J.I. Packer—A man whose convictions cost him a “dear friend”.

There is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). This applies to the unfortunate conflict and subsequently separation of two “redwoods of the Christian faith”, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J.I. Packer. The issue that ignited the separation was important; this was NOT two Christians arguing about the “color of the carpet”.

Yet the question I want to ask and answer in this blog post is: “Was this conflict avoidable?” The excerpt below will set the historical context and the issue of contention.

“Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones had become increasingly concerned over the theological liberalism of the World Council of Churches. By 1965, he was convinced that it was impossible for an evangelical to belong to a denomination which was affiliated to the WCC. Evangelicals who were members of such churches would be contaminated by others within the denominations who openly denied or challenged key tenets of the Christian faith. Evangelicals who remained within doctrinally mixed churches—such as the Church of England (which J.I. Packer did)—were therefore ‘guilty by association’, in that they failed to maintain loyalty to their evangelical convictions through their association with such people. At a meeting of the Westminster Fellowship on June 16^th, 1965, Lloyd-Jones argued that theologically orthodox Anglicans (such as J.I. Packer) should consider ‘coming out of their denominations’. Instead of believing that they could ‘infiltrate the various bodies to which they belong and win them over’, evangelicals should stand together. For Lloyd-Jones, it was inevitable that 1966 would see ‘a crisis on what is to me the fundamental issue, namely, do we believe in a territorial church or a gathered community of saints’”? (p. 120).  

 Now some will read this excerpt, agree with the position of Lloyd-Jones, and quickly condemned Packer. But to be fair to Packer, the reader must understand his bilateral approach to the gospel ministry, an approach that HE CONSISTENTLY LIVED OUT THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER. Here is a taste of it:

‘While some have argued that Packer was a bold reformer who somehow lost his nerve over the period of 1966-1971 (a view especially associated with the circle around Lloyd-Jones), it is quite clear that Packer was following his own consistent reforming agenda, using writers such as George Whitefield, Charles Simeon and J.C. Ryle as models. This approach pointed to a “bilateral agenda”, rather than the unilateral agenda which was increasingly associated with the Lloyd-Jones faction. On the one hand, Packer would thus work with evangelicals across denominational divides, believing that the nature of their fellowship transcended those denominational loyalties. Packer regularly spoke at interdenominational preaching meetings throughout the nation, in pursuance of this goal. On the other hand, he would work for the establishment of orthodoxy and renewal within his own church (the Church of England), on the basis of what Packer would later refer to as ‘an ideology of a constructive reforming agenda’”. (p. 128)

For many readers, the approach of Packer is not convincing. Some will conclude that he prioritized ‘unity over doctrine’.

To be clear, I don’t believe that is fair assessment of Packer. Yet, would I embrace his “bilateral agenda”? No, I couldn’t. Furthermore, I am more sympathetic to the convictions of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, regarding the doctrinal purity of the local church.

The bigger question for me is, “Should Lloyd-Jones have separated from Packer?”

First, it is a matter of conviction.

Unless you could assert that J.I. Packer was unbiblical for trying to reform the Church of England, is it right to stamp him as a non-evangelical?

Packer has absorbed these attacks for 40 years now. His response has always been the same: He doesn’t leave because 1) the Church of England still submits to the orthodox creeds of church history and 2) history is filled with examples of certain Christians that are called to stay and fight for orthodoxy within these denominations (i.e. the role of Thomas Crammer (1489-1556), who is responsible for the present day “reformed thread” within the Church of England.

Furthermore, scripture does not give explicit instruments of how and when to leave the local church (or state church). If this is true, shouldn’t we use some “sanctified hesitation” before we shun the name and approach of J.I. Packer?

Second, it is the gospel that matters most.

I will go on record saying that I would have J.I. Packer preach at my church. Though I am uncomfortable with his connections to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Essentials 94 (a Canadian version of ECT), this connection would not prevent me from having “the preeminent 20^th century theologian” come and expound God’s word. Why? Because in my estimation, Packer still upholds the “unadjusted gospel”. Some might challenge me on this, especially in light of these words from Packer:

“Evangelicalism was ‘Christianity at its purest’; this did not, however, preclude collaboration, dialogue or debate with ‘other mutations of Christianity….which seem less close to the spirit, belief and thrust of the New Testament’”.

Isn’t the gospel......either the gospel or not? Does the New Testament allow for “mutations” of the gospel? Of course not (Gal. 1:8-9). But in defense of Packer, he is not arguing to allow mutations of the gospel, but simply giving his defense on why he believes he can dialogue with those who have embraced mutations of it.

Bottom line: I wouldn’t hold hands with those who Packer does, but his conviction does not mean he embraces an “adjusted gospel”. Therefore, my convictions would allow me to have him preach at my church.

Third, we must be careful of the “guilt by association” mentality.

This “smacks” of the “Bob Jones type” of fundamentalism. Separation, in those circles, is assumed and encouraged. Here is a typical example: “I saw you have lunch with someone….who attends a church…that has a pastor who is a neo-evangelical, therefore, you must be a neo-evangelical!” What is the main problem here? No context, no heart assessment, no Christian love.

Now was J.I. Packer unwise to stay and try to reform the Church of England? Maybe. But, honestly, if I were to pick one Christian to stay and battle, wouldn’t you want the guy that wrote Knowing God and Fundamentalism and the Word of God? 

Again, I am not advocating giving an ear (or a platform) to someone who has embrace a false gospel or has rejected some of the key tenets of the Christian faith (2 John 1:10-11). THIS IS WHY I WILL NOT ATTEND THE ELEPHANT ROOM THIS YEAR http://www.theelephantroom.com/, because of the invitation of T.D. Jakes, who has (in my opinion) a distorted view of the Trinity, which put him outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. I am simply saying that I will not ignorantly condemn Packer just because someone places the ‘guilt by association’ label on him.

Both men (Lloyd-Jones and Packer) will always be held in high regard by informed Christians and the pages of church history. Could division have been avoided? Probably not….since the gospel was at stake (at least in the minds of Lloyd-Jones and his followers). Nevertheless, it should make us take a second look when we are willing to break fellowship for a possible case of “guilt by association”.