I'm likely confused more than I am not, but I am extra confused at the moment.
I've been reading the book Always Ready, by Greg Bahnsen. Yes, I'm late to the presuppositional apologetics thing, but I came to faith as a young adult, and within five years of that, I was in the thick of parenting, so I'm a late bloomer.
Bahnsen emphasizes over and over again that there is no neutrality in our thinking. We are either adhering to God's truth or we are not. Colossians 2:3-4 reminds us where all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found: in Christ. John 17:17 reminds us that God's word is truth. The very existence of truth implies that there is error, contrary to postmodern thinking that says there is no truth, or that there are a myriad of truths.
Bahnsen explains that the task of an apologist is not to address opponent on his terms, seeking to justy his beliefs with secular reasoning. His job is to convince the other guy that his reasoning is in error. Bahensen points out that when we try to defend God's truth by using secular reasoning, i.e. putting man as the authority and arbiter of truth, we are not being faithful to God. At the centre of this authority, of course, is Scripture. If our authority is not God's word, we are not embracing truth. A Christian has a divided heart if he tries to think with two minds, the mind of Christ, and the mind of the world.
Now, this is where I get confused. With all of the promotion of Rachel Held Evans's new book A Year of Biblical Womanhood, her particular views on Scripture are being examined. Of course they would be; she's claiming things about the Bible. If you read her first book, Evolving in Monkeytown, (I have read it) it becomes clear right away that Scripture is not her primary authority. It may be an "inspired collection," but it is not an inerrant authority. Despite this, there are many who seem to want to go along as if she does believe that, and to continue to address her as such. Instead of addressing her as if she holds those views, are there individuals who are engaging her about her claim to be an evangelical Christian while she holds Scripture with this view? Would it not be a kinder thing to do to worry less about her gifted writing style (yes, she's a good writer) and concentrate more on the ramifications of a woman who claims one thing, but demonstrates something else?
There are a lot of people talking about her book, and in some of the dialogue, has anyone ever asked point blank, where is you ultimate authority in life? Where is your ultimate authority in how you understand anything in this life? I would be interested to see that exchange.
Now I'll be quiet about the whole situation. My husband said recently that maybe her voice would get lower if people ignored her more often.
(I am closing comments. I didn't post this in hopes of generating any debate, and I'd rather keep it that way.)