Gospel Coalition Writer DEFENDS Transgender Pronouns!

The Gospel Coalition, Rachel Gilson, and the Transgender Pronoun Question

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to the channel where the Bible and critical thinking meet to give you real Christian commentary about the things that matter. Thanks so much for watching, let's get into the video.

So the Gospel Coalition is an evangelical organization that has loads of online content. They're seeking to build a sort of digital storehouse of Christian information, a one-stop-shop of videos, blogs, and Bible studies.

Some of the most intelligent, knowledgeable Christian people that you've ever heard of have written for the Gospel Coalition. And a lot of their content is solid, biblical, sound, and useful. However, there is an ever-growing contingent of writers and contributors for the Gospel Coalition who seem intent on trying to push the boundaries of Christian doctrine and in so doing make a career for themselves.

I'm not saying that I know all of their motivations, I'm simply saying that a lot of this seems extremely suspect. And one of these boundary-pushing Gospel Coalition contributors whose motivations I don't understand is a woman named Rachel Gilson, who is a Christian writer and the Director of Theological Development, for Crew Northwest, whatever that title happens to mean, I haven't the foggiest idea.

In the video we're about to review today on the channel, Rachel Gilson is going to answer the question of whether or not a Christian should use the changed pronouns of an allegedly transgender person.

That is to say, if someone is a biological man who really wants to be called a she or her, should Christians use those pronouns or should they use the pronouns which coincide with their actual gender?

Why the Speaker Says the Pronoun Issue Is Easy for Christians

Let's review Rachel's answer using three biblical points. Number one, here's what Rachel says while she lays the groundwork for her more direct answer to the question. Watch this.

I think the question of preferred pronouns is probably one of the most difficult to answer well in a space like this, and I mean like in a digital question and answer type space. And part of the reason I think that's true is because it really can come down to a question of conscience.

So Rachel says that it's hard to answer the question of transgender pronouns in our modern digital world. And here's my response to that. No, it's actually not. As a Christian, the transgender issue is actually one of the easiest issues in the world to answer, even in the digital space.

It's only hard to answer if you're afraid to tell the truth or if you would rather pander to the culture and make everyone happy. In other words, if your allegiance to the Bible is firm and clear, this is a very easy question to answer.

It's as black and white as things happen to get. Galatians 1 10 says, quote, For am I now seeking the approval of man or of God, or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ, end quote.

So if you're willing to defend the Christian worldview, no matter what, if you're willing to please God rather than man, this shouldn't be a hard question to answer. The transgender issue is hotly contested by the culture.

People use this issue to expose Christians as evil, hateful bigots and what have you. And that is mostly the reason that this question has become so convoluted and so hard to answer for Rachel Gilson and her contemporaries.

The Bible is so totally and utterly clear on this topic, it's almost impossible to come to any other conclusion without actively ignoring the Bible's response. My point here is this, it's not the Bible's clarity that makes this question hard to answer.

It's your lack of willingness to tell the biblical truth. That is the real problem. And this brings me to point number two. Watch Rachel Gilson tell us more about why this topic is so nuanced and hard to deal with in our modern age.

Watch this. It really can come down to a question of conscience. So if you've done a quiet time recently in the weak brother, strong brother passages of Scripture, Paul has a category for the reality that some Christians are going to come to issues and fall in different spots.

And one of the most important questions there is how are we going to relate to each other when we fall in different spots?

Christian Liberty, Weak Brother and Strong Brother, and Why the Analogy Fails

So the reason it's so hard to give a straight answer apparently is because it's a matter of conscience. It's a matter of Christian liberty, as it were. Here, Rachel is referring to situations in Scripture where Paul deals with disagreements between Christians.

And one such disagreement was about whether or not to eat meat that was sacrificed to pagan idols, which was a common practice in the day of the early church. Some of these Christians said it was wrong, and some said it wasn't.

Paul's response was to tell them that this was a matter of Christian liberty. In other words, if you think it would violate your conscience to eat the meat, then don't eat it under any circumstances. But if you think it's okay to eat the meat, then go ahead and eat it and give thanks to God for it.

The brother who eats the meat has a strong conscience that allows for Christian freedom to eat as they please with a righteous heart. On the other hand, the brother who cannot eat the meat because it violates his conscience, he does not eat it because he has a weaker conscience, which is more easily violated, even when he's doing something that's not explicitly sinful.

This is all detailed in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, specifically verses 7 -8, which say, quote, "...some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.". All of this is to say that when Rachel Gilson calls this a weaker brother, stronger brother issue, here's what she's really saying.

People with weaker, easily violated consciences will not be able to use a transgender person's newly adopted pronouns. But a stronger brother with a freer conscience will be perfectly capable of calling a man a woman or a woman a man and honor the desired pronouns of the person they're speaking with.

And folks, this is absolute garbage. Rachel's comparison here is horrendous, and her exegesis is even worse. Weaker brother, stronger brother issues of Christian liberty are those that do not deal with direct sin in Scripture.

For instance, sex before marriage is not an issue of Christian liberty. We all know it's a sin. Murder is not an issue of Christian liberty. And lying is not an issue of Christian liberty either. These are sins that no Christian should ever participate in, regardless of how their conscience feels about those things.

But Rachel talks about all this in her next clip. Watch this.

Bearing False Witness and the Claim That Pronouns Can Be a Matter of Conscience

So on the one hand, some of us would feel incredibly compromised using a transgender person's preferred name or pronouns because it feels like we're complicit in a lie. It feels like we're breaking the ninth commandment, right?

Like we're bearing false witness about a neighbor. And we need to take that really, really seriously. It is never safe to go to a place that your faith doesn't allow you, right? To go against your conscience.

And if that is your position, you have to recognize that when you are interacting with a transgender person, your inability to use their preferred name or pronoun could actually be received as very offensive by them, or deeply hurtful by them.

And this brings us to point number three.

So Rachel says that there are Christians who feel as though they're sinning by calling these people by inaccurate pronouns. And there are some Christians, on the other hand, who have no problem using these pronouns whatsoever.

And each of these, in Rachel's view, are equally valid positions and should be used in their own unique ways to glorify Christ. But don't push your personal view on someone else, because after all, this is a matter of Christian conscience.

And this rhetoric offered by Rachel is nothing but foolish drivel. It's pandering to people by making excuses for sin, and it's absolutely unbiblical in every way. As Rachel accurately summarizes it, my central argument, and the argument of many others, is that it's a lie to call a girl a boy or a boy a girl.

It's so easy even a kindergartner can understand it. In fact, most of them do. But the bigwigs at the Gospel Coalition often have a lot of trouble with this for some reason. Now keep in mind, I'm not saying they're unintelligent people.

In fact, I've said the exact opposite at the beginning of this video. I'm simply saying that they're wrong. To call someone with a penis a she is to lie about their gender. It deceives them, and it deceives the people around you.

It is a fundamental lie about the way God made that person. It's as if I insisted on calling all Christians atheists, for instance, because it hurts my feelings if you don't change words and definitions for my sake.

Christians who cave to me in those demands are encouraging me and enabling me in my deceit. And they're sinning in doing so. They're allowing me to redefine biblical terms, like Christian for instance, in an unbiblical way, like calling them atheists.

But the sad part of this is, if I cried enough about it, if I complained enough about it, many Christians out there would be perfectly willing to cave to all my demands and start calling all Christians atheists for the sake of my personal feelings.

And guys, this stuff isn't sympathetic, it's just pathetic. So where does the Bible say that this kind of stuff is a sin? Where does it say that my point is true? Well, maybe it would be faster to ask where the Bible doesn't say that.

Again, this is one of the clearest, most obvious issues that there is in all of Scripture. Genesis 127 says this, "...so God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him, male and female, he created them.".

So when a transgender person tells you to call them a man when they're actually a woman, or vice versa, they're asking you to deny Scripture. They're asking you to deny God's sovereign decision in how He made them, how He knit them together.

Colossians 3 .9 additionally says, "...do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices.". Part of being renewed in your character as a Christian is telling others the biblical truth.

And truth is what corresponds with Scripture, what corresponds with reality. And therefore, by definition, there is no wiggle room here. There is no Christian liberty here. If you purposely call a man a she or a woman a he for the sake of affirming their transgender identity, you are a liar and a deceiver in that moment.

And you need to repent of this and be forgiven by Jesus Christ. It's a sin. It's wrong. You do not have a stronger conscience if you use these words inaccurately. No, you have a conscience that is so emaciated and dysfunctional that it's actually not working properly at all.

And you need it to be renewed by God. Do you honestly think that if Rachel Gilson asked Paul the Apostle who wrote the many passages she's referring to about Christian liberty, that he would agree with her?

If we asked Paul the Apostle, hey Paul, should Christians call women men and men women? He probably would have had trouble understanding how we could be so foolish as to even ask that ridiculous question.

The Bible makes it clear that referring to someone as a man when they're actually a woman or vice versa is entirely unacceptable and sinful. It's not only a lie, but it's a dangerous lie that strikes at the very heart of the way God designed mankind to reflect His image, with male and female counterparts.

So in conclusion, if your foundation is the Bible, if that's what you're standing on, then the transgender pronoun question is one of the easiest to answer in all of the Christian life. It's not difficult at all.

That is to say, it's not hard to figure out what the Bible clearly says about this. If, on the other hand, you're desperately trying to please everyone, especially the culture, then you're going to find that the waters get awfully muddy and murky.

And that means the answers aren't so clear anymore. That is what has happened to many Christian organizations, including the Gospel Coalition and their contributor Rachel Gilson. Now I'm not saying that you can't read or watch Gospel Coalition content, a lot of it's very good.

I'm simply saying that you should proceed with doctrinal caution and biblical discernment. And Rachel, if you happen to be watching this video by any chance, please know it's not an attack on you. This is a refutation of what is clearly a dangerous and unbiblical idea that you presented about transgenderism.

You can always repent of spreading this falsehood and confess it to Christ. Please remember that. And let's pray for Rachel and for the Gospel Coalition that they would repent of all this and turn to the truth of God's Word.

Thank you so much for watching. If you liked that video, please like, comment, share, subscribe, and hit the notification bell so that you never miss another one. If you didn't like that video for any reason, then I invite you to watch my Frequently Asked Questions video, link in description, where I deal with common objections and define the purpose and goal of my channel using Scripture.

This channel is funded by generous donations from my amazing patrons. If you'd like to help us put out more videos just like this one, hit the link in the description or go to patreon .com slash Colin A. Miller.

You can donate to my ministry there and earn tons of rewards just like these. And until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open. Thank you and God bless.