What is 'Sameness'? I read a paper written by pastor Mark David Walton that tends to have complementarian leanings, and I have a REALLY hard time wrapping my mind around where he comes up with some of the 'conclusions'.
He needed to start by pointing out the differences between his way of believing, and of course egalitarians. As you might have guessed the ‘sameness’ concept came up.
The pastor wanted to present his opinions on, Roles and Relationships in New Creation. Yet, it seems CBMW decided they would take the article down, and my picture above is what you find now.
NO fear! Hannah grabbed a ‘cache’ shot from the internet, and its STILL available. Here you GO! At the beginning of the article he mentions a previous one that he wrote, and I guess this article is a follow up for it. Here is the original article. What We Shall Be: A Look at Gender and the New Creation By: Mark David Walton
What was he discussing?
Will there be ‘headship’ in heaven? Will the roles still be present? WELL – according to them – OF course there will be!
Since we will be in the presence of God – the ultimate authority – it would seem strange as too WHY this portion of their role would even be needed if we were honest about it. (sarcasm mode on) I guess they don’t feel God would take this away from them in Heaven like they feel today’s feminist’s have! (end of sarcasm)
Below is a quote from the author, and the BLUE text is a source he quoted from. His quotes are from a man named, Randy Alcorn. I haven’t figure out how to ‘double quote’ within Windows Live Writer yet! Sorry about that!
Feminists, both secular and evangelical, define equality in terms of functionality rather than ontologically-on the basis of being. They err by effectively reducing equality to "sameness,"11 and in so doing embrace one of liberalism's foundational concepts, namely, that parity is the social ideal.12 We can be certain, however, that the new creation will be characterized, not by sameness but by incredible diversity-diversity of abilities, diversity of gifts, and diversity of rewards. Alcorn, addressing the question of equality in the new creation, merits inclusion here:
All people are equal in worth, but they differ in gifting and performance. . . . Because God promises to reward people differently according to their differing levels of faithfulness in this life, we should not expect equality of possessions and positions. . . . There's no reason to believe we'll all be equally tall or strong or that we'll have the same gifts, talents, or intellectual capacities. If we all had the same gifts, they wouldn't be special. If you can do some things better than I can, and I than you, then we'll have something to offer each other. . . . diversity-not conformity-characterizes a perfect world.13
The new creation will, indeed, be a place where equality reigns-but not as feminists define the term. It will be equality as biblically defined, equality that has its basis in divinely established human worth.
I have yet to run into one human that felt equality was: equally tall, strong, everyone having the same gifts, talents or intellectual capacities. The blue quote is from Randy Alcorn, whom is another person that has rather out there views of Egalitarians. I will get to him later.
So I was a bit perplexed as to what 'feminist' he has ran into, spoken to, or read their material that stated that humans must be the above in order to have equality.
You notice the man doesn't reference any 'feminist' that stated this either. Nope! If you check the footnotes in the above quote? They all come from the same source – CBMW authors, and friends of the complementarian belief system.
It always amazed me that people could 'grasp' the concept during civil rights movement that minorities wanted people to acknowledge that all humans are equal. One race of people did not have more 'worth' than they other. That one race shouldn't be barred from something due to their race. There were many other issues, and we all know them.
The point is it has nothing to do with this author's definition of 'sameness'.
If I were guessing? Chances are pretty STRONG this man understands what the civil rights definition of equality is, and how it had nothing to do with 'sameness'.
Funny, when it comes to 'women' in the church wanting a sense of equality? These men pretend to be morons. They are just incapable of making the connection due to their 'mental age'.
JUST to be clear what my definition of the word moron is? I'll quote from a dictionary online:
"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Ancient Greek word μωρός (moros), which meant "dull" (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp" (see also: oxymoron)), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25). The word moron, along with others including, "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists.
I have to be frank here! I have a feeling this 'moron' state is pretty conditional, because I have no doubt in my mind their mental age is higher than 8-12 years old. Yet, for some reason they feel the need to lower it in order to make their point.
WHY that is the logical or a rational approach to presenting your point of view? Your guess is as good as mine!
I mean anyone with a brain can figure out that 'sameness' per his description isn't humanly possible. Everyone with the ‘same’ everything?!
I mean it doesn't even make sense.
As far as 'ontologically"? Let's define what Ontology means.
1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2: a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence
So, I would gather that the author seems to feel that when 'humans' (correction - only FEMINST humans) speak of equality they only refer to 'functionality' – per his ‘factual’ footnotes. Remember the ones from CBMW.
They (Feminists, both secular and evangelical) don't use the same dictionary? (shrugs) I guess not. No footnote for that source? OH well! I guess being a ‘biblical authority’ we should take his word for it right?!
I mean where is the common dictionary that defines this as 'the study of functionality'? He didn't link to it, and he should to support his point.
Here is another thing!
I have no idea how that ties into the concept of everyone being 'equally tall' or 'equally strong'. Feminist or not it doesn't take a genius to figure out that isn't possible.
Call me crazy but what has tallness or strength have to do with 'functionality' anyway? Can someone connect the dots for me? I'm lost.
I have no doubt there are some that will buy into what he has to say, and are completely baffled by 'those' that think like this. Honestly? I would be too. It doesn’t make any sense.
I suppose if I tried hard enough I could go out and find someone that thinks like that. Yet, since they are not mainstream I don't see the point of wasting my time. The bigger problem as I see it is the claim this type of person IS mainstream!
Where is the evidence of this? WELL besides their footnotes to CMBW, and other complementarian sources? None.
I mean I could pick some whack a doddle that is complementarian, and present it as 'mainstream'...but it doesn't make it so!
Sadly, what it really shows is the 'agenda'. Below is a quote from an egalitarian after hearing Randy Alcorn tell you about ‘egalitarians’.
Aside from Randy Alcorn’s blatant misrepresentation of biblical egalitarians (Good grief! No biblical egalitarian claims God the Father submits to God the Son! The issue is whether or not the Son is eternally subordinate or temporally subordinate to the Father during his incarnation.), this buffoonery is inexcusable from otherwise educated men!
I took that quote from this blog, He was commenting from a brief video presentation from YOU guess it ‘friends of CBMW’!
What they do NOT understand is its not that hard today to seek out their 'claims' towards the other side of the debate.
They only thing they count on is from most people? Is to NOT check it out for themselves to see if it is true. They pretty much expect that since they present themselves as the 'biblical authority'. If you get down to the footnotes – which most people won’t – they might be surprised as to WHERE they are getting this information from. Yep, their preacher buddies!
I have to be frank here.
When people feel the need to be so disingenuous, and also to outright misrepresent the other side of things? It makes me leary of them, and quite frankly trust is throw right out the window.
Its sad, because on other fronts they are extremely knowledgeable...and you can indeed learn from them.
Yet, when they act so childish towards others? You are less likely to read anything they have to say at all.
The strange thing is that I have heard some of the extremists from that side state they would LOVE to sit down, and talk - instead of throwing barbs back and forth.
I honestly think that would be very hard to do when they don't even seem to grasp what egalitarians actually stand for, believe, and what their definition of equality means.
I mean I just can't see them admitting they have misrepresented things first, and they would have to before any discussion starts.
This is why I feel the debates within the Christian community don't seem to happen so their can be some sort of reconciliation.
If you can’t get past this? There is NO WAY they can convince me – or any other rational person that there is ‘headship in heaven’.
Yes, his theory is very disturbing. Below are other links actually discussing the articles:
A letter to our sisters, on biblical womanhood in heavenly places
Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?
Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven
Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: