“Christian equality can be described as equity, or even-handedness. Egalitarianism, in contrast, demands sameness, or equality of outcome. These two visions of equality are about as comparable as dry and wet. Think of it in terms of ten teenage boys trying to dunk a basketball: equity means that they all face the same ten-foot standard, and only two them them can do it — equity thus usually means differences in outcome. Egalitarianism wants equality of outcome, and there is only one way to get that — lower the net. Sameness of outcome requires differences in the standards” (For a Glory and a Covering, p. 90).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Yeah. Or to force sameness: to equalize requires a non-equal Equalizer: the KGB in the USSR or the IRS here. So the very ideal of egalitarianism worsens the evil it claims to aim to eradicate, and thus provides cover for the power-hungry. To get rid of artificial differences (Jim Crow) is one thing. To force sameness is another.
“And he answered them, ‘Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.'” – Luke 3:11 “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” – Acts 2:44-45 “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power… Read more »
Jonathan
Not to be ungracious, Brother, but what does that have to with the roles of men and women?
It seems as if you’re just being pointlessly contrarian.
In Christ
Jonathan, Jonathan…how can you misunderstand so outrageously! Those who rankle at egalitarians do so not for logical purpose but for backslapping camaraderie. It is much easier to define egalitarianism as that which “demands sameness, or equality of outcome,” and then build a straw man deciding what “they” must, have to, most assuredly believe incorporates egalitarian sameness. Who cares that Mr. Wilson’s basketball example misses the mark on several levels– we’re making fun of egalitarians so logic doesn’t matter!! Mr. Wilson’s “visions” are really not wet and dry; they’re all wet. No biblical egalitarian (assuming the subject is male/female kingdom roles)… Read more »
Wesley, if you don’t mean to be ungracious, then why did you infer negative motives from me? Andrew appeared to have interpreted the statement in the same general manner that I did, and you don’t appear to have accused him of negative motivations.
Or did I miss something, and do dunking a basketball, the KGB, the IRS, and Jim Crow laws all somehow relate to the roles of men and women?
@Jonathan Franzone:
Every one of the scriptures you quoted was either a description of the Spirit-inspired generosity of the believers, or an exhortation to believers to take care of their own and each other.
None of them was a command on the order of “Thou shalt not have anything different than thy brethren.”
@ Dan:
I’m not sure if the tone of your post is implying that you believe what you have written and are mocking those who don’t, or if it implies that you don’t believe what you have written and have constructed a non-egalitarian straw-man and are taking a bit too much delight in knocking it down.
Whichever it is, when you wrote: “that DIFFERENT gender should not determine DIFFERENT service or relationship.
I have to ask… why not?
Arwen – I agree that all my examples are focused on the actions of believers and are voluntary in nature.
But when Pastor Wilson says “Christian equality can be described as equity, or even-handedness. Egalitarianism, in contrast, demands sameness, or equality of outcome,” he makes it appear that equality of outcome is not “Christian” like his “equity” is.
By quoting John, Luke, and Paul, I am just pointing out that the egalitarianism Pastor Wilson speaks derogatorily of may in fact be the goal of our Christian communities. That is all.
In Doug’s basketball analogy, the height of the hoop is one of the standards which determines whether one can dunk or not. In the egalitarian/complimentarian controversy, one of the standards (or height of the hoop) for preaching is that of being a man. The only way to allow for the egalitarian viewpoint is to change the standard. God in his infinite wisdom has decreed in his word that that men should do the preaching (But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,…1Timothy 2:12). I am not sure why. It could be due to… Read more »
@Arwen – The line you quoted from my comment was not meant as argument for the broad issue (which would have been off topic). It was merely to correct the false definition of biblical egalitarianism from Pastor Wilson’s metaphor. So, I hesitate to answer the question you posed at the end of your comment directed to me because, first, it is really not on point, and second, it is actually the crux of the whole biblical egalitarian-patriarchal complementarian debate. You didn’t really expect me to unpack all the arguments in a blog comment, did you? My shelves are filled with… Read more »
“In Doug’s basketball analogy, the height of the hoop is one of the standards which determines whether one can dunk or not. In the egalitarian/complimentarian controversy, one of the standards (or height of the hoop) for preaching is that of being a man. The only way to allow for the egalitarian viewpoint is to change the standard.” It that really the direct analogy he’s making there? I have trouble imagining that even most complementarians would think that’s a good analogy. The height of the hoop is a constraint of the object on which the action is performed, but being a… Read more »
@St. Lee: I figure that God, being our Father, gives us His children chores to do. Pastoring is the brothers’ chore, and we sisters have our own chores to do, and it profits us nothing to either envy or usurp the chores given to the other (regardless of how we think we could improve on the others’ execution of the chore). It’s not an idea that I can support with chapter and verse, but it calms my rebellious spirit. @ Dan Salter: If I find fault, it is primarily with the tone of your post, which made it difficult to… Read more »