Good Riddance

Thanks to Ken for this article on recent developments among Presbyterians here in the United States.  A traditional and hugely successful (in terms of numbers, books, congregations and ministries planted, and 5000 worshiping members in his current church – which may or may not be the best definition of successful) pastor and theologian has been rejected from an award after being awarded it because he dares to hold to the Bible and thus the traditional teachings and standards of the Christian church that deny we get to remake God into whomever we desire him to be in order to justify our redefined peccadillos of the day.

Tim Keller is a well known author and pastor who happens to teach and confess what the Church has taught and confessed for nearly 2000 years – human sexuality and gender are created by God, who alone gets to define how they are expressed and interacted with.  This if course is not the most vocal definition of things today, and those who oppose the Biblical stance on these issues in favor of radical reinterpretation that legitimizes what the Bible calls sinful demanded Princeton Theological Seminary rescind the award.

Amazing when a few letters and e-mails and phone calls can ride rough-shot over the Bible and centuries of teaching and confession derived from it.  It calls into question not so much Mr. Keller’s orthodoxy, as who determines the arc and trajectory of the institutions that train people like Mr. Keller.  What are theological seminaries committed to – the long-standing confession of the Bible and clear Biblical witness or the preferences of the students it hopes to attract to the program.

When I went to seminary, the buzz-word was theological formation.  I’m not sure this was ever really explained fully, but the basic assumption was that whatever I thought I knew as I entered the program, the intent of the program was to shape and shape me, rather than visa versa.  I could take or leave the program, I couldn’t demand the program accommodate my personal theological preferences.  It amazes me that other programs – theological or otherwise – around the country have so much trouble explaining this to their students.  I assume this has to do more with economics than anything.  For a school to survive it needs students.  To entice students you make it appealing to the students.  If the students demand something, you have to take it seriously or else your institution or your faculty are at risk of disappearing (at least that’s the assumption).  It is predicated on the relatively recent idea that students get to determine what an institution is, rather than students selecting an institution of higher learning (or a business to work for, or whatever) for what they want the institution to teach and define about them.  The authority is completely reversed.  The students get to lecture the institution.

At which point, the institution is already irrelevant and has for all practical purposes already disappeared.  I suspect Mr. Keller does what he does not for academic prestige or awards.  I have little doubt this snub will not change his theology or practice.  And as such, he demonstrates greater permanency than Princeton and it’s 200+ year tradition of education.  That’s commendable for Mr. Keller, but so sad for Princeton.  I hope what results from this are future generations of theologians questioning if they really want to attend an institution that allows students to dictate what it teaches, where the students insist on being the smartest and wisest people in the room.