Why do you reject egalitarian beliefs?

[peaceful-forest]

For those of you that identify as conservative or complementarian, if you have heard egalitarian beliefs and rejected them, why? How are egalitarian beliefs wrong?

Note - I'm only asking the why, to hear your side. I do not wish to start an argument on this thread. Thank you.

Edit - I have another question for those that reject egalitarian beliefs. Have you read or studied the New Testament in the original Greek language that it was written in?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

For those of you that identify as conservative or complementarian, if you have heard egalitarian beliefs and rejected them, why? How are egalitarian beliefs wrong?

Note - I'm only asking the why, to hear your side. I do not wish to start an argument on this thread. Thank you.

Being equal is an illusion, someone needs to lead, decisions are made. The idea of being equal is just used to manipulate.

 

[timf]

Equality is a mathematical abstraction. Not even identical twins are "equal".

There are natural differences between men and women. Family roles lend themselves to those differences. To try to make things equal is to try to live an unnatural life.

 

[jas3]

if you have heard egalitarian beliefs and rejected them, why?

Because egalitarianism requires one to ignore significant parts of the Bible, especially the New Testament, and because it stands in contradiction to the example set by our Lord as well as the consistent teaching of the Church for its entire history.

How are egalitarian beliefs wrong?

The ordination of women was never a Christian practice. Christ Himself chose twelve men to lead the Church; He did have disciples who were women, but these didn't hold the office of bishop. Moreover, Christian ordination, both as recorded in the epistles of St. Paul and in Church history, was applied only to men. As Christians believe the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints," I do not see a way for one to argue for a change in doctrine on ordination or any other topic from a place of Christian piety.

Similarly, we see both biblically and in the writings of the Church Fathers (themselves often citing Scripture) that men and women have different roles. Women are instructed to cover their hair, men are instructed not to cover theirs. Wives are told to submit to their husbands, husbands are told to love their wives with the same self-sacrificial love with which our Lord loves His Church. "The man is the head of the woman," and so on. Egalitarians argue that these passages aren't applicable today and that they're reflective of the culture of the time, but this to me seems like another thinly veiled way of weaselling out of doctrine offensive to feminist sensibilities.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That reminds me, the bible does teach that being effeminate is sinful for males. This is a separate from the sin of having sex with other men.

The egalitarian doctrine reminds me of the Queen of Heaven worship discussion in Jeremiah 44.

Being lukewarm and replacing the Holy Spirit with emotional satisfaction, results in a church with no spiritual power. There are other things that accomplish this same result, but in this thread we are talking about why egalitarianism is rejected.

 

[Richard T]

America generally has strived to create equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. That is because individual motivations and gifts are not equal. Still there are some structural, lasting issues that should be addressed more. For instance, some public schools are far better than others. The poor too rarely have access to private schools and often face more difficult issues at home, from greater substance abuse issues, crime, single parent families, nutrition and poverty itself. Still, there is some transfers that the government initiates.

Biblically in Acts, among Christians there was some sharing as each had needs or surplus. This was a voluntary religious system though and not forced or coming from government. God never set in motion economic equality that I know of. He who gives sparingly reaps sparingly, he who gives much, receives much. So it is left up the individual. Proverbs too talks of the sluggard.
Proverbs 24:33-34 (NASB)
33 "A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest,"
34 Then your poverty will come as a robber And your want like an armed man.

The one area that the bible excels in is our position in Christ.
Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

So positionally, we are one in Christ, but temporally we still have hierarchies.
In general, many fail to see that he who is least among us, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. So God is fully just in the end. The bible talks too of greater judgments on some in hell, and greater rewards for those who excel as Christians in heaven.

Since no system on earth has ever produced egalitarianism, certainly some systems are better than others. The elite though always have exceptional privilege and since man is sinful in nature, that will always be. "The poor you will always have with you." So whether economically, socially, or even politically equality can be a goal, the idea of equal opportunity seems far more superior than equal outcomes.

 

[Clare73]

America generally has strived to create equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. That is because individual motivations and gifts are not equal. Still there are some structural, lasting issues that should be addressed more. For instance, some public schools are far better than others. The poor too rarely have access to private schools and often face more difficult issues at home, from greater substance abuse issues, crime, single parent families, nutrition and poverty itself. Still, there is some transfers that the government initiates.

Biblically in Acts, among Christians there was some sharing as each had needs or surplus. This was a voluntary religious system though and not forced or coming from government. God never set in motion economic equality that I know of. He who gives sparingly reaps sparingly, he who gives much, receives much. So it is left up the individual. Proverbs too talks of the sluggard.
Proverbs 24:33-34 (NASB)
33 "A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest,"
34 Then your poverty will come as a robber And your want like an armed man.

The one area that the bible excels in is our position in Christ.
Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

So positionally, we are one in Christ, but temporally we still have hierarchies.
In general, many fail to see that he who is least among us, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. So God is fully just in the end. The bible talks too of greater judgments on some in hell, and greater rewards in heaven for those who excel as Christians.

Heaven is not egalitarian.

Since no system on earth has ever produced egalitarianism, certainly some systems are better than others. The elite though always have exceptional privilege and since man is sinful in nature, that will always be. "The poor you will always have with you." So whether economically, socially, or even politically equality can be a goal, the idea of equal opportunity seems far more superior than equal outcomes.

 

[Liz9832]

I would have considered myself egalitarian a few years ago when I first started learning about these issues, however, my views have shifted to being what I believe is complementarian. I believe that both men and women are equal in value. Men are not superior to women, nor are women superior to men, they both need each other.
We are different, our biology confirms that. Women are naturals at certain things that men would struggle to do and vice versa. Women give birth, men do not. Men are typically physically stronger and build muscle more easily than women do. The way we see things, act, think, etc are different from each other. Instead of seeing this as a competition or that I am somehow less than a man, I view it more like we were created to need one another. My strengths may be a man's weaknesses, but I may be weak where he is strong.

I'm no expert theologian, this is just my humble opinion.

 

[Clare73]

I would have considered myself egalitarian a few years ago when I first started learning about these issues, however, my views have shifted to being what I believe is complementarian. I believe that both men and women are equal in value. Men are not superior to women, nor are women superior to men, they both need each other.
We are different, our biology confirms that. Women are naturals at certain things that men would struggle to do and vice versa. Women give birth, men do not. Men are typically physically stronger and build muscle more easily than women do. The way we see things, act, think, etc are different from each other. Instead of seeing this as a competition or that I am somehow less than a man, I view it more like we were created to need one another. My strengths may be a man's weaknesses, but I may be weak where he is strong.

I'm no expert theologian, this is just my humble opinion.

One is not "better" than the other.

They were created for different roles, where likewise, one role is not better than the other, for it takes both, neither can do without the other.

 

[Richard T]

Heaven is not egalitarian.

Yes, you are right. The biggest chasm though is the gulf between heaven and hell. I am glad to have to think about when I look at those who are lost and what I can do about it.

 

[AbbaLove]

They were created for different roles, where likewise, one role is not better than the other, for it takes both, neither can do without the other.

That was applicable for a time in the "Garden of Eden", but what about the fallen nature of sinful mankind (both males and females)? Was it wrong of GOD to let the northern tribes be taken captive to the strange lands of idol worshipers?

What bout a fallen woman (e.g. Mary Magdalene) who becomes a new creation in Christ; whereas a minister of the gospel may be guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28) as well as being a thief and liar?

Seems like the following definition of egalitarianism has a blind eye to sin and evil impulses such as murder, rape, theft, false witness, etc, etc. What about an abortion doctor whose primary motivation is the monetary benefit or a dishonest dictator (is there any other kind)?

Didn't you mean that all those in Heaven are eqalitarians from HIS perspective?

Egalitarianism, in simple terms, is the belief that everyone should have equal rights, opportunities, and treatment, regardless of factors like race, gender, or social class. (what about sin or do both earthly and heavenly egalitarians dismiss sin/evil?)​

​

is it possible that most egalitarians are secular humanists that would seemingly contend that the Holy Bible is just so much "religion". Manmade religion that does more to prevent equal treatment than encourage equal treatment. Are the vast majority of "egalitiarians" secular humanists.

 

[Clare73]

That was applicable for a time in the "Garden of Eden", but what about the fallen nature of sinful mankind (both males and females)? Was it wrong of GOD to let the northern tribes be taken captive to the strange lands of idol worshipers?

God is not egalitarian.

What bout a fallen woman (e.g. Mary Magdalene) who becomes a new creation in Christ; whereas a minister of the gospel may be guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28) as well as being a thief and liar?

Seems like the following definition of egalitarianism has a blind eye to sin and evil impulses such as murder, rape, theft, false witness, etc, etc. What about an abortion doctor whose primary motivation is the monetary benefit or a dishonest dictator (is there any other kind)?

Didn't you mean that all those in Heaven are eqalitarians from HIS perspective?

Egalitarianism, in simple terms, is the belief that everyone should have equal rights, opportunities, and treatment, regardless of factors like race, gender, or social class. (what about sin or do both earthly and heavenly egalitarians dismiss sin/evil?)​

​

is it possible that most egalitarians are secular humanists that would seemingly contend that the Holy Bible is just so much "religion". Manmade religion that does more to prevent equal treatment than encourage equal treatment. Are the vast majority of "egalitiarians" secular humanists.

 

[peaceful-forest]

As I have read everyone's responses, I have thought of an addition question.

Have you read or studied the New Testament in the original Greek language that it was written in?

I have edited the original post to include this new question. I would like to hear your responses, even if you have already answered previously.

 

[jas3]

Have you read or studied the New Testament in the original Greek language that it was written in?

Yes, and I would recommend everyone do so. I'll add that I don't consider reading an interlinear version or just going to Bible Hub and clicking "Greek" to see Strong's top definition for each word to be studying; these are legitimate ways to have access to the Greek text and to get some help if struggling on a translation, but if your entire knowledge of Greek comes from these sources, you haven't studied Greek.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

For those of you that identify as conservative or complementarian, if you have heard egalitarian beliefs and rejected them, why? How are egalitarian beliefs wrong?

Note - I'm only asking the why, to hear your side. I do not wish to start an argument on this thread. Thank you.

Edit - I have another question for those that reject egalitarian beliefs. Have you read or studied the New Testament in the original Greek language that it was written in?

Depends on what is being slung out there as "egalitarian."

No one has to buy into any person's evil thoughts, words or deeds if that is what is being proposed. Conservative or liberal.

And the Bible doesn't present that situation either. God is never against good and doing good. But there is the opposite side of the ledger also always in play as well. Never a one sided deal.

As a conservative Christian I have no issues with civil gay marriage. That doesn't mean I'd accept that same standard in the "church" just as I wouldn't expect the church to accept the evil in anyone including my own sins. Needless to say I don't believe in any "holy sex" stories. Lust is lust. We all have this flesh flaw inserted into us to deal with. Nor do I believe church members are better than anyone else in this regard.

That doesn't mean I want to raise up the EQUAL LUST STANDARD. It's already presented itself as a very slippery slope of progressive, demented debauchery.

 

[bèlla]

I don’t place myself in either camp theologically. But as a practice in my faith and daily living I believe we’re equal in our divinity but our functions differ much like we see in the trinity.

~bella

 

[9Rock9]

I just don't see egalitarianism in the Bible. I think complementarianism has better support and passages backing it.

That said, I'm complementarian-lite. I think only men should be ordained as pastors. I'm undecided about deacons.

Outside of that context, though, I'm egalitarian. I think women can preach the gospel as missionaries, lead a Sunday school class, etc. She just can't hold an ordained position.

 

[timewerx]

I just don't see egalitarianism in the Bible. I think complementarianism has better support and passages backing it.

That said, I'm complementarian-lite. I think only men should be ordained as pastors. I'm undecided about deacons.

Outside of that context, though, I'm egalitarian. I think women can preach the gospel as missionaries, lead a Sunday school class, etc. She just can't hold an ordained position.

Jesus would be the exception. Jesus had women disciples. Told all His disciples "to make disciples off all nations". Jesus did not tell the women "don't do anything, let the men do it"

 

[bèlla]

I think it's important to ask ourselves hard questions when addressing things biblically. Especially in areas where personal benefit is possible. Everyone has biases about something whether they acknowledge it or not. The question I would ask myself is why is it so important or why it bothers me if it does. And I wouldn't respond with talking points. The answer would be personal.

I suspect a lot of women take exception on this topic because they have few opportunities to lead elsewhere and the church becomes a battleground. That's less about theology than a failure to apply what you've been given in other areas. Most of the people debating this aren't doing that. There's numerous companies and organizations where you can demonstrate your potential. If people would be more proactive there would be less to argue about.

Being egalitarian isn't going to make someone love you, respect you, protect you or follow you. What matters most is the person not the label and the same holds true for the others. The way we walk it out is individual. We have to stop allowing our personal opinions and slights to influence the word.

~bella

 

[Soyeong]

For those of you that identify as conservative or complementarian, if you have heard egalitarian beliefs and rejected them, why? How are egalitarian beliefs wrong?

Note - I'm only asking the why, to hear your side. I do not wish to start an argument on this thread. Thank you.

Edit - I have another question for those that reject egalitarian beliefs. Have you read or studied the New Testament in the original Greek language that it was written in?

If everyone were taxed an equal amount, then they would be taxed an unequal percentage of their income, but if everyone were taxed a flat percentage of their income, then they would be taxed unequal amounts, so people will always be able to argue for angle that favors them in equality. If someone’s highest goal is equality to the point that they are willing to cause massive amounts of inequality by restructuring society in the name of their version of equality, then that is not good. Equality of opportunity is good but restructuring society in the name of their version of equality of outcome is not.