I. Male headship
I think this aspect of the issue is simple in the sense that I think a pretty solid, straightforward case can be made for the general principle of male headship in Scripture.
I’m not going to argue the point, in part because this is well-trodden ground. Among the more able and reliable complementarian writers are Vern Poythress, Tom Schreiner, Jim Hamilton, and Andreas Köstenberger.
A lot of their stuff is available for free:
II. Factual issues
There’s the factual question of what Tim Keller has actually said and done in terms of women in church ministry. I don’t have an informed opinion on that question, because I haven’t bothered to monitor that debate. I merely mention it because that’s a relevant consideration.
III. Procedural issues
i) A denomination like the PCA has a policy on the women in church ministry. Even if (arguendo) Keller disagreed with the policy, he has some responsibility to uphold the policy as long as he’s a PCA pastor. If he’s irreconcilably opposed to the PCA policy, then he should transfer to a different denomination.
I’m not saying for a fact tha this is the case. The procedural issue piggybacks on the factual issue. I’m just stating another relevant consideration.
ii) At the same time, it’s not quite as simple as (i). Presbyterianism has an appellate system. In that respect, one of the official channels in revising denominational policy is to challenge the policy, then let that challenge be adjudicated.
From what I understand, dissent, per se, is not out-of-bounds, for one of the structural means to establish or revise denominational policy is to raise an issue, then let the appellate process run its course.
iii) In case of a preexisting policy, I assume the most responsible way to do that would be to express a respectful dissent, continue to uphold the policy while the issue is adjudicated, then, if the status quo is reaffirmed, either submit to the policy or leave the denomination.
IV. Exegetical issues
The debate over women in church ministry frequently oversimplifies the Biblical data. Here’s a treatment that draws attention to the kinds of distinctions we must consider:
V. Cross-contextual issues
Roman Catholic epologists have a bad habit of making a straight-line correlation from Biblical categories to Roman Catholic church orders. This highlights a tempting anachronism that evangelicals need to resist.
i) You can’t just take a Biblical category like “pastor,” “elder,” “bishop,” “deacon,” then map that directly onto church officers who go by that name in your own denomination (or independent church).
Rather, you must first determine the functions of the Biblical category, how these categories relate to each other (i.e. are they sometimes synonymous?), then consider the degree to which Biblical categories correspond to the polity of a particular denomination.
ii) Apropos (i), different denominations, theological traditions, and independent churches assign different duties and prerogatives to the clergy. Consider congregationalism, Presbyterianism, episcopacy, Pentecostalism, &c.
iii) Likewise, a small-town pastor may do it all whereas a megachurch may have a specialized division of labor.
VI. Authority
The question of women in church ministry is frequently bound up with the question of authority. But what do we mean by authority?
i) This is sometimes cast in terms of teaching authority. But that’s ambiguous.
a) Does that mean church office (i.e. ordination) confers a degree of authority on the teaching over and above the quality of the teaching itself?
b) Or does it mean the pastor has the “authority” of an expert witness, due to his formal training in theology?
ii) Put another way, is the teaching of a pastor more inherently authoritative than the teaching of a layman, or does authority reside in truth?
Does the authoritative character of authoritative teaching derive from church office, or from the authority of Scripture, assuming a pastor accurately teaches what Scripture teaches? In other words, is the locus of authoritative teaching the Bible (i.e. Biblical teaching) or church office?
Scriptural teaching is authoritative. If a pastor’s exegesis is sound, and his application is sound, then, to that extent, his teaching shares the divine authority of the original source.
iii) Or does authority have reference, not to doctrinal authority, but to enforcing doctrine? Put another way, does this have reference to church discipline?
Wow! What a comprehensive examination.
ReplyDeleteIt's far more than "Keller in the dock." This post lists an expansive framework from which to think about the Women's Ordination issue.
Thanks for your thoughts, Steve.
He's also moving slowly into socialism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7094
This cannot be divorced from theology.
In re-reading the link that C. Andiron provided I found that it's a small excerpt from a much more in-depth examination of Keller's liberalism.
ReplyDeleteThe more comprehensive critique is Tim Keller and Social Justice and it has 73 comments so far.
I definitely agree that a mere title (e.g deacon or elder) is less important than what a woman is functionally doing.
ReplyDeleteBut words (and therefore titles) also carry meanings and so even if a woman is called a 'pastor' but does not violate the authority/submission principles it still gives the wrong message to a watching world - indicating to most that she holds a position of authority over men in the church.
So function is of primary importance, but titles convey messages to onlookers too.
I think there are a several issues in the whole women in ministry debate:
1) Tim Keller (and many others) appear to relegate complementarianism in the church as being no more than not holding the title 'elder', instead of applying the principles Paul gives more consistently. So you would get situations were a woman could regularly lead a mixed group in a bible study but not teach them in church.
2) I am not an expert on the Bayly Blog, but I think they (rightly in my opinion) hold a more consistent complementarian view. In that they would see the principles of authority/submission applied more consistently e.g to worship leader, administering communion, leading a mixed small group etc.. rather than just to the office of elder. Many professing complementarians would still be on board here. But the Bayly's would go further and say gender roles should not be artificially limited to marriage and church, but should apply more widely in society. Think John Knox. In fact the 1st chapter of RBMW by John Piper is quite suggestive in this direction.
3) More conservative complementarians (I would imagine this includes the Bayly's) would take 1Cor14:33-36 at face value rather than pursuing the route of Grudem and Carson (and most of mainstream complementarianism) who attempt to get us out of there. There has been some convincing (in my mind) pushback against the Grudem/Carson view (e.g. Carl Laney of CBMW, Michael Marlowe of bibleresearcher and James Greenbury in JETS). More conservative complementarians feel the 'judging prophecy' route engages in some implausible exegesis to avoid saying women should be more broadly silent in church.
4) The Bayly's would also dare to entertain the possibility that head coverings are not a culturally bound expression of submission (contra Schreiner in RBMW), and that women wearing them in church today should be at least be at the table. I believe RC Sproul is of this view as are many Plymouth Brethren assemblies, and some conservative presbyterian denominations here in Scotland (FPCS, FCC) and a few others.
Points 3) and 4) would make the Bayly's quite unpopular with many mainstream complementarians I would imagine.
TUAD:
ReplyDeleteI'm no Keller fan, as I explained at length in a previous thread. Yet the "Social Justice" article is poor. Really, really poor.
The author is throwing around comparisons everyone from Marx to Father Coughlin. Next he complains that Keller translates his own Greek. Then he goes off about the Soviet Constitution!
Sure, Keller and social justice are bad news. Yet I submit he deserves a much more careful analysis than this.
Hi Randall,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of this lengthy book review:
Social Justice With a Spiritual Jacket
Cont. “But the Bayly's would go further and say gender roles should not be artificially limited to marriage and church, but should apply more widely in society.”
ReplyDeleteI agree. But politically speaking, that’s a lost cause for the foreseeable future. So we need to focus on the church, where we retain more control.
“More conservative complementarians (I would imagine this includes the Bayly's) would take 1Cor14:33-36 at face value rather than pursuing the route of Grudem and Carson…to avoid saying women should be more broadly silent in church.”
i) The problem with the so-called “face value” reading is that it seems to directly contradict 11:2-16.
ii) Moreover, 1 Cor 11 is more fundamental to the complementarian position than 1 Cor 14:33-36 inasmuch as 1 Cor 11 lays down the creation-order principle, which was what grounds the complementarian position (in a creational ordinance).
iii) Since 1 Cor wasn’t written to 21C Christians, there are bound to be some vagaries at this distance. It’s an educated guess what he had in mind. But in any event, we need an interpretation that’s mutually consistent with 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14 alike. Ciampa/Rosner, in their recent commentary, sift the options.
“The Bayly's would also dare to entertain the possibility that head coverings are not a culturally bound expression of submission…”
I don’t think that discussion should be taken and some conservative presbyterian denominations here in Scotland (FPCS, FCC) and a few others. off the table.
“I believe RC Sproul is of this view…”
With all due respect, he’s not a Bible scholar.
“…as are many Plymouth Brethren assemblies.”
Of course, appealing to the Plymouth Brethren highlights the complexities of correlating NT church officers with modern-day counterparts.
“And some conservative presbyterian denominations here in Scotland (FPCS, FCC) and a few others.”
Well, since my father’s side of the family migrated from Scotland to New England in 1680, I’m quite sympathetic to your Celtic credentials. But I’ll resist the temptation to make that a probative consideration.
HALO SAID:
ReplyDelete“…it still gives the wrong message to a watching world…”
I’m less concerned with the message we send than whether our practice is allowed or disallowed by Scripture.
“…indicating to most that she holds a position of authority over men in the church.”
i) We need to take a step back and ask what kind of authority women were illegitimately wielding over men in 1 Tim 2, and/or what social position they held which enabled them to wield/abuse that authority.
We’d then consider analogous situations in our own time and place.
ii) I think 1 Tim 2 most likely envisions upper class women (or women of means) who hosted Christian meetings in their private homes. Upper class women were in a position to wield authority over lower class men–and abuse that authority.
iii) In the larger context of Paul’s letter, it’s not so much that women were teaching men, but rather, that women were sponsoring heretical teachers. So perhaps Paul is speaking in shorthand here.
“Tim Keller (and many others) appear to relegate complementarianism in the church as being no more than not holding the title 'elder', instead of applying the principles Paul gives more consistently.”
I’m not sufficiently conversant with the details of Keller’s position or practice to comment one way or the other.
“So you would get situations were a woman could regularly lead a mixed group in a bible study but not teach them in church.”
Question: is it appropriate for a man to read Karen Jobes’ commentary on 1 Peter, but inappropriate for a man to hear Karen Jobes say the same thing she wrote?
I don’t see that the mode of transmission is a principled distinction.
“administering communion”
i) That’s not so much a male/female issue, but a lay/clerical issue. Is the administration of the Eucharist reserved for the clergy? The NT doesn’t speak to that issue one way or the other.
ii) Of course, in Catholic theology, this is also a male/female issue inasmuch as the priest is acting in the place of Christ. But we presumably reject that theological undercarriage.
TUAD:
ReplyDeletePepin is better but I still want a better analysis. Remember, I’m stridently opposed to the Tim Keller personality cult. On the other hand, Keller deserves an accurate critique, even if that critique is provocative.
1.) Saying you’re for “social justice” is like saying you’re for “traditional values” or “right reason” or “human rights.” Different people use jargon in different ways. Let Keller define the term however he wants. Then go from there. Keller is slippery, of course, so this may be an annoying chore.
2.) I don’t think it is fair to compare Keller with some revolutionary atheist because of his politics. He’s not Che Guevara, for crying out loud. At most he’s a squishly left-wing neoevangelical.
3.) Pepin claims Keller is Emergent. Is that fair? Keller was doing his thing for years before those guys showed up.
4.) I agree with Pepin that Keller has a Guilty White Boy complex. I would analyze the issue differently from him because I think it is central to his thinking. For one thing, the word “racism” is an ad hominem term used almost exclusively to attack whites, whether they deserve it or not. It is not a Biblical category.
5.) The Bible really DOES call on the state to protect the poor and restrain corrosive capitalism. However, Keller makes a parody of that with his lousy arguments. For example, when Keller talks “Justice and Mercy,” IMHO he is using those words in an emotive sense without clear meaning. This is more manipulation of White Guilt. He does the poor no favors by doing this. I find it intellectually dishonest.
Hope this helps.
What happened to all the previous comments here and the post on Male Headship that has disappeared? Have feminists taken the helm?!
ReplyDeleteBlogger suffered a meltdown. Depending on what's restored (or not), I may try repost or reconstruct what I can of the missing posts and comments.
ReplyDeleteBlogger suffered what looks to me to have been a major meltdown. All posts within a roughly three day period were effectec by it. They have tried to preserve as much as possible but lost a lot of stuff. I haven't blogged anything on my own blog in a while but when I tried posting a few things got a warning message that I wouldn't be able to access things for a while. Hope you don't have to reconstruct too much from scratch, Steve.
ReplyDelete