Plaster Saints

Many years ago I read A.N. Wilson's biography of C.S. Lewis. Like many Christians, I had grown up believing that Lewis was about the closest thing we had to a Protestant saint, at least in this century. He was the beloved author of the Narnia stories for children and the mighty warrior who defended Christianity to the outside world and made it all seem so reasonable. Imagine my surprise, then, to find that Lewis led a less-than-perfect life. Like most of us, he made mistakes and even generated a bit of controversy. And I'll never forget what Wilson said in his introduction. "Lewis may have been a saint, but he was a plaster saint. Just because he is so highly respected doesn't mean we can't look at his faults."

I have these same ambivalent feelings towards J.I. Packer. Yesterday in my e-mail I got the latest newsletter from Books & Culture, a division of Christianity Today magazine. In an article entitled Packer Stomp the author, John Wilson, discusses how Beeson Divinity School recently hosted a conference called "J.I. Packer and the Evangelical Future." At the conference, they had various speakers lionize Packer for his many years of contribution to Christian thought.

David Neff's paper was devoted to an aspect of Jim Packer's work that is not sufficiently appreciated but that is particularly close to my heart—Packer's commitment to first-rate journalism, both as a writer and as one of the presiding spirits of Christianity Today.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about Packer. I have heard his name uttered in reverential tones by other Christians, so I am willing to accept that he is a man of great importance in the history of 20th century Christianity. However, I also know that he is biased towards the complementarian cause, and may have been dishonest in advocating it.

In February of this year, Suzanne McCarthy of the Better Bibles Blog interviewed Packer about his association with Wayne Grudem and their work in translating the ESV.

Suzanne: I have to ask you about 2 Tim. 2:2. [and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (ESV) ] Did you think that anthropos referred to 'men' in this verse?

Dr. Packer: I think it means 'men' exegetically. We think that it means 'men'....

Suzanne: I was brought up with that verse in our Christian Fellowship and I always thought that it was 'men and women'. It was quite a shock to me to find that people would think that it was 'men only'.

Dr. Packer: Well, Paul doesn’t say that it was 'men only', he just says 'men', but in the situation, it was to the teachers, surely it is obvious from the context that they were men.

I looked up anthropos in the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, available on Crosswalk, and here's what it said.

Anthropos

a human being, whether male or female
generically, to include all human individuals

So, in other words, McCarthy was correct. Paul meant to say that both men and women could be teachers. Later, Packer emphasizes context again.

Suzanne: Luther translated it mensch. He didn’t add the masculine meaning. It was a disappointing verse for me.

Dr. Packer: Remember though until very recently the word, that the masculine word 'men' was understood as generic, 'men' was including women when the context implies it. Are you saying that the context implies women teachers especially in light of the second half of the second chapter of 1 Timothy?

So Packer admits that his translation of 2 Tim 2:2 is based on an interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-12 that says women cannot have any authority in the church. In other words, Packer holds to the complementarian position regarding the second verse and carries that mindset to every verse concerning positions of authority in the church.

I loved McCarthy's response. After concluding her interview, she added her own thoughts.

In any case, this verse had not been translated by the ESV in such a way that it is 'transparent to the Greek....' [McCarthy had handed her Greek Bible to a Greek friend of hers and asked her to read 2 Tim 2:2 in English. The woman automatically translated anthropos as "people." You can see their exchange in McCarthy's personal blog here.]

However, in light of the final verses of 2 Timothy I would be interested in hearing if there is another way of interpreting this epistle so that women could be included.

Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus. Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers. ESV

The incongruous 'brothers' should also be reconsidered. 'Brethren' was marginally possible, but 'brothers' is downright odd in this context.

So once again we have the comp. paradox: in several verses spread across more than one book, Paul highly commends women, and yet at the same time they were supposed to remain silent and not do anything. It makes you wonder what Priscilla and Junia and Phoebe and Claudia were doing. Were they, like Martha, preparing dinner?

There is much more to say on this issue, so I'll continue next time.