The Kellers' view on this matter comes most close to what I believe to be biblically accurate applications of Scripture. I am not totally convinced of everything everybody writes about the pre-fall state, and about the trinity, but I do agree, when looking at the pastoral epistles and the general letters, and from Acts, of their practical applications. There are a couple things in the article I would change if I had written it, namely on coming on strong about the pre-fall hierarchy, but overall the article is essentially what I believe. And practically speaking, the pre-fall and trinitarian boondogles aside, their view of how a church should look strikes me as biblical, and allowing for everyone, man and woman to use his or her gifts to minister to the Body.
Bayly blog entry
Tim Bayly wrote:
"But today, everyone hates authority and, going the way of the world, the PCA is pussyfooting around that hatred. Read these documents and ask yourself if you recognize where we're headed?"
And here is Keller's article:
www.baylyblog.com/files/timkellerredeemerpca.pdf
Women and non-elder males can use any and all spiritual gifts in ministry.
Though the job of elder is a high calling, every believer is a "prophet, priest, and king". All nonelders in the church must and can use their gifts in the church, whatever they are.
In a nutshell, our position is this: whatever a non-ruling elder male can do in the church, a woman can do. We do not believe that I Timothy 2:11 or I Cor.14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publically. To "teach with authority" (I Tim.2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. For example, when an elder says to a member: "You are telling everyone that they must be circumcised in order to be saved--that is a destructive, non-Biblical teaching which is hurting people spiritually. You must desist from it or you will have to leave the church." That is "teaching authority"--it belongs only to the elders.
Thus, women at Redeemer will be free to use all the gifts, privately and publically. There are no restrictions on ministry at all. There is a restriction on the office of elder. Why? Because the Bible precludes it, and therein it points us back to the Trinitarian pattern which is strong in marriage and muted in society, but which is practiced in the church. . . .
Leadership structure at Redeemer Presbyterian.
We hope to have two boards of officers: elders and deacons/deaconnesses.
The Deaconesses themselves.
The Deaconnesses will be women elected by the congregation who will do discipling, counseling, and shepherding in the church, particularly among the women. Spiritual maturity is the qualification. They will probably also exercise a teaching ministry in the church, depending on their gifts.
The Deaconnesses and the Deacons.
Together with the deacons, they will equip and guide people into ministry in the church. At Redeemer we want to help laypeople begin and conduct ministries. Deaacons and Deaconesses will do this together.
The Deaconesses and the Elders.
The church will continue to have broad-based planning and strategizing. Deaconesses will serve on planning/oversight committees (e.g. evangelism, education, worship) with other officers and non-officers. Deaconnesses could chair such a committee if the group so elects.
Also, the Elders, Deacons, and Deaconnesses will meet regularly for strategy and oversight of the church. In matters of discipline and doctrine, the elders have the final say--they have "tiebreaking authority"! Also, the elders represent the church at denominational meetings. But deaconnesses will sit in positions of influence and will have regular part (along with many women on program committees) into the strategizing and decision-making process of the church.
I did not get the impression that the Kellers were pussyfooting around the hatred of authority. The article clearly says they believe in a pre-fall headship of Adam, and that the office of elder is reserved for men only, and they reject arguments that say Jesus only chose male apostles because he was accomodating to the culture, and more arguments like these. The Baylys especially oppose this concept:
"In a nutshell, our position is this: whatever a non-ruling elder male can do in the church, a woman can do."
Looking at the whole counsel of Scripture, I agree with that statement, though.
But look at the link and see what you think.
28 comments:
" "teach with authority" (I Tim.2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone"
The only problem is that this is not what "authenteo" means in that verse. It is the only time that word is used in all of scripture.
If it meant just regular authority over men the Holy Spirit would have inspired a regular Greek word meaning authority such as exousia and arche used in other areas to denote authority or leadership. In this verse it means something like killing, murder as in false teaching. And the grammar in that verse is singular. Not plural meaning all women for all time.
Lynn,
Tim tends towards the dramatic, doesn't he?
Everyone hates authority? Please. There are many of us who not only do NOT hate authority but we welcome it in our lives and we teach our children to honor it.
He seems to be afraid of allowing God to be God. He also seems to think that God left too many loopholes in His word whereby women may just get too big for their britches and think that they have a part to play in the workings of the Church (not talking about the nursery and kitchen).
Are deaconnesses that threatening of a concept? Weird. And what makes him think that the women and the non-ruling male elders are not equal in the Church? Or does this mean he believes that all males hold authority over all females?
Corrie,
Dramatic, that word describes the Bayly's reactions to the T. (I hope that was English!!!)
I made the mistake and first read the Bayly's article. I could take them a bit seriously if they didn't insist upon this "father-rule-is-God's-ultimate-plan"notion.
I don't get it.
Reading their blog is an adrenalin inducer. This time it was their rant about how vows should include the word obey for the wife. That alone makes me want to throw the computer screen at their heads.
The structure of the Keller's church sounds good. I believe it's a result of good research of the epistles. But I wonder why a church needs people with the authority to break the tie, and why these people have to be males.
Can someone give me Scripture to support that?
Lin, I agree that Paul, with great economy of words was countering false teaching at Ephesus, but regarding the singular grammar, I am not persuaded that it refers to one woman only.
In practical terms (ie -- leaving out what happened before the fall, and arguments about the trinity and how things have been and will be for all eternity, and focusing on the instructions to the church) I find this article to give the proper freedom for allowing everybody in the body of Christ to be built up to be a minister. And that means I believe that the local church, which alone can see who is maturing within her confines with gifts, is the particular body which has the discernment to commission, ordain, whatever you want to call it, anybody who has gifting that is obvious, to be recognized as a minister.
If these men and women work real hard at what they do, they should even be paid.
Those that have gifts, according to Ephesians, are to build up the saints for the work of the ministry, and that means EVERYBODY in the Body should grow up to DO a ministry.
And if you minister, then you ARE a minister.
If you give, you ARE a giver.
Whatever else you think about elders, from the whole of the pastoral epistles, their functions are oversight of the church, and teaching. So they ARE overseers and teachers.
But we know from the whole counsel of Scripture that teaching is NOT NOT *NOT* a function that is LIMITED to overseers:
If you teach, you ARE a teacher.
And THAT is the problem the Baylys have. Because they say the office of elder includes the function of teaching, then for women to teach men means they are usurping authority.
The insurmountable problem the Baylys have is the whole counsel of Scripture NECESSARILY mitigates their view, for there are many instances in Scripture where women teach other men, including many portions of Scripture, which ARE DIDACTIC, where women are quoted at length, and these women are therefore, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, teaching all mankind for all time.
The second problem the Baylys have is claiming what is normative is therefore a moral rule, when they said women like Deborah, Huldah, Pricilla, Anna, etc. are all exceptions that prove there is a rule, for the exceptions proved there is a NORM. But since all the exceptions of judges, prophets, women proclaiming things that became didactic portions of Scripture were allowed to do so, and are righteous women, then you are only speaking of a norm, not a moral rule.
However, regardless of what one thinks about elders and whether they should be men only, the Keller article is a complementarian one which allows very full expression of gifting (being an overseer or a deacon is not a spiritual gift), and a recognition that ALL are to BECOME ministers (which they did not cite the source of when they said that, but it is clearly stated in Ephesians).
It was Lin's and Humtar's conversation on the "feminized" thread that prompted me to put this article out here for discussion.
I know Humtar, based on his comments here, is quite familiar with the Bayly blog, and the Baylys' claim is that the Kellers are "pussyfooting" around the "hatred" of authority, and that is what reminded me of this article, because both of you were talking about authority in the church and society, and the Keller article, which I found on the Bayly blog, addresses both the issues.
If you read the Kellers' piece you can see, because of their view that Adam's headship (meaning authority) over Eve existed before the fall, that they are not "pussyfooting" around anything like that.
It was painfully obvious they were laying out Scriptural arguments, and giving their best Scriptural answer to opposition. And they were doing it, unlike many others, with a great deal of goodwill.
My main commendation is that they are trying their level best to allow the freedom for all in the Body to use their gifts to serve the Body and build one another up, and if you just look at that angle of it, I think they did a slam dunk of a job, within the complementarian framework.
"And what makes him think that the women and the non-ruling male elders are not equal in the Church? Or does this mean he believes that all males hold authority over all females?"
Since you answered your question, I see no need to comment, other than to agree that is the answer. ;-) And we're not speculating -- there are many quotes on that blog which assert just that.
Or, let me amend that. They believe all adult males SHOULD hold all positions of authority, and that NO woman should have a postition of authority over a man, and this is NOT just limited to the church and home.
They do recognize that some women, such as the hypothetical police officer, have authority -- they just are convicted that kind of thing, and more goes against the created order and is therefore evil, and so, like righteous Lot, they "gnash their teeth" at it.
Dramatic, that word describes the Bayly's reactions to the T. (I hope that was English!!!)
Yes, it was English! ;-)
As far as "tie-breaking," I can only see that kind of thing coming into play as far as the general oversight of the church goes -- such as concerns from different quarters about scheduling conflicts, and issues like those where mundane conflicts need some kind of help at resolution.
But I don't see that as "tie-breaking," so I think their choice of words could have been better.
Getting all the input and giving a final decision between two opposing groups is something I've seen in my church:
There are bible studies for women in my church, and there are also clubs for friendship evangelism.
One of the clubs is called "Hiker Chicks." Haha! Some of the women in the church (I know some of these women personally) complained to the church board about that one (among other concerns), but the final decision was to render moot that particular complaint about that particular title, and allow the group to take their hikes through the local reserves, and keep their title.
I think that has to probably be an example of what they meant, but it was more of rendering a verdict than breaking a tie.
I don't think "tie-breaking" ought to be applied to doctrine, and I don't think unity of the Spirit means that everybody has to be in total agreement with how the church schedules and orders its meetings (think the family integrated movement, for example -- they've split churches over non-doctrine).
I always come back to the basic question: What does human 'authority' mean and look like within the Body? (Body being local church or the universal church)
They do recognize that some women, such as the hypothetical police officer, have authority -- they just are convicted that kind of thing, and more goes against the created order and is therefore evil, and so, like righteous Lot, they "gnash their teeth" at it.
That has to be the most absurd of absurdities. Along with John Pipers' discomfort if he rides in a bus driven by a woman.
Everyone hates authority? Please. There are many of us who not only do NOT hate authority but we welcome it in our lives and we teach our children to honor it.
"Everyone hates authority" is a truism of human nature.
In a week or so, the U.S. is going to celebrate our historical rejection of a civil authority. I don't know about you, but I regularly spit on the authority of the state when I speed in my car. I resent having to pay taxes. I resent having to implement stupid policies that my boss come up with. Can any of us really look into our hearts and say we don't hate authority? As a sinner, I certainly can't.
And the grammar in that verse is singular. Not plural meaning all women for all time.
"I want my students to work hard and turn their work in on time. I will not allow a student to submit late homework."
Any student (by which I mean every SINGLE student) should understand what the latter sentence means.
Tim tends towards the dramatic, doesn't he?
No kidding. It seems if you disagree with Tim Bayly then you :
- hate authority
- are a feminist
- rebel against all of church history
- rebel against scripture
- rebel against God
- probably hate your Mom and apple pie
- not to mention like wearing pink polo shirts.
Wait, was I bit over dramatic...
"Wait, was I bit over dramatic..."
Only by the last two bullets!
As I understand it, the Kellers' church is under the authority of the PCA and their constitution says that deacons must be men. I don't understand the ins and outs of the church politics, but I think their constitution explicitly states "In accord with Scripture, these offices [of elders and deacons] are open to men only." The position paper by (Kathy?) Keller and the church's policies about the diaconate boldly ignore that unambiguous condition in their constitution.
Depending on the circumstances, this might qualify as pussyfooting with hatred of authority.
Really, it's amazing how many ways there are to hate authority! Like I said before, just look at yourself to see how pervasive it is. A love for authority is demonstrated when you submit to repugnant authorities. While it is patriotic, some logic in the article like "So why don't we have Kings? The answer is that we have to abolish monarchy due to sin," it is not love of authority.
"The position paper by (Kathy?) Keller and the church's policies about the diaconate boldly ignore that unambiguous condition in their constitution.
Depending on the circumstances, this might qualify as pussyfooting with hatred of authority."
Boldly asserting something you believe to be biblical does not necessarily mean you are flouting authority. And the only thing that makes your argument wrong or right is whether the Bible teaches what you say it teaches. All I read from that paper is "this is what we would like to see." They said that at the end in almost those words.
They are going to allow women to minister, regardless of what kind of title they give them.
And there is nothing wrong with that, in God's eyes. We'll let their church structure handle the rest, because unlike the Baylys, we aren't in a position to judge whether they are in rebellion or not, or "pussyfooting around rebellion," and the Baylys, although they are pastors in the PCA, are not in oversight over the session where the Tim Keller ministers, so they really aren't in a position to render these kinds of judgments, either.
[The Baylys] really aren't in a position to render these kinds of judgments, either.
There must be something amiss here. When were we appointed to a position of oversight over the Baylys?
Also, having read the last couple pages of the Kellers' paper more carefully, it looks like they are rather explicit that their position is a compromise between making non-believing feminists happy and honoring biblical orthodoxy. Whatever the rest of the paper says, this seems to get to the heart of their (wo)man-centered motivation. It's also ironic because earlier they say (correctly) that consistent feminists would not accept biblical authority.
[The Baylys] really aren't in a position to render these kinds of judgments, either.
Humtar:
There must be something amiss here. When were we appointed to a position of oversight over the Baylys?
Huh? That came out of left field. I was just stating a fact. None of us -- neither you, nor I, nor the Baylys, are in a position to judge the Kellers.
Here is one sentence of the Keller article that first made me do a double take:
"But that is our goal--to create a community that even non-believing feminists recognize as not oppressive, yet one that honors
the Biblical distinction between the genders."
At first I thought what they said was a compromise, but looking at the quote in the context of the paragraph in which it appears:
"The real challenge will not be to create a structure, but to create a climate in which men and
women truly work together as equal ministry partners in the church, still recognizing the
principle of male headship in the eldership. Will we really let women lead ministries? Will we
really release women's gifts to witness, nurture, and serve in the church? Will we incorporate
the wisdom of all the mature Christians into the planning of the church? Or will we have a
paternalistic attitude which in thousands of subtle ways puts women down and does not listen
to their advice or concerns? That remains to be seen! But that is our goal--to create a
community that even non-believing feminists recognize as not oppressive, yet one that honors
the Biblical distinction between the genders."
Here is a clear recognition that they may not be able to have ordained female deaconnesses, but in spite of that they want to allow women to minister in what they believe is a biblical way, and therefore, deaconnesses or not, they still want that climate of partnership, allowing women to be built up to be ministers along with everybody else, and allowing women a great deal of freedom under the teaching and ruling elders to serve in many practical ways in the church.
Their goal is to create a community that is not oppressive, and is biblical. IOW, even though there is male authority in the church, it should not be a pagan, top-down kind of authoritarianism, but one that seeks to build all believers, men and women, into being ministers in the Body.
So, I don't have a problem with that phrase. I would not have worded this that way, but I really don't have a problem with what they said.
"Can any of us really look into our hearts and say we don't hate authority? As a sinner, I certainly can't."
I don't think everyone hates authority at all. I think people might chafe under stupid, greedy and wicked authority but I, personally, have no problem with legitimate authority.
I actually wanted to do right by my mom and dad. I had no problem being under a boss's authority.
I don't think I am that unusual at all.
Yes, there are some out there that can't stand authority and are always trying to buck the system but as a Christian, we are called to self-rule and we are empowered by the Holy Spirit in order to fulfill God's commands to us.
I wonder if Tim is gnashing his teeth over the nice, big article on Keller in this latest issue of World Mag?
Humtar: "There must be something amiss here. When were we appointed to a position of oversight over the Baylys? "
When were the Baylys appointed to a position of oversight over the body of Christ at large? They act as if they were and I know I have gotten the whole "you are under my authority" treatment merely because I respectfully disagree with them.
The Baylys are on equal footing with their readers and they are accountable to the public for the things that they write publicly. We have a duty to hold them accountable for what they teach publicly.
Brian,
Great list! Tim accused me of saying something that was "so evil in its opposition to scripture" that he had to ban me from his blog. My husband and I both confronted him about this bold-faced lie and he couldn't come up with a single thing that I supposedly said that backed up his assertion.
I merely made an observation and I got lambasted with everything in that list. I have seen him do this over and over again to others, too. All under the guise of "protecting the flock".
No, more like beating and abusing the flock.
I still laugh when I think of Light giving them 3 scenarios without naming which gender each person was in those scenarios and watching them sputter and stammer and demand that they cannot answer the questions unless she told them the gender of Person A and Person B.
Their position was that men always do things for their wives out of sacrificial love and women do the very SAME things for their husbands out of submission. So, if a husband wanted the wife to go to the store with him but she would rather read a book but she goes anyways, she is submitting to him. If a wife wanted the husband to go to the store with her and he wanted to stay home and watch the game but he went anyways then he was sacrificially loving her.
Poppycock.
Women sacrificially love all the time and do things like this out of love but with the Baylys, a woman does the things she does out of submission.
They won't even entertain anything to the contrary.
"And there is nothing wrong with that, in God's eyes. We'll let their church structure handle the rest, because unlike the Baylys, we aren't in a position to judge whether they are in rebellion or not, or "pussyfooting around rebellion," and the Baylys, although they are pastors in the PCA, are not in oversight over the session where the Tim Keller ministers, so they really aren't in a position to render these kinds of judgments, either."
Do the Baylys have a good reputation with their peers in the PCA? Are they submissive to their authorities or do they pussyfoot around their legitimate authority in the PCA?
"Their position was that men always do things for their wives out of sacrificial love and women do the very SAME things for their husbands out of submission. So, if a husband wanted the wife to go to the store with him but she would rather read a book but she goes anyways, she is submitting to him. If a wife wanted the husband to go to the store with her and he wanted to stay home and watch the game but he went anyways then he was sacrificially loving her."
lol!!!!
Call it whatever you want, that sounds like mutuality to me!
I don't think everyone hates authority at all. I think people might chafe under stupid, greedy and wicked authority but I, personally, have no problem with legitimate authority.
The whole discussion is largely about what actually is legitimate authority. Some say men don't have legitimate authority over women. Some say pastors and elders don't have legitimate authority over other believers. Some say that a king (e.g. King George III) who imposes unfair taxes don't have legitimate authority.
Jesus submitted himself to evil, corrupt civil authorities like Pontius Pilate; he told his followers to do what the Pharisees said to do. Are Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees what you called "legitimate" authorities?
Huh? That came out of left field. I was just stating a fact. None of us -- neither you, nor I, nor the Baylys, are in a position to judge the Kellers.
There is a double-standard. While you assert that the Baylys don't have standing to judge the Kellers public policies and speech, you don't stop others from denouncing the Baylys for their speech and actions. Why the difference?
Do the Baylys have a good reputation with their peers in the PCA? Are they submissive to their authorities or do they pussyfoot around their legitimate authority in the PCA?
I have no idea for the first question. I'm not even sure if a good reputation with PCA pastors is even desirable. As for the other question, are you accusing them of something specific?
I wrote:
Huh? That came out of left field. I was just stating a fact. None of us -- neither you, nor I, nor the Baylys, are in a position to judge the Kellers.
Humtar replied:
There is a double-standard. While you assert that the Baylys don't have standing to judge the Kellers public policies and speech, you don't stop others from denouncing the Baylys for their speech and actions. Why the difference?
I don't have a problem reading the Baylys' argumentations for or against anything on Scriptural grounds, including their views on women. I've written my take on their views, and have no problem agreeing or disagreeing with them, either. I would not have a problem with them taking quotes of my writing to dissect it. I'm sure there are things I've said that haven't been totally accurate.
I meant judging people's hearts and motives, and also being in a position to render a verdict about what these people should or should not do. I have no problem with their disagreements where they argue, using Scripture, for or against their views.
The first category (judging the heart) belongs to God, and the second one (a judicial church censure or commendation of the Kellers) none of us commenting here can claim as a position we have.
When the Baylys said the Kellers were "pussyfooting around the hatred of authority," that was a double ad hominem abusive argumentation tactic. He can't read into the Kellers' hearts to see what their motivation is, and there are many legitimate concerns feminists have about the abuse of authority. When he said that in the article, at that point, if one didn't know who Tim Keller was, it was also "poisoning the well."
IOW -- It had nothing to do with the merits of whether their position was biblically sound. When he said that "pussyfooting" remark he meant that the Kellers were responding to the culture by making concessions to sinful attitudes, and we should go see for ourselves by reading his article.
In addition, regarding the remarks here, Corrie stated what happened to her on the Bayly blog, in a previous comment here. Brian made a joke, and there is ample evidence on their blog for all but the last two of his bullets. That is why I replied to Brian the way I did. I could fetch the remarks if you want proof of what Brian said. Saying someone is "dramatic" is not the same thing as calling them "rebellious," or a "dishonest feminist."
For example, Corrie's case . . .
If someone says to Mr. Bayly -- "I'm not egalitarian, but I think this egalitarian had a point. I don't think it is out of bounds to say that a wife can never do something for her husband out of sacrificial love." --
and Mr. Bayly then, on a widely read blog, where the commenter had her real name up there, kicks her off the blog, calls her a liar, doesn't allow her to defend herself, and then,
refuses to respond to her private emails,
all the while talking on his blog how careful he is in rendering "judgments" (his word) about people, and how he and his brother view the blog as an extension of their pastoral ministry, how he talks at length in private dirctly with people they are rendering a "judgment" (his wording) about, but you know for a fact that he is not doing this with the woman he just kicked off his blog,
and that it took the woman's husband a few days, at the husband's initiative (not Mr. Bayly's) to get a hold of him,
THEN, I think it is perfectly permissible to talk about this kind of behavior and say that it is wrong. This is exactly what happened to Corrie. I can't say for sure what was going on inside her, but immediately when it happened she emailed me, I looked up the blog entry and subsequent ones, asked her if they talked to her or her husband like they said they did when rendering a "judgment," and no, they were doing nothing of the kind -- for several days.
The Bible calls us TO judge, and NOT to judge, and we have to learn to know the difference.
I'm not going to say what is in Mr. Bayly's heart, because that is not something I can judge, nor can I punish him in any real sense of the word. That is what I mean by not judging, or being in a position to judge. But in the case of Corrie, his public remarks did not match his private behavior, and there is no problem noting this kind of thing. Or of speaking of it.
As Andrew Sandlin says, if people don't want other people talking about their public remarks, they shouldn't have made their remarks public in the first place.
Hope this helps.
Here is an example of a link to a blogger, who I believe is a pastor, with whom I disagree, and I wrote about this issue, and linked to his blog.
I'm not the kind of person to continue bashing my head into a wall talking to people where it is clear we are at an impasse, and so I signed off on this thread:
thougthsactions.wordpress.com
Will is probably very theologically close to the Baylys' views on women in the church. I've written a couple other comments in another thread on his blog. I would comment there again, too, in spite of our disagreements.
It had nothing to do with the merits of whether their position was biblically sound. When he said that "pussyfooting" remark he meant that the Kellers were responding to the culture by making concessions to sinful attitudes, and we should go see for ourselves by reading his article.
The blog entry in question said, "But today, everyone hates authority and, going the way of the world, the PCA is pussyfooting around that hatred." Firstly, his comment was about the PCA institution, not specifically about the Kellers' hearts. Contrary to what you say about his argument, what Mr Bayly does say explicitly is that their doctrine has very little resemblance with "biblical doctrine of sexuality preached and taught by our fathers in the faith." That's an argument about the biblical soundness of their position.
Secondly, Christians are empowered to judge whether a prophet is true or false. We must discern their motivation (via their fruit) to do this. The Bible makes it clear that the fruit is a direct consequence of people's heart.
Thirdly, I recall misogyny being leveled at the Baylys, and it wasn't even "pussyfooting with misogyny." If I looked closer, I'm pretty sure I can find other aspects of Bayly's heart being judged here and there. Whatever this thread says explicitly about the Baylys.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that per se. (Mature) Christians must practice discernment and see sin in people's hearts. When Jesus said "Do not judge..." he didn't specify "Do not judge someone's motivations." It's relying on a false dichotomy to say you're judging the fruit but not the heart. The whole idea of looking at the fruit is to judge its roots in someone's heart. We were not commanded to be naive about people's motivations.
[The Kellers'] goal is to create a community that is not oppressive, and is biblical.
But, that's not what they said, right? They said, "But that is our goal--to create a community that even non-believing feminists recognize as not oppressive..." You can read the context without the words I emphasized and come up with a charitable interpretation, but you can't act like those words aren't there!. You would think the words that follow "that is our goal--" would be carefully considered and summarizes the whole context, not the other way around.
Also, concerning the Keller church, the linked position paper is almost 10 years old. They have installed female deacons against the unambiguous official policies of their denomination.
Just as another (tangential) technical point...
I think you're misunderstanding what 'ad hominem abusive argumentation' is exactly.
If someone said X is wrong because Mr. Z believes X and Mr. Z isn't a Ph.D., then that's ad hominem. If someone said an institution X is becoming corrupt because persons A, B and C are corrupting it, that's not ad hominem. It's just providing evidence. The questions of whether the evidence being unflattering or whether the evidence holds any water have nothing to do with whether the argument is ad hominem.
For example, "S is a good pastor because he has the Bible memorized." and "K is a rebel because he pussyfoots with feminism" are the same logical argument, and neither is ad hominem.
For example, "S is a good pastor because he has the Bible memorized." and "K is a rebel because he pussyfoots with feminism" are the same logical argument, and neither is ad hominem.
Begging your pardon, but aren't these begging the question?
The fact of the matter is, the devil has the Bible memorized, and so do many who misuse it, and not all feminists' complaints are borne out of rebellion, and dealing with the legitimate complaints wouldn't constitute rebellion.
"S" did stand for Satan. :-) I didn't say either one was particularly good as arguments go. I just said they weren't ad hominem.
But, they aren't begging the question either. That requires some circularity in the argument, i.e. assuming the conclusion as a premise. The arguments given are too short to make the required circle.
They're enthymemes, or however you spell that word.
"S is a good pastor because he has the Bible memorized."
- All good pastors are whole Bible memorizers
-[All] S are whole Bible memorizers
*Therefore S is a good pastor
Whatever else you want to call it -- it is an AAA2 syllogism and the argument is not valid. It may be a true conclusion, but the argument doesn't support it.
"K is a rebel because he pussyfoots with feminism"
- All rebels pussyfoot with feminism
- [All] K pussyfoots with feminism
*Therefore K is a rebel
Same thing. Invalid. And in both cases the truth value of one or both of the premises is dubious at best, and most likely false.
And I still think it's some form of circular reasoning -- such as "Look at the article the Keller's wrote -- and see if you agree that they are pussyfooting around the hatred of authority." That can't be true unless you assume all modern feminists hate authority, and the Kellers intent was to accomodate that hatred. Saying you want a system that is both biblical and one that feminists would agree is not oppressive doesn't count, for hating oppression is not the same thing as hating authority. I know when Tim wrote it, he said the PCA was doing the pussyfooting, but he cited the Kellers and others as referring to the PCA's pussyfooting. So it wasn't wrong for me to say he claimed the Kellers were pussyfooting around hatred of authority.
It winds up to sounding -- Oh, they're just saying those things because they pussyfoot around hatred of authority.
If the Keller church really does need to be disciplined, and I don't know that it does (our church has two recognized offices -- male elders, and male deacons, but they have other committees, such as finances, deaconnesses, women's ministries, children's ministries and the deaconnesses are not yet formally recognized as one of the two church offices), then that is for the PCA to deal with.
And if the Kellers are really in violation of the BCO, then the PCA isn't pussyfooting with hatred of authority, they are bending over backwards to accomodate one of "their favorite sons." But that isn't the point of this entry.
Another point is -- women have historically, in deaconness societies, founded many institutions of help and charity, probably the the most notable of which are hospitals across the USA. Just Google "protestant deaconness hospital" and see what you get. I'm just musing here, but I think it is a sad thing when the church won't own what these women did, and still are doing, and thus relegates the work to the secular arenas, which is the case in at least one of the hospitals I'm very familiar with. The name was changed from "The Protestant Deaconness Hospital" to The Miami Valley Hospital" years ago now.
In cases such as the Catholic Church, in Catholic hospitals you still have the hospital under the auspices of Catholics, at some point. But that is not the case in many of these hospitals started and administered at the first by the Protestant deaconnesses.
[Gonna make this comment a separate entry]
I just came across an online book, which outlines the history of women serving in the Church from the Apostolic times to the present.
I enclosed his view of Phoebe and I Timothy 3, as well as a historical tidbit contained in this book:
http://tinyurl.com/63ffha
History of the Deaconess Movement in the Christian Church, by Christian Golder
"[Paul] writes to the church in Rome: 'I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a succorer of many, and of mine own self.' (Rom. xvi, 1,2.) The apostle recommends Phoebe to the Church in Rome, the deaconess, or literally, the diaconus (the word 'deaconess' is not used in the Scriptures); and with that he clearly states what her office and calling is. So there were male and female deacons in the Apostolic Church, and Sister Phoebe is the first female representative of this office of whom we have any knowledge.
Apparently the office is established by the apostles themselves, and 1 Tim. iii, 2-13, gives unimportant particulars concerning it. Here the office of the bishop as well as that of the deacon is mentioned; it would be surprising to find the wives of the deacons mentioned while the wives of bishops are passed over in silence. Therefore several commentaters explain the word 'women' (verse 11) as referring to female deacons. . . .
In the fourth century, Constantinople was the center of political and ecclesiastical life in the Orient. In the year 398, Chrysostom of Antioch, was called to the Episcopacy of Constantinople. Forty deaconesses were employed in his congregation alone, of whom many are known to us by name. . . .
Olympia, born of a noble family, deserves more than a passing mention. . . .
Of the numerous letters that Chrysostom wrote to Olympia during his bansishment, eighteen are still in existence. The superscription on these generally reads, 'Reverend and pious Deaconess Olympia!'"
This book mentions the rise of deaconess societies in the nineteenth century.
Interestingly, there is also a paper on deaconesses, which, in post hoc, ergo propter hoc style, linked it to the rise in the feminism of the age:
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm
"The fact that the push to ordain women as deacons occurred in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries after certain types of feminism became popular in our culture is very interesting. The arguments set forth by those on both sides of the debate during the 1980s bore a striking resemblance to the arguments offered during the 1880s."
Feminism, my foot! These deaconess societies were raised to minister to the sick, among some other functions. A task which, in those days, by that time, had fallen to what what considered the offscouring of society, until Florence Nightengale and others of that day began to take on the great work of "necessity and mercy" in caring for the sick and dying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess
"The modern deaconess movement began in Germany in 1836 when Theodor Fliedner and his wife Friedericke Munster opened the first deaconess motherhouse in Kaiserswerth on the Rhine. Fifty years later, there were over 5000 deaconesses in Europe. In 1884, John Lankenau, a business owner, brought 7 sisters from Germany to run the German hospital in Philadelphia. Other deaconesses soon followed and began ministries in several United States cities with large Lutheran populations. By the 1963 formation of the Lutheran Church in America, there were three main centers for deaconess work: Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Omaha. These three sisterhoods combined and form what became the Deaconess Community of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or ELCA.
The spiritual revival in the Americas and Europe of the nineteenth century brought rapid social change. Women who began to seek new roles for themselves turned to deaconess service. For women with a calling to serve God, this was a socially acceptable role at that time. Allowed to function as lay ministers or servants and not ordained clergy, women filled the traditional societal role of caregivers and teachers for various churches."
Post a Comment