Complementarian Deviations, Part 3

Tim Keller on Women Teaching in the Church

Be sure to check out part 1 and part 2 of this series.

So far we have examined Tim Keller’s narrow complementarian view of marriage and his promotion of female deacons. Let us now consider an even greater problem regarding Keller’s position on women teaching in the church. When it comes to the subject of church teaching and leadership, it has become a common refrain that “a woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do.” 

This phrase has been promoted by Tim and Kathy Keller, S. M. Baugh (professor emeritus at Westminster Seminary California)¹, and John Frame (professor emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando). Frame has even used the phrase to defend the practice of women teaching seminary courses in theology to men who are training to be ministers.² The phrase has also been claimed by Carl Trueman (professor at Grove City College), who has defended women teaching Sunday school to men because, “I see Timothy [1 Tim. 2:12] really as referring to the gathered worship of the church.” Trueman added, “My instincts are very much in the direction of saying that a woman can do anything a non-ordained man can do” (yet stating the exception of allowing a non-ordained man to preach if he is considering the ministry).³

“A Woman May Do Anything a Non-Ordained Man May Do”

As for Keller, we know that Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York put this refrain into practice because Kathy Keller said so in her booklet Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles. Tim did not address the subject much in writings, but his wife has.⁴ She once sought ordination in the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA)⁵, and in this booklet, she even called herself the “joint founder of Redeemer” and “a woman in ministry.” She also said, “I encourage women to teach and lead, and I do so myself.” In fact, Mrs. Keller explained that “women are so visible on staff and in ministry at Redeemer that it sometimes takes awhile for the penny to drop,” that is, for people to realize that Redeemer does not ordain women as elders.⁶ If Kathy Keller’s theology reflects that of her husband—and we have every reason to believe it does—then Tim Keller blurred the line between complementarianism and egalitarianism on the issue of women in the church.⁷

In Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles, Kathy Keller rejects the traditional Reformed reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 because she thinks that 1 Corinthians 11:5 permits women to pray and prophesy in public worship. Thus, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, is only “regulating” the “public ministry of women.” Mrs. Keller concludes, “Clearly, women are not prohibited in Scripture from most kinds of public speaking. Only one, the teaching mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, is off-limits to women.”⁸ Mrs. Keller considers 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 to be a “cloudy” passage, and she interprets it through the “clearer” passage, 1 Timothy 2:12, concluding that Paul only prohibits “authoritative teaching, or teaching with teeth in it.”⁹ 

Unfortunately, Mrs. Keller does not address the exegetical arguments for the traditional Reformed understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35.¹⁰ Further, although she seems to parallel the passage with 1 Timothy 2:12, Mrs. Keller ends up adopting a narrow reading of both. She cites the egalitarian Philip Payne to support her view that “to teach or to exercise authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 refers to one function: “authoritative teaching.” This permits Mrs. Keller to hold the position that women may still teach men in the public assembly so long as it does not cross the line of authoritative teaching, whatever that may be. 

Tim Keller made public statements confirming that he shared his wife’s view on 1 Timothy 2:12, namely, that “to teach or to exercise authority” is “one thing.”¹¹ And in 2009, Keller stated that a woman should not teach the Westminster Confession to catechumens but that a woman could teach men other subjects. Tim Keller said, “At Redeemer, a woman can teach an adult Sunday school class on most subjects.”¹²

A Critique of the Kellers on Women in the Church 

Of course, this practice of allowing women to teach Sunday school to mixed groups of men and women has not been limited to Tim Keller. R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary California, has argued that a woman may teach Sunday school because it is ‘non-authoritative teaching,’ in contrast to preaching a sermon because it is ‘authoritative teaching’ ordinarily done by church officers.¹³ Yet Clark’s distinction is arbitrary, as Sunday school still involves public teaching and learning involving men and women, comparable to the context of 1 Timothy 2. Paul’s prohibition is on women as a class, not men who are non-officers (which leaves open the possibility for men training for the ministry to teach). Moreover, if someone is attempting to teach doctrine to the church in a ‘non-authoritative’ manner, then that person should immediately stop teaching and leave it to those who can teach with authority, namely men authorized by the church.

In response to the argument put forth by Tim and Kathy Keller regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, we should note that Andreas Köstenberger has persuasively argued that teaching and exercising authority are, in fact, two distinct but related tasks (not “one thing” as Tim claimed).¹⁴ However, even if the verbs “teach” and “exercise authority” were to form one concept, this activity is still contrasted (ἀλλ᾿, “but/rather”) with “quietness/silence” (ἡσυχίᾳ): “But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ) (1 Tim. 2:12). This contrast does not leave room for the egalitarian argument that Paul permits women to teach men in some capacity so long as it does not undermine proper church authority. In addition to the prohibition against teaching and exercising authority, women are commanded to “remain quiet.”

Based on her narrow reading of 1 Timothy 2:12, Kathy Keller concludes that there is a “difference between public communication of information, exhortation, or explanation (all permitted to both unordained men and women) and teaching with authority, which is the province of ordained elders.” She then summarized Redeemer’s position: “Stated the way we do at Redeemer: anything that an unordained man is allowed to do, a woman is also allowed to do.” Mrs. Keller added, “Women are encouraged to be active, verbal participants in the life of the church—teaching, exhorting, encouraging, and contributing in every way except in the office of elder.”¹⁵ 

Similar to R. Scott Clark, Mrs. Keller makes a distinction between (1) “teaching with authority,” which is limited to elders, and (2) “public communication of information, exhortation, or explanation,” which is allowed for unordained men and women. Of course, such a distinction skirts 1 Timothy 2:12 and opens the door for women to teach theology to men in a variety of church settings and to preach in worship under the guise of merely “explaining” or “communicating” rather than preaching. Mrs. Keller’s novel position is rooted in her exegesis. As she asserted, “what is being forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2 (and by extension in 1 Corinthians 14) is authoritative teaching.”¹⁶ 

Yet even if churches like Redeemer do not permit women to preach, the phrase “a woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do” often leads to the conclusion that women are allowed to read Scripture and lead prayer in public worship. This phrase builds off the fact that many churches have already allowed non-ordained men to do too much in a public worship service, such as reading Scripture, leading prayer, and, sometimes, even preaching. Traditionally, these practices were understood to be duties of ordained pastors, elders, and those licensed by a presbytery (or training for ministry). Thus, if all male church members are allowed to read Scripture to the congregation or lead public prayer, the question becomes, “why can’t women do that?” The Kellers, among others, have responded that women should be able to do those things.

However, they are arguing in the wrong direction. Yes, women reading Scripture and leading prayer in public worship violates the traditional Reformed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35. But it also violates the principle that these tasks belong to the public ministry of the Word. As such, only ordained pastors, elders, and licentiates should fulfill them for the congregation—which rules out not only women but also most men. But since women cannot be ordained as pastors or elders, they are not permitted to lead in the public ministry of the Word. However, even if one rejects this argument, Paul prohibits women from certain tasks, namely, teaching and exercising authority (1 Tim. 2:12). The public reading of Scripture is an extension of the teaching of the Word, and leading public prayer is a form of exercising authority over the congregation. Both tasks, therefore, are prohibited for women.

Tim Keller’s Desire to Form New Institutions with Egalitarians

Considering Tim Keller’s narrow complementarian views, it will likely come as no surprise that he advocated forming “new institutions” made up of both complementarians and egalitarians to pave “the way forward” for the church. In his 2022 e-book, The Decline and Renewal of the American Church, Keller specifically called for such institutions to “divide from” the most conservative Christians, whom he denigrated as “fundamentalists” who are “super-complementarian” and hold to “rigid gender roles.”¹⁷ 

Keller advocated bringing together “individuals, and leaders and some older institutions” from two main subgroups—those complementarians who are “more willing to work with egalitarians” (Zone 2b), and mainstream egalitarians who are “not nearly as doctrinally oriented,” who are “more pragmatic operationally,” and who put “far more emphasis on social justice than on traditional family and sexuality” (Zone 3a).¹⁸ Keller described this latter group’s egalitarianism as follows: “Mainly egalitarian in the church but (a) grounding views in the Bible rather than saying Paul was wrong or we must get beyond him (b) often willing to affirm husband’s leadership in the family and non-interchangeable gender roles in the family, (c) cooperative with complementarians and more open to their views.”¹⁹ 

Keller said that the leaders of the “church renewal movement today” will likely need to “divide but with tears and grace.” He explained, “Something like the evangelical-fundamentalist split of the 1940s may need to happen (or is happening) again.” Keller added, “For us, it will mean that, again, some denominations and institutions will divide. Some organizations will divide.”²⁰ Thus, according to Tim Keller, some denominations may need to divide from those who hold to more “rigid gender roles” and instead make room for less doctrinal and more pragmatic egalitarians. Did Keller mean that the PCA should divide in this way? He did not specify, but based on his narrow complementarian theology, there is little reason to think that was not his desire. 

Looking Beyond Tim Keller

As we conclude this three-part series on Tim Keller’s narrow complementarianism, we should consider the long-term impact such views are having on the church. There is a process of feminization taking place even among “conservative” churches and Christian institutions that involves a gradual deviation from traditional Christian practice. This process leaves only two steps remaining until full-scale egalitarianism is adopted: (1) permit women to hold the highest positions of leadership in Christian institutions, and (2) permit women to hold the office of pastor and elder in the church. 

Many conservative churches and Christian institutions have drawn the line by refusing to follow these latter steps. However, the line continues to blur, and it remains to be seen whether such churches and institutions will stand firm. Tim Keller, a leader inside and outside the PCA, desired to divide institutions and form new ones with egalitarians. Those following Keller’s narrow complementarianism are not likely to hold the line here.

Churches filled with egalitarian marriages and career women who send their children to daycare (and not out of absolute necessity) are not likely to uphold the traditional Reformed teaching on male headship in the home. And churches that model egalitarianism by allowing women to lead portions of public worship, as well as allow women to teach Sunday school to men, are not likely to uphold the traditional Reformed teaching on male leadership in the church. 

Therefore, Christians would be wise to look further back than the teachings of Tim Keller and other modern narrow complementarians. They should instead consider the theology of men and women found in the writings of the Reformers and Reformed orthodox of the 16^th and 17^th centuries (e.g., Calvin, William Perkins, William Gouge). They are a surer guide in interpreting and applying Scripture in this important area.

---

*This article was adapted from the book by Zachary Garris, Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers (New Christendom Press, 2024).

Share This