Plaster Saints, Part 2

I'm going to follow up last week's entry by posting a few more thoughts about J.I. Packer.

First, some more background about him. Back in 1997, he signed the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," along with Grudem and a host of other leading comps. The CSG expressed concern over gender-neutral language being used in Bible translation (i.e the TNIV). From the CSG flowed the English Standard Version, a new Bible translation designed to eliminate such language. Here is a description from the Bible Researcher website of how the ESV came about.

The following paragraphs from WORLD magazine (June 5, 1999) reveal the interesting circumstances in which the ESV was conceived: The English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books, had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

Unfortunately, Suzanne McCarthy from the Better Bibles Blog has a problem with the CSG.

On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read, "Brother" (adelphos) and "brothers" (adelphoi) should not be changed to "brother(s) and sister(s)."

Later, they changed their minds.

The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997, "Brother" adelphos should not be changed to "brother or sister"; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.

So why did they change their minds?

In Poythress and Grudem's own words, "in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, 'brother" sometimes means "brothers and sisters" (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).

This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines - we weren't previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines."

[emphasis mine throughout]

And Suzanne's reaction?

By their own admission, these men were of an age where they had already established their own personal theology, and had presumed to write theology for others, without ever learning to use a variety of the most standard Greek lexicons. They came to Colorado Springs with their gender guidelines already prepared, based on a narrow view of what the Greek said, and attempted to make these guidelines binding on the Christian community.

I highly reccommend reading the rest of Ms. McCarthy's post on this issue. It makes for fascinating reading. (Also, check out her entry about how even the KJV would not meet the Colorado Guidelines. Surely anyone proposing Bible translation guidelines for an entire nation should meet certain basic biblical literacy standards. ) Packer had declcared his comp. views well before signing the CSG, however. In an article written for Christianity Today in 1991 entitled "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters," he gave the following reasons for not allowing women to have authority in the church.

1. Feminism has infiltrated the church. According to Packer, “feminist ideology demands equal rights everywhere, on the grounds that anything a man can do a woman can do as well if not better.”(1)

2. The socialization of women since World War I has permitted them to enter spheres previously open only to men.(2)

3. The New Testament passages on women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-14) have proved “problematic” both in their interpretation and application.(3)

4. God apparently has blessed ministries led by women.

5. Ordination with its incumbent status and privileges has provided a certain degree of “job-satisfaction” to females in professional ministry roles.(4)

Points 1,2,4 and 5 deserve a post of their own (and I'm sure y'all will provide some lively commentary on them!). Right now I'm just going to comment on point number 3. Packer admits that the infamous verses that form the basis of comp. theology are difficult to translate and understand. And yet they form the basis of comp. theology! My response to this comes from the CBE article written to refute Packer's.

Packer asserts that 1 Corinthians 14:34f debars women from “speaking in church” and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 prohibits women from “teaching and giving directions to men.”(8) However, any interpretation which builds “a universal church order”(9) on a few verses which are highly debatable both exegetically and theologically is suspect.

(Note: the quote from Packer's own article also came from the CBE one.)

To which I can only add: Amen! It seems that today too many Christians have a "buffet Bible" theology. You pick and choose the verses that seem to support your viewpoint, and throw the rest of it out. To do so, however is dangerous and, well, suspect. I don't know about you, but I always wonder what people are hiding when they say "the Bible clearly supporst my view on Issue X" and then throw out a single verse.

And so, on that note, let me add a few concluding thoughts. Now, I must confess that this next insight only came to me after re-reading McCarthy's interview with Packer. (Previously I had written about it for The Scroll under "Better Bible Translation.") Notice how Packer keeps harping about context. In fact, at the end of the interview, he tells McCarthy, Let me say straightaway, we will have to agree to disagree. I get to specifics from the context. I start with the flow of the context, what is the whole thing about, the paragraph, things like that."

Now, I don't know about y'all, but whenever I speak to comps. and try to bring up the context of Paul's verses, I get hostility. "You're just trying to twist things. It says right there in plain English that women can't have authority over men, so why don't you just accept it?" So, does this mean that what's good for the comp. goose is not good for the egal. gander? Why is it ok for one leading comp. figure to be able to place such importance on context, but we cannot do the same?

At the end of his article about Packer (mentioned in the original "Plaster Saints" post), Wilson discusses an article Packer wrote in the 50's critiquing British evangelicals, and how it could describe American evangelicals today. He adds that In his own life and work, Packer has always been the antithesis of such a cramped conception of the Christian life. With all due respect to Wilson, I cannot imagine anything more cramped than living under the comp. way of life. I thank the Lord that my parents believed in allowing me to serve however the Lord called me, and that my husband feels that way about me now. If you remember, the title of the conference sponsored by Beeson Divinity School was "J.I. Packer and the Evangelical Future." Well I hope that Packer's future is not mine. I want my future daughters to grow up in freedom, and not have to go back to the outdated belief system of patriarchy.