top of page
  • Micah Coate

Womanhood: When Secular Wisdom Infiltrates the Church

Updated: Apr 28

“Professing to be wise, they became fools…” Paul to Church in Rome, 1:22 NASB

If you are the kind of Christian who tries to keep your political and spiritual convictions in two separate categories, or you’ve been ignoring the present day dumpster-fire called politics, let me assume the uncomfortable task of bringing you up to speed on a current hot topic called “womanhood.”


As odd as it might sound, there has been a question brewing over the last few years of what defines a woman. While patently absurd, it shouldn’t be too surprising given the course of Western culture. With post-modernism’s persistent attacks on traditional values via Pride months and the LGBTQ’s insistence on sexual freedom under the banner of diversity and tolerance, calling into question the essence of womanhood is a logical next step. Thus, we’ve sadly gotten to the point today that many people, almost exclusively on the political left, cannot, or at least choose not to define what a woman is. While there are too many reasons how we’ve gotten to this dismal place to mention in this short article – here are a few of the most recent.


In the 2022 fiscal year budget, under the Public Health section, the Biden administration replaced the word "mothers" to "birthing people”. Just in case you are unaware, the current zeitgeist of sexuality and gender identity claims that men can give birth just the same as women. "When we talk about birthing people…” as the nonprofit pro-choice organization NARAL explained, “…we’re being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for every body.” 1


As ridiculous as it sounds, NARAL’s clarification on the administration’s decision to invent words under the pretense of public health is something that many young progressives agree with and vehemently defend. But as if influencing the President’s fiscal budget by redefining the most basic of words within the Executive branch of government wasn’t enough, another event recently took place that crystallized progressive’s unstable and inconsistent view of womanhood — but this time within the Judicial branch.


In March of 2022 Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn if she could define the word “woman”. Jackson refused to answer the question noting that she wasn’t a “biologist.” While those not attached to the political left know that Jackson could have answered the obvious question, she simply chose not to. As Politico rightly reported, "Jackson is popular with liberal legal activists…” and will “engage in ideological combat with the court's conservatives.” 2 Knowing this, we can only assume that Jackson did not offer to answer Blackburn’s question because she didn’t want to upset a vocal majority of the people who support her. Nevertheless, when Breyer's retirement went into effect, Ketanji was sworn into the Supreme Court on June 30, 2022.

Within the same month, Matt Walsh, a Christian political and cultural pundit, came out with a successful documentary, What is a Woman? It’s a comical, “yet deeply disturbing journey,” as Walsh “questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement.” 3 If anything, the documentary is highly informative and fully displays the movement of Progressive sexuality, revealing a truly fascinating look into those “experts” in academia and medicine leading the campaign.


Lastly, just days before writing this, on July 16, the University of Pennsylvania nominated transgender collegiate swimmer Lia Thomas for the NCAA "Woman of the Year" award. I hesitate to even mention it as it is a minor detail, but the only slightly weird thing about the nomination is that while identifying as a woman, Lia Thomas is a man with male genitalia!


Now that you are caught up to speed, allow me to ask the question, “What does defining a woman have to do with you or your church?”


I apologize for being the bearer of bad news, but if you are a Christian, this question has much to do with you, your faith, and biblical theology in general. God created both men and women in His image. Not only did He create the two sexes and the act of sex, He also clearly revealed His desire for how the two should relate to one another in and outside of marriage. While digging out, cataloging, and communicating the qualities of biblical womanhood found in the last chapter of the book of Proverbs might take years of study, simply defining the biological differences between men and women is something most children can do without even thinking. And yet, last week the Church of England could not do so even with centuries of biblical exegesis and theology behind them. When lay member Adam Kendry asked what the Church of England’s definition of a woman was at a General Synod, Senior Bishop Robert Innes remarked that such definitions were at one time “self-evident” but now are not.

The first chapter of Paul’s epistle to the young church of Rome is a dark narrative of God’s judgment upon those who not only reject but suppress the manifold truths of God. While the apostle uses many descriptive words in his detailed account, including sexual practices that are “against nature” he also describes the reality that those who claimed to be wise actually devolved into fools. While we affirm that the Church of Jesus Christ is made up of horrible sinners who confess their need for a Savior and seek to be sanctified by His grace, let us not revert back to become those who suppress the truths of God only to accept the wisdom of this dying world.

How is the Church of the living God supposed to be “pillar and support of the truth” 5 if parts of it are unwilling to define what a woman is according to basic biology and common sense let alone the Bible?

If we, both pastors and parishioners, cannot clearly state or confidently declare the simple and obvious truths that there are only two genders or that men cannot have babies, how are we to then articulate far deeper and richer doctrines of biblical anthropology? Perhaps even more importantly, what credibility do we even have in attempting doing so?

The Church of England’s recent unwillingness to define what a woman is a sad example of what  happens when secular wisdom infiltrates the church. My hope and prayer is that this does not and never will be a portrayal of you or your church!  In Christ, we have have something so much better to offer.

Micah Coate, President and Host of Salvation and Stuff


  1. https://twitter.com/naral/status/1390391199077437443?lang=en

  2. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/25/ketanji-brown-jackson-is-the-first-black-woman-selected-for-the-nations-top-court-00011793

  3. https://www.dailywire.com/

  4. https://nypost.com/2022/07/11/church-of-england-refuses-to-define-the-word-woman/

  5. The Apostle Paul to Timothy, 1 Timothy 3:15 NASB

Opmerkingen


bottom of page