I note that Tim Bayly
and seven pastor-or-elder friends have taken their best shot at “fortifying” the same Nashville Statement we’ve
been mulling over on our Friday morning Too
Hot to Handle series (the first installment of which may be found here).
Like Bayly and crew, IC
and I would probably have drafted a modestly different document (assuming we
agreed to write it at all), so I was curious to see what the revisers decided
needed changing.
To my surprise, I find myself more interested in what they didn’t
change. Maybe I’ve got a log in my eye or something.
Obsessed With “Equality”
So let me just throw
this out there for your consideration: I don’t get their obsession with the concept of equality. I just don’t.
Here’s the original
language of Article 3, where this fixation seems most evident:
ARTICLE 3
WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female.
WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth. [italics mine]
The “fortified” Statement changes nothing about the “equality” language of the
original, so whatever differences I have, I have with both declarations, er ... equally. Here are the three things being affirmed in both
statements:
- Men and women were created equal before God as persons
- Men and women were created equal in dignity
- Men and women were created equal in worth
The Bayly group adds a fourth “equal” in its explanation, perhaps as an umbrella for the first three,
calling them confessions about the “ontological
equality of man”. (“Ontology” is just a high-falutin’ philosophical way of
referring to the nature of being, which is to say that we’re talking about the intrinsic value of the sexes here, not
earned merit that might be ascribed to individuals.)
I take issue with the language of both
statements on several levels, and it’s not because I necessarily disagree that
men and women were created equal. I simply don’t
know, and neither do you. I don’t think the Bible tells us. Further, I don’t
think it matters.
Why So Excited?
But, boy, everybody else sure seems to think it does.
The fact that “equality” does matter so
much to so many Christians is something I even find a little disturbing. The
more it matters, the more I’d say we have a major problem. Why? Because nobody
ever says, “Hey, we’re equal, sit
down and let me bring you a coffee.” It’s not a commitment to the concept of intrinsic
human equality that provides the impetus for Christian service. It might be spiritual
gift, or kindness, or humility, or gratitude, or duty, or love, or all kinds
of other things, but it ain’t equality.
No, when equality is appealed to these days,
it’s usually something more like this: “Hey, we’re equal, so I should get to do
exactly what you’re doing,” or “Hey, we’re equal, so I should be served by you
exactly as much as you are served by me or else you are failing to reflect God’s
original design.” That’s the language of envy, not the language of love.
Grasping and Not Grasping
About the Lord Jesus it is said, “Though he was in the form of God, [he]
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in
the likeness of men.”
In short, the only person ever who really
WAS intrinsically equal to God was spectacularly and uniquely unconcerned about
demonstrating it. Instead, he served those who were not remotely his equals by
any and all measures, and who never will be his equals no matter how many
eternities pass. I’d suggest that if we are indeed imitators of Jesus Christ, we
will be as unconcerned about our own status relative to others as he was.
It’s Not About ME!
The obvious objection arises: “I’m not
worried about MY equality. I’m worried that others receive their due.” Fair
enough, and certainly preferable by orders of magnitude to sentiments like “I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High,”
which most Christians recognize as epically poor form.
But bear in mind I’m not talking here at
all about how we ought to treat one another in our churches, or about how we are
to view our fellow believers, or our wives and families. The standard for that
is way beyond mere “equality”, however we may define that. Rather, it is “In humility
count others more significant than yourselves.” That attitude derives its authority not from creation but from the conduct and
mindset of Jesus Christ.
If we have concerns about how particular
groups or individuals (or even sexes) are viewed and treated, maybe the best
thing we can do for them is start serving them eagerly to demonstrate the
proper Christian approach; then, having established by our conduct that we are
not hypocrites, encourage others to do the same by appealing to the appropriate
passages of scripture. Invoking the poorly-defined and even more poorly-understood
concept of “equality” is both unnecessary and insufficient to that purpose.
We need something better than “equal”.
Where Does This Come From?
What amazes me about the “fortified”
Article 3 is that the Bayly group seems to have clued in to where this
language is really coming from. They say:
“In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.”
Ah yes, the spirit of the age. So they acknowledge
there’s a serious (and presumably not entirely healthy) movement toward
egalitarianism out there in the world, and then promptly fall for it by
affirming things the word of God simply doesn’t say, uncritically accepting the
world’s frame. Maybe the idea comes from Thomas Jefferson’s venerable assertion
in the Declaration of Independence that “all men [and presumably women] are
created equal”. Jefferson claimed this was “self-evident”, which only means he
didn’t offer any evidence in support of it.
Too bad. I hope it’s not too late to ask
for some.
Genesis doesn’t say Adam and Eve were “equal”.
The word simply isn’t there. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Lord nor
his apostles make that case either. We are importing the concepts and language
of our culture into scripture and attempting to pass them off as inspired truth.
Heresy of the Day
Here’s my heretical statement for the day.
Brace yourselves.
Perhaps Eve had more “dignity” and “worth”
than Adam. Perhaps Eve had greater ontological value. Perhaps God made
something great with Adam, and something even greater in the woman he took from
out of Adam’s body. Maybe a higher percentage of God’s character qualities are
reflected in women than in men, or maybe those qualities are reflected in the female of the species with
greater pellucidity.
Does that stir the pot? It should. But it’s
just as biblically supportable as asserting the equality of Adam and Eve, or
asserting Adam’s superiority.
Which is to say it isn’t.
The fact is that the Bible doesn’t say. God
doesn’t use our cultural terms of reference. God is not interested in the Battle
of the Sexes except maybe to say in effect, “Cut that out!” That’s
something we’ve cooked up.
One More Problem
There’s a further intellectual problem with
the concept of intrinsic human dignity and worth in whatever relative quantity,
and I point it out for your consideration. The
Nashville Statement concerns itself only with the creation order; with how
things were when relations between God and mankind were perfect. It doesn’t tell
us much about the effects of the Fall on equality, whether between men and
women, between men and other men, or between women and other women.
Whatever intrinsic dignity and worth men
and women once possessed, it is clear sin has the capacity to destroy it
utterly. If not, and if dignity and worth remain in fallen, unregenerate beings
when we die, we are forced to picture God throwing something that is both “dignified”
and “worthy” into the fires of Hell for eternity.
Does that sound quite right to you?
On the other hand, if sin has affected our
original value in the eyes of God — if, for instance, we have “all become like one who is unclean”, then it is idle to talk about comparing our relative dignity and worth.
Zero and zero are technically equal, sure, but I’m thinking that’s not where
the egalitarians are trying to get to.
A Challenge
I like the expression IC coined to describe
what the Bible teaches about men and women as God created us: “different but valued”. I think that about nails it.
Now, maybe I’m wrong, but this sort of adjustment to our modern way of looking at the sexes may not be an
easy pill to swallow for some folks. So here’s a task for anyone who feels up
to it. If the intrinsic equality of men and women, whether in dignity, worth or
“as persons”, is spelled out anywhere in scripture, I’d love to know that, not
least because I’d hate to be clueless about something everybody else sees as
patently obvious.
It’s not an unimportant issue. “Equality”
is appealed to regularly to justify all sorts of twisting of scripture and all
sorts of neat new church practices that are inconsistent with the teaching of
the New Testament. I think it’s a frame we should not accept without solid
biblical proof.
As for our churches and our marriages? Mere
“equality” isn’t good enough to make those work. Equality is a man-made
solution to the problem of envy that will let us down right when we need its
help the most because the concept has no substance to it and no real authority
behind it.
We need something better than equality, and
the New Testament provides it.
This should provide an answer about where dignity comes from.
ReplyDeleteIf you search for just one rather simple, clear reason why Catholic social teaching holds that dignity is a basic characteristic of every human person, you wont find it. Instead, you'll find two reasons, both rather simple and clear:
First reason: God is our Creator; we are created in Gods image. A reflection of God is found in all those he created. Pope John Paul II spoke about this in his encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). . . . . . . He wrote: Man has been given a sublime dignity, based on the intimate bond which unites him to his Creator: in man there shines forth a reflection of God himself ( EV 34. . . ).
Second reason: In the Incarnation, Jesus Christ becomes one with the human family's members. All human persons are touched by the reality of the Incarnation, and by Christ's redemptive actions. Christ came for all. In The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II explained this. He said that Jesus self-oblation on the Cross becomes the source of new life for all people ( No. 33. . . ). And, the pope said, Jesus has a unique relationship with every person, which enables us to see in every human face the face of Christ ( No. 81. . . ).
I would argue that if the Christian has "dignity", it is a consequence of the new creation, not the old one. We see in every regenerate brother and sister the face of Christ; I hope to see him in my unsaved neighbours and co-workers one day, but he is not there now. That vital difference in family relationship and essential resemblance is what the new birth brings about.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A34-40&version=ESV
DeleteHmm, it's not exactly very dignified to be in prison and yet Christ identifies with even that person. So I don't think that dignity is conditional as you suggest and agree with the more general Catholic interpretation of dignity being present in the created person by virtue of who created them.
Ah, but in the verse you're citing, the imprisoned person is "one of my brothers" (v40). So my question is: Who are Christ's "brothers"? Are they the saved or the unsaved? (Hint: check Matthew 12:48 before responding).
DeleteI did check it out. I do not see any contradiction to what I suggested - 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
DeleteThere is no ambiguity there especially since it is clear that any teacher has to approach a topic from various perspectives to get the lesson across. The least of these in, this case, are in prison, and yes there are others he would refer to as brothers. It's exactly what I get from Christ' teaching that he considers even those on the outskirts of society imbued with dignity.
Great stuff.
ReplyDelete