Packer’s papal mistake?

The global church owes a debt of gratitude to James I. Packer (1926–2020). 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, and the interplay between theology and spirituality. This is to say that, if I dare critique one minor – albeit significant – instance of his theological involvement, I do so out of immense respect.

It is no secret that in Packer’s theological biography his involvement with the ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ (ECT) initiative 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’s minds.

‘Why I Signed It’

ECT is a document released in 1994, but it is also the name of an ongoing informal dialogue that has been taking place in the US context ever since. His signature appears at the end of all ECT documents up to 2012: Evangelicals and Catholics Together (1994), The Gift of Salvation (1997), Your Word is Truth (2002), The Communion of Saints (2003), The Call to Holiness (2004), That They May Have Life (2006), Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life (2009), and In Defense of Religious Freedom (2012). On the whole, ECT sentimentalises the sense of ‘togetherness’ 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.

The criticism after the first statement led him to write an article entitled ‘Why I Signed It’ (Christianity Today, 12 Dec. 1994, pp. 34-37). In it Packer states what he considers possible and feasible: ‘I have long thought that informal grassroots collaboration with Roman Catholics in ministry is the most fruitful sort of ecumenism that one can practice nowadays’.

Then Packer goes on to argue as to why ‘the Roman system’ is ‘unacceptable’. He is aware that Roman Catholicism is an integrated whole that is ‘theologically flawed’, especially because it misconceives the nature of the church, blurs justification by faith, and attaches infallibility to church pronouncements. As a matter of fact, ‘Protestant and Catholic church systems stand opposed’. In an interview a few years later, Packer argued: ‘Roman 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’ (‘Discipline of Debate’, Evangelicals Now, Nov.2000, p.13). Why was he then apparently naïve in his involvement in ECT?

‘Resolutions for Roman Catholic & Evangelical Dialogue’

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’ (Modern Reformation, 1994), drafted together with Michael Horton to provide some ‘agenda suggestions’ for the future.

On key points, these ‘Resolutions’ are inconsistent with what ECT stands for. For example, according to them the alleged ‘consensus’ between Evangelicals and Catholics on the ‘ancient creeds’ is not on the ‘essential elements of the gospel’, but ECT argues the contrary. The ‘Resolutions’ argue that cooperation is one thing, mission is another; ECT blurs the two. The ‘Resolutions’ say that ‘spiritually alive’ Roman Catholics need to be critical of Rome’s unbiblical dogmas, but ECT Roman Catholics signatories are all 100% Roman Catholics, affirming every single dogma.

In defending his involvement in ECT he wrote: ‘We do not seek Christian unity at the expense of Christian truth’ (T. George, T.C. Oden, J.I. Packer, ‘The Biblical Gospel’, First Things, June/July 1998, p.9). This is true. However, there were unrealistic evaluations and wrongheaded applications in his own dealings with Roman Catholicism.

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 ‘that they may be one’ (John 17:21).