SHOW NOTES:

What is egalitarianism? How is it different from complementarianism? On this episode, we explore what true equality in Christ means for us all, and how it should lead us to mutuality—in the home, in the church, and in the world. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the podcast!

To work with Kensi Duszynski, MA, LMFT, CPC, visit bravemarriage.com.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Hey there and welcome back to the Brave Marriage Podcast, where today, we’re talking about egalitarianism. My own personal journey from a complementarian perspective to a more egalitarian one has been a decade or more in the making. Part of the reason for that is, like I mentioned last time, through reading and study, I’d immersed myself in complementarian doctrine without even really realizing it. Even though I grew up in a church tradition where women could exercise their spiritual gifts as pastors, what I saw in practice were lots of traditional gender roles and more respect for male leadership than female leadership. So by the time I read I started reading complementarian authors, I just thought, this must be the Christian perspective, this is what we as Christians believe. Especially because in the books I was reading from the local Christian bookstore, which was supplied by a complementarian book distributor, none of the authors were saying, “This viewpoint is called complementarianism and it’s one interpretation of Scripture; we think it’s the best and most true view, but read Scripture for yourself, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, and judge for yourselves which is right.” 

A second reason for my own personal shift was coming to a place in my life where I began to see beyond myself and my own circumstances, to really consider the experiences of others in the world, and how complementarianism and egalitarianism played out in others’ lives. Right, because of certain privileges my life circumstances have afforded me, I didn’t have to question the complementarian view (or the inherent issues built in to the position, as we talked about last week) because they didn’t affect me, personally in a negative way—at least, on a felt level, day-to-day. That doesn’t mean the issues weren’t there all along; it just means that my station in life prevented me from feeling them as others have, and continue to. 

And the third reason is that probably up until I was married, I didn’t know there was a distinctly defined, alternative viewpoint on men and women in marriage and ministry. I thought all of it—complementarian and egalitarian views—could co-exist and intermingle, all pointing to some aspect of God’s Truth, since as 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, “for now we see in a mirror dimly, knowing in part, but then we shall see face to face.” And of course I believe that’s true—that no one person or group holds all the answers—but I think the part about both positions that’s true is the part upon which both perspectives agree: that men and women are created equally, with complementarity, in the image of God. But other than that, I found myself as a Christian college and seminary grad, thinking there was no distinct alternative definition to complementarianism, much less a meaningful difference between whatever those two positions were. Not because I was taught anything remotely complementarian; I went to Wesleyan schools after all. But because between Old and New Testament, Christian Theology, and my Marriage and Family courses, the topic was never specifically taught (for a variety of reasons, I’m sure). 

But I remember hearing a peer in grad school refer to herself as egalitarian, not really knowing what that meant or how that was justified biblically because when you grow up being taught to fear anything that contrasts with hierarchy, traditional marriage roles, complementarianism, you initially hear alternative views with skepticism and fear, especially if some measure of your faith or Christian identity are bound up in extra-biblical ideas. Which is especially confusing, right, when you're taught that it’s biblical manhood and womanhood. But then, I heard the president’s wife of Asbury University publicly call herself an egalitarian and refer to her marriage as such. And it was those two experiences that made an impression on me because I realized they held a distinctly different position, but to be honest—I didn’t know what that was. (Which is wild to me, as I think about it now, because I consider some of the differences, matters of biblical truth and morality, and the difference between relational dysfunction and relational health and flourishing.)

So that’s what this episode is about: defining what egalitarianism is and taking a look at a few more differences between egalitarianism and complementarianism. And just so you know, there will be multiple episodes on egalitarian theology and the concept of mutuality, because there’s too much to share in one episode.  

Starting with a definition: Egalitarianism is the belief that both men and women are created equal in the image of God; not only in spiritual worth and dignity, but also in human worth and dignity and in spiritual calling. Egalitarians believe that spiritual giftedness and leadership are not assigned to individuals based on gender, but are gifted equally to the sons and daughters of God, regardless of race, class, culture, or gender. So rather than believing that there are no meaningful differences between men and women, egalitarians believe that God created male and female differently, both in His image, but that through Christ, and in Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female—for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)! 

Egalitarians have come to the realization, like Peter did in Acts 10, that God is not a God of partiality, even if we’d prefer that He be, or even if our own pride or self-deception leads us to believe that He is. 

Now, Christians have struggled with the equalizing effect of the message of the Gospel throughout history. Let me share the earliest example of this, as it pertains to Jews and Gentiles, recorded after Jesus’ ministry:

The apostle Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, a Jew, like the other 11 disciples, and a man of middle Eastern descent, really wrestled with whether or not the Gentiles were to be considered clean, or as called to the message and ministry of the Gospel as Peter was. 

It literally took a vision from God and a visit from Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile, to help Peter see his own bias and blind spots. But afterward, Peter declared what he’d learned to a large gathering of people around him, saying in verse 28 and 34:

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean…I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right.”

I love what’s written next in verses 44 and 47, both because God’s grace is so amazing and because the human condition is so hilariously predictable. Acts 10 says: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.” Then, Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!” And thank God Peter realized this, right, because as Jesus told him, he was the rock upon which God would build His church.

So the early apostles worked to build up the body of Christ, to build up the church on the basis that all were one in Christ Jesus. And they taught the various churches that because of Jesus, humans of every tribe, tongue, and nation could receive the free gift of salvation, receive baptism and the Holy Spirit, and minister the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. Now that looked different depending on cultural context and location, but this was that radical, scandalous nature of the Gospel—that all are welcome, and that in God’s kingdom, the first are last, and the last are first. 

But like the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, who he curses throughout the Gospels, religious leaders throughout every century have found a way to use God’s Word to promote their own power and glory, not God’s. 

Take for example, moving to the slave or free clause, slave-owning Christians and those responsible for creating the slave Bible in 1807, where only about 10 percent of the Old Testament was included (leaving out any reference to the Israelites being delivered from bondage and slavery), and only about 50 percent of the New Testament was included (with Paul’s words to the Ephesians about slaves being obedient to their masters left in, but Paul’s words to the Galatians—that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus—being left out). 

This is horrendous to us now, that a group of people whom God loves and desires to save and pour out His Spirit on equally, would be read and taught the Bible in ways that supported the slave owners’ cause, rather than supporting their freedom and liberation as humans with worth and dignity. Rather than teaching, as Paul taught in Galatians, that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Rather than calling all believers to use their freedom to serve one another in love, not to oppress others or minimize others’ gifts or condemn others as somehow the inferior race, class, or sex. Right? These things have nothing to do with the message of the Gospel and everything to do with the spirit of the age and leaving cultural assumptions unquestioned. 

But as someone who came to see, like Peter, and as someone who helped others see, like Cornelius, abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this say about slave-holding American Christians:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.”

Douglass here is noting a discrepancy between the message of Christianity according to Christ, and the message of Christianity according to western culture. 

So Peter, Cornelius, Paul, Frederick Douglass…they’re all defining aspects of the egalitarian position. The realization that using Scripture, abusing its authority, perverting its power, and defiling its beauty for the sake of dominating or oppressing other people is some sort of religion, but as Douglass said, it’s not the Christianity of Christ. 

The egalitarian position is the commitment to the Truth that all humans are created in the image of God; that God sent His Son to save everyone, equally; and that in Christ, there are no longer differences that divide us, as there once were before Christ came, but in Christ, we are free to be one and free to serve God and one another in love. 

What this looks like specifically in marriage, which we’ll talk more about in upcoming weeks, is essentially, the mission statement of Brave Marriage: growing as individuals, doing marriage with intention, and living mutually empowered, purposeful lives. It looks like sharing with one another—sharing power, leadership, truth, decision-making, work and household roles. It looks like supporting one another’s growth, rather than demanding it, on the one hand, or suppressing it, on the other. Egalitarianism in Christian marriage looks like mutually loving, sacrificing, serving, trusting, and respecting each other—not because that’s what you’re supposed to do, as husband and wife, but because you actually do, as a functional outworking of believing you’re equals, created for mutuality and intimacy from the beginning. 

In upcoming weeks, we’ll study Scripture together and we’ll talk to egalitarian couples, but for the rest of this episode, I want to help you better understand the differences between the egalitarian position and the complementarian one, both of which gained traction in the 1970s and formed official positions and organizations in the 1980s.  

So, just as last week, you learned about the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (or CBMW) who represent the complementarian position, this week, I want to introduce you to Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE), who represent the egalitarian position. Last episode, you learned that those on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood created the term “complementarian” to define a position of complementarity set within tradition and hierarchy. But unlike CBMW, CBE didn’t create the term egalitarian; instead, it was borrowed from political philosophy simply because of its encapsulation of equality between all people. Now, for this reason, I would like to air my complaints with both terms, as I see neither term as particularly helpful—complementarian being deceiving and egalitarian being misrepresentative, as the Gospel is not a political philosophy but primarily, the story of God and His love and relationship to us. 

Great, now that that’s off my chest, I’d like to take the rest of the episode to compare and contrast the beliefs, mission, vision, and values of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) so that you can begin to more clearly see the differences between the two. I think it’s important to know what each group believes, because that will inform the outworkings of the organizations themselves. 

According to their Statement of Faith, available at cbeinternational.org, Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE) believe: 

Firstly and secondly, “…in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory…and in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.”

Now, these two points are important because they distinguish orthodox Christianity from heresy. And while CBMW’s statement of faith almost says the same thing, they omit the phrase, “eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.” Here’s why that omission is important:

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Trinity, God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are eternally equal in power and glory. In seminary, one of my favorite things I learned about was Trinitarian theology, because that’s how God created my mind to work—systemically and relationally. So before Adam and Eve were created, there was the Triune God. And according to the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:26, and foundational to our Christian theology, God existed in relationship, three spiritual persons in one, equal in glory and power, and mutually indwelling each other; therefore, perfectly modeling this ideal of interdependence and relationality for us. It was Jesus’ humanity that led Him willfully to submit His will to the Father’s for a time, but orthodox Christianity maintains that Jesus was both fully God and fully human; therefore, his place and role among the Trinity is fully equal among the three. 

And to deny that teaching is to adhere to a 4th century heresy known as Arianism. Forgive me for nerding out on you for a moment, but Arius was a 4th century priest who began teaching the church that the Son was created by the Father, different in substance and role, and therefore, not co-eternal or co-equal. But if this were true, then that would effectively render Christ’s death and resurrection null and void in terms of saving us from our sins, because if Christ was created by God, lesser than God, and therefore, not fully divine and fully human as we believe he was, then his lack of humanity would’ve meant that Jesus couldn’t have been the substitutionary lamb who was slain for our sins. And if he wasn’t fully divine, then Jesus wouldn’t have had the power to save us from our sins. 

In other words, if the Son is not co-eternal and co-equal to the Father and Holy Spirit in power and glory, this would deem Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension as meaningless to the Christian faith. And yet, a version of this heresy has become a regular teaching and tenant of faith in some complementarian circles. While complementarian theology maintains that God is 3-in-1, some complementarians also maintain that God is 3-in-1 hierarchically, meaning they believe in God the Father, whose rule is sovereign and supreme over all; in Christ the Son, as the second person of the Trinity who reigns and rules over us but is eternally subordinate to the Father; and in the Holy Spirit, who lives inside of us. 

When I was a student at the Focus Leadership Institute, this 3-in-1 hierarchical theology was then laid overtop of the family, with husband as sovereign leader over the family, wife as subordinate helper, and children, said to be analogous to the third person of the Trinity, birthed out of the intimacy between husband and wife. 

But here’s the deal: to suggest that the Holy Spirit was somehow birthed out of the intimacy or procreativity of the Father and Son is heresy, as is the suggestion that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. In fact, in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea, which is where the Nicene Creed originated, condemned Arius as a heretic of the Christian faith for this teaching and was exiled from the church!

In her book, The Making of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, historian Beth Allison Barr affirms the experience I had at Focus on the Family when she writes: 

“By the end of the twentieth century, [this heresy] had a new twist: because Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, wives are eternally subordinate to their husbands.” 

This is why understanding our doctrine, our theology, and our Christian heritage is so important. Because unless we do, we’re likely to repeat the sins of our past in current practice. In family therapy, we call this multigenerational transmission process, whereby the very thing we wish not to do, is what we do and carry forth into the next generation; that is, without intentionality, without history to guide us, and without the Holy Spirit to empower us to do something different. In their fifth statement, CBE believes that: 

“…the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.”

And this statement of faith comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where Paul writes: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

With slightly different terminology, CMBW believes:

“…that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and that they alone are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.”

By inerrant, they mean that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching, often equating inerrancy with a literal interpretation of Scripture. But biblical inerrancy seems to apply most dogmatically to Paul’s instructions to certain churches when it comes to marriage and ministry, but not so much when it comes to other passages, like permanently changing the words in Genesis 3:16 to mean something entirely different—from “your desire shall be for your husband” to “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”

Historian Beth Allison Barr also takes issue with the concept of inerrancy and modern-day Arianism when she writes: 

“It should also not surprise us that evangelicals resurrected Arianism for the same reason that evangelicals turned to inerrancy: If Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, women’s subordination becomes much easier to justify…

Except it is still heresy. Arianism repackaged,” (p. 195).

In their remaining four statements, CBE believes:

“…that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation; men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others; the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin; eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people. ”

Here, CBE’s statement of faith includes the most prominent difference between the two positions, in that egalitarians believe that in the beginning, God created male and female, different in gender, yet equal in worth, role, and function; whereas complementarian believe that in the beginning, God created male, then female, different in gender, gender identity, and specific gender roles and functions, yet equal in spiritual worth. Tim and Anne Evans affirm a view of marriage equality in their book, Together: Reclaiming Co-Leadership in Marriage, when they write: 

“People with different marriage perspectives (male rulership, traditional-hierarchical-complementarian, and egalitarian) all agree that both men and women are made in the image of God—they are intrinsically equal. However, male rulership and traditional-hierarchical-complementarian proponents would say men and women are not functionally equal. Egalitarian marriage proponents would align with God’s creational marriage design. They believe men and women are intrinsically equal and functionally equal because in the beginning both the man and the woman were given the dominion and procreation mandates,” (p. 127-128). 

(And next episode, we’ll do a deeper dive into the Creation and Fall accounts).

Next point: according to CBE, it’s the Holy Spirit who equips us for all service and sanctifies us from sin as we grow in faith in Christ; but according to CBMW, it’s redemption in Christ, period, which restores husbands to loving leadership and wives to intelligent, willing submission, period. But as we’ll see next week, Jesus says no such thing when asked about marriage, nor does this ideology accurately reflect the sum of Paul’s letters and teaching, either. 

Here’s CBMW’s statement of faith in this regard: 

“We believe that God, the transcendent Creator of all things in heaven and earth, created Adam and Eve in His own image; that they sinned, and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is alienation from God; the universal sinfulness and guilt of all men and women since the Fall renders them subject to God’s wrath and condemnation. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall and was not a result of sin. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationship between men and women but redemption in Christ restores this relationship. In the home husbands are lovingly to lead their wives and wives should intelligently and willingly submit to their husbands. In the church, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” 

We won’t have time to break that one down, but just notice that they believe in marital headship as set forth in creation, with the distortion of that relationship being righted through redemption in Christ. On our next episode, we’ll basically have a Bible Study where we look at what Genesis 1-3 and Ephesians 5 have to say, and at some of the original language (at least in Hebrew, I didn’t take Greek). 

Okay, so I hope you can see the differences in the way Christians for Biblical Equality commit to Scripture compared to the way the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood commits to Scripture. 

Take CBMW’s mission and vision for example, which I’ve shortened here but linked in the full transcript, which is to…

“…set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women…because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church…and to see the vast majority of evangelical homes, churches, academic institutions, and other ministries adopt the principles of the Danvers Statement as a part of their personal convictions and doctrinal confessions…”

And if you’re just joining us for this episode, we examined what the Danvers Statement actually says in episode 134. By contrast:

“CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. CBE's mission is to eliminate…theological patriarchy. CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.”

One aims to defend, one aims to advocate. 

One aims to maintain power, one aims to share power.

One aims to serve cultural Christianity, one aims to serve Christ globally. 

One aims to instill obedience and fear, one aims to set people free—men, women, singles, couples, and their Christian communities.

A few final questions to leave you with today as we prepare to take a look at Scripture together next time:

• When was the last time you read Genesis 1-3 for yourself?

• When was the last time you read the book of Ephesians for yourself? 

• When it comes to viewing yourself as a son or daughter of God, a co-heir with Christ, with gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be stewarded alongside your husband, wife, or male or female counterparts, what do you personally have to fear? What might you collectively have to gain? And what might you—personally or collectively—have to lose? 

• When it comes to your own marriage, what might mutuality look like? How might your marriage look different if you two believed that you were created male and female, equal in worth and dignity, free to share thoughts and feelings, roles, decision-making, spirituality, and intimacy? 

• What might your multigenerational legacy be if you both saw yourselves as God sees you?

Thank you for listening to the Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. I’d love to hear from you between episodes, but I’ll be back with the next one in two weeks. Until then, take care, talk soon.