The Gospel Coalition Reinforces Redefinition of “Complementarian”
The Gospel Coalition, a progressive political organization funded by millions of dollars in mysterious dark money, is continuing to push America’s churches to the left. On the heels of the complementarian debate sparked by Beth Moore’s slamming of conventional gender roles, The Gospel Coalition is now actively redefining the term, ‘complementarian.’
The four women were Betsy Childs Howard, Melissa Kruger, Taylor Turkington, and Quina Aragon. Howard and Kruger are editors at TGC. Turkington runs TGC’s “women’s training center” and Aragon is a children’s book author.
As good subversive change agents, who operate in disguise, the four women began with a hat-tip to conservatism, with Kruger stating that they weren’t necessarily talking about “women being pastors or elders or anything like that” and Turkington calling herself and the other women “complementarians.”
Turkington said, “…It’s helpful when leaders in the church, the shepherds, the pastors, and elders are strategizing for all the disciples in the church, the men and the women. So looking for women leaders in the church, what does it look like to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, including the women in the church and the different kinds of women? “
Let’s follow this thought through, shall we? Turkington speaks of “shepherds, pastors, and elders” on one hand and then “leaders in the church” on the other hand, as though these are different things.
These leftists make “complementarianism” to be a meaningless word when they object to women being ‘pastors’ but go on to suggest women should be ‘leaders in the church.’ What the heck do they think a pastor is? The reason complementarians don’t believe in female clergy isn’t because they’re against females in the pastorate, but because they’re against females in authority and in leadership.
Be aware of this sleight of hand, discerning Christians! The woke SJW evangelical snowflakes have changed the definition – and the purpose – of the term, complementarianism.
For example, Howard makes the lines between male elders and female “leaders” almost indistinguishable. She says…
Yeah, because most churches rightly would take someone who’s an elder candidate and make sure that they’ve got theological knowledge and that they believe what the church believes. We need that for women as well. It could be formalized informal, so that we’re well equipped, to have that discernment and to teach if teaching is what we’re doing.
Apparently the only thing it takes to be a complementarian is to reserve the official title “elder” for men. Women can still be elders, and do the things elders do, so long as they’re called “leaders” instead.
Turkington continues with the obfuscation…
My pastor is just intentional about including women in the different ministries of the church, that we have women who lead in the organization of the Sunday services.
Crazy, I thought that was a pastor’s job.
Howard flatly admits that a woman “teaching” is really no different than a pastor preaching, which is good to hear. Although, she meant it rebelliously.
Howard claims, “So back to the question about teaching versus preaching. There’s not necessarily a sharp differentiation. I think we typically talk about women teaching because we wanna distinguish that they’re not doing it to the whole body of the church. They’re not preaching on a Sunday morning. That’s what a pastor, elder of a church would do. But there may not be a vast difference in what a woman does in a Bible study and what a preacher does on Sunday morning. But there’s a difference in the purpose. She should not be seeing that as the primary scripture of their week.”
So, women can preach…so long as it’s not on a Sunday morning…and then we don’t have to call it preaching. It’s a distinction without a difference.
“Yeah. Both could be doing exposition. We would say that they’re both expositing a text, walking through a text and bringing it to application and calling them to believe and trust in Jesus Christ and obey what’s being said in the text. And that’s good. But the pastor or elder who’s doing it on a Sunday morning is setting the doctrine of the church as he does it. And a woman who is teaching it, is teaching the Bible so that people can better understand the scriptures, right? There’s a distinction in what she’s doing.”
Uh, what? The church’s doctrine is already “set out” by the church’s Confession of Faith. The Pastor isn’t delivering new doctrine or “establishing” it when he preaches. It’s not any more or less authoritative than whatever else is taught within the church at any other time. These are all foreign, novel distinctions made in the mind of goofy women suffering from baby-brain. It’s a shame they’ve been given a platform to spout such silliness.
What you’re witnessing in this conversation are trite excuses to ignore God’s word, trying to manufacture loopholes in the Scripture while still attempting to appear orthodox.