Egalitarian Tactics

When it comes to the dissemination of error there tends to be a few commonalities in the chosen battle plans. These are most often employed by the side with the weakest (or nonexistent) position. The homosexual community is a shining example. Through carefully crafted methods of persuasion they have successfully swayed the popular mores of a whole society, even much of the world. All the while obscuring readily observable facts concerning the dangers inherent in that lifestyle. Only a cursory glance at the rates of clinical depression, suicide, alcoholism, murder, and drug addiction, not to mention child molestation will show the misery associated with that sin. Yet, by something as simple as the hijacking of the word gay many of the less critical thinkers in society have been persuaded that the truth is, in fact, the opposite of reality.

 Egalitarians were great students.

 Through the careful use of phrases such as studied it out, or in the Greek/in the Hebrew, egals have successfully duped people unsure of their own Biblical knowledge. By this con they have been led to believe a dogma that is directly opposed to what they read when in study of the Holy Scriptures. Because of their own insecurity they fall headlong into the trap of believing that the teacher must be far more intelligent than they. In reality that is often not the case.

 They reason that since the man behind the podium holds a Doctor of Divinity, or a college professorship, or is maybe an expert in Greek and Hebrew, that the teaching is therefore infallible. They fail to take into account that more times than not; human bias trumps education.

 Quoting from a thirty-year college professor I spoke to recently, “Some of the most short-sighted, stupid, and utterly ignorant people I have ever known are college professors”.

In light of that, let’s look at some examples of egal tactics.

 Adoption of unrelated passages:

Talk to an egal for very long and you will undoubtedly hear reference to the idea that Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James, were the first resurrection evangelists. They reason that since the women left the grave site and ran to tell the disciples about Christ’s resurrection, they were evangelists. (Matt. 28:1-10)

 Any honest person has to cringe at the utter lunacy of such an argument. While the fact that these women were at the tomb while the men were off licking their wounds is admirable, it of course has nothing to do with women in pulpit ministry or authority positions in the church. Nor does it have anything to do with pulpit evangelism. Were these women evangelists? Of a sort, yes. As any child of God should be. An evangelist is simply a publisher of glad tidings (Easton’s Bible Dictionary). We all, male or female, should be diligent in that task. But again, this argument is far removed from the subject at hand.

 And if that wasn’t absurd enough here’s another egal favorite. Any Bible student knows that God used a donkey to speak to Balaam (II Peter 2: 15-16). Egal logic dictates that if God can use a donkey, He can certainly use a woman right? At this point the cringe would evolve into a groan. Of course honesty and reason requires us to ask: what does this story have to do with the discussion in question? The obvious answer is nothing. God spoke through a donkey, a fact that is amazing and quite entertaining, but completely irrelevant to the subject of women preachers. Was the donkey a preacher or Biblical teacher? Was it a church leader? Now I’ve known a few mule headed pastors in my day but this particular donkey was not in pastoral ministry.

 Pretty silly rationalization isn’t it. Of course if egals choose to stick to this line of thinking, it can be sarcastically pointed out that donkeys were never Scripturally forbidden to teach or usurp authority over the man, women were! (I Tim. 2:12)

 As a general rule; the more absurd the argument the weaker the position. The fact that egals would even postulate such nonsense reveals the desperation of their stance.

 Another example of twisted definitions is the egalitarian use of Gal. 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Although I will get into this passage in greater depth in the Nuts and Bolts section a brief summery is in order. Even a scant review of the context of this passage will show that the message revealed here has nothing in common with the message of the egalitarianism. Any student of Scripture would do well to read the whole chapter of Galatians 3. After doing so it will become abundantly clear that the context of the passage is vastly distinct from the subject of authority roles in the church or home. Nor is it honest to insert the idea of pulpit ministry into the text. The passage is clearly speaking of our position in Christ as it relates to salvation and the Kingdom of God, not roles or authority positions. Again, I will deal with this verse in further detail in a later article.

 Most Christian people understand the plight of women in the days of the early church. Females were considered nothing more than property and under many restrictions as such. It is thankfully apparent through the New Testament writers, that the social inequities were strongly addressed and corrected by Jesus. He certainly held women in the highest of esteem. But what He didn’t do is abolish the authority structure within the home or the church. In fact, the Bible specifically reaffirms these roles through clear, concise, and inspired directions.

 Egalitarians choose to contort Christ’s high regard for women as a basis of reordering authority positions and established roles in the church. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that Jesus held children in the highest of esteem as well but that didn’t negate the Biblical requirement to obey their parents or elders. I use that example to highlight a principle, not to equate women with children. It was necessary to point that fact, as I’ve learned from bitter experience, how quickly my words would be contorted into something far from their obvious or intended meaning.

 So what was the principle? Quite simply; regard doesn’t equal equality.

Now it’s personal

 No weak and wavering affront of the facts would be complete without the personal attacks. We see this tactic utilized every day by aggressive race baiters as it’s played out on the evening news. It has become increasingly predictable for a particular group to resort to attacks on personal character for the purpose of silencing the opposing view.

 The so-called minority groups have used this tactic with overwhelming success. Scarcely a day goes by that we don’t see the flippant tag of the label racist used to quickly shut down all clear and honest discussion on the subject. Again, the homosexual groups have followed suit. Through the disingenuous use of monikers such as bigot, homophobe, and hatemonger, any and all opposing truth is summarily squelched. This has left the door open to inject society with the homosexual viewpoint while facing limited roadblocks. Because no one wants to be labeled a racist or homophobe, they choose to play it safe and remain silent.

 Once again the egals soaked up the rhetoric with gusto. Now an honest and upright adherent of Scriptural truth is quickly assaulted with terms such as; chauvinist, woman-hater, or control freak. And this doesn’t come from the “world” it comes from those professing Christianity! Despite clear warnings in Scripture against ungodly and unrighteous judgment egals have no problem with hanging horrible labels on individuals whom they have never met. Such brutal attacks are prompted by nothing more than a difference in Biblical interpretation.

 This might prove eye-opening to some but just because a person stands for the Biblical guidelines on gender roles, does not mean that this person hates women. In fact, almost without exception the traditionalists that I have known personally do endeavor to hold to the Scriptural mandate against women in inappropriate roles, but they are just as fervent to maintain the Biblical regard for women.

 Egals, on the other hand, tend to default to venomous attacks on traditionalist, and often toward men in general. I was in an e-mail discussion with an egalitarian who often referred to my letters as hate-male. It is truly unfortunate that I have since lost the discourse through some computer problem or another as it would prove truly enlightening to the readers. The woman I was debating was one of the most well-known in the Egalitarian movement and a name that would be readily recognized by many. What proved to be most shocking and unexpected to me was the sheer angst that came through in each sentence of her letters. I was called names, berated, attacked, and demeaned; the likes I have never seen come from the traditionalist camp.

 Let me clarify. Are there Traditionalist who resort to vicious name calling, rude insults, and baseless attacks? Of course. But you’d be hard pressed to find the level of vitriol that is common among the Egalitarians. 

 Now there is no denying the fact that some have ransacked the Word of God for the purpose of controlling, demeaning, and oppressing women. To claim otherwise would be foolish but by whatever chosen means human ambition has been used to contort the Bible can not and should not be used against God or His Holy Word. Truth is still truth, regardless of how man has attempted to twist it for his own devises.

 The overall goal of personal attacks is to play a swap game, again modeled after the homosexual play book. By labeling normal, moral people as homophobes, haters, and the like, the homosexual community has been successful at changing the public’s perception. Because of this tactic more and more Americans see the perverted as normal and normal as morally base. This is only exacerbated by the re-labeling of a vile lifestyle as gay.

 In the United States of America, the exceptionally high morals of the Word of God have always set the standard for our society. That is until the last several decades. In the church world the egalitarians have hung their hat on the same bait and switch tactic and with great success. Male leadership within the church, home, and society had been the accepted norm for generations. Now, through the perversion of God’s plan, Egalitarians have succeeded in convincing good meaning church people that the traditional role is bad and the new Egalitarian model is good. This misconception has become eagerly accepted despite the overwhelming and readily observable facts that show the opposite. Examples of this will be forthcoming in a later edition.

 Note for consideration: Egalitarians will call foul when labeled as rebellious by a Traditionalist. They will quickly claim that their opponent is guilty of judgment and thereby wrong. It should be obvious to any Bible student that to label an Egalitarian as rebellious is in no way comparable to referring to a Traditionalist as a woman-hater. Here’s why.

 Scripture has no qualms with inspecting fruit and judging accordingly (Matt. 7:14) Just as you would see a person in a blue uniform carrying a gun and badge and come to the conclusion that he is a police officer. That would be a righteous judgment and fully endorsed by the Bible (John 7:24). Now if you were to say that the police officer hated women just because he arrested a woman, that would be unrighteous judgment and forbidden by God’s Word (Matt. 7:1). Yet some on both sides of this issue are guilty of exactly that. But again, the vast majority of the examples will come from the Egalitarian camp.

 Egalitarians stand in direct opposition to the clear teachings of the Bible and therefore ARE in rebellion. That’s inspection of the fruit. If I were to say that an Egalitarian simply hates all men based on his beliefs in regard to this subject that would be an unrighteous judgment. In exactly the same way it is improper for an Egalitarian to call a person of the opposing view a woman-hater. Only God knows a person’s heart and for a man to assume that position is sin. On the other hand, when one is unwilling to accept clear Biblical teaching or when he stands in direct defiance of God’s Word and plan; that is the very definition of rebellion.