Equality is a word of inestimable value in our culture; a term that typically evokes positive sentiment in the hearts of most Americans. In the Christian conception, it has a significance that can hardly be understated when we consider the idea of the imago Dei–the idea that there’s a universal principle of equality that all human beings share, because we’re all individuals made in the image of God; all persons who are intrinsically equal in worth and value before our Creator. No one person is more valuable to God simply by virtue of their age, skin color, sex, nationality, talents, or abilities. No one person is more deserving of God’s love simply by virtue of immutable characteristics. This is truly a remarkable idea, and it is interwoven into the DNA of the Christian worldview. And, frankly speaking, the world would be a Darwinian hellscape without it.
The concept of equality applied to human beings in the context of the imago Dei, thus, is a good thing. However, that doesn’t mean that the concept of equality applied in all other circumstances is. And, unfortunately, the concept of equality can often get conflated and misappropriated. Such is the problem with egalitarianism.
I was first introduced to the concept of egalitarianism in bible college. It was there that I read Zondervan’s Women in Ministry: Two Views, from their Counterpoint series, and was introduced to the spectrum of biblical interpretation regarding gender roles, with the complementarians on one side and the egalitarians on the other. As far as I was aware, this was a debate that had been raging on for a long time in the church, and permitted a great deal of interpretive freedom and disagreement. It wasn’t until later that I realized how recently this debate had emerged, however. The reality is that complementarian theology was the dominant, traditional view in the church for nearly 1900 years until the rise of feminism gave way to more egalitarian perspectives (a point that can’t be too easily dismissed).
But the purpose here today is not to wade deep into the dialectical waters of that debate and contend for whether women should be allowed to be pastors or what “headship” means in the original Greek. I’ll save that for future posts. Rather, the purpose is to point out a more simple, yet fundamental, flaw in the egalitarian perspective that often goes undetected.
To give a brief and simple definition, the Oxford dictionary defines egalitarianism in this way:
“relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.”
If you’re listening carefully there, the obvious concern for an egalitarian is equality. At first glance, this sounds not only relatively harmless, but a good and noble thing. Considering we’re all made in the image of God, then of course all people are equal, right? And, if that’s true, then shouldn’t all people have equal rights and opportunities? Well, not quite. As it goes, the devil is in the details.
For starters, the egalitarian conception of equality is relatively boundless. It lacks a self-limiting principle in that it could be taken too far to the point of eliminating distinctions altogether (as we’ve seen all too much in our current moment). In other words, it frequently fails to take into consideration our differences.
Are we all equal in our possession of God-given intrinsic value? Yes, of course, and it’s wonderful thing we should affirm over and over again. But are we all equal in ability, age, size, temperament, intellect, etc.? No, of course not. Unfortunately for myself, Lebron James and I are not equal in every measure and on every front athletically. His size and ability give him only a slight advantage in the context of sports. Slight…
That being said, the principle “that all people are equal” is only true in a specific context. In many contexts, it’s the furthest thing from truth, and that context is key. The reality is that there are intrinsic differences between different groups of people that render us unequal. Simply put, we are not all equal in every context. This should not be controversial to affirm.
Once you understand this and take it into account, we can then logically infer that all people, therefore, cannot all be treated equally. While we can all treat one another with equal respect to our intrinsic value as human beings, we also have to treat one another unequally with respect to our differences. That’s actually required if we wish to be fair and just.
The logical sequence of events, then, is that, in light of our differences, we are forced by fairness to conclude that all people do not deserve equal rights and opportunities. This, at first, sounds shocking to our modern minds, but only because it’s poking us in our unexamined assumptions. Let me explain.
Take, for example, a 9 year old boy. Should he be allowed the right and opportunity to vote? After all, he’s a person who is equal in worth and dignity in the sight of God. Why should he, being equal in value, not get the same right and opportunity to vote in our elections just as all other people? Is it because the state deems it so? What gives the government the right to grant or remove rights? Or is it because his parents deem it so? But what gives them the right to impede this right of his, all things being equal? After all, if a husband can’t tell a wife that she’s unable to vote, why should a father or mother get the right to tell their child the same? That is, if the principle is equal rights and opportunities for all people.
Any reasonable person sees the issue here. They might say, “This is obviously different. He’s just a child.” Yet, that proves the point. It’s because he’s different that we treat him differently; that we treat him unequally. A 9-year old boy is, in fact, different, and those differences matter. They are not trivial. He’s different in age, intellectual ability, experience, and so on, and because of these differences, he does not “deserve” the same rights and opportunities as others. He’s not entitled to them. Certain rights and opportunities, like voting or being the president of the United States, come with responsibilities that require a particular set of characteristics and traits that a 9-year old boy simply does not have.
Now, is it possible that there are a small minority of 9-year olds out there who are intellectually advanced beyond their years, with a firm and hardy character, that have earned the right to vote–or heck, be president? Perhaps there are exceptions. But we do not change the rule for the exception, and that’s why it’s known as the exception to the rule.
Think about it. If it is the case that such a minority of highly gifted, genius 9-year olds exist, does it then make sense to make voting or the presidency a right and opportunity for all 9-year olds, simply in the name of having equal rights? The answer is an obvious unequivocal and resounding (and slightly comical) no. The effects of allowing all 9-year old boys to vote would be disastrous. Thus, we do not treat 9-year olds equally, and this is not a bad thing. This is called prudence.
The point is glaringly simple. We have differences, and those differences matter. In light of such differences, we cannot treat everyone equally in the same manner in every context. I will treat a 9-year old boy differently than I treat my wife, because they are different. It does not mean that I can’t respect and value them equally, but my treatment of them is unequal, as well as the rights and opportunities that I afford to each one. The 9-year old doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have a right to the same things my wife has a right to.
Not recognizing differences, as such, is part of the reason behind the rise in an unprecedented spirit of entitlement in our culture. We think that we all are owed and entitled all the rights and opportunities that other people are afforded simply by virtue of a shared humanity. But nothing could be further from the truth.
And this is, in large part, why the egalitarian project ultimately fails. It does not consider our innate differences and what that may mean for certain rights and opportunities for different groups of people. This is why so many of the feminist demands, whether it’s the demand for equal pay or “reproductive rights” or for female having the right to be priests, are out of alignment with reality. It’s because they refuse to take into account our differences as men and women.
In fact, the great irony of all of this is that, if we were to treat everyone equally as the egalitarians would have us do, then that would mean we do not treat others with respect to their differences, and that undermines the very notion of respect. It undercuts the very idea of fairness and justice. If we want to treat people properly, we have to adjust our expectations and our treatment of them in light of their limitations. If I’m a military commander, I’m not going to put women on the front lines of battle in the name of equality. If I’m a parent, I’m not going to make my newborn mow the lawn in the name of equality. If I’m a wife, I’m not going to make my husband make me a sandwich (kidding). I could go on with infinite examples, but I digress.
At the end of the day, fairness and justice are not compatible with egalitarianism. It’s high time we reclaim our differences and our complementary roles as men and women, and it’s time we put to bed the spirit of entitlement that is being allowed to run rampant in the name of “equality”. If we genuinely want justice and to treat other people charitably, then it’s incumbent upon us to treat people–especially men and women–with respect to our differences. Not doing so has gotten us into a heap of trouble.
It’s time to ditch egalitarianism.
Colton Banks 