Why Do Christians Bow To Equality So Much?

 

I have here an excerpt from a confession statement from my own denomination regarding marriage. The way that my denomination works is that Baptist Churches are independent in how they determine their doctrine and run their churches, but must agree on some basic essentials of the faith. This doctrinal statement therefore is not binding but churches can adopt it. Here is what it says,

“Our Authority

 According to the 2001 Queensland Baptists Guidelines for Belief and Practice, we hold “The Bible, as the true record of God’s revelation, [and affirm that it] is the supreme written authority for our faith and practice”.  With this in view, we are not compelled by the changing social and moral views of Australian society to relinquish our commitment to the biblical teaching on subjects such as sexuality, marriage, and the family, though we strongly desire to remain in constructive and compassionate conversation with our society. 

 Our Convictions

 While some within the wider Christian community have felt compelled by the Christian imperative of love to revise their biblical and theological convictions about sexuality and marriage by the application of a variety of hermeneutical principles which allow them to accommodate changing cultural norms, we affirm our convictions on the biblical teachings about sexuality and marriage. These biblical teachings concerning sexuality and marriage are focused around five normative principles:

1.            Monogamy – God’s original intention was that marriage was to be consummated between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:31)

2.            Commitment – God’s intention is that marriage involves a voluntary and lifelong commitment between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6; cf Mark 10:6-9, Malachi 2:14)

3.            Equality – God’s intention is for equality and mutuality between a husband and his wife (1 Corinthians 7:4)

4.            Fidelity – God’s intention is that the only legitimate place for sexuality intimacy is within the commitment of marriage (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20)

5.            Gender Identity – a person’s gender is biologically determined and assigned by God (Genesis 1:27)

 In addition, we believe that, according to God’s pattern, children are best raised and nurtured in the secure environs of the marriage relationship where they have input of both a mother and a father (Ephesians 6:1-4).  Thus, we hold to the position set forth in the Marriage Rites of the Baptist Union of Australia (2011) which affirms that “The Baptist Union of Australia defines marriage as being the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

There is much to commend in this affirmation, and a lot to challenge. The Union states its refusal to capitulate to the winds of change in the culture. This is good. They affirm that the supreme authority in the Church is the word of God, the Scriptures. This is good. And 4 out of 5 of the convictions they have about marriage are excellent. Marriage should be monogamous, life long, the only place for sexual expression and you cannot separate sexuality from gender, it is an objective reality not a subjective one. But after all this they then bow to the culture anyway.

First, under the title "Convictions", they bend over backwards to not offend professing Christians who have bowed to the culture, but rather seek to more than give them the benefit of the doubt that they are compromising on these biblical gender standards out some "imperative of love." But why assume that? It is just as likely, even more likely, that professing Christians who have compromised on gender do it from a place of self-love rather than love for the other. In other words they want to be liked, accepted, or respected by the culture so they have bowed to the culture. After all how can you say they have acted in love when they have done something incredibly unloving: lied about God's will on the matter. Love is judged by its fruit not sentiment or assertion of the feeling. 

Also, though they cannot see it, because most people do not realize this, the egalitarianism of our modern Australian culture has come to dominate the thinking of many Christians and cloud how they think about gender issues. The scriptures never teach equality between men and women, nor between a husband and wife, and yet egalitarian church leaders feel the need to add this in, because most people cannot think otherwise in our culture. But if men and women are equal, then how can a wife be told to obey her husband (1 Peter 3:6)? How is it possible for a man to think of his wife as the “weaker vessel” if she is his equal (1 Peter 3:7)?

So here is my adjustment of this statement just based on some preliminary thoughts (the changes are in bold type):

1.     Monogamy – God’s original intention was that marriage was to be consummated between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:31). 

2.     Commitment – God’s intention is that marriage involves a voluntary and lifelong union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6; cf Mark 10:6-9, Malachi 2:14). With only Jesus’ very limited reasons for divorce being permitted. 

3.     Complementary – God’s intention is for the husband to lead his wife lovingly, and for the wife to obey her husband (Eph. 5:22-33). The husband must consider that his wife is the weaker vessel and treat her accordingly (1 Pet. 3:7), not considering himself more significant than her but leading as Jesus would (Phil. 2:1-5), and not expecting too much of his wife as he would another man. The wife in her turn is to look up to her husband, respect him as her chief authority under Christ (Eph. 5:22, 1 Peter 3:6), and follow his lead.

4.     Fidelity – God’s intention is that the only legitimate place for sexual intimacy is within the commitment of marriage (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

5.     Gender Identity – a person’s gender is biologically determined and assigned by God (Genesis 1:27).

As you can see point three now has a much stronger biblical basis than it did previously. 1 Corinthians 7:4 is not about equality of role, or value, it is simply a passage saying that married couples should not deny each other sexual expression. That their bodies belong to each other is a statement of union, not of equality. It is a passage rejecting selfishness, not promoting equality. It is actually rather grievous to take it out of context like they did to make it about equality.

In fact, a man who treats his wife as his equal is sinning terribly. Peter is at pains to remind men that women are not as strong as their constitution is not as stout. To expect of your wife as much as yourself, which is what equality means, is to push her too hard. Many modern men do this and wonder why their wives collapse in an heap of anxiety, depression, or pressure. Just look up the topic of women struggling online and you'll see there is a plague of women voicing their struggles in this area. They are largely crying out from a burden pushed on them by equalitarians. Even if they would not admit it, or do not realize it, or contribute to it themselves from their advocacy for equality. 

So why does something like this end up in a Christian statement when the Bible says no such thing? Simple: equality is the chief god of our age, just as the Baals and Asherahs were in the days of Elijah. Just as the people of Israel felt compelled to line up their thinking with the ideologies of their age, so too do modern Christians feel the same drive and the same pull. Equality is the catch cry everywhere in our modern age, it's a clarion call that is hard for many to reject. But marriage is not a union based on equality, no such human institution exists, nor could without creating anarchy. Marriage is an inherently patriarchal unit wherein a woman is led and protected by the man, and the woman fulfils her role as the man's helpmate.

The Church needs to stop caring what the society says about marriage and simply assert what Jesus, Peter and Paul said about it. And none of them ever taught equality on the issue.