Biblical Inequality

Is there such a thing? Indeed there is, and it was an assumed truth until only recent centuries. Seriously, some of the most beloved early and medieval fathers would even make modern Complementarians blush, and yet the latter are supposedly the last bastions against absolute equality (more on that below). And if you're an Egalitarian with heart problems, please, for your own safety, do not read "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women" by John Knox.

But before I continue, if you have no idea what "Complementarian(ism)" and "Egalitarian(ism)" mean, get yourself acquainted before reading on. This is the Danvers Statement, a founding document of the Complementarian movement, written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), the preeminent Complementarian organisation. And this is the mission and faith statement of the Christians for Biblical Equality, the preeminent organisation for Christian Egalitarianism. Also read their "Statement on Men, Women, and Biblical Equality". These opposing doctrines are a necessary background to what I will be arguing, because they comprise almost all Protestant/Evangelical believers today, and in this and the coming posts, I am attacking a core assumption of both doctrines (although Egalitarianism is far more harmed, for obvious reasons).


Now, the amazing (or tragic) thing about Christendom today is how such a novel doctrine - Egalitarianism - has so thoroughly converted almost every major denomination. Even those who have not yet fallen for the heterodoxy of women pastors still accept the basic tenets of Egalitarian doctrine; men and women are fundamentally "equal", ought to be treated the same as each other in all circumstances, women can lead anything and everything that isn't labelled a church or a family, etc. Female Presidents? Complementarians are first in line at the ballot for them. Even Al Mohler, the Tom Brady of Complementarianism, doesn’t seem to have a big issue with that.

This extremely limp-wristed, begrudging defense of gender roles in complementarian doctrine is expertly laid out by Bnonn Tennant at It's Good To Be A Man. A sample of his argument:

If the CBMW had been interested in defending the full historic Christian view, it would not have needed a new term for its theology, because that theology has always been called patriarchy: the doctrine that men are made to rule in behalf of their Father, and that this naturally begins in their houses, and continues out into the larger houses of nations and churches. 

So why did the CBMW coin the very awkward term, complementarianism? 

The answer is straightforward: they were embarrassed of patriarchy and wanted something that wouldn’t sound offensive at the Cool Table of the academy. That embarrassment, inevitably, went beyond labels; it went to the theological underpinnings.

Anyone who follows the dramas of the Southern Baptist Convention will see the fruits of compromise-tarian doctrine in action. If you aren't in on the situation(s), here are some key words for your Google search; Beth Moore.

But this post isn't about lamenting the failings of modern 'conservatives'. Rather, I wish to uproot the core assumption upholding Egalitarian beliefs in Christendom, both implicit and explicit; that being the very notion of 'equality'. This won't be an exhaustive, academic tier argument (that is for another project in the works), but something that anyone can read, ponder, and learn from. Additionally, this is only a primer, the first of multiple coming essays that will explain the Biblical stance against equality.

I - An Egalitarian Prooftext

Arguably the core text employed by egalitarians is Galatians 3:28, which reads:

Οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. Πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

There is not Judean nor Greek, not slave nor free, not male nor female. For you all are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul's words are quite clear; earthly distinctions of race, class, and gender do not exist. Everyone is equal, we're all one beige stew of humans in a grand melting pot called 'the church'.

Except Paul does not say this.

Read again carefully, specifically the second half, where the main statement is given. Paul says we are "one" in Christ Jesus; united. He does not say we are alike, he does not say we are equal, he says we are one. What difference does this make? A world of it. Paul is espousing a highly collectivist understanding of the church, which gels well with the collectivism of ancient-medieval times. In neutering the distinctions between people, he is not saying all people are the same; the opposite in fact. Different people of different statuses and roles come under one united body.

II - The Beauty of Inequality

Paul best develops this concept of the Church as a united body in 1st Corinthians chapter 12. He writes:

For indeed the body is one, and it has many parts, all parts of the single body. While being many, the body is one [Paul is crazy with his syntax here...].

Thus also with Christ. For also in one Spirit, we all into one body were baptised, whether Judean, whether Greek, whether slave, whether free. And we all into one Spirit were made to drink. For also the body is not one part, but many. 

If the foot perhaps said, "Because I am not a hand, I am not from the body", not on account of this is it not from the body. And if the ear perhaps said, "Because I am not an eye, I am not from the body", not on account of this is it not from the body.

If the whole body is an eye, where is the hearing? And if it is all hearing, where is the sense of smell? Now, however, God arranged the parts - each one of them - in the body, just as he desired. If, however, all were one part, where is the body? Now, however, the parts are indeed many, but the body is one.

The eye is not able to say to the hand "I do not have a need of you." Or again, the head to the feet "I do not have a need of you." But to many, rather, the parts of the body seeming to be weak are necessary. And those of the body that seem to be of less honour, we clothe them with more abundant honour. And the ugly parts of us, more abundant decorum they have. And the well-formed parts of us have no need. But God composed the body, to the inferior parts he gave honour, in order that they should not schism in the body, but that the parts should have the same concern for one another. 

And if one part is suffering, with it all the parts suffer. And if one part is glorified, with it all the parts rejoice. 

Now you are the body of Christ, and members from it. [1]

See how Paul uses a similar construct to Galatians 3:28, "whether Judean, whether Greek, whether slave, whether free"? The parallel is strong, and it sheds light on the so-called egalitarian prooftext. Through this whole passage, Paul demonstrates unity among unequal parts of the body; eyes, ears, feet, etc. Every part is different, every part has a unique role, and those of lesser honour are cloaked in more abundant honour (v. 23). In light of this, he refutes how some 'parts' think they are not part of the body because they are not another, seemingly better part. 

And that is the most powerful takeaway from the passage regarding this very topic. Egalitarians will have you believe that women are not treated as they ought to within the body of Christ unless they can also be pastors and preachers. If they are barred from these opportunities, they are not equal, valued members of the body. But as Paul himself shows, this is a totally wrong attitude towards the body. Indeed, this assumption is pagan at its core, that status and opportunities = value. 

III - Unequal yet Valued

The Gospel was so revolutionary in its time not because it declared all people equal, but because it declared all who believed a valued member of Christ's Church regardless of their status. These inequalities of status and role were still real, and even justified under the paradigm of the Gospel (e.g. Eph. 5:21 - 6:9, 1 Pet. 2:18 - 3:7). Yet in the Church, all parts, no matter how seemingly insignificant, are necessary.

The Gospel is a true paradigm shifter, even 2000 years later (in fact, especially 2000 years later). The errors of feminist/egalitarian doctrine bring a fog over the rich truths of the holy scriptures. It creates an atmosphere of power plays and competition, because it is assumed that equal value among groups comes from equal power share, not from God's sovereign favour in spite of status. The Gospel came to proclaim this far more shocking truth, that though we are not equal, we are all valued by the creator.

I hope readers have learned from my argument, even and especially those who had the opposite view. If you may, please do share this with fellow Christians, especially those who hold egalitarian views (they won't be hard to find). This post is not merely my unfeeling theological musings, but a genuine conviction for the betterment of the Church.

Also, this was only a primer; my next post on this will address the doctrine of the Imago Dei, or the Image of God, and will cut to the heart of claims for 'fundamental' equality. I expect this to be my most controversial post in a while.

~~~

[1] - I have relegated the Greek to this footnote to save some space:

Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν, καὶ μέλη ἔχει πολλά, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ἑνός, πολλὰ ὄντα, ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα. 

Oὕτως καὶ ὁ χριστός. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες, εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι. Καὶ πάντες εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά. 

Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; Καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; 

Εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; Εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις; Νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι, καθὼς ἠθέλησεν. Εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα; Νῦν δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶμα. 

Οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί, Χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω. Ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν, Χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔχω. Ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν, ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν. Καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος, τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν. 

Καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει. Τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει. Ἀλλ' ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα, τῷ ὑστεροῦντι περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν, ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσματα ἐν τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη. 

Καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος, συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη. Εἴτε δοξάζεται ἓν μέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη. Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα χριστοῦ, καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.