0

I have been raised within the RPCNA and as such have had a very complementarian view of scripture. I do try to have an open mind in regards to scripture and it's interpretation, however, and as such I am open to hearing different points of view. Something I have never heard is a solid biblical argument for Egalitarianism.

Keeping in mind that all of scripture is inspired by a God outside of time and all words in scripture hold an equal weight (even today in our current culture), what is the biblical argument for being egalitarian?

EDIT

I am legitimately open to hearing from anyone with any interpretation of scripture. Ideally we could find common ground on Scripture's overall interpretation, but even if that's not the case, I would love to hear any and all arguments for Egalitarianism.

Calvin Bonner
  • 103
  • 3
  • 2
    Gender egalitarianism I assume you mean? Generally, or specifically in regards to marriages, or church ministers, or something else? – curiousdannii Mar 22 '21 at 13:49
  • Welcome to Christianity Stack Exchange. For those of us who don't live in the U.S.A. would you please tell us who/what the RPCNA is? – Lesley Mar 22 '21 at 14:52
  • "all words in scripture hold an equal weight (even today in our current culture)". Can you explain what you mean by that? What about Biblical arguments from people who don't agree with that point? – DJClayworth Mar 22 '21 at 15:55
  • Also, have you looked at the answers to this question? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/114/what-is-the-biblical-justification-for-permitting-female-pastors – DJClayworth Mar 22 '21 at 15:57
  • Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all people should be treated equally and deserve equal rights and opportunities. It is different to Feminism which believes gender discrimination needs to be eliminated so that Egalitarianism can reach its maximum potential. Is your question based on the definition of egalitarianism as described above? – Lesley Mar 22 '21 at 17:25
  • @curiousdannii In regards to gender, yes. And gender in all regards, marriage, the church, all of it. – Calvin Bonner Mar 23 '21 at 14:43
  • 1
    @Lesley The RPCNA is the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. It is fairly conservative and takes a lot of it's views from Calvinism. – Calvin Bonner Mar 23 '21 at 14:44
  • @DJClayworth By "all words in scripture hold an equal weight" I simply mean that God, being a being outside of time, inspired all words in scripture to apply equally to all cultures past, present, and future. A lot of the arguments I have heard for Egalitarianism either say that certain passages (like most of first Corinthians) were specific to the culture of the time and do not apply today, or they hold other parts of scripture as being more important and thus write off passages they don't agree with instead of viewing all of scripture as complimenting itself in some way. – Calvin Bonner Mar 23 '21 at 14:47
  • 1
    @Lesley In regards to your second question, my understanding of Egalitarianism is basically what you have described. My view on scripture has been that male and female were given complimenting (but separate rolls). Again, I am open to different interpretations of scripture (thus my asking the question) but I find passages like first Corinthians (among others) to be fairly clear-cut in a complementarian way. – Calvin Bonner Mar 23 '21 at 14:52
  • Thank you, Calvin. I agree wholeheartedly with the views you have expressed. – Lesley Mar 23 '21 at 15:20
  • 1
    @CalvinBonner Your explanation raises more questions. Most bible believers do not think that all of scripture applies to all cultures and times. For example, we do not stone people who make clothes from two different fibres, or touch the skin of a pig. Nor do we make women remain silent in church. If you insist on only listening to biblical basis from a very small minority of believers then you are not going to get a full explanation. – DJClayworth Mar 23 '21 at 15:41
  • @DJClayworth There are some parts of scripture (kosher guidelines, etc.) that are specifically retracted under the new covenant (see Acts 10:9-16 for example). In regards to areas of scripture that are not explicitly redacted there are basically two trains of thought, Regulative and Normative. I believe that, as I said, God exists outside of time and that (with some areas where interpretation is required) His inspired word was written for all peoples and cultures at all times. If you share a different view of scripture, that's okay, that is just one of the prerequisites I was operating under. – Calvin Bonner Mar 24 '21 at 15:00
  • My point is that if you insist on an answer from that point of view, you are not going to get an explanation of why Christians believe in Egalitarianism. – DJClayworth Mar 24 '21 at 15:05
  • @DJClayworth And that's okay, I want to hear answers from all points of view. Ideally we would be able to find common ground in regards to overall interpretation of scripture as an answer that relies on disregarding certain passages or portions of sculpture would require more research and be under slightly more scrutiny on my end. But I am legitimately open to hearing from anyone from any background with any overall views on scripture. – Calvin Bonner Mar 24 '21 at 15:08
  • If you want answers from all points of view, then I would recommend removing the restriction "all words in scripture hold an equal weight (even today in our current culture)" to allow answers from people that don't hold with that. – DJClayworth Mar 24 '21 at 15:10
  • @DJClayworth I added an Edit to my original question. Thank you for your helpful and constructive feedback. – Calvin Bonner Mar 24 '21 at 15:14
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Calvin Bonner Mar 24 '21 at 15:16

1 Answers1

0

In the letter to the Galatians, it is written that in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, men and women, slave and free, because we are all one in Christ. That's generally what is quoted.

However we can also see this in Genesis, where God made man in His image, male and female.

God also tells his people Israel (e.g. in Deuteronomy) that they are to have one law for the native and the sojourner, that they are not to favour either the poor or the rich in a dispute but rather must seek justice, a man cannot simply accuse his wife of adultery and declare her guilty without evidence, etc.

The message conveyed in all this is that God does not want one gender or race or class, etc. to do injustice to / mistreat the others. He wants justice for all. That's because we are all His children and he loves us. This does not however mean that we have no difference in roles; e.g. priests must be men (see the letter to Timothy). St. Paul writes we are the body of Christ and each person is a member of that body; just like in a body, each member has a different role to play but each is vital for perfect function.

Hence the adage: we are all equal but different

Edit

I have checked once more and I see that the egalitarianism you've asked about is different from the definition I thought about. I thought you're referring to equality as in our value, but the one you've referred to is about equality in authority and responsibility. My apologies.

The texts written above are used as evidence and further arguments for egalitarianism include the existence of prophetesses like Deborah, and how Aquilla and Priscilla (husband and wife) are listed together as a couple with Aquilla being mentioned first sometimes and Priscilla being mentioned first other times.

However, it must be noted that this doesn't suggest a radical egalitarianism where there is absolutely no difference in authority or responsibility; that egalitarianism isn't supported. Instead it focuses on there being overlap in roles.

Suryetto
  • 114
  • 6
  • 1
    Thanks for the answer.

    "each member has a different role to play but each is vital for perfect function."

    To my understanding this is basically Complementarianism though. The idea that no one is greater than anyone else but everyone has different strengths or roles within family, the church, etc. Am I misunderstanding?

     – Calvin Bonner Mar 23 '21 at 14:55
  • @CalvinBonner I see you had a different definition in mind that what I did, so I've updated the answer now to fit that. – Suryetto Mar 23 '21 at 15:40
  • You say you "don't suggest a radical egalitarianism where there is no difference in authority or responsibility". But that's still complementarianism, isn't it? Any situation where there is a strict and explicit difference in the roles of males and females is complementarianism. – DJClayworth Mar 23 '21 at 15:44
  • No, because complementarianism claims non-overlapping roles (e.g. men = headship, female = support), but egalitarianism says that those roles can overlap, such as in a marriage where each must submit to the other. There it's no longer husband = head, but rather both have equal authority. The radical interpretation says this extends to all aspects of life. – Suryetto Mar 23 '21 at 15:52
  • @Suryetto - Could you also add an update discussing 1 Timothy 2:11-14? –  Mar 23 '21 at 17:54
  • @חִידָה How should I discuss it? It's more of evidence towards complementarianism... However, I remember reading somewhere that during St. Paul's time women had a much more controlling role in marriages in the Roman empire and therefore his letters try to reduce their control over their husbands to make it more equal. I don't know how true it is because I don't remember the source. – Suryetto Mar 24 '21 at 09:58