Simply because Christ is impeccable—unable to sin—does not mean that his sinless perfection is any less glorious or any less incredible! Christ succeeded at every point where we have failed. He was tempted in every way we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Last week at the Seminary, we had the privilege of a guest preacher in chapel. During his sermon he shared a powerful illustration about his love for his bride—that speaking accurately about her is not the same as love for her, but since he loves her, he will always seek to speak accurately about her. He applied this, of course, to our love and commitment to the Lord Jesus. Having accurate theology about Christ is not the same as love for Christ, but if we love him we will always seek to speak rightly about him.
It was a beautiful illustration, an accurate illustration, and a helpful illustration. Assuredly we are not saved by correct theology—but we who are saved should relentlessly pursue correctly thinking about and speaking about the One we love.
There is one area, however, about our precious Lord Jesus that seems to be falling out of vogue when it comes to speaking rightly about him. That area of theology is what theologians refer to as the “impeccability of Christ”. Now before you click away and go read a more “entertaining” blog post, please allow me to explain, because as the illustration above points out, this is worth it! We must want to know our Lord in a way that accords with his truth. The impeccability of Jesus means that Christ was unable to sin. Now, all who affirm the Bible would agree that Christ did not sin, but far fewer these days are willing to take the next step beyond his sinlessness and speak of the fact that Christ could not sin; or in other words, his impeccability.
The impeccability of Christ means that Jesus could not sin.
The fact that Christ could not sin, flows from the simple truth that Christ cannot change. In Hebrews 13:8, the author says “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” This short but incredibly profound sentence means that it would be impossible for our Savior to change. Elsewhere in Hebrews, the same author says of our Lord, that the heavens and earth change, but Jesus never does: “Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same” (Hebrews 1:12). Christ does not change, and cannot change. If it were possible for Jesus to change, then the book of Hebrews would also have to change, for it would no longer be true!
Read More

In our age of rapid, digital communication, “fake news” is as common as ever. As we’ve seen, disinformation regarding complementarianism abounds, whether those arguments are theological, historical, or moral. May we not be fooled by such claims. Rather, let us be like Bereans, testing to see if these things are so.

Donald Trump made the idea of “fake news” famous. Some reports say he used the term around 2,000 times during his tenure as president of the United States. According to Trump, news outlets proliferated lies and sowed false information to tear him down and hinder his work.
Fake news or disinformation is nothing new, however. For years, it has been used by governments to spread false ideas and promote narratives as well as by military units to mislead the enemy with false tactics. This disinformation served their purposes and aimed to help them win elections and war(s).
This spread of disinformation is not limited to government and military tactics. Sadly, it is a regular occurrence in the world of theology as well. Whether perpetuated ignorantly or purposefully and willfully, this disinformation poses great danger to the church today. Where do we see such “fake news”? Oftentimes, it comes in the form of an argument against a position that has been unfairly represented. For a recent example, see Randy Davis’s recent criticism of the Law Amendment in the Southern Baptist Convention. As Denny Burk helpfully points out, two out of Davis’s three objections are based on arguments that simply aren’t true.
What I’m concerned about here is not Donald Trump nor the Law Amendment in particular, but rather the spread of disinformation as it relates to complementarianism more broadly—the nature and roles of men and women. And this information doesn’t come merely from the outside of the camp. Instead, disinformation about complementarity is pasted on Twitter, promoted on Facebook, and spread via blog posts and magazine articles at an increasingly high rate from outside and inside the complementarian camp.
I can think of several categories of disinformation when it comes to complementarity: theological disinformation, historical disinformation, and moral disinformation. I’m sure others could add more. In this article, I will examine claims from each of these categories, demonstrating how they all fail to accurately describe the complementarian argument.
Theological Disinformation
Theologically, we have false ideas about complementarianism making their way around the internet, into books and articles, and into personal conversations. Two wrongheaded and unfounded biblical and pastoral-theological errors seem common.
First, some argue that complementarianism is built on a handful of passages. This narrative aims to convince readers that the theological position is built on shaky foundations. And, it suggests by contrast that egalitarianism is more faithful to the grand sweep of Scripture. For example, Jennifer Bradshaw writes, “Complementarians base their theology on a few passages in Genesis and select verses from some New Testament epistles.”[1] Well, to borrow from our ex-President: “fake news!”
Now, this brief article isn’t the place to outline all the passages complementarians use to build their theological house. Instead, If you want proof that the complementarity position is built with lots of biblical bricks, read the various iterations of Eikon, the theological journal from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Notice the dozens of theological arguments, exegetical insights, and massive volume of biblical-theological thinking that’s at the bottom of complementarity. Or, pick up Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. You don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge that the authors in that book lean into the whole Bible to make their case. Simply turn to the Scripture index. It runs over seven pages and lists dozens and dozens of passages from both the Old and New Testaments. Are there key passages in this debate? Sure. But admitting there are key passages is a far cry from relying on or basing a theological position “on a few passages.”
Second, some want to make it seem as though complementarians are simply interested in barring women from ministry in the church overall. That is, some egalitarians erroneously say complementarians believe that only men should have ministries of any type in a local congregation. Consider Jennifer Bradshaw again. When she outlines the basic components of the complementarian position, it doesn’t take long for her to go off course. Here is what she writes:
Simply defined, complementarianism argues the following points (claiming, of course, that these are the “Biblical” view):

that men and women were created in God’s image, equal in worth, but that they were created for different roles;
that men are the leaders (or heads) in the home and the church and women are helpers to men, created to raise children and tend to the home; and
that leadership roles in churches, especially the office of senior pastor, are prohibited for women—women are not gifted or meant for leadership in the Church.[2]

She starts strong. As a complementarian, I agree with point 1. Point 2 states some true things, though her agenda starts to bleed through (raise children and tend the home are reductionistic. Yet, the rhetoric is meant to score an emotional point, it seems). Point 3, however, is either disingenuous or simply ignorant. She uses the broad idea of “leadership roles in the churches” to suggest complementarians bar women from any form of church leadership. When she does this, she specifically broadens the prohibition of female leadership beyond the bounds of the “senior pastor.” According to her view, complementarians bar women from “leadership in the Church” (a broad concept) that is “especially” applied narrowly to the “senior pastor” position. So, no leadership in the church at all…including senior pastorates. Well, again, fake news.
Read More
Related Posts:

After a number of whereas statements, the Southeast Alabama Presbytery concluded with the following request: “Therefore be it resolved that Southeast Alabama Presbytery requests that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction in the case of the doctrinal error of Teaching Elder Greg Johnson per BCO 34-1.”

On April 18, 2022, a Commission of Southeast Alabama Presbytery (SEAL), authorized by the Presbytery to draft and approve an overture to submit to the General Assembly (GA), approved an overture to submit to General Assembly. This is the second such overture that SEAL has submitted to GA (the first one was submitted on August 11, 2020) requesting that it assume original jurisdiction of TE Greg Johnson to investigate his views on alleged doctrinal errors on biblical human sexuality.
The Book of Church Order 34-1 states that at least two presbyteries must request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction over a minister to act in cases of doctrinal issues or public scandal. Another presbytery has docketed a vote on a similar overture for May 10, 2022; if the recommendation is approved there will then be two presbyteries making the request.
Here is the Overture:

OVERTURE from Southeast Alabama Presbytery“BCO 34-1 Request to Assume Original Jurisdiction over TE Greg Johnson”
Whereas in his responses to Missouri Presbytery’s July 21, 2020, BCO 31-2 investigation of allegations against him, TE Greg Johnson affirmed in some matters he was either unclear, imprecise, or his perspectives have matured over time (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 10, lines 40-45),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed his belief in the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality with regard to same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation, inter alia) and qualifications for ordained ministerial office, as summarized in the Westminster Standards (e.g., SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 14; lines 25-30; lines 42-45, pg. 15; lines 1-20, etc.),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson specifically denied identifying as a “gay Christian,” including using this couplet of words (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 17; lines 42-46, pg. 16; lines 1-11),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed the necessity of a man ordained to ministerial office to be above reproach (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 24; lines 38-46, pg. 25; lines 1-46, pg. 26; lines 1-30),
Whereas in his responses to the Standing Judicial Commission’s additional questions, TE Greg Johnson affirmed that some of his public comments had upset the peace of the PCA, and offered a commitment to repair such harm and work to commit no further harm (SJC Judicial Case 2020-12, pg. 27; lines 25-34),
Whereas since the record of the case of the original Missouri Presbytery investigation of him (July 21, 2020), and even subsequent to the Standing Judicial Commission judicial case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021), TE Greg Johnson has made numerous public comments that appear to either contradict or at least offer confusion to his previous affirmations in these matters (see examples in the attached addendum),
Whereas the Standing Judicial Commission found Missouri Presbytery did err by failing to “do what it needed to do to protect the peace and purity of the broader Church, particularly in light of the responsibilities set forth in BCO 11-3, 4” pertaining to Revoice 18 (SJC Judicial Case 2020-05 (March 3, 2022); pg. 11; lines 26-35),
Whereas TE Greg Johnson uses the same confusing and misleading terminology as Revoice 18 throughout his book, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Zondervan, 12/7/21) [“homosexual Christian” p. 25, “gay believer” pp. 8, 14, “homosexual believers” p. 9, 116, “sexual minorities” pp. 33, 221, 230]
Therefore be it resolved that Southeast Alabama Presbytery requests that the General Assembly assume original jurisdiction in the case of the doctrinal error of Teaching Elder Greg Johnson per BCO 34-1.
Approved to draft and submit this request by a commission of Southeast Alabama Presbytery.Attested by TE Kevin Corley, Stated Clerk
Attachment: Addendum, examples of public comments from TE Greg Johnson either contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations to Missouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation (July 21, 2020), and the Standing Judicial Commission judicial case 2020-12 (October 21, 2021). 
 
Attachment(Overture to 49th General Assembly)Examples of public comments from TE Greg Johnsoneither contradicting or offering confusion to his affirmations toMissouri Presbytery’s BCO 31-2 investigation (July 21, 2020),and the Standing Judicial Commission JudicialCase 2020-12 (October 21, 2021)
11/05/21 Comments in an article, published in the Washington Post, “Traditional ‘Side B’ LGBTQ Christians experience a renaissance,” by Kathryn Post (originally published by Religion News Service, https://religionnews.com/2021/11/05/traditional-side-b-lgbtq-christians-experience-a-renaissance/).
11/18/21 Comments in a blog post, published on The Center For Faith, Sexuality & Gender blog site, “Equivocation and the Ex-Gay Script” (https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/equivocation-and-the-ex-gay-script)
12/03/21 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Hole in My Heart Podcast, “Episode 189: The Church Wasn’t Always So Bad at the LGBTQ Conversation with Greg Johnson” (https://lauriekrieg.com/podcast/the-church-wasnt-always-so-terrible-at-the-lgbtq-conversation-with-greg-johnson/)
12/07/21 Comments in his book, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (Zondervan, 12/7/21).
12/22/21 Comments in an article, published in USA Today, “I’m a gay, celibate pastor of a conservative church. Here’s a trick for de-escalation.” (https://www.usatoday.com/ story/opinion/voices/2021/12/22/family-holidays-god-patience-compassion/6496994001/?gnt-cfr=1).
12/29/21 Comment on Facebook page, “As you consider final year end giving, please support Revoice.  No movement has done more to shift conservative Christian thinking from the false hope of ex-gay cures to the great tradition of care for non-straight people committed to living out the biblical sexual ethic within the church.  This ministry has meant a great deal to me, and your consideration will be deeply appreciated.”
01/02/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Hopper Podcast, “41 Greg Johnson, Still Time to Care /Linus in the Resurrection” (https://podcasts.captivate. fm/media/4b17fc7d-79da-4c3a-8ab0-74ebf4a0cb92/02-greg-johnson.mp3).
01/04/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on Conversations About Life, “Being Gay and Christian w/ Pastor Greg Johnson” (https://willjackson.com/ being-gay-and-christian-w-pastor-greg-johnson/).
01/25/22 Comments in a podcast interview, published on The Learner’s Corner with Caleb Mason, “Episode 269: Greg Johnson On What We Can Learn From the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality” (https://podcast.app/greg-johnson-on-what-we-can-learn-from-the-churchs-failed-attempt-to-cure-homosexuality-e202358953/).
02/12/22 Comments in a booklet, On Mission with the LGBTQ+ Community (Zondervan, supplement to Still Time to Care). (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? story_fbid=3140676279584649&id=100009269249854&__cft__[0]=AZXHombYoEDWNCvkRpzWlYG8mCooDtS2qQk_KzE6Lcn8KadXolEqezT3elg4dvGvKFRISxCyDHC6LcfCIunLwthjBCwcxaJKRSz2aABvF0_GC-5IvMsxxmlCyTGwR41H7x0& __tn__=%2CO%2CP-R, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu0ZH6igfWes0vyp OUnEtnTEMigw9fVu/view).
Related Posts: