Christian egalitarianism

Christian egalitarianism, also known as biblical equality, is egalitarianism based in Christianity. Christian egalitarians believe that the Bible mandates gender equality and equal responsibilities for the family unit and the ability for women to exercise spiritual authority as clergy.[1][2][3] In contrast to Christian complementarianists and Christian patriarchists, proponents of Christian egalitarianism argue that Bible verses often used to justify patriarchal domination in gender roles are misinterpreted. Egalitarians believe in a form of mutual submission in which all people submit to each other in relationships and institutions as a code of conduct without a need for hierarchical authority.[4]

Part of a series on
Christianity and gender
"Adam and Eve" by Albrecht Dürer (1504)
"Adam and Eve" by Albrecht Dürer (1504)
Theology
Major positions
Other positions
Ordination of women in Christianity
Church and society
Organizations
Feminist
Egalitarian
Complementarian
Patriarchal
Theologians and authors (by view)
Feminist
Egalitarian
Complementarian
Theologians and authors (by branch)
Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Protestant

Gender equality

According to Christian egalitarianism, gender equality is biblically sound in Christian church leadership (including pastors) and Christian marriage. Its theological foundations are interpretations of the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and other New Testament principles.[5]

It refers to a biblically-based belief that gender, in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails a believer's gifting or calling to any ministry in the church or home. It does not imply that women and men are identical or undifferentiated, but affirms that God designed men and women to complement and benefit one another.[6][7]

Egalitarian beliefs are usually subscribed to by Quakers, United Methodist Churches, The Presbyterian Church (USA), The Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), Northern Baptists, Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan Church, The Salvation Army, The Evangelical Covenant Church,[8] and some Pentecostal churches such as the Assemblies of God, The Foursquare Church, and United Church of God.

The opposing view is complementarianism, a view that holds that differing, often non-overlapping roles between men and women, manifested in marriage, church leadership, and elsewhere, are biblically required. Complementarianism is the belief that men were created for the headship role and women were created for the support role.

Biblical justifications

All three Synoptic Gospels record Jesus as saying:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you.[9]

According to Clive Marsh and Steve Moyise, while "lord it over" implies abusive leadership, Jesus' words "exercise authority" have no connotation of abuse of authority.[10]

The Apostle Paul wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

— Galatians 3:28

Christian egalitarians' interpretation of scriptures and spiritual convictions bring them to the conclusion that the manner and teaching of Jesus abolished discrimination against racial minorities, slaves, and women in both the church and marriage. They believe that the Bible teaches the fundamental equality of believers of all racial and ethnic groups and all economic classes.[11] They consider overarching principles of the Bible to be that men and women are equally created in God's image, equally responsible for sin, equally redeemed by Christ, and equally gifted by God's Spirit for service and held responsible for using their God-given gifts.[12]

Each of the six times Aquila and his wife Priscilla are mentioned by name in the New Testament, they are listed together as a couple. Their order of appearance alternates in a perfect odd-even equality, with each mentioned first three times. Aquila appears first in the first, third and fifth mentions, and Priscilla (Prisca) first in the second, fourth and sixth mentions.[13] Some revisions of the Bible put Priscilla rather than Aquila first, in Acts 18:26, following the Vulgate and a few Greek texts.[14] Some scholars suggest that Priscilla was the head of the family unit.[15]

Ultimately, Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. A significant source of this trend of thought is the Christian notion that humankind were created in the living image of God (Imago Dei).

Jesus Christ did not conform to a mentality unfavorable to women, but reacted against inequalities based on sexual differences.[16]

Illustrative of efforts to institutionalize this notion are these excerpts from the organizational Statement of Faith of Christians for Biblical Equality, a major Christian Egalitarian organization:

  • We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society.
  • We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society.
    — Christians for Biblical Equality[17]

History
Anna Oliver, a Methodist who demanded full clergy rights for women in 1880[18]

The first organization whose purpose was advocating Christian egalitarianism was "Men, Women and God", established in the United Kingdom in 1984. The American organization Christians for Biblical Equality was established by evangelicals in 1987.[19]

Egalitarian anthropologies

Titled in accordance with Rosemary Radford Ruether's work in Christian theology, Egalitarian anthropologies explore varying views of gender equality in Christianity. These include eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism. According to Ruether, the commonality among these anthropologies is the belief that gender equality was the original intention of God and that it was somehow skewed by humanity. Ruether goes on to point out that the belief in the ideal of gender equality "leaves room for considerable variation in relating this equality to woman's present subjugated state in history under patriarchy."[20] In the preceding statement, Ruether qualifies the need for further exploration into the following anthropologies.[20]

Eschatological feminism

Ruether connects eschatological feminism to mysticism and asceticism by way of its roots in transcendentalism. Her assertion is that the original human, Adam, was androgynous and that "the fall" was the initial creation of gender.[20][21] She reaffirms this point in a later article, "Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives", referencing Galatians 3:28,[22] saying that through baptism androgyny is restored.[21] Sexuality, the main division between genders, is said to be the root of female subordination. Relationships that are typically rooted in sexuality (marriage and motherhood) place women in roles that are subordinate in accordance with society's patriarchal norms. The path to equality is believed to be found when women transcend these roles—traditionally through celibacy (as seen in the life of Paul[21][23]). Transcending worldly norms, which the Bible instructs Christians to do,[24] brings men and women to the state of androgyny that eliminates gender subordination; thus, Christianity is intended to manifest gender equality. Ruether says that transcendence is the core of eschatological feminism; women reach equality with men by separating from the world, rather than changing it.[20]

Liberal feminism

Liberal feminism rejects the notion that creation established the patriarchy; Ruether asserts that gender equality originally existed, but was distorted by historical injustices against women. This branch of egalitarianism dictates that gender equality must be restored rather than introduced. This restoration will be accomplished by economic, political, social, and systemic reformation. Ruether includes the church in her discussion of social reform, displaying its participation in gender subordination. Ruether continues saying, "The Church as a bearer of redeemed humanity ought especially to represent this equality of men and women in its institutional life. But it does so as a paradigm of what all social institutions should become, not as a representative of an eschatological humanity outside of and beyond history."[20] Here she distinguishes liberal from eschatological feminism stating that liberal feminism calls for liberation within society, rather than removal from it.[20]

Romantic feminism

Ruether states that in romantic feminism the distinction between genders is found primarily in "spiritual" traits. Ruether references a sixteenth century humanist, Cornelius Agrippa, saying that women have an "affinity with divine Wisdom that gives them moral and spiritual superiority".[21][25] Women are perceived to be innately altruistic, sensitive, and pure—traits that are considered morally superior compared to "male traits". Ruether continues saying that men and women are both inherently capable of goodness, but because of the patriarchy placing men into positions of power, more negative character traits are manifested (pride, aggression, dominance, etc.). Since women are not allowed into positions of power, Ruether supposes that they retain humanity's natural goodness.[20] Romantic feminism contains varying ideologies in itself which are as follows.

Conservative romanticism

According to Ruether, conservative romanticism suggests that women remain in the home in order to maintain their goodness. Ruether says, "If a woman leaves the home to take up a traditional male occupation, she will straightaway lose this good femininity and become a she-male, a monstrous virago, or will become debased to carnal femaleness, fallen woman." In one survey conducted in 1999, a researcher concluded based on participants' responses, "Even though husbands were not always the sole providers, for the majority of men they remained symbolically so, such that women's employment was nearly always described as secondary, even expendable, in light of wives' responsibility to rear and nurture children."[26] Conservative romanticism opposes gender equality in the work force in order to better preserve traditional roles in the home. Women's innate goodness makes her the ideal candidate to raise children and to support the husband. In turn, this spousal support allows the husband to perform better in the workforce; this trickle effect of women sending good husbands and sons into the world is how conservative romantics suppose women make an impact.[20]

Reformist romanticism

Reformist romanticism aligns with conservative romanticism except in the reformist belief that the inherent goodness of women cannot be lost by equality in society. Ruether says that this ideology prescribes women to morally reform men and male-centric institutions, but to do so they require education, voting rights, and political power. Reformist romanticism believes that the innate goodness of women is needed in leadership positions to improve the nature of the world. It is also believed that the nature of women is incompatible with war and that under female leadership, the world would be at peace.[20]

Radical romanticism

Radical feminism rejects the entirety of male culture and debates whether males can be redeemed at all. Ruether says that radical feminists desire a utopian society completely independent from males in which women's inherent goodness is unimpeded by male inferiority.[20]

Criticism

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church has formally opposed radical egalitarianism and has stated that the differences between men and women are not merely phenomenal but are in fact ontological in nature.[27]

In his 2004 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned against a related tendency to see gender as culturally constructed, which has generated "a new model of polymorphous sexuality", which reflects an "attempt to be free from one’s biological conditioning".[28]

Complementarianism

While Christian egalitarians believe that the Bible portrays mostly egalitarian views, with the exception of a few contextually relativized patriarchal texts, complementarians oppose this viewpoint. As a response to the upcoming of evangelical feminism and egalitarianism in the 20th century, prominent theologians and scholars such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., James A. Borland, Thomas R. Schreiner, D. A. Carson, S. Lewis Johnson, George W. Knight III, Douglas J. Moo, John Frame and Vern Sheridan Poythress contributed to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, in which they discuss and rebut most egalitarian viewpoints, such as the use of Galatians 3:28 to defend fundamental equality.[29]

In 1988, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) published the Danvers Statement as a response to the "widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity", directly opposing feminist egalitarian beliefs.[30] Similar to the Danvers Statement, CBMW published the 2017 Nashville Statement, affirming differences between male and female.[31] In its Foundation Documents, The Gospel Coalition confesses that "men and women are not simply interchangeable, but rather they complement each other in mutually enriching ways".[32]

Prominent Christian egalitarians

See also

References
  1. Slick, Matt (2010-09-11). "What is egalitarianism?". Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Retrieved 2021-08-15.
  2. Kuruvilla, Carol (26 March 2018). "Evangelical Pastor Claims Traditional Gender Roles Can Prevent Sexual Abuse". HuffPost Canada. Archived from the original on 2020-09-23. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
  3. Roat, Alyssa (5 July 2019). "What Are Complementarianism and Egalitarianism? What's the Difference?". Christianity.com. Archived from the original on 2020-01-30. Retrieved 2021-08-15.
  4. Padgett, Alan G. "What Is Biblical Equality?" Priscilla Papers, Summer 2002: 16:3 Padgett is professor of Systematic Theology at Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
  5. The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible Scot McKnight - 2008 "The former is often called "complementarian" and the latter "egalitarian," though simple labels mask both the seriousness of the views as well as nuances within and between such views. The term "complementarian" fudges the reality; ... "
  6. Groothuis, Rebecca Merrill. "The Bible and Gender Equality." Christians for Biblical Equality Web site Archived 2015-02-21 at the Wayback Machine
  7. Linda Belleville (2009). Beck, James R. (ed.). Two views on women in ministry. Zondervan Academic. ISBN 978-0-310-86451-6. Retrieved 4 May 2018.
  8. ""What do you think?" - Worship Connect". Worship Connect. 2011-07-15. Archived from the original on 2017-10-19. Retrieved 2017-10-19.
  9. Mt 20:25–26a, Mk 10:42, Lk 22:25
  10. Marsh, Clive, Steve Moyise. Jesus and the Gospels. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 0-567-04073-9
  11. http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/ministry-profile-christians-for-biblical-equality.htm Archived 2010-05-27 at the Wayback Machine Christians for Biblical Equality
  12. Edwards, B. (2011) Let My People Go: A Call to End the Oppression of Women in the Church. Charleston, SC: Createspace. ISBN 978-1-4664-0111-2
  13. Acts 18:2, 18:18, 18:26, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19 Authorized Version
  14. "Acts 18:26 multi-version". Archived from the original on 2014-07-29. Retrieved 2014-07-19.
  15. Achtenmeier, P.J. (1996). HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (revised ed.). HarperCollins. p. 882. ISBN 0-06-060037-3.
  16. Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978
  17. "Statement of Faith". Christians for Biblical Equality. Archived from the original on 2007-02-03. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
  18. "Anna Oliver - GCAH". Archived from the original on 2019-02-09. Retrieved 2019-02-07.
  19. "CBE's History". CBE International. Archived from the original on 25 January 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
  20. Ruether, Rosemary Radford (1986). Sexism and God-Talk. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. pp. 99–109. ISBN 0-8070-1205-X.
  21. Ruether, Rose Radford (2014). "Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives". Buddhist-Christian Studies. 34: 83–94. doi:10.1353/bcs.2014.0020. S2CID 170368449.
  22. "Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3:28 - New International Version". Bible Gateway. Archived from the original on 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2017-10-17.
  23. "Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 7 - New International Version". Bible Gateway. Archived from the original on 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2017-10-17.
  24. "Bible Gateway passage: Romans 12:2 - English Standard Version". Bible Gateway. Archived from the original on 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2017-10-15.
  25. Heine, Ronald E. (1989). The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. p. 130.
  26. Gallagher, Sally K.; Smith, Christian (1999). "Symbolic Traditionalism and Pragmatic Egalitarianism: Contemporary Evangelicals, Families, and Gender". Gender and Society. 13 (2): 211–233. doi:10.1177/089124399013002004. JSTOR 190389. S2CID 146555827.
  27. "National Catholic Reporter". Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2009-01-16.
  28. "VIS". Archived from the original on 2008-10-05. Retrieved 2009-01-16.
  29. Recovering biblical manhood & womanhood : a response to Evangelical feminism. John Piper, Wayne A. Grudem. Wheaton, Ill. 2006. ISBN 978-1-58134-806-4. OCLC 77531152.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
  30. "The Danvers Statement". CBMW. November 1988. Archived from the original on 2015-09-29. Retrieved 2021-08-11.
  31. "Nashville Statement". CBMW. Retrieved 2021-08-11.
  32. "Foundation Documents of The Gospel Coalition". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2021-08-11.
  33. Mimi Haddad
  34. "Dr. Mimi Haddad | CBE". Archived from the original on 2019-07-02. Retrieved 2019-07-02.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.