Talk:Tim Keller (pastor)

A news item involving Tim Keller (pastor) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 May 2023.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Reformed Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reformed Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reformed Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Reformed ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityReformed Christianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

insufficient context 68.19.129.143 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yakuman has suggested by his repeated deletion of the category from this page that Tim Keller does not fit in Category:Reformed theologians and that it is POV (i.e., biased) to put him in it.

I contended that Keller is an author who is an author of theological works, e.g. his book The Call of the Jericho Road, which outlines a theology of mercy ministry, and his chapter on theonomy (a theological concept) and the poor in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, a volume written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS). Indeed, Keller earned his doctorate from WTS, was a full-time professor of practical theology there for five years, and continues as an adjunct.[1] Hence, I conclude he is properly called a theologian, and it is biased to say otherwise in face of this evidence.

WTS and the

Putting it all together, he is a Reformed theologian and should be in the category.

This was essentially the reasoning I gave in my edit summary, to which Yakuman responded with the reasoning that "Professor of Practical *Theology* at WTS [is not equal to] theologian." I find this reasoning to be exceedingly dubious in light of the evidence above. Thoughts? --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be considered such —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Having read http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theologian, it makes sense. OTOH, I think Wiktionary is wrong this time :).

--TimNelson 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some contention in the edit history on whether or not to have a section for Tim Keller's theology, I did research and find the following, regarding his theologial influences. I personally don't think it needs to be part of the entry, but good to have here in the talk page.

"Keller was happily teaching at Westminster, the staunchly Reformed Philadelphia seminary, while working for his denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Two things happened. At Westminster, he came under the influence of a small band of urban missiologists led by Harvie Conn."^[1] "... Keller follows closely behind C.S. Lewis whom, along with his wife and Jonathan Edwards, he counts as his primary theological influences." ^[2]

"Keller’s ministry was one of my entry-points to the creation-affirming, holistic, civilisation-building theology ... a love for the Puritans, a generally Kuyperian slant on culture, a dedication to expository preaching, a certain degree of Anglophilia, a dash of Frame’s perspectivalism, love for the urban poor, and a passion for church-planting." ^[3]

"It was Keller who introduced me ... to the idea from Luther that the gospel is both for our justification ... but also for our sanctification..." ^[4]

"Keller has at his core has the Gospel message thereby showing his Lutheresque Cristocentric interpretation of scripture ... for Keller the Gospel message permeates all of this interpretation of scripture and almost every paragraph he writes. ... these guys are 5 point calvinists." ^[5]

djchuang (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted because it unnecessarily highlights one social issue that Tim Keller holds, above all others. Viewers may get the impression since it is singled out that this issue has a level of importance over other social issues held. Until we can have a more complete list, this should not be included on the main page.

On social issues, Tim Keller has been described by Mark DeVine as a "doctrine-friendly" pastor noted for his "unashamed embrace of both orthodox theology and Christology..., clear identification of homosexuality as sin, and opposition to abortion on demand."^[1] He was quoted by Gay City News as saying "Homosexuality, prostitution, sex outside of marriage, and adultery all fall outside of what God says he has designed sex for... Homosexuality, the Bible teaches us, is not a design for human relationships." He argued that homosexuality was a "learned" behavior which could be changed "with great effort [and] with repentance".^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.20.250 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section notes that Keller is "doctrine-friendly" on social issues in general and cites more than one example of that. Keller does speak often about social issues and the fact that multiple secondary sources report this to be true demonstrates its significance. I will restore this section.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edits of the reviewer who removed this section initially and have removed it accordingly. The only examples given are sex and abortion -- hardly a robust discussion of social issues. Stating that "Keller does speak often about social issues" is not proof of his stance on said social issues nor the relative importance he himself would place on them. Singling out these two would imply he places higher importance on these issues as opposed to all others. However, if you review his sermons and read his book Generous Justice, you will not find these given any such prominence. Indeed, the quotes cited from the Gay City News article do not, as indicated in the removed post, quote Keller directly, but supposedly recount, and, moreover, interpret, what Keller said in a sermon 22 years ago, which is not available anywhere that I could find. Utilization of the direct quotes of Keller from that same article would provide a very different picture of his position on these social issues. I can only conclude that the extremely limited and selective quotations here are intended to produce a stated effect on the reader rather than an accurate picture of Keller himself. Keller is quoted in said article to say this topic requires "adequate time to do justice to the subject", and I fail to see how this cursory treatment of not only the topic of sexuality but also of social issues as a whole, accurately represents Keller. 66.108.205.177 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What this section includes is the facts as provided by reliable secondary source material, including issues such as abortion and same sex marriage, as well as several others like prostitution. You may think that this section "places higher importance on these issues as opposed to all others", but that's only your interpretation, not the interpretation of the secondary source material. We could certainly add additional information from his book "Generous Justice" and his sermons, but it would have to be notable. His stance on social issues is clearly notable as demonstrated by the fact that multiple secondary sources have reported on it. Wikipedia generally frowns on the use of primary source material because we can't assure notability unless something has been reported by multiple secondary sources. I myself saw Keller speak on numerous social issues, including these ones, on his video series about "The Reason for God." I could have cited that, but in the end I decided it was better to stick with secondary sources in order to ensure that the material was notable. In short, I fail to see any decent reason to remove this section.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Gay City News quote as
  undue weight. He has said lots of things, and many of them have been quoted. We would need a statement to be quoted in multiple reliable sources for it to be worthy of inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The quote should be maintained. Keller is noted by a secondary source to be "doctrine-friendly" in general on social issues, but that is an ambiguous statement and it seems appropriate to use his own words, as quoted by Gay City News, to further elaborate on his stance. Given the fact that Tim Keller's views on homosexuality alone warranted an entire profile in a secondary source, it is clear that at least some information from the Gay City News article should be maintained. This quote in particular seems ideal because the statement mentions numerous social issues so that we can understand that Keller's opposition to homosexuality can be seen as part of the wider context of his opposition to a large variety of sexual behaviors and attitudes. Keller also notes in the article that his position on these issues has not changed since he made that statement. In short, there should be no dispute here that Keller's stance on social issues is notable and must be included in the article. The only question is, what part of this article in particular should be used? We could alternatively cite a different part of the article if you think that would be somehow better, but the part which I have proposed is the part which will allow the reader to understand Keller's views both in his own words and in what seems like their most appropriate context, understanding Keller as a "doctrine-friendly" pastor whose stance on gay marriage is actually a part of his more comprehensive stance on social issues in general.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Gay City News quote as
  undue weight. You are missing the point Curtis. The point is that the quote skews the overall presentation of Keller for the Wikipedia audience. If you look through the history there have been past revisions trying to denote Keller's social views in summary fashion but they were removed by others in the community because of the same problem. Your insistence on including this and only this quote reveals your own bias. If you can come up with other sources speaking about Keller's views on sexuality from news agencies not associated with a particular sexual orientation, then perhaps the information would be notable. Until then, this should be removed and not highlighted as an important facet of Keller's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.20.250 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Gay City News is the largest LGBT newspaper in the United States and it is widely cited by other articles on Wikipedia. It is a reliable secondary source. Even so, you will note that I cited two secondary sources and not just one. There is only one other single piece of information in this entire article which is referenced to more than one reliable secondary source, so this actually is one of the best attested portions of the entire article. Thus even by the standard you just stated this information is certainly notable. As per Wikipedia rules, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Thus, though some Wikipedia editors may say that his views on this matter are unimportant, the sources indicate otherwise. I can't understand the motivation behind the attempts to scrub these mere three sentences comprising one of the best attested portions of the entire article. As I said before, it would be acceptable to cite a different section of the Gay City News article if you prefer, but I found that this quote was particularly suitable because it explains his views in his own words in the full context in which they belong. Or perhaps is it the fact that these three sentences are their own section that bothers you? We could instead consider moving them into a sub-heading under the "Biography" section if you prefer.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Gay City News quote as unreliable in this context. First, as per Wikipedia rules, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." This quote is supposedly pieced together from a sermon over 20 years ago with no citation to the primary source. This was poor journalism on the part of Gay City News and would be inappropriate to include here. Second, Wikipedia rules further state, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." I think it would be impossible for anyone to claim that the Gay City News is not partisan when it comes to this topic, and the lack of citation of primary sources in said article — this quote being a particular example — is evidence of their partisan position. As Keller is a living person, such a partisan source, and even more, such a dubious quote from that source, should be removed from Wikipedia immediately.Semiswirl (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Stance on Social Issues section. Without anything further, there isn't cause for an entire section made from one quote taken from a book in which Keller is lumped into a group of pastors which the author says holds to these positions. The author even acknowledges that when Keller was asked whether he fit into this category of pastors, he said "I don't think so." (see page 5 of the same source).Semiswirl (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment as I see that this section has been added and removed several times now. Wikipedia rules state, "Pay particular attention to

There is no doubt that this information should be included in this article due to it being mentioned in multiple highly reliable secondary sources. Having said that, the amount of space devoted to it may not be justified, so I would like to propose a more concrete compromise then what I have done up to now. I propose that from these three sentences we delete the last sentence, thus reducing it to just the first two sentences. Instead of having these two sentences occupy their own main heading, we should move them into a sub-heading of the same name within the "Biography" section. If you agree with this I will change the article accordingly.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss further before adding to the main article. I don't really have any problem with the quote from the book. I don't think Keller would deny those things. I've heard and read him say as much elsewhere. I still don't think that book is the best source to cite. It does not discuss specifically Keller's views on social issues. It is describing the views common to a group of pastors — a group to which the author believes Keller belongs but he does not provide any evidence in that book for Keller holding those particular social views. So, it is relevant that the only thing in that book we hear from Keller is that he doesn't fit in that group. He doesn't say why, and he doesn't address his stance on the social issues because he was never asked that from what we can tell. So, in my opinion, it's a poor source from which to make this point. That said, I would be fine with including the first sentence because I believe it to be verifiable from multiple other reliable sources.

However, I do not agree on the Gay City News article. You didn't address the fact that it certainly is a partisan source on this topic. You've said many times that this is mentioned in "multiple highly reliable secondary sources". If that's the case, then use sources that aren't so clearly partisan on this topic. The quote you've chosen, in particular, is indeed bad journalism. It claims to quote Keller but does not cite it. Twice it does that, referring to material over 20 years old with no citation. Keller did appear to say in response to the Gay City News inquiry that his views hadn't substantively changed over the years. That's not what is in question. It is what those views are that is in question, and, specifically, how the Gay City News presents those views based on unverifiable quotes from really old sources when there is, according to you, so much readily available on the topic from reliable sources today. Essentially, the journalist says, "Here's what Keller said his position is when he responded to our questions, but I don't believe him. Instead, his real views are something he said 22 years ago, but I can't prove that he actually said it, and I didn't ask him if he did, so you'll just have to take my word for it." Personally, I've heard that sermon, and I know that how the Gay City News quotes it is a misrepresentation of what Keller said. So, I really wouldn't be satisfied with including either the second or third sentence and elevating to prominence such an article...especially if there really is so much out there from reliable secondary (and less partisan) sources.

So, I would propose inclusion of the first sentence only under a subheading in the biography section as you proposed. If you agree, I'd be happy to put that in myself.Semiswirl (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, something from the Gay City News article must be included as well. If we just say that Gay City News quoted him as such, then it is an accurate representation of what the secondary source says. Even if you believe that Gay City News somehow misrepresented him, despite the fact that the authors of the article checked the information with him, that is still only your own opinion and is not attested to by reliable secondary sources. As I noted before, Gay City News is clearly recognized as a reliable source by Wikipedia. Would you honestly propose that we delete the news articles from "Christianity Today" simply on the basis that they have the word "Christianity" in the title? You could argue that a newspaper with the word "Christianity" in the title is intended for a select audience, but that is not a sufficient argument to say that it is "partisan". In fact some parts of the Wikipedia article cite the writings of Keller himself, which is certainly partisan under Wikipedia policy but perhaps could still be justifiable if the information is not available in secondary sources. At any rate, deleting a source which clearly meets Wikipedia standards while maintaining a substantial amount of information of dubious validity under Wikipedia rules is much more likely to violate the undue weight clause than anything else that has been posted. I will update the article in order to demonstrate what I am proposing.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the Gay City News is partisan when it comes to this topic, then I think we have reached an impasse. Christianity Today most certainly is partisan if, for example, the topic were "the best religion in the world". You might go to that source for a presentation favorable of Christianity, but you wouldn't (or shouldn't) call it unbiased or non-partisan. I encourage you to more closely review the guidelines for

Neither Gay City News nor Christianity Today ought to be considered as necessarily biased against or in favor of Keller. What I am saying is that if you interpret Gay City News to automatically be a partisan source on LGBT-related issues, why wouldn't you also consider Christianity Today to automatically be a partisan source on Christianity-related issues? As I said, I heard Keller say the same things as quoted in this article during his video presentation entitled "The Reason for God" which was just created a few years ago. I could just as easily cite that, but I chose this article instead because it is readily available for access online and it is a secondary source rather than a primary one. Furthermore, you say that "the quote you are using is specifically given in the article by the author to argue that he didn't believe what Keller told him", however, the article actually states nothing even remotely similar to that. I chose that particular quote because it covered more than one social issues so that Keller's views on the matter could be seen in their full context. Even now I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from with your insistence that Gay City News somehow misrepresented his views, even though Keller says explicitly in the article that his views have not changed since he gave that sermon. However, since almost all the issues you brought up relate to that sermon in particular, I will change the quote to something more recent. I will change it to "Homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality: sex is designed for marriage between a man and a woman." In my mind this is not nearly as complete as the previous quote, and it is also not as similar to what he said in his "The Reason for God" video presentation, but even so, by quoting this instead I have eliminated the objections you just cited. This quote is very recent rather than being 22 years old and it was a direct written direct statement from Keller to Gay City News.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from repeatedly adding contentious material to a living person bio while it is still being discussed. That couldn't be any more clear in the Wikipedia guidelines. Frankly, I can only dedicate some portion of my time to discussing this with you, but I am committed to doing so. However, that takes time. I will continue to remove any reference to that article until we have discussed it further.Semiswirl (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is Keller's statement on homosexuality from his recent "The Reason for God" video presentation. He says, "So the Bible does say sex is for a man and a woman inside marriage to nurture love and commitment in a long term permanent relationship of marriage. Which means polygamy, it means sex outside of marriage, it means homosexuality are considered violations of God’s will, but also violations of our own design." I did want to quote that, but I've gotten in trouble before for quoting primary sources on Wikipedia which are technically against the rules so nowadays I generally stick to secondary sources unless absolutely necessary. If I can get some guarantee that it will not be deleted for being a primary source, I'm willing to put this quote in the article instead of the Gay City News article. At any rate, you can see from the quote that Keller's current views on homosexuality are more similar to the original Gay City News quote than the new one, because here he emphasizes his opposition to homosexuality in the context of other social issues. You've told me in detail a variety of rather poor reasons why the original Gay City News quote was unacceptable, but you have not given me anything as to why the more recent quote is unacceptable. Until you provide a reason, it is not acceptable to remove accurate and referenced information from this Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked nicely that you keep this discussion confined to the Talk page while it is under contention, but you refuse. Again, I will keep removing it until you are polite enough to engage in the discussion here first before adding contentious material to a living person bio. Once you agree to that, I'll keep talking about it.Semiswirl (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. I'm trying to discuss this with you, but you still haven't replied to any of my concerns. Tell me what your problem was with the version that you just deleted.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version I deleted was the same one you've been putting up the last several times. What I'm saying is that this discussion is not my full time job. The guidelines clearly say that it is better to err on omitting information of a living person than to risk misrepresentation of that person. You and I disagree, particularly on the use of the Gay City News article. In that case, the information should be left off the Article page until agreement can be reached. I'm committed to reaching an agreement with you, but it clearly isn't going to be resolved tonight. So, I'm asking that you leave the article as it is, with the quote from the book, while we discuss it further. And by that, I mean over the coming days, not the back and forth every 30 minutes we are doing.Semiswirl (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, the Gay City News article is a published secondary source that is well regarded throughout Wikipedia. I cited a portion of it that is up-to-date and matches perfectly with his most recent statements on the matter as demonstrated by a variety of primary source material which for now I am declining to put in the article due to possible rules violations. It was a direct written statement made by Keller to Gay City News so there is no chance that his views were misrepresented. It is much less biased than articles written by Keller himself, which are included in the article, and is no more biased than an article from a publication called "Christianity Today." Thus, this statement is well-sourced and not libelous in any manner. We simply can't justify leaving this material out unless there is a reason for it.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position and look forward to discussing with you further over the coming days. Thank you for refraining from adding it back to the main article in the meantime.Semiswirl (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone think it would be a good idea to add a bigger section of his positions on issues rather than putting these last two sentences under the paragraph about Redeemer Presbyterian Church? Babygrand1 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea if there is enough content (with

WP:RS to support it) to warrant an entire section. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I will add such a section to the article which I hope will meet this requirement.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section was edited and added back again - but still looks pretty thin and choppy. Is this consistent with biographical entries for other living theologians/pastors? Trelvis (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out links about his stance on homosexuality. Links to Gay City News article is broken and one can't verify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.176.74 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CurtisNaito, stop re-adding an unverified reference. As per WP:BLP all statements must be able to be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C0C1:CF01:187E:A0D7:E684:F3FF (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up - there are a fair amount of broken links in the footnote section. 70.131.132.206 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took down the Gay City News quote--no link. Could not find it anywhere on the web. If anyone else can find it feel free to put it back up. Without the link we can't substantiate the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.11.218 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keller was recently named to this list by Preaching magazine

http://www.preaching.com/resources/articles/11629162/page-5/

I believe it's worth adding to this entry, but not really sure where would be the best place...

Seanmeade 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmeade (talk • contribs)

An image used in this article, File:Tim Keller.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 14:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

I added the American Calvinist theologian tag back in after Jfhutson took it out. He is the author of several theological works, holds a doctorate from a theological school, and currently teaches adjunct as a theology professor. I'm not sure how much more of a theologian you can be. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keller's stance on the religious debate over the Harry Potter novels was noteworthy enough to have been reported on by secondary sources. Some of the groups mentioned in this very article that have endorsed Keller, like The Church Report for instance, are strong opponents of these novels so it's worthwhile to know his own views.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear example of

undue weight. We have a section that outlines Keller's views on gay marriage, abortion, gender roles, evolution... and Harry Potter. This seems the odd one out in terms of important social/ethical/religious issues. It is not something that could be said to be a key point in Keller's preaching, teaching, writing or thought. The cited source is a local newspaper and thus rather weak. StAnselm (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In the source cited Keller seemed to think that it was significant. Wikipedia already has a very lengthy article about religious disputes over the Harry Potter novels and such extensive coverage of it on Wikipedia would not make sense if this were a non-issue. One short sentence is surely not undue weight.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source by DeVine provides a list of positions which Keller and other like-minded pastors subscribe to, including strongly-worded opposition to homosexuality and abortion which is noted earlier in the very same sentence. The source is not ambiguous about this so there's no reason to delete it. At any rate, even if it is true that the source does not mean what it explicitly says in no uncertain terms, the statement that Keller is noted for his opposition to homosexuality and abortion is even so factually true, as demonstrated by other citations, and therefore cannot possibly be deleted on grounds of libel. If there is a desire to not use the DeVine source for some reason, the alternative would be to simply use the other sources mentioned in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the DeVine description, and the homosexuality/abortion claim two separate sentences. I don't think we ought to separate "doctrine-friendly" and "emerging". He can be described as "emerging", but it should be said that he is on the doctrine-friendly end for appropriate context. StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Keller (pastor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119035657/http://nymag.com/news/features/62374/ to http://nymag.com/news/features/62374/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901000000/http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers to http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add this book to the list of books at the end? https://www.amazon.com/Hope-Times-Fear-Resurrection-Meaning-ebook/dp/B08FH9VY9K — Preceding