One of the posts that WordPress says is among our “Top Posts” is something that Keith wrote a while ago about Tim Keller’s thoughts on women being ordained. The reason that a post on this topic might re-emerge as a popular search item may have something to do with Keller being quoted thus,
“…there is an idolatrous reason behind each behavioral issue. For example, behind the belief that women should be ordained is the need for power and a love for feeling in charge.”
Bill Kinnon has a good discussion on the matter in which he points out that this is not characteristic of how Keller usually treats these topics. Kinnon also makes the point that men are certainly just as likely to desire ordination for “the need for power and a love of feeling in charge.”
Regarding Kinnon’s first point, the line we see above from Keller is in stark contrast to what Keller and his wife say here:
“Some 15 years ago, we would have entered the Presbyterian Church USA to minister, but we were told that our view of women-in-ministry precluded us from serving there. Though we would have worked beside people with different views, those on the other side of the fence would not work with us.
We do not want that to be the case at Redeemer. If you hold a view that differs from church policy or of the personal approach of the pastor, you should not feel bound to leave. We know what it was like to be ‘disfellowshipped’ over this issue once! We will not do it to anyone else.”
These are two very difficult points of view to reconcile here. On one hand women – any and all women – who believe that they are called to ordained ministry are power-mad idolaters, but on the other hand, Keller can totally work with them and it’s no big deal at all. Perhaps Keller now sees the issue as being as big a deal-breaker as he says egalitarian counterparts once did.
I think the two points are easily reconcilable.
I don’t know much about PCA church polity but from what I know of Grace Toronto (a PCA plant) you don’t need to be able to sign off on church confessions in order to become a member. All you need to do (I think) is be able to assent the the major Christian creeds like the Apostle’s, Athanasius and Nicea. Now if you’re going to teach or lead, that’s a different story. You have to be able to line up with the Westminster Confession.
Similarly Keller could be saying “don’t leave Redeemer if you’re an egalitarian. You don’t have to be a complementarian to fellowship with us.” I think this makes sense given the context of the Keller article where he says, “In many churches, a particular view of women-in-ministry has become a basis for fellowship.”
I agree with Kinnon’s point and certainly so would Keller. I think Keller’s real point is the uniqueness of the idolatry given that according to complementarians women ought not to desire certain positions in the first place. Males wouldn’t share this type of idolatry unless they were morally unfit to lead and desired to anyways. Even then it’s different.
I don’t think Keller was saying he would co-pastor a church alongside a female elder/pastor. What many seem to forget is that for as cool as Keller is, he’s still a dyed in the wool Presbyterian (who likes to quote Pomo guys).
Keith,
1) I think you’re correct that Keller does not want to alienate egalitarians.
2) Keller may not want to co-pastor a church with a woman, but he’d still have to interact with all kinds of female pastors if he had ended up in the PCUSA. People that he ended up calling idolators.
3) Does one really have to be a complementarian to be a “real” Presbyterian?
Yes.
OK. Let me rephrase – PCA Presbyterian.
Okay, yeah, I can see that for the PCA. But based on what you said about PCA wanting leaders to agree to that standard, is that not the same as what Keller encountered in the PCUSA – since he was talking about taking on a leadership role in that denomination? It appears to be a deal-breaker for both sides – at least for anyone expected to lead in the church.
I think Keller was taken out of context in that article. The article was written in a journal where it is clear that what Keller was saying was not word for world, but a paraphrase. Notice, on one hand you have a paper written by Tim and Kathy Keller, they are the authors and the other article is a quote taken by another individual. Therefore these are different sources and we should realize that. I would be careful not to say Keller is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and instead assume his position is the same, but that the latest quotation would not have been the way he would want to have phrase it. Thats my two cents.
I would hope that had Dr. Keller been misquoted he would say so. He hasn’t yet. He’s been sharing the platform with some pretty hardline complementarians of late and perhaps that’s influenced his position.
I’d agree, Bill. This could be a misquote – as Michael says, or it could represent an evolution in Keller’s thinking. The irony is that in the earlier paper he seemed to chastise the PC USA for being too hardline on egalitarianism.
Another possibility, though perhaps not as likely, is that he is making a distinction between:
a) leading a church in a denomination where the opposite position is allowed and practiced in other congregations, and being a member in a church where the opposite position is allowed in terms of membership requirements,
vs.
b) leading a church with someone in practical contradiction to one’s own belief about the issue (i.e., being a compl. co-pastoring in some way with a woman).
He seems to have been a Prof at Westminster East pretty early on in his career. I don’t think he’s changed view recently. He’s been fraternizing with hard line complementarians for a long time. Doing a D.Min at Westminster will do that to you I hear!
But in fairness, he and Redeemer have helped plant all kinds of churches. Many of which, if they don’t necessarily have women in leadership – they actively promote an egalitarian understanding of church polity.
Does the PCA allow for position A?
I can’t keep track of all the reformed denominations, it’s like The Life of Brian,
“Are you the Judean People’s Front?”
“F— off! Judean People’s Front! We’re the People’s Front of Judea!”
The more I think about this one, the more I think it would be beneficial for Tim Keller to speak up and clarify this one.