(Tim) Recently, the PCA's institutional public relations voice, byFaith magazine, ran a point/counterpoint on woman deacons. This is the second in a series of posts I'll be doing critiquing Tim Keller's article promoting woman deacons. (Here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.) Tim Keller argued the point, Lig Duncan the counterpoint. This only to say I found the pictures of Tim and Lig that ran above their respective articles quite humorous. Here's Tim. Here's Lig. Yes yes, I'm sure it's no invidious plot.
Lig's scowl reminds me of some of the wording in the paper distributed to members of Ohio Valley Presbtery in our October stated meeting by Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis. The twenty-one page untitled paper addressed the presbytery as follows...
Fathers & Brothers of the Ohio Valley Presbytery,
In light of the current denomination dialogue regarding women
serving in the diaconate and our communion in Christ with our brothers
in the Ohio Valley Presbytery, Redeemer's session believes it is
important to share the historical path that we have walked and the
convictions we have come to as we have wrestled through the issue of
women serving as deacons.
Historical Path
From our beginning as a church plant ten years ago, Redeemer's
leadership communicated our commitment to have women serve as
deaconesses. In the document we take potential members through,
"Rediscovering Redeemer," we included a short position paper that
explains Redeemer, New York's, practice of women serving as
deaconesses. In that document, Dr. Tim Keller articulates Redeemer's
position...
Then follows a lengthy justification of woman deacons by Tim Keller,
followed a couple pages later by the same errant citation and
misquotation of B. B. Warfield that Phil Ryken has put into print and
is ubiquitous in this debate. For months, we've been trying to get Phil
to retract his errors publicly, but they continue to be circulated
across the PCA (see here and here).
But back to the pictures of Tim and Lig. The (completely
unintentional) contrast these pictures communicate of these two men
brought to mind this text from the paper distributed by Indianapolis'
Redeemer Presbyterian Church to our (OVP) presbytery...
Recognizing and Engaging the "Traditional" Idolatry
What we are calling the "Traditional idolatry" prescribes to women an ontological status, roles (in home and church), etc. that are based not in the teaching of the Bible but on traditional cultural perspectives.
The error of the "Traditional Idolatry" is that it defines roles for the woman through "traditional lenses" and not through the Bible. The Bible teaches (1) first, the absolute ontological equality of men and women created in the image of God - the woman is not inferior to the man. The equality of personhood, value and dignity for the entire human race is a brute fact of Christian theology. (2) second, the Bible teaches, that the relationship between men and women was greatly damaged by the fall (so we should expect all cultural perspectives, including the "traditional" perspective, on the relationship of men and women to be distorted).
Those under the power of "Traditional Idolatry" are threatened by feminism and fear the infiltration of egalitarian "liberalism" in the church; their solution is to find safety and comfort in defining concrete "roles" for men and women ("Men work in the office, women work in the home"). They often find a sense of "rightness" through rigid rules of conduct and precise roles, rather than in the freedom and righteousness that comes from Jesus Christ. (While the Bible does teach that the husband is the head of his wife, it never defines this headship as authoritarian rule but only as loving service and sacrifice. Nor does the Bible specify what the husband's headship should look like, but it wisely leaves that open to married couples to work that out in light of their personal gifts and calling and culture.)
So
what do you think of that last paragraph? Before seeing it myself, I
never would have believed anyone could understand Lig Duncan or the
members of Ohio Valley so perfectly.
Now then, which picture is of the guy promoting the "Traditionalist
Idolatry?" Which guy is "threatened by feminism," which guy "fears the
infiltration of egalitarian 'liberalism' in the church," which guy is
seeking "safety and comfort in defining concrete 'roles' for men and
women," which guy "finds a sense of 'rightness' through rigid rules of
conduct and precise roles, rather than in the freedom and righteousness
that comes from Jesus Christ," which guy is pushing for "authoritarian
rule" and is opposed to "loving service and sacrifice?"
Take a wild
guess. Go ahead--say the first thing that comes to mind even if you're not feeling lucky.
* * *
And while we're at it, anyone else find it humorous how byFaith labelled the two pieces? Large font puts Lig Duncan's face next to the text "Female Deacons" and Tim Keller's face next to "(Not Ordaining) Deaconesses."
Too cute by half.
