Theologian calls on Rowan Williams to resign

Theologian Jim Packer, 81, who had his Anglican licence removed and is now a priest with the Anglican Network in Canada, under Gregory Venables' jurisdiction, has called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign. He was speaking at Holy Trinity, Eastbourne and Dave Walker has more details at his Church Times blog. My contention, voiced here at Gafcon, is that the views of a preacher unlikely to be recognised by Cantuar and who according to David Virtue does not deign to use mobile, computer or any of the new technologies actually do not matter very much. But Virtue in the press room here at Gafcon tells me he is still important. Am interested in what readers here think and have posted full text of his remarks below.

Packer was asked: 'If you were to have five minutes with the Archbishop of Canterbury, what would you say?'

He replied: ‘Well if I said to him all that I think, and I might and I might not, I would have to say to him, look sir, you are not qualified just at the moment to lead the Anglican Communion, for on this issue of whether or not people should yield to homosexual temptation, you are over a barrel.

'Before you became Archbishop, you went in to print cautiously approving gay relationships.  It is known, and you don’t deny, that you have ordained at least one person who is a practising homosexual.  Now you say that you are seeking to uphold the Anglican consensus of the Lambeth conference of 1998 which says that homosexual behaviour is absolutely off limits, but when asked whether you have changed your own mind on this matter, you say no.  I cannot pretend to believe what I don’t believe and all of this of course is documented.  He has been asked that question and that is the answer he has given.

'I would say with great respect Archbishop, I believe that the way of wisdom is for you to resign.  Now that of course is very bold and tough talk and if I wasn’t in my 80’s, I might not feel that I had the gall to answer your question in the direct way that I have done, but that is what I would like to say to the Archbishop and I believe that it would be the kindest thing to say to him.  He really is over a barrel on this matter.’

Comments

[Timothy Edwards]

Do the views of Jim Packer matter?

They matter very much: Dr Packer has been massively influential on many people - there is no-one currently writing/speaking who can more claim to be the elder statesman of global evangelicalism. That alone means that he matters.

(Suggested summer reading for those unfamiliar with James I. Packer: His "Knowing God", a 20th century spiritual classic, much re-printed; the collection of some of his shorter works, introduced and edited by Prof Alistair McGrath, and Prof McGrath's biography of Packer.)

[Phil Craig]

He is well respected among evangelicals--he occupies a similar position to John Stott in affections if not in his official position (and I share a high opinion of him). If you think Stott's opinions matter, you will probably think Packer's opinions matter as well.

[Mark Meynell]

Whether or not Cantuar heeds this call is one thing; but the media through which the person makes that call is surely completely irrelevant. I've not read or heard precisely what JIP was saying - there is no question about Packer being an elder statesman of global evangelicalism and that is why his views 'should matter'. So what if he doesn't use the so-called 'new technologies'! Surely you're not buying into the flawed and dangerous notion that the 'message IS the medium' now, are you Ruth?!

[David Palmer]

Jim Packer has been incredibly influential amongst English speaking evangalicals (probably excluding North American evangelicals), author of many widely read books, Fundementalism and the Word of God, Evangelism and the Sovereignity of God, Keep in step with the Spirit come to mind, and all of which will have sold in large quantities.

I'm shocked by how he has aged in your photo of him, but then he is 81 - how time flies.

Obviously he has been deeply distressed by the declension in the Canadian Church and the treatment metered by by Michael Ingham

[Bp David Chislett]

"the views of a preacher unlikely to be recognised by Cantuar and who according to David Virtue does not deign to use mobile, computer or any of the new technologies actually do not matter very much."

Ruth, I can't believe you have written this. Dr Packer is a formidible scholar, still grudgingly respected by his opponents in academia, and someone who in his own way has worked for the unity of orthodox Christians from different backgrounds. He relates to others with graciousness and honesty. He is respected by Anglo-catholics as well as by Evangelicals; indeed, he is part of the "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" dialogue in the USA. His de-licensing in Canada is a scandal of the highest order, and if someone of his stature and humility has has "called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign" . . . well, that just shows how chronic the situation in the Anglican Communion has become. Orthodox Anglicans in so-called "liberal" parts of the church, both Anglo-atholics and Evangelicals are regularly excluded, bullied, and crushed by the PC machine, and what have the "Instruments of Unity" done about it? (Rhetorical question!) Every now and then, someone has the courage to point out that the emperor is naked. The system makes sure they pay a high price, but it has to be done. A costly vocation, indeed, but a God-given one. God bless Dr Packer! God bless GAFCON!

[anon]

Ruth, Knowing God by Packer has sold over 1 million copies just in North America.

http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-God-J-I-Packer/dp/083081650X

"Since the first publication (1973) of J. I. Packer's book, Knowing God, it has been widely regarded as a classic alongside the works of other great minds such as Charles H. Spurgeon and C. S. Lewis, selling record-breaking numbers. For those who have read Packer, this is no surprise. The work is rich in content and clarity. It demonstrates that Packer is a scholar in the Reformed tradition that can systematically explicate the deep truths of scripture such that a new believer could easily understand. One should finish the work agreeing whole-heartily with Alister McGrath when he writes that theology for Packer is "not merely wrestling with texts, nor yet with ideas, but with the living God."

Many people would rather be in communion with him than Michael Ingham.

[David Cohen]

Why is he "unlikely to be recognised by Cantuar"? He is a priest of the Church of England, a distinguished preacher and writer, and enjoys a very considerable reputation among Anglicans.

Do you mean, "unlikely to be recognised by Ruth Gledhill"?

[Jamie MacNab]

Ruth, I'd be interested to learn why it is that you think the opinions of Jim Packer do not matter very much.

(rg writes: I am not saying his views don't matter very much. I am saying he has no business calling on my Archbishop to resign.)

[Andrew Notere]

Packer. Tiresome man. Silence would do him well.

[Matt Bownds]

I would give far more credence to anything Jim Packer said than to anything Rowan Williams said.

As for Ruth's comment: "My contention, voiced here at Gafcon, is that the views of a preacher unlikely to be recognised by Cantuar and who according to David Virtue does not deign to use mobile, computer or any of the new technologies actually do not matter very much".

Well since we're talking about relevance, how is it relevant to this issue that Jim Packer doesn't use a mobile or PC? Is that how journos at the Times weigh up contributions to theological debates these days?

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

All depends on whether you think the views of right wing evangelicals are important. The obvious solution is to split and accept the fact that the communion is dead. Quite why this can't just be done amicably is for those involved.

The way of wisdom is for the Archbishop to stand firm and tell the evangelicals to get stuffed. Then they do as they wish.

[Tom]

Is it really necessary to be so unkind to someone for simply choosing not to use a mobile phone. Probably not an uncommon option among people in thier eighties. Are we to assume that your attitude to this scholar is an apropriate response? What is target audience of your 'Article of faith'? I assume from your attitude if the reader does not subscribe to the views of Dr Williams then we should be considered sub- christian?

(Rg writes: really that is nothing like as unkind as telling an Archbishop who is doing his best to fulfil the gospel mandate of 'one church' to resign. He was a guest in an English parish church. How unkind is that? As an evangelical leader, and given what is happening in Canada, surely he should show more understanding for the pressures of leadership and be kinder himself to Rowan.)

[saint]

Well I don't disagree with Dr Packer.

Jim Packer is well knonw amongst evangelical Christians down this part of the country - Anglicans, Presbies, Bapos, Uniting, old style Pentecostals etc. and thanks to his appalling treatment by Ingham, Hilz et co. a hell of a lot of non-Anglican Christians down here are now very much aware of the "cult of upscale Western sodomites and their attendant fetishists" (because I can't resist quoting Mark Steyn, and his and others' appalling treatment in the basket case that is now Canada).

[Ann McCarthy]

Dr. Packer, who at 81 is sharper than most of us could ever wish to be, has been consistently ranked as one of the most influential theologians of our time. His books are being read in evangelical US seminaries today. I would assume that the Archbishop of Canterbury has read his books and would hope that he would listen to Dr. Packer, as he's worth listening to.

[Ben Stevenson]

J.I. Packer's book Knowing God has sold over a million copies in North America alone.

http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-God-J-I-Packer/dp/083081650X

Doesn't that suggest that a lot of people respect his opinions, whether he has a blog or not?

[BabyBlue]

Holy Cow, Ruth. You do know who Packer is, don't you?

bb

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Dr. Packer is a very important theologian, and yes his opinion matters. Unfortunately on the issue of the Archbishop of Canterbury resigning he is wrong. His reasoning is flawed when he points to what Williams has written in the past about homosexuality, or even that someone he ordained may have been gay. People can change their minds and actions based on new understandings. They can also act according a consensus, rather than their own will. I believe that the Archbishop has acted honestly, honorably, and on behalf of the whole Anglican Communion. It is Packer, and these ultra-conservative primates, et.al., as well as the ultra-liberals, who have acted deceptively and for the destruction of the Communion (very selfishly and willfully).I admire Dr. Williams, and am grateful he has been at the helm.

(rg writes: thank you that was expressed so much better than I managed. I slightly regret my hurried way of trying to say precisely this, while trying to do a dozen other things at the same time including catch a flight back to London. What is the most important lesson I've learned from my admittedly trivial dismissal of one of the most important theologians of his generation? The lesson is: When people stop reading this blog and it goes a bit quiet, I must do this again to Jim Packer. Becxause it has generated record comments on my blog, which of course I can be confident he will never read, as he is so intellectually above all this dreadful 21st century stuff.)

[Perpetua]

He focuses on the duplicity rather than the particularity. Packer is still an important voice and here he demonstrates why. In clear and simple language he explains the dysfunctional position the ABC is in and explains why.

[Dan]

My response is that regardless of how much respect or weight Mr. Packer carres, his observation and words for the Archbishop make quite an unavoidable point. The Archbishop is trying uphold a stance that he doesn't even believe in and has, in the past, betrayed. It's very hard to have credibility and/or effectiveness from that position.

[Bob Bixby]

The theological depth of a person can be fairly accurately assessed by how much he or she esteems the relevance of technological dependence to ecclesiological and spiritual matters. If one thinks there is any relevance, one is clearly shallow.

"Chronological snobbery" is endemic among theological light-weights.

J.I. Packer's opinion matters to those of us who gauge the merit of ideas by their content rather than dismiss a lifetime of brilliant influence on the basis of the man's slim acquaintance with an MP3 player.

[Neal in Dallas]

The question is: to whom does the opinion of JI Packer matter? To Dr. Williams? Probably not. To the majority of bishops in the Anglican Communion? Probably not.

But, as the above posts have acknowledged, to a large portion of Evangelical lay and clergy, quite a lot. To those Evangelicals looking for voices whom they respect to encourage them to stay or to leave, his opinion matters quite a lot. In fact, his opinion on this subject probably matters to Evangelicals much more than the majority of bishops and archbishops across the Communion.

As one who was nurtured as a college student on the writings of Jim Packer, (The Mind Matters, Evangelicalism and the Sovereignty of God, Knowing God) they matter a lot to me, as well.

[C Pierce]

Dr. Packer matters tremendously. His call for the current ABC to resign will be the starting point of thousands of discussions on the matter. Perhaps the ABC will take his advice...'twould be better if her were to repent but resign he should.

[Paul]

I am confused by your statement "preacher unlikely to be recognised by Cantuar" means - Are you saying he will not know who he is (which I would find absolutely stunning) or that he is no longer recognized as an anglican preacher?
Yes I think he is still relevant - though not one whose advice will be at all condsidered in this case. I think some will be quite shocked that he actually answered the question - so many wouldn't have.

[Austin Storm]

You don't think he could possibly have anything of value to say because he doesn't... have a cellular telephone? Weird!

[Patricia M Davis]

Packer raises the issue of doublemindedness, that ++Rowan is in an impossible situation:
committed to upholding one position, but, still internally holding the opposite position.
This is a dysfunctional position that should be rejected.

[tjmcmahon]

When we come down to it, the problem in the Church may not so much be the personal views of ++Rowan Williams. Where the problem lies is that he is perfectly willing to allow bishops to inhibit, de-license and depose clergy who are upholding the vows they took as clergy. That ++Rowan has chosen to affirm all that Ingham has done to destroy the church, including the action against Dr. Packer, by inviting Ingham to Lambeth contrary to the expressed will of the Communion's primates and the Windsor report, is the problem.

[Hamish]

As said above, his approach to communications does not render his views irrelevant! Packer is one of the foremost writesrs and communicators of his time; clear, lucid, and deeply biblical books that push one to a greater knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. As an old, wise saint who has aged in the Lord's service surely we should give his views very great weight, and not dismiss them because he fails to fit into our conception of the modern minister?

[Richard]

Ms. Gledhill,

I've been a "fan" of your writing for many years. I always appreciate what you have to say and report.

But this technological snobbery is unworthy of you. Who on earth should care what digital gadgets the man does or does not use? If anyone warrants respect, whether one agrees with him or not, it's Dr. Packer. Your glib appraisal of him is really very lazy, indeed.

(rg responds: I accept the criticism and will do my best to take it on board on future. But I am a journalist first. What am I to make of the fact that when I spend hours composing theologically literate blogs looking at all the issues in depth, I get one or two comments. I post a rapid, glib dismissal of an important theologian because I am working extremely hard on a story for the paper that day, and my hits and comments rocket? Maybe there is a point worthy of consideration in my glibness after all if it has aroused such ire.)

[Ian Montgomery]

Jim Packer is of immense influence and importance. When I first heard of Bp. Ingham's actions I thought of a number of images - the flea assaulting the lion, the chihuahua assaulting the mastiff. The list could go on. The ABC is in a different class from Bp. Ingham but clearly the lesser theologian and of more modest intellect and should thus have less influence except for his elevation by HRH. Will he listen to JIIP? I doubt it Should he - YES.

[Malcolm+]

"the treatment metered by by Michael Ingham"

O Pulease!

Jim Packer decalred that he was no longer a part of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Jim Packer declared that he was now part of an ecclesial entity that neither the Canadian Church not the Anglican Communion recognizes (viz, the North American jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone).

Jim Packer knew - and presumably accepted - the consequences of that declaration.

I am quite certain that Jim Packer is not so foolish as to argue the treatment meted out by Michael Ingham was the wrong canonical response. Smart lad that Packer, and not given to stupid arguments.

[Bene D]

I J.I. Packer doesn't need technology - he is well respected and there are plenty of his fans acquainted with the mediums the rest of us take for granted who will spread his words for him.

Amazing they'd miss the point you did just that because you are good at your job.

I read Knowing God, it's a classic.

I'm amazed at some of the anger directed at you specifically in these threads, and while the vitrol and defensiveness hasn't been limited to Gafcon supporters, they have certainly outdone themselves.

You are part of a generation and profession that has to know how to use technology, it's hardly a reason to take a strip out of you for your offside or exhibit disrespect toward you.

I understand many of your commenters are heavily invested in every scrap of information they can get and don't care to grasp the difficulty of religion reporting, but that's a poor excuse.
I'm enjoying your work Ruth. Blog on!

(rg writes: thank you thank you! May God's blessings pour upon you!)

[Ron Nelson]

Wow, so let me make sure I understand. If you don't use the latest and greatest technology, then you're not worth listening to? My goodness that does exclude an awful lot of people.

(rg writes: No, 'that' doesn't exclude anyone. If they are excluded at all, they are excluding themselves. )

[JMC]

Goodness, yes, J.I. Packer means a great deal and his words have enormous significance today. I saw the title of this article "Theologian calls on Rowan Williams to resign" in a feed and thought, sigh, oh, another one. I clicked on the article and had a very serious double-take when I saw that "theologian" here was none other than Packer.

One of the best-known theologians, yes - not so much in academic circles, but amongst clergy and the public, indeed, I think genre more pastoral than analytic or speculative, which is really what the public and clergy usually read, and need. Ask a Presby, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostalist, Mennonite, Catholic minister the name of an Anglican theologian, there's a good chance they won't be able to name any living ones - and probably don't know that Packer is Anglican (so it often is with Anglicans) - but most will know him. Ask your man on the street the name of a book on theology he's read that's been written by a living writer, Packer will be in the top three.

It's difficult to imagine a more significant voice for this kind of statement and I'm still trying to digest the fact that this is Packer's view.

[Ann McCarthy]

Dr. Packer, who at 81 is sharper than most of us could ever hope to be, is consistantly ranked as one of the most influential theologians of our time. His books, particularly the classic "Knowing God", are studied by seminary students here in the US - particularly given the resurgence of interest in Anglicanism and the ancient traditions of the church amongst evangelicals.

I would assume the Archbishop of Canterbury has read Dr. Packer's books and I would also assume that he would take Dr. Packer's statements seriously. If you've not read his books, Ruth, I'd highly recommend them to you. I particularly loved Evangelism and the Sovreignty of God.

[John Fenwick]

The weight of someone's view surely matters more than their reputation. And Packer's view has some weight: if a firm's chief executive had struggled with its problems for 5 years using one approach, despite previously advocating a very different approach, a lot of people would be asking whether he had a conflict of interest.

[Toral]

Ruth:

First: Dr Packer did not call upon +++Williams to resign. That is apparent from your excerpts. Saying that, if asked, you would advise a person to resign is not the same as calling on a person to resign, and I hope you change your headline.

Second: Ruth: "My contention, voiced here at Gafcon, is that the views of a preacher [who] does not deign to use mobile, computer or any of the new technologies actually do not matter very much..."

You can't really have written that, Ruth. Unless with tongue firmly in cheek.

Third: But...

Perhaps Packer's views do not matter so much among younger evangelicals, who might look more to N. T. Wright or some such. They will matter very much among any evangelical in the C of E and related communions over 40. The 2 English writers who have contributed to converting people to Christianity in the last 60 years are C. S. Lewis and J. I Packer. These remarks will help indicate to them that it is time to get out.

Alan Stewart
St. Catharines, Ontario
Canada

[Jill C.]

The views of J.I.Packer don't matter very much? Huh? I would be shocked if Rowan Williams has never heard or or read anything by Packer. My rector here in the States respects him immensely and has several of his books in his personal library. He, like Stott, are grand old men of faith and very much appreciated by well-read American evangelicals.

[robroy]

J.I. Packer's book "Knowing God" has sold over a million copies in North America alone.

Rowan Williams is hopelessly compromised. He suffers from lack of trust from the pretty much all camps. Statements out of GAFCon demonstrate the degree of their dissatisfaction. The left, however, are happy with his weak and ineffectual leadership because they believe that they can carry on their innovations unfettered (which is most likely true).

[L B Stringer]

No, definitely NOT excluding N. American evangelicals, most particularly not those in the Reformed tradition(s).

[Kenneth Jones]

One should use caution when discounting Dr Packer's views, since his words carry such weight.

[cp36]

A few years ago in a Question and Answer session after a sermon, Dr James Packer said that when St Paul had problems with the church he didn't leave the church but stayed with it to correct it, implying one shouldn't leave the church. His present position in advocating a split in the Anglican Communion seems to be a departure from what he said then.

[Jill Woodliff]

JI Packer matters. When such an esteemed theologian speaks out (and says what a lot of people have been thinking but have been reticent to voice), it matters. Courage breeds courage.

[Stephen Dawe]

I've read Ruth Gledhill's quote concerning J.I. Packer in at least 6 very popular evangelical blogs previous to coming here and seeing it in context.

Packer is profoundly influential among evangelicals globally whether he uses modern technology or not. His present difficulties with the Anglican communion after his public disagreements with Martin Lloyd-Jones about membership in mainline Churches (several decades ago) only underscores the sense of crisis in the Anglican Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury may not listen to him, but there are many many people who do.

[Susan]

Ruth. I follow your blog. I like your blog. I am really disappointed, however, in the ignorance this particular post displays. Whether or not I agree with Packer's call for Rowan to resign, I have nothing but the deepest respect for him. I must assume that you have for some reason no knowledge of his immense impact on so very many souls for decades in the Church of England and throughout the Communion.

(rg writes: Thank you for commenting. I am tryly delighted by the response this post has generated. What so many of these posts display is equal 'ignorance' of the effect it has on people trying to get their message across to a wider world when leading luminaries in the world of religion refuse to do the necessary to make it possible to communicate with them effectively. Packer is not alone. Some bishops in the Church of England also disdain the mobile phone. They are happy to consider the 'medium' as the 'message' when they attack us, but refuse to understand that the medium is also the message when it comes to getting their own 'gospel' across. Well that is all fine, let them continue to labour in their own technological darkness. But just don't expect those of us who've lowered ourselves to deal with the grist of modern realities to like it when they tell our beloved bishops and archbishops, also having no choice but to deal with undignified earthly matters, to stand down.)

[Chris Feuillade]

As an addendum to the remarks made by David Palmer, I believe I can reasonably assert that Dr. Packer has also been highly influential amongst North American evangelicals.

While from a British background, I lived for almost 25 years in the state of Mississippi (solid bible belt country) in the USA. I recall some years ago travelling to Jackson MS for a weekend conference with some friends from a non-denominational charismatic church. We were accommodated overnight by a local Christian family, and as I was shown by my hostess to my bedroom, the lady (from a non-Anglican, but clearly evangelical, background) said proudly: "The last person before you to sleep in that guest bed was Dr. Jim Packer!"

While this is admittedly only anecdotal evidence, I would like to add that, during my years in the USA, my experience was that Dr. Packer was widely known and appreciated within evangelical circles. His name was immediately recognized, his books readily available in bookshops, and he was often quoted in sermons, etc.

In Mississippi, I am ashamed to say, he was much better known in evangelical/charismatic circles than amongst episcopalians.

[michael franklin]

Packer is on a number of anti-gay "religious" videos on YouTube. So he does use some modern technology. Some of his commentary about gay people is quite hateful and irrational, probably just under the threshhold for prosecution under Canada's laws against promoting hatred. He speaks of preserving traditional marriage but doesn't mention the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals which I find ironic. According to him, everything is to be blamed on gay people. In the videos, Packer comes across as someone who is more than a little demented and disoriented. So I wonder if other parties in his fundamentalist sect are taking advantage of his diminished faculties and advanced age, using him for a mouthpiece. Packer had his Anglican credentials revoked, is no longer a valid priest, and is a member of one of the many continuing Anglican-type schismatic groups. So his demands about Abp. Williams really don't make any sense. He isn't a member of the Anglican communion. So he might as well ask Pope Benedict or Billy Graham to resign. This is a rather sad and embarrassing cap on his long career. I do hope he avoids hate-promotion criminal charges. Canada's prosecution teams are vigorous and merciless when they encounter the promotion of hatred in Canada.

[Question of Identity]

If Jesus' incarnation took place in the 21st Century could not his message have the same impact without use of computer or mobile phone?

(rg writes: frankly, no.)

Don't know the context of Virtue's comments - was he being somewhat ageist? Are we suggesting that old people are irrelevant in the church, simply because they do not use all the mod cons?

Is Jim Packer right to question Arch Bishops position? - well if Rowan knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual priest then there is a little hypocrisy going on!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

One has to ask, who exactly DOES the archbishop listen to?

Not, it seems, the primates of his own Anglican Communion.

Who, then?

[saint]

Unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal are characteristic of the web-based media. So are paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry. The atmosphere is close to that of unpoliced conversation — which tends to suggest that the very idea of an appropriate professionalism for journalists begins to dissolve.

--Rowan Williams, as reported too by Ruth Gledhill.

Can't say Williams is a total fan of all forms of new media either.

(I do like it when you have a foot stomp Ruth, but sometimes you do go a tad overboard. Who gives a toss if people don't like mobiles? Last time I looked it wasn't mandatory to carry one - and even if it were, you would probably get miffed if they didn't answer or return your calls, as you once complained about the high priestess, Ms KJS of the ECUSA. ;-))

[David Cohen]

Au contraire, Mr Franklin, Packer is a priest of the Church of England and therefore of the Anglican Communion. He may not function in the ACoC any longer, but nor does he want to do so. Bp Ingham is no more capable of taking away his Holy Orders than of walking on water!

Those who live in other parts of the world may like to note the threatening tone of your comments. Canada's "hate" legislation is the most repressive invasion of freedom of thought and speech in the western world, and should serve as a lesson to the rest of us as to what the full agenda actually looks like.

[Donald Macleod]

Ruth you responded to the question: "If Jesus' incarnation took place in the 21st Century could not his message have the same impact without use of computer or mobile phone? (rg writes: frankly, no.)"
Hmmmmmmm:-). I think your original posting coupled with the comments stirred by it illustrate perfectly that JIP doesn't himself have to use mobile phones or computers for his views to be relayed via these media. And his books sell by the tens of thousands via the Internet too so his work profits:-).
Whether one agrees with JIP or not, his views are worth listening to with a respect (which is, of course, not the same as being in agreement with them) that should be accorded to people with sincerely-held views (as Scripture itself points out).
I have often thought how mistaken my approaches would have been if I'd been in charge of organising the ministry of Jesus. I would have had him born in Rome and assuming the position of Caeser and had all the appartaus of the Empire doing his bidding throughout a lengthy reign during which the whole earth was brought under his command. Massive pomp and circumstance would have attended his death. Conceived in the womb of an unmarried teenger, born into and living in poverty, working in a confined area amidst great hostility and dying in such horrifying and degrading circumstances?? No chance! No wonder God's ways are not our ways...
Thank you for your blog, Ruth.

[Nersen]

rg writes: "I am not saying his views don't matter very much. I am saying he has no business calling on my Archbishop to resign."

What??
An Anglican minister, an incredibly influential writer and academic, a Professor of Theology has "no right" to have a view on the fitness of the ABC....more right than a journo to make judgments on current Anglican matters, I would think

"my Archbishop"....rnot just yours, Ruth.....btw, has your dear Archbishop condescended to giving you an interview yet?

(rg writes: no I get the feeling I am not of high enough intellectual stature to merit an interview from Rowan Williams. Clearly many commentators on this post would agree with him on that point :)

[saint]

Don't worry David Cohen, we know all about Canada's kangaroo courts and their petty tyrants - not that many weren't warning people about this years ago - and Mr Franklin's threatening tone were well noted.

Canada, a 21st century liberal democracy?

Yeah, right.

[Stephen Dawe]

While Packer may not use the modern conveniences himself, the many who listen to him do, which is why so many know his position, and why generally when it comes to the actual questions of the Church, packer seems rather knowledgeable of the arguments.

Given his popularity, I am not surprised that he shuns many modern communication devices. He would have little time to put the thought he is known for into the issues if he was constantly replying to e-mails.

[David Jenkins]

I have a friend who, having worked in the computer industry for 30 years, has retired and now refuses to wear a digital watch. I still slave in the digital domain, but one day hope to join my friend and J. I. Packer in analogue-ville. It would be profoundly satisfying if the result of such a digital renunciation were that my views become as insignificant as J. I. Packer’s.

[Matthew Mesley]

Ruth,

I've only just come across your blog - but have been enjoying it immensely this last week. I equally enjoy reading all of the comments you prompt!

[Zoomdaddy]

Dr. Homfray's comment above inquiring why an amicable separation can't be achieved, while in the same breath admonishing Cantuar to tell orthodox Anglicans to "get stuffed," illustrates quite clearly why an amicable separation has been impossible to achieve up till now.

[Randy Muller]

JI Packer is well-known and highly respected amongst evangelical Episcopalians and other evangelicals throughout the USA. He was very influential in my Christian growth.

He has far, far greater stature than people like Ingham, Hiltz or even Rowan Williams, particularly in these last few years.

[saint]

"If Jesus' incarnation took place in the 21st Century could not his message have the same impact without use of computer or mobile phone? (rg writes: frankly, no.)"

Ruth, R-o-o-o-o-o-o-t-h. Remember the Holy Spirit? Or have you, too forgotten God is Trinity and have gone over to the dark side...LOL.

One day you must also explain Rowan's catholic side (unless it's like the last Anglican bishop in the diocese down here, who was 'catholic in practice and liberal in theology' and was nevertheless forced to resign - more from public pressure than from within the church - for his mishandling of child sex abuse cases amongst the Anglicans.)

Hate to break it to you too, but Christ, who is head of the church, does not need Rowan or the Times or any of us to keep his church together. He knows each of His own by name and He isn't about to lose one of them, with or without Rowan.

[Bill Channon]

"fundamentalist sect" Mr. Franklin. Unless you are referring to the Church of England of which he is an ordained priest, he is a member of no sect but rather an author, much loved and admired by millions of Christians over the past forty or fifty years.

[Bill Channon]

"If Jesus' incarnation took place in the 21st Century could not his message have the same impact without use of computer or mobile phone?

(rg writes: frankly, no.)"

Ruth, how could you say that?

Jesus didn't exactly speak night after night to the packed thousands in the Colisseum in Rome a la Billy Graham!!!

Mostly it was to small groups or visits in homes, occasionally to large groups on the hillsides of Israel. What it took was the most important event in the history of this world and a few men (and women) to spread the most important message the world has ever known, or will ever know.

Surely you can't mean it????

Bill

[Alistair]

"I am not of high enough intellectual stature to merit an interview from Rowan Williams."

Too self-effacing, Ruth. Methinks the lady doth protest too much...!

But why is Rowan Williams an "intellectual"?

Is it because he is an Archbishop? Surely not.

Does belief in the supernatural, without a grain of evidence, qualify him as an intellectual? Surely not.

Are all ex and current Archbishops great intellectuals? Surely not.

One of the great con tricks organised religion plays is to claim its leaders are by default great "intellectuals". This week the bimonthly US international affairs journal Foreign Policy just published a survey of the world’s top 20 public intellectuals and the first 10 are ..... all Muslims!

So is one an "intellectual" if one believes in the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the crucifixion and the resurrection, and the Trinity? Or is one an "intellectual" if one doesn't believe in any of these things, because one is a Muslim and Allah says different?

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/06/25/survey-says-worlds-top-10-intellectuals-are-muslims/?rpc=401&

[Oakrise]

Ruth,

As stated many times above, Jim Packer is an icon in Anglican circles; we would be wise to heed his counsel as an elder whose wisdom and experience allows him a perspective and judgment that clearly is NOT judged by his technological acumen. As for you, Ruth, one so young should know better than to use the word 'deign' in today's lexicon. Better to pay attention to your elders :-).

[cp36]

Sir Isaac Newton who was also a theologian, wrote, "I am a friend of Plato, I am a friend of Aristotle, but Truth is my greater friend."

St Paul, the first and greatest theologian of all times said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

It seems to me that we are claiming knowledge of things we are actually ignorant of. The Gospel is not easy to understand as most people think. Theologians are still trying to understand St Paul's writings in the New Testament. I think J.I. Packer would agree with that.

[Tim]

I used to read Packer a lot twenty years ago. I have since parted company with him over his Calvinism, his opposition to the ordination of women, his championing of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and his denigration of inclusive language Bible translations. None of that takes away from the enormous respect I have for him as a writer and as an older brother in the Lord. I have also been the beneficiary, on one occasion, of his pastoral care, and very much appreciated his support and wise counsel.

What a lot of people don't seem to appreciate is that there are very good people on all sides of this current debate. A lot of people seem to need to think, "Rowan good, Packer bad", or "Packer good, Rowan bad". I'm sure it's easier to live in such a black and white universe, but I'm also sure it has only a tenuous connection to reality.

[Malcolm+]

Do get a grip, David. You're sounding even more irrational than usual.

I do wonder what would happen if the rector of Calvary Church, Pittsburgh declared himself to be out of communion with the bishop thereof. Or, for that matter, any liberal priest in any diocese were to declare him/herself out of communion with their conservative bishop.

Actually, I don't wonder for a second. And if you, David, and the rest of the "oo the liberals are so mean" crowd were to be honest (for a change), you'd have no need to wonder either.

The conservative bishop in question wouldn't blink before inhibiting the liberal priest, and would proceed towards deposition in due course - exactly as the mean and nasty liberals have done.

It is the proper canonical response. And you know it.

[David Cohen]

I appreciate, Malcolm, that you in the wild west like to execute sentence even without the formality of a trial.

In England clergy are not deposed any longer and they have every right to a proper tribunal if accused of an offence.

Fortunately not enough our present government has (yet) seen fit to reinstate witch-finding and Star Chamber courts under the pretence of Canadian style "Human Rights Commissions". They are a deep stain on the reputation of a once civilised state. What a pity the ACoC seeks to emulate them.

[iain rae]

Theology tries to make sense of the nonsensical.No wonder disagreements occur.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Jim Packer has spent a lfetime preaching on the Reformed Protestant credentials of Anglicanism, and now he has placed himself under a bishop, who describes himself as an Anglo-catholic touched by the charismatic moveemnt.

Jim Packer justifies the Anglican Reformation of the 16th century as the Church of England rejecting the rrors of Rome, and yet he has moved to a denomination ( Southern Cone ) which give s succour to men with a similar but non-Papal theology!

Indeed Bishop Iker of Fort wotrth is on record as sating that the only way the Anglo-catholic heritage oif his diocese can be secured is by moving to the Southern Cone.

[Hugh Bourne]

You can see the original story on my website with a summary of Packer's address - http://www.hughbourne.co.uk/2008/06/25/packer-in-eastbourne/

The audio can be found here:
http://www.holytrinityeastbourne.org.uk/sermons.php

[saint]

Well Robert Ian Williams, I guess you can say that something about the broad church of conservatives and the narrow minded non-inclusivity of liberals doesn't it? Even Sydney has Anglo-Catholic parishes. *gasp*

As some of us like to say down here: suck it up, sunshine.

[Catherine Martin]

Robert Ian Williams is an irritation and a mischief maker. You only have to read his posts on the Diocese of Sydney website where his constant sport is rubbing the noses of Sydney evangelicals in the fact that they now find themselves in fellowship with REAL Anglo-Catholics, like Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman and John-David Schofield. RIW should be praying for both lots at this crucial time in Christian history, that they continue to recognise in each other the faith of the Gospel.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

RIW makes all kinds of claims which have no basis in fact. Some of his comments are mere schoolboy howlers of the 1066 And All That variety.

He is a very poor advertisement for the Church which he has unfortunately adopted.

[Neil]

JIP has earned respect from his stimulating application of the historic formulations of the Reformation and from his unwavering commitment to the Anglican Church. Many regard his books, though relatively few in number, as among the most useful for coming to a mature, evangelical understanding of the Bible. A large number of non-conformists have been puzzled that a man with his understanding could remain in a 'backsliding' Anglican Church. I would imagine that few will appreciate how agonising it was for him to make that decision in the 60s. Many who did leave then will not be slow to say to him ‘we told you so’. Rightly or wrongly, he is now saying that the Church is not allowing him to be faithful to Christ and many will now be asking themselves for the fist time: ‘What is the Christianity that is the basis of Anglican unity?’

[Clifford Williams]

Yes, I am afraid that Dr James Packer is probably right - Rowan Williams ,should now consider his position. He has only himself, and the likes of the present Archbishop of Wales, to blame for the mess which he finds himself in.
During the last 10 years he has allowed a liberal priest, who ,was defrocked, (by a former conservative bishop of London) to continue exercise his ministry within the Anglican Communion. Of this we have evidence beyond reasonable doubt. So, Ruth Gledhill, if you deem such hypocricy to be a matter of public interest then you know full well how to contact me

[cp36]

I don't know what they do in Canada but where I live if anyone doesn't know how to use the mobile phone or is not computer savvy he or she will be marginalized as obsolete and irrelevant. Almost everybody here is wired up.

The good thing about the Internet is that there are tons of information on any subject one is interested in and preachers no longer have the kind of authority or power they used to have in the past. Information is vital for making decisions.

To be an Anglican means to have "perfect freedom". One of the prayer from the Book of Common Prayer says, "O God who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom." It is great to be an Anglican without any adjectives attached to it.

[Nersen]

rg writes: "no I get the feeling I am not of high enough intellectual stature to merit an interview from Rowan Williams"

Nonsense - you are obviously the best reporter from the British press in Anglicanland and from a top paper, Ruth! (competition hotting up from The Guardian these days, of course....but dipping horribly from the Torygraph since Pitcher pitched up)

LamPal bureaucrats just like those who follow their lead more (eg Bates?) .... think you burned your bridges by not being sufficiently anti-Akinola....but hey, 70% of the AC ain't too worried about LamPal bureaucrats or their too-clever-by-half (current) boss.....

[George Parr]

Absolutely right - and an incisive critical appraisal Dr Marsh. The archbishop is clearly a poor advertisement. Intellectual? Not if he makes gaffes and howlers within a 1960s context arranged along the lines of 'all the dull theology you can remember'!

Equally it has not gone unnoticed by Real Anglicans that he has not made anywhere near enough of a holy fuss about the world's homosexuals. What can he have been thinking about? Can he not see that this is one of the top priorities within the Anglican faith?

Get rid of him, or you will be up a sodomite gum tree. Who needs liberal thinkers anyway in this magnificent drive to re-instate conservative 'values'. There are, after all, plenty of malleable 'career clerics' champing at the bit to replace him surely -ones who recognise how to shift and slither politically in order to be regarded as acceptable by the Anglican version of the 1922 Committee?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

CP36, I wonder how old you are?

No need to answer, but I can assure you that for those of us who are well beyond our prime, the use of things like computers and whizzier gadgets becomes progressively more difficult.

Dr Packer is in his 80s. I know very few in that decade who are adept at using modern technology, not least because the means of putting in information is usually a keyboard of some kind, which is less easy to see as one grows older. The buttons on mobile phones become a tiny blur, and it is very hard to get fingers to do what they are supposed to do when attempting to make a call.

Intellectual activity does not cease, far from it, and some octogenarians write their best articles and books at that age. But not necessarily using the latest stuff from the computer store.

[Malcolm+]

For the informatio of both David Cohen and Saint, you will find that the human rights complaint agaist Maclean's magazine was actually dismissed. Now, by all means, don't let this troublesome little fact get in the way of your hatemongering rants.

Now, o the matter of Packer's ordination - where he was ordained ad by whom is not relevant. The relevant issue is where he is (was) canonically resident.

My understanding is that he is (was) canonically resident i the same place as he was physically resident - the Diocese of New Westminster. If so, Michael Ingham is the bishop with jurisdiction to discipline or depose Packer (after the appropriate due process, of course).

If I am incorrect in this, and Packer is still canonically resident in some English diocese (or indeed, in any other diocese that New Westminster), then Michael Ingham would not have the authority to depose.

However, either way, he does have the right to determine if Packer is licensed to preside in the dioceses. (Canons allow both for formal licensing and informal permission. In the case of someone who lives i a place, it is more likely that Packer would be formally licensed - and certainly the case sice Packer is/was an honourary assistant.)

So, let us try another analogy. So, if a liberal priest, licensed to function in the Diocese of Pittsburgh / Fort Worth / Quincy / Rochester (UK) / Sydney suddenly declared that he was no longer in communio with the bishop thereof, how long do you think that permission would continue before it was suspended?

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, Read - My - Posts!

Dr Packer does not want a licence from the dubious Bishop in question, and has indicated so. By tolerating Ingham the ACoC has removed itself from communion with large parts of the Anglican world, including faithful theologians like Dr Packer.

Ingham can fulminate, he can stick pins in an effigy of Dr Packer, he can issue denunciations, depositions, excommunications and lawsuits. He can spit in his tea cup, rail at the mountains, and kick stones off the path. His church, such as it was, has ceased to be of relevance.

It is deplorable that he thinks he can depose those who stand in the way of his post-Christian empire: but such actions have no meaning outside the confines of those who still, mistakenly, permit Ingham to continue in office.

The great bulk of Anglicans now regard Packer, not Ingham, as a faithful minister of Christ in New Westminster. Ingham is a footnote in history.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

No, David. Anglicans are those who primarily relate to the church at Canterbury. That's the reality, and some of those provinces are moving away from that alignment.

No church not part of the CofE can be recognised as Anglican in the UK, for a start....its a bit like as group leaving and still claiming to be part of a group. Bizarre.

[Andrew Spurr]

Come on Ruth, Jim Packer doesn't approve of Rowan and wants him to resign. i think anyone who knows them both could have guessed that. It's not exactly news, is it?

I was suprised that Packer claimed being candid was a function of age. Whatever you think of his theological method, he's been candid at any age.

[cp36]

Hi RG,

Thanks for your reply. I've heard lectures from both Dr J.I. Packer and Dr Rowan Williams when they were here. Dr Packer's sermons are easy to understand but the Archbishop of Canterbury is really tough even if you concentrate with all your mind. Immediately after his speech chairman, got up and said, "Well, I am not going to summarise what he just said." It was quite exhausting listening to him.

I have also talked with both of them. With Dr Packer I have to sort of "behave myself" but with the Archbishop of Canterbury I felt perfectly at ease. He mixed with the people just like an ordinary person after the service and it was very easy to talk to him. You can freely talk to him on anything you want. He is a very nice man.

As for people not understanding him, it certainly can't be his fault. The majority of us will never understand Albert Einstein. But we don't blame him for it. According to Sir John Polkinghorne, a Quantum physicist and an Anglican priest, Theology is more difficult than Science.

I think the current war in the Anglican Communion is unnecessary and nothing good will come out of it.

[Malcolm+]

YAWN. Perhaps you should try reading yourself.

This began in response to a post whingeing about how mean nasty Micheal Ingham had been to poor put-upon Jim Packer. (A post from one of your usual allies, David Palmer.)

Your last screed agrees with my point. Jim Packer knew and accepted that his actions would lead to a canonical response from Michael Ingham.

Jim Packer (whether I agree with him or not) is no fool.

Would only the same could be said for some of his misguided apologists.

[cp36]

St Paul had to contend with the "Super-apostles" of his day. Just who were the "Super-apostles"? Could he be referring to Peter, James and John, the apostles from Jerusalem?

I don't believe this current war in the Anglican Communion has anything to do with the Bible, one's sexuality or even the Lordship of Christ.

Oh btw, Jerusalem was a city which killed the prophets and where our Lord was crucified. Some theologians believe that the "Babylon" in Revelation refers to Jerusalem and not Rome.

As far as I am concerned Canterbury is and should always be the centre of the Anglican world.

[Nersen]

CP36 says "I don't believe this current war in the Anglican Communion has anything to do with the Bible...."

So what?

Maybe you've not been paying attention or don't understand the importance of recent events - but pls have a look at what a non-GAFCON bishop, who certainly does understand matters, says at the current time:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=317

[cp36]

Hi Nersen,

You can be sure that after they break away from the Archbishop of Canterbury they will start fighting among themselves. It will only be a matter of time. That is the way of man. The brand of Christianity they are advocating for, was already tried in the USA for most of the last century. It obviously didn't work. If people want that kind of Christianity they can easily go to one of the many Protestant churches.

No two people understand and interpret the Bible in exactly the same way. Anglicanism is a fellowship and not a dictatorship. We don't want the Anglican Communion to become like the former Southern Rhodesia or Burma. We believe in "perfect freedom" and all of us who are Anglicans should treasure our unique heritage.

[Dan Glover]

I stumbled upon this blog. I am a Canadian evangelical Anglican, age 33. I've been reading Lewis, Ryle, Stott and Packer since my late teens. I love everyone of the many Packer books I've read and I say AMEN to his response to the wayward Anglican Church in Canada and to his suggestion that the ABC resign. I must confess, however, that I've never heard of Ruth Gledhill. Why does her opinion of J.I. Packer matter? Which book of the Bible states that if you can't blog from your blackberry you must not be worth listening to in matters of the faith?

[Rick Beekman]

cp36;
You stated most theologians believe Jerusalem not Rome is "Babylon" in Revelation 17.

One problem with that;
Revelation 17 v 9; "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth." What other city but Rome sits on "seven hills" (7 mountains)??

[Michael R. Jones]

Can you say, "Red Herring"?

I followed a link to this page and have never, before today, heard of Ruth Gledhill. I guess this means Ruth Gledhill and her opinions don't matter, either.

[cp36]

Hi Rick Beekman,

Jerusalem also sat on seven mountains or high points - Zion, Moriah, Acra, Bezetha, Millo, Ophel and the Castle of Antonia in those days. It was probably symbolic of some great anti-Christian power rather than seven literal hills or mountains. After all the "woman" was not a real woman. The Bible is not so easy to interpret.

[Robert Ian Williams]

And yet Doctor Marsh never answered one of my historical facts, and then just dismissed them as 1066 and all that!

You can't enter int onteeligent dialogue with a closed mind, and whatever his PHD , it cannot be in Church history.

As for Catherine Martin, I do not believe the "Evangelica understanding of the gospel" is the authentic Gospel.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Packer is a deluded headbanger of the far right, theologically., He should be treated with the disdain n he and his ilk deserve

[Oliver NIcholson]

Torquay also stands on Seven Hills.
OPN