(This post is a follow-up from Lesson 2 in our ongoing series on apologetics at GCC)
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)
Prolegomenon
What is a woman? This question has been debated and discussed quite frequently in recent times and has stirred up no small amount of controversy. What would have seemed to be a fairly straightforward question only a few years ago has now apparently become quite complex to many ears, though we are thankful for the Christian voices who have faithfully engaged in this conversation. Yet we may consider this briefly to frame our thinking: how would one answer such a question while maintaining a faithful Christian witness?
Some would contend that a woman is simply anyone who feels that they are a woman. Identity is seen a construct that we all either create or self-discover (or so some would argue), therefore any person can be a woman if they feel they truly are a one. There are a whole host of serious issues with such an approach, not the least of which is that there is no actual definition given for what a woman is, an oversight which seems to violate the law of identity (a thing is identical with itself, or a=a). Some would maintain that a woman is what the culture recognizes as a woman, thereby essentially making womanhood a function of social construction (maintaining that truth is found in consensus). This again may initially sound promising, though it places gender definition within the hands of popular consensus, and that simply will not do. Identity cannot simply be left to the whim of raw democratic processes, or (again) we will have no ontological definition to appeal to (and no measuring line for determining truth). Some would say a woman is one who functions as a woman, fulfilling the roles that a woman typically occupies. Yet it is quite hard to determine what a woman does without any proper definition of what a woman is—a difficulty that can be observed in the gender-neutral approach society has taken to activities that had previously been considered rather specific to women (things such as pregnancy, marriage to a man, or the persistent absence of a Y-chromosome).
We may (and should) ask such probing questions when confronted with worldviews and perspectives that are not informed by Scripture, yet the Christian response must also include a positive answer along with its critique. The answer to this question must be that a woman is exactly what God has declared a woman to be, as revealed to us in Scripture. There is a God who has spoken, and He has made humanity male and female and declared this to be good (Gen 1:27,31). A woman is not a creation of our own making, nor a function of her self-constructed identity, nor a byproduct of societal norms. Manhood and womanhood are the creation of God, and their definition belongs to Him alone. The Christian response must be that God has spoken and He has spoken clearly, which is to say that the Christian response must be a biblical witness.
Appealing to Scripture
Appealing to Scripture is rarely a popular move, perhaps most notably so when Christians are bearing witness to the unbelieving world. After all, Scripture is quite old and antiquated, and surely any two Christians may disagree on any given verse, right? If anything, Scripture is seen as a sort of general guide where we may glean anecdotal wisdom such as be kind or love others, while the particulars (such as ethics, morality, law, etc.) are best left to be examined from the perspective of other disciplines (law, medicine, politics, etc). After all, appealing to Scripture may sound like something some wild-eyed fundamentalist would do, ostensibly someone who loudly cites chapter-and-verse to no apparent avail. The term biblicist is often used here as a sort of polemic against such Bible-thumping behavior on the part of Christian, though those who use this term as a polemic often seem to conflate a reliance on Scripture with a wholesale rejection of all that is extra-biblical (such as creeds and confessions).
Besides (one may ask), is there any point in appealing to Scripture if the world does not recognize Scripture? A recent poll shows that a shrinking 20% of Americans believe the Bible is the Word of God (see here). If that is the case, should Christians not abandon (or at least minimize) appeals to Scripture and instead encounter the world on its own terms? Wouldn’t that be more winsome? After all, if the world does not recognize Scripture, it seems appealing to Scripture would be more poorly received than when compared to more ostensibly-neutral areas like science, or logic, or philosophy. Meet them where they are, or so the admonition often goes.
The issue with minimizing appeals to Scripture and meeting the world on its own terms is that every defense of truth is an appeal to authority. That is to say, any appeal to reality (I believe X) will be paired with a corresponding appeal to authority for that claim (I believe X because of Y). Even when we speak using the language of science or philosophy, we will make appeals and contentions based on our understanding of what is authoritative. Subsequently, every authority must appeal to ultimate authorities—those dogmatic things on which our reasoning is formed and shaped (I believe X because of Y as substantiated by Z). By definition, every ultimate authority must authorize itself (self-authenticate). If we could appeal to an even higher authority to establish this authority, the higher authority would thereby become the ultimate authority in such a scenario. Scripture cannot be minimized in this regard. Scripture is the witness of Jesus Christ (John 5:39), and every truth emanates from, testifies to, and depends on Christ (perhaps a better truism than “every truth is God’s truth,” which can be potentially misleading).
Seeking Understanding
If we desire to arrive at a clear picture of God (and subsequently of everything else), we must turn our eyes reflexively to the pages of Scripture. Quite early in Christian history (4th century), Augustine of Hippo observed that “if you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.” Scripture cannot be edited or manipulated, though many have certainly tried to do so. If humanity were left to our own desires and proclivities, we would all be quite happy to have Scripture to mold itself to our thoughts and desires, and not the reverse. On the contrary, a consistent reliance on Scripture will inevitably, and unfailingly, produce godly results. God will surely work through Scripture to mold our thinking when we submit ourselves to it (2 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:12). Writing around the same time as Augustine, Jerome similarly observed that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Christians (or anyone else for that matter) cannot very well claim to know or speak about the God of Scripture without a fundamental knowledge of and reliance on Scripture itself.
SDG,
Josh Howard
Josh Howard serves as the Elder/Pastor at Grace Community Church in Battle Creek, MI, co-hosts the Good Doctrine Podcast and The Age to Come Webcast, and is an alumni of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (PhD, ThM). Josh has also authored The Exorcism of Satan (forthcoming, Free Grace Press), The King's Command (forthcoming, College & Clayton Press), and A Primer for Conflict (forthcoming, Founders Press).
Comments