Carl Truman responds to responses about an earlier post wondering why certain Gospel centered parachurch fellowships can work around significant differences of opinion, but draw a line which defines them as complementarian. (A conviction I support, as does Trueman.)
You’ll have to dig around to find the various posts.
The responses generally defend why the position is considered a Gospel issue by these parachurch groupings.
From his post Trueman makes this observation:
The church, not the parachurch, is God’s means of preserving the gospel. For the full range of Christian truth to be preserved, one needs not only a commitment to orthodox doctrine but also a biblical structure for its maintenance and preservation. That certainly seems to be Paul’s perspective in the Pastorals. If the track record of egalitarians holding to orthodoxy in the second and third generations is poor, one has to say that that of parachurch groups driven by big personalities without transparent accountability structures and rooted in tending-to-minimal common ground statements of faith, rather than full-blown historic confessions, is equally suspect on this score. If one is going to make complementarianism a gospel issue on the grounds that this is necessary for preserving the faith, then one must also make ecclesiology a gospel issue by the same token. And that brings us back to a point I have made repeatedly over the last year: if the purpose of your parachurch is just to provide resources to help churches preach the gospel, that is fine but then just major on the gospel; if your ambitions are greater, then you need to come clean, be a church and be accountable as a church.
Read the rest here.