What's So Wrong With Egalitarianism? by Chris Gilliam, Guest Contributor

There are many today, in an attempt to adapt to current cultural climate, who take issues with much of the historically held biblical doctrines.  One such doctrine is that of gender roles.  I do not assume or attempt to enter this dialog in the realm of full scholastic exchange; rather I would like to take a look at it from a pure Pauline expression of argumentation.

When one looks at the Pauline letters there is a clear identifiable pattern of writing that Paul, as an instrument of the Holy Spirit, uses. That pattern can be demonstrated in two simple words: belief and behavior.  Paul argues that belief is the driver to behavior, and behavior is a mirror to our true belief.  In other words, eventually and evidentially, what one believes will be displayed by how one behaves.

This goes contrary to the philosophy of the psychologist B.F. Skinner, who taught us that our behavior can mold our beliefs. While repeating a behavior might help us formulate a belief pragmatically, that same “belief” could be just as easily rejected by applying force to redirect the behavior.  Thus the belief is really no belief at all but rather a reaction to one’s own need of comfort. At best, Paul would condemn such approach as purely legalistic and non-transformative.  He argued that a primary belief in Jesus Christ and his words is a prerequisite to life-changing behavior.  Conversely, an abiding fruit-bearing relationship with Christ must have its roots in solid biblical belief.

Today however, some have chosen to espouse certain behaviors, out of pure pragmatism, in order to protect their need of comfort. Some beliefs are biblical, others are not. The point is that all such behaviors which do not emanate from a deeply held belief are up for negotiation if the correct stimulus is applied. This leads to shifting doctrine claimed in the name of Jesus.    

But God would have it different for us who claim and desire to follow Christ. Our belief must direct our true behavior, and our behavior really does mirror our true belief. So what does this have to do with Egalitarianism?  Well, I want to examine their beliefs about gender roles in light of the test above. Does the egalitarian system stand the scrutiny of all scripture?  Many have focused on other texts specifically related to women’s roles; I will not engage in those arguments. You can find a more exhaustive reading here.  I want to focus on the following text and then examine the behavior of the egalitarian proponents.

 

 Phil 4: 6  [Jesus] who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be  equal  with God,  7  but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men.  8  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the] [point] [of] death, even the death of the cross. (NKJV)

 

Jesus was equal to God but found no need to assert His position as such. He willingly lived in submission to the Father. He assumed the role given to Him by the Father and modeled humility, subordination, surrender of rights and service. When I look at the whole argumentation of the egalitarian movement, it seems to me that the issue at stake is not so much equality or value of being, but rather a grasping at roles and “rights.”

The error I find in the movement is not only one of textual misinterpretations but of misbehaviors which deny biblical beliefs. Rather than mimic the profound submission of Christ to the Father (and as a matter of fact to the religious folks and civil government), Egalitarians push the “women’s rights” agendas in order to force a skewed view of equality. Further, women as individuals are encouraged to pursue, by all means necessary, this equality. The behavior that results is a pushing and striving to achieve what one believes.

The drive to fulfill all roles possible sometimes comes in aggressive fronts, but often times in passive and subversive, even at times resorting to manipulative ways and means.  It presents itself in forms of sarcasm and ridicule. It is the behavior that Lord rebuked among His first disciples that I see being paraded today among Egalitarian proponents.   You can see this behavior displayed in the main post and particularly the comments here. 

It is clear that stating one’s rights is preeminent and not surrendering to the lordship of Christ. Following the model of Christ has become second in priority to chasing after “the equality.”  These behaviors display a belief that biblical fidelity is proven by talent, oratory and intellectual abilities, leadership skill and political savvy. Pride, posturing, positioning and power grasping (all condemned by Jesus) are antithetical to Christ’s humility described in the above Philippians passage.

Another egalitarian behavior unbecoming of a Christ-follower is their treatment of the Word.  Filtering plain passages like 1 Timothy 2 and Ephesians 5 through human grids of logic, reason, culture and feelings has resulted in a whole movement of people telling God what he meant to say.  Equality becomes like a law, similar to the law of gravity, and all things are subject to it, including God.

Thus the preceding passages are only cultural guides and God’s word is only infallible in the way I come to existentially understand it. No Egalitarian would admit to editing the Almighty much less overruling Him.  However, the behavior demonstrates the guilt of such.

Finally let’s look at a behavior that logically results from an egalitarian defining of role distinction and mutual submission. In Ephesians 5:22-24 it says that wives are to submit to their own husbands as a picture of the church submitting to Christ. If the logic of the equal-at-all-cost egalitarian position is applied to the text, what restraint is there to keep the church submissive to Christ?  If the woman is no longer expected to submit to her husband, and she models this belief in all walks of life by assuming leadership and authority in the family and the church, how then can she or her followers reasonably understand the headship of Christ?

Could we not follow the slippery slope of this interpretation of mutual submission to a place where the church can instruct Christ, and that Christ must submit to the leadership of the Church?  If mutual submission is the standard and “equal in all things” is the motto, then what is the problem of telling Jesus to submit to the will of the church? Perhaps the modern church is more capable of leading Jesus than Jesus is of leading her, since He didn’t have all the education and technology we have today. 

I suppose if we examined the behavior of many churches we would in fact see this belief displayed in their pursuit of God, their efforts to change society, and their choosing how to live. Taking the egalitarian grid to full conclusion one must insist that there are times when Christ must mutually submit to the church.

Grasping for power or coercing submission flow not from Christ or the text, but from flawed flesh. Our behavior exposes our belief. And biblical belief is modeled by Christ like behavior.

Chris Gilliam is a Southern Baptist minister living and ministering in south metropolitan Atlanta, presently focusing on men and missions ministry.  He is a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Check out Chris' ministry website & blog--  Fish for Men

Comments

[volfan007]

Amen, Chris. Excellent post. Great insights. And, you just plain ole hit the ole nail on top of it's shiny, little head.

Thanks.

David

[Benji Ramsaur]

Some thoughts:

1. It does seem like if someone wants to take Eph. 5:21 as proof that "both" the husband and wife should submit to one another, then the imagery of Christ and the church should mirror that mutual submission. But it does not.

2. If someone wants to take Eph. 5:21 as proof that "all" the members of the church should submit to one another, then that would have to include parents "in Christ" submitting to their children "in Christ" as well. Their logic breaks down I think.

3. I think bringing in the extra biblical language of "roles" might bring in unnecessary confusion/disagreement. I think sticking to saying something like "God's will" would be better.

4. Chris said "Filtering plain passages like 1 Timothy 2 and Ephesians 5 through human grids of logic, reason, culture and feelings has resulted in a whole movement of people telling God what he meant to say." This comes across to me like Chris thinks people should come to plain texts with a blank slate, but we all bring presuppositions [God exists, sin is bad, etc.] whether we are looking at Scripture or bones. Hopefully, we all strive to bring presuppositions that are derived from Scripture itself. Also, there is no getting around having to deal not only with what a passage says but what it means.

5. I think Philippians 2 is talking about Christ not holding onto His "heavenly glory" with the Father, but letting go of that in profound humiliation with the ultimate humiliation being His death on the cross in obedience to the Father.

I do not think Christ was grasping after something He did not already have in glory. I think Christ did not hold on to what He already had in glory. Big difference I think.

[Benji Ramsaur]

It seems to me that the way we articulate things can get in the way of having profitable discussion in this area.

I am particularly thinking of this. Since the Greek word in relation to the wife submitting to the husband [even though the word itself is not found in verse 22, but in verse 21] is not as strong as the Greek word for children obeying their parents, then I wonder if talking in the language of a husband having "authority" over his wife is not the best way to capture the biblical meaning of the passage.

I think the imagery of a formal dance gets at what is being said: the man leads and the woman voluntarily follows his lead. I don't think we look at the prince dancing with Cinderella and think "he has AUTHORITY over her".

I wonder if "headship" in that context [Eph. 5] should not be given too edgy a meaning.

Yes, I know Christ does have absolute authority over His church. However, the HCSB also tells us that we are slaves of Christ as well. Surely we do not want to give that much edge to headship in a Christian marriage.

[Chris]

Vol- Thanks

Benji- Thanks for your thoughts let me address if I am a few,

1. It does seem like if someone wants to take Eph. 5:21 as proof that "both" the husband and wife should submit to one another, then the imagery of Christ and the church should mirror that mutual submission. But it does not.

The problem as I see it, Benji, is that the text makes the analogy connect not I. “If” one makes the argument A then it must rightly apply to B since Paul uses A is like B in the text.

I think we are close on #2-3 so kudos. As for point 4 of your thoughts, I simply ask, Do you not think it is important, yea imperative, to attempt with all our might to lay aside our presuppositions? I mean, If we are to take every thought obedient to Christ, it begs the question, Which Christ? The Christ as revealed in scripture in that time and space, or the Christ I make him to be as I choose to understand him in my contemporary time and space. Rightfully you acknowledge it is virtually impossible to come with a blank slate, but I think we must try.

My point on the whole of #5 is missed, I think. The point I was attempting to make is that if we pattern our lives as little Christ (Christian), Then a test of our behavior is how we model the willing humility in the Philippians text. Perhaps you nuanced it well however with your “big difference” statement, namely Christ choose to surrender, and we must model likewise. It is not an issue of value, rather obedience.

Thanks for you thoughts and I hope you enjoyed the read.
Chris

[Chris]

Benji- I think you are circling the point I'm making. If egalitarian is true, then where is the willingnes to surrender the "rights"? What I see too often is a willingness to exert or enforce the "right". I realize much is reactionary against abuse of the whole "authority" issue. But is it not equally, if perhaps only subtle and manipulative at times, wrong to exhert force to rule for the woman? Does this working to get my right attitude expressed in action contradict the humility of Christ?

[Chris Poe]

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and several other pertinent books are available online here: http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books

[Benji Ramsaur]

Chris,

I don't think I was disagreeing with you on my #1.

If we are slaves of Christ, then we absolutely must not try to rid ourselves of presuppositions. There is no such thing as neutrality or having a blank slate. We are either committed to Christ or we are not. We must strive to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ [which shows a presuppositional commitment to Christ and not to supposed neutrality].

Presuppositions are not necessarily bad. They are there in our minds whether we like it nor not. When we read the Bible, it is not wrong [in fact it is right] to bring the presuppositions of creation/fall/redemption/consummation [for example] to the text since they derive from Scripture in the first place.

When it comes to rights, egalitarians might throw your argument back at you. They might say "Well, aren't you asserting your right, as a man, to have authority with your complementarian argument".

Of course, you might come back and say "Well, I'm appealing to the Bible" and then they might come back and say "Well, we're appealing to the Bible as well" and thus I'm not sure if going down that road would be profitable.

When it comes to the tranquil discussion of gender [cough, cough, cough...:)] I am not a fan of either side charging the other side of giving into pragmatism/culture a lot. I think it is better to go to Scripture and talk about things like hermeneutics/context/etc.

I also think it is important for both sides to see the other side as brothers and sister in Christ. They should not see each other as the enemy. Better to be wrong on this issue than right and horribly self-righteous about it I think.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your sincere commitment to model the humility of Christ.

God Bless,

Benji

[Chris]

Benji,
Thanks for the exchange. I would agree fully on the presuppostions as you state that derive from scripture- creation...I would also say that there are times, too often for us all, that perhaps we desire to impose a presupposition on the text. At this point I strongly feel we must resist and let the whole council of God speak to us.
Chris

[Luke]

Ahh come on Benji. What is wrong with being Paulesque when speaking with someone about how they have ventured from the obvious truth?! :)

Chris,
Perhaps the reason why it is easier to adopt the egalitarian interpretation because then it means that as men, we don't have to love our wives as Christ loved the church and we then would not have to give so much. Your point is spot on that if we remove the head, the body's dead. And if we attach another head, then we open the door for another Savior. But the main trouble is that it is much easier to just let things go by day to day than it is to love my wife as Christ loves the church and NOT because of her, but because of me. The old flesh just doesn't like to die. Thanks for the Word.

[Hiram Smith]

Chris,

Your analysis and assessment is excellent. I’ve never read a clearer or more powerful brief treatment of this subject. Regrettably, this issue is becoming a more common and more serious problem within churches. If Baptists back away from this indisputably clear biblical admonition, where will we end up?

The issue confronting us is whether we hold fast to the reality of God’s authoritative revelation, or resort to the insufficiency of culturally referenced reason. Thank you for your timely, insightful and inspiring post.

Hiram Smith
Psa.23:1

[Chris]

Luke- thanks your words

Hiram - thank you too. Are you still in P'cola? I have family there.

[Hiram Smith]

Chris,

Yes. Beautiful weather today. Come on down. Where are you? Who are your folks?

Hiram
Psa.23:1

[Chris]

Hiram- shoot me an email and we can chat offline.

[E.H. Johnson]

So, since I Timothy 2 was brought up, I'm assuming that you affirm that women shouldn't wear gold or pearls, and shouldn't braid their hair?

[Chris]

I cut mine and my families hair, My wife's also. We buy most of our clothes at consigment, yard sales, and second hand stores. We model this before the saints. We attempt in all things to draw attention to Christ and not self. Perhaps that answers your question. I also lean and learn to lft up my hands in prayer, cleaned, faith-filled and without wrath.