Today's word is "egalitarianism". Truth be told, I am an egalitarian. But that's because I'm referring to the definition of egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism - the doctrine that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social statusHow can you disagree with that? I mean, sure, some lunatics do. Racists, sexists, anti-Christians, that sort of thing, but any right thinking Christian ought to agree that all people are of equal value. It's a given. All humans are made in the image of God, so all people have God-given worth. We don't get to assign worth on race, sex, age, or the like. That's egalitarianism. I'm an egalitarian.
So how did it become such a divisive concept in Christianity? Of all places?! (Hint: Think Inigo Montoya.) Turns out that someone decided to keep using that word in a way that it wasn't defined. They took "equal worth" to the next (false) step and required "equality" in an absolute sense. No differences. For instance, no hierarchy (as opposed to 1 Cor 11:3, for instance), no differences in marriage roles (as opposed to Eph 5:22-33, for instance), no differences in roles in church (as opposed to, say, 1 Cor 12:4-27 or 1 Tim 2:12-14). Anyone can do anything and it is "unequal" to say otherwise. For instance, if someone submits to someone else, the one who submits is obviously the lesser (as opposed to, as the clearest example, Christ who submitted to the Father -- John 14:28 -- and even to His disciples -- Luke 22:27). So while the Bible supports differences in roles and authority and such, the Christian egalitarian opposes such differences.
To be fair, the primary argument here is not general; it is specific. It is in the arena of male vs female. Husbands are not head over their wives. Wives need not submit to their husbands. Women can do any role in the church that they want. A male/female thing. So where do they get this argument? Straight from the Bible, of course.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)(Isn't it ironic? As many times as people complain that I take Scripture too literally, they make this their "You have to take this literally!" argument.)
So there it is in black and white. "All are one in Christ Jesus." And on one point I agree -- we need to take this as written. So what is Paul saying here?
Paul offered a list of terms by which the people of his day applied worth. Jew? To the Jew, they're the only valued human being. Greek? Not at all. Slave? Not much worth. Free? Valued. Male? Valued. Female? Not so much. Paul then is carefully arguing precisely the egalitarian view -- in Christ all are of equal value. The Greek is the same value as the Jew, slave the same value as the free, the female the same value as the male. These distinctions do not change the value of those who are in Christ. What this text does not do is erase differences. Why? Well, I've offered multiple reasons from Scripture. The Bible does suggest an authority hierarchy, a marital hierarchy of responsibility, a distinction in roles in the Body. We can discuss what those distinctions are, but we cannot eliminate them on the basis that Paul wrote that there are no distinctions for those in Christ. That would simply be insanity, Paul contradicting Paul. So Paul is saying there is no distinction in Christ in terms of worth -- standard egalitarianism -- not there is no distinction at all -- the new "egalitarianism".
They keep using that word. I'm quite sure it doesn't mean what they think it means. I'm absolutely sure that, taking the Bible at its word, God's Word doesn't agree. It didn't end well for Vizzini; I fear it won't end well for the modern egalitarians.
1 comment:
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "An egalitarian favors equality of some sort." "Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status." "People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort."
From this we see that 1) equality is at the core of egalitarianism, and that 2) beyond that it's ... vague. Even the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses definition terms like "of some sort". The question I have is in the two terms, "social status" and "moral status", particularly how they relate to my comments above. It seems to me that "social status" is a vague notion of how society values something or someone and is not related to Christian doctrines since Christian doctrines do not determine "social status" -- society does. I'm not at all clear on what "moral status" is. Of equal moral value? I don't know what that means.
What you will find, however, is that no matter how hard the Christian egalitarians push to eliminate differences between gender roles in Scripture, they will do so by eliminating ... Scripture. "Sure, it says that, and the Church has always understood it to mean that, but it does not mean what it clearly says and we've discovered the new and improved meaning ... where it basically means nothing at all." When I find a Christian egalitarian who will genuinely address Scripture contrary to Christian egalitarianism with respect and sincerity, I might pay attention. I haven't seen that yet. In other words, they demand equal value but do not value Scripture equally.
Post a Comment