a hypothetical switch to the PCA, let's say, but at the same time, we'd have to compare that to joining, for instance, one of the Continuing Anglican church bodies in which there is relatively little disagreement on anything significant.

I know there is no such thing as a perfect church, and most people today wouldn't worry about these "minor" theological details, but after reading the various debates held by the Reformers and Catholics at the time of the Reformation, I guess their concern for these problems (or potential problems) rubbed off on me.

And I'm like that, too, which may be why we have agreed here much more often than not.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I always thought the Presbyterian view of the Eucharist was very similar if not the same as that described by the Articles. Neither teach that Jesus is in the bread and wine. I suppose the Presbyterian view attempts to explain more than the Articles?

I have tended to think that the prayer books' rubrics on the proper way of handling any leftover elements of the Sacrament may indicate a theological difference as Presbyterians may simply throw it in the garbage or down the sink. That practice has made me too uncomfortable to commune in some churches as I cannot imagine taking the Sacrament for it later to be treated that way even though I'm not prone to say it's heresy.

 

[jinc1019]

I always thought the Presbyterian view of the Eucharist was very similar if not the same as that described by the Articles. Neither teach that Jesus is in the bread and wine. I suppose the Presbyterian view attempts to explain more than the Articles?

I have tended to think that the prayer books' rubrics on the proper way of handling any leftover elements of the Sacrament may indicate a theological difference as Presbyterians may simply throw it in the garbage or down the sink. That practice has made me too uncomfortable to commune in some churches as I cannot imagine taking the Sacrament for it later to be treated that way even though I'm not prone to say it's heresy.

Good response. I think you're right about all of this, although we need to distinguish between the Presbyterian confessions and the common teaching. Many Reformed pastors/theologians have a very low (lower than Calvin) view of the Lord's Supper. Although I don't think you're wrong about any of the things you mentioned, I think it's interesting to note that J.I. Packer is quite Reformed theologically, too, and has often said the Puritans were right on almost everything (I'm not sure if he has disagreements with them or not, but it's certainly possible). Thus, even if you disagree with what Presbyterians teach, I'm not sure Packer does, and that's why I am a little baffled. However, I did receive a good resource in another thread I have yet to read through written by Packer himself. Once I read that, I'll report back.

-J

 

[Hungarus]

I think this is very interesting:

http://missionsociety.blogspot.hu/2009/09/bishop-keith-ackerman-visits-with-texas.html

From the article (italics mine):

He (Bishop Ackerman - H.) spoke of his great joy in visiting with evangelical Anglicans around the world and demonstrating to them that their views were actually the historic Anglo-Catholic views, while dismantling the caricatures built up regarding Anglo-Catholics as more interested in Mary than in mission and the spread of the Gospel in Christ Jesus. He said that his one of greatest moments of joy in dialogue were when J.I Packer said, after one of Bishop Ackerman’s presentations, “Well, if anyone had told me twenty years ago that I would be agreeing with the Anglo-Catholic position on anything, I would have laughed in his face. Today, I find that I agree to the point of calling myself an Evangelical Catholic.”

 

[jinc1019]

I think this is very interesting:

http://missionsociety.blogspot.hu/2009/09/bishop-keith-ackerman-visits-with-texas.html

From the article (italics mine):

Yes, interesting indeed. But I think this answer, provided by CF user Hedrick, is the answer to the question (albeit, a very long one):

http://www.virtueonline.org/anglican-commitment-comprehensiveness-jipacker

Basically, Packer's argument is that within the orthodox (as opposed to liberal) framework of traditional Christianity, a certain degree of tolerance for various views on a number of issues (including the sacraments, church polity, etc.) should be present. This, in Packer's view, does not mean there is no "right" answer or that he agrees with all of the different views. In fact, he stresses throughout the document he believes in traditional, reformed, evangelical Anglicanism. However, he says the best way for the church to eventually become of one mind is not to separate, but to stay together (so long as the orthodox framework is still present) and work out the disagreements in house. He basically says that if all good Reformed Christians run off to their own private churches/denominations, it's not likely we'll ever have unity.

He also alludes, without going into too many specifics, to the fact that many Protestant churches are quite rigid about things that should be considered "non-essential." In other words, does the Bible specifically mandate a presbyterian polity? Packer suggests it doesn't. He also seems quite willing to accept a variety of views on the Eucharist (not transubstantiation) and baptism.

In the end, it comes down to how Christians should live and interact with one another when it comes to doctrinal debates/disputes. As long as we're still under the orthodox tent (the historic understanding of the Creeds, etc.), Packer suggests we should all be able to argue with one another as members of a loving family do, with the notion that although we may disagree, we're still family and shouldn't separate (my comparison, not his).

 

[David Goforth]

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for awhile, with no luck. I know it sounds like a strange question, but having read and listened to a decent amount of Packer at this point, it's clear he's very Reformed theologically. It seems strange to me that he would choose to be Anglican over Presbyterian or continental Reformed. Anyone know what his reasons are for being Anglican?

I'm very new to this forum. Please forgive me for responding to an old Post. I'm Anglican, and I particularly say it's seems perfectly normal for J.I. Packer to remain Anglican. He left his liberal Anglican church, and joined the more conservative (evangelical / Bible focused) Anglican Church in North America. Sola Scriptura / Sola Fide is in official Anglican theology (see Article 6 and Article 11 of the 39 Articles of Religion). Many of us take it seriously. Also, we view the liturgical pattern of worship as being very important for our growth in Jesus Christ. Packer probably agrees with that and as a Christian the liturgy was/is important for him. I grew up in a traditional Presbyterian Church. I have experienced a difference. Also, many of us care about the pastoral office of the Bishop.

 

[David Goforth]

I completely agree. There is a trade off. And from my study of Christian churches, that's going to be the case with just about any denomination short of a cult. Look at Presbyterianism in general in the way that we've been discussing "Anglicanism."

It's NOT as though it is uniform and united on doctrine and practice. The PCUSA has recently lurched Left and is moving to catch up with TEC, ELCA, and the UCC. Sure, we can focus on a hypothetical switch to the PCA, let's say, but at the same time, we'd have to compare that to joining, for instance, one of the Continuing Anglican church bodies in which there is relatively little disagreement on anything significant.


And I'm like that, too, which may be why we have agreed here much more often than not.

Well, if you care about the evangelical/protestant face of Anglicanism, there are many churches in the Anglican Church in North America out there. However, if you care about the Catholic face, there are of course many Continuing Anglo-Catholic Churches who hold onto their 1928 BCP. Many Anglo-Catholic Churches are in ACNA, though it remains to be seen if they stay. I like both, but my core is Evangelical.