According to that logic, you'd have to call Lisp modern by 1958 standards.
Scheme is neat (in multiple meanings of the word), but honestly I don't think it's a good production tool. Being a Lisp-1 & lacking real macros means that it's more suited to being a pedagogical tool (n.b.: I believe that many Scheme implementations add real macros — but without a standard package system and a function namespace, this is not enough).
What do you mean by that? That implementers extend the language?
> Being a Lisp-1 & lacking real macros
Scheme has defmacro just like CL.
You can modify the reader and change the AST.
What does Scheme lack in macro-land?
> but without a standard package system
R7RS includes one. Currently implemented by Chez and Guile, to my knowledge