Cuckoo for Egalitarianism

The Cuckoo bird lays its egg in another bird's nest so that it is warmed and nurtured by the other bird. Little does the bird know that their babies are often killed and pushed out of the nest to make room for another's. It's sort of one of those things in nature that would make for a horror movie if applied to humans. But we are living out this horror movie right now in the church as we speak.

There are many discussions about what the Reformation got right, but few concerning what it got wrong. What it got wrong tends to be the things that are changed from the early church, not on the basis of biblical teaching, but largely due to cultural shifts that take place with the acceptance of various philosophies.

One of these shifts was the tendency of the Rennaisance to adopt Greco-Roman philosophies and culture, which, coupled with a severe reaction against the tyranny of popes and monarchs, led to the adoption of more egalitarian ideas concerning political and ecclesiastical government.

It is no mere coincidence that Luther's challenge of the pope and various rulers was followed by the Peasant Revolt and numerous other revolts carrying the spirit of Luther's defiance. The message of the Reformers carried with it a disdain for existing authorities if those authorities disagreed with it, and this is true even of the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to keep biblical authority structures in place.

What is often called the "Religious Wars" that followed, I would argue, is actually a misnomer. These were wars fought by different religious groups to be sure, but they were not fought because of religion, but rather because of the secular idea that the people fighting should have a say in government, and it was thought that the other side was either not allowing it, or that it would not allow it if they gained power. In other words, these wars should really be named "Wars of Inclusion," or rather "Wars of Egalitarianism." The idea that everyone should be included in the decision making or in who made the decisions led to republics and democracies in and outside the church.

In one of the great ironies of history, the type of inclusivism that produces egalitarianism was vindicated as the right trajectory for the new society because the "Religious Wars" proved that religion was divisive and led to war and the break up of society.

To be sure, egalitarianism slowly moved in and out of various traditions, many of which kept its full expression at bay. In many circles, only white men were elected to office, only white men voted, etc., but in other circles, women began to assert themselves as leaders, particularly in movements where lay leaders relied upon what they considered to be new movements of the Spirit that superseded anything the Bible might have to say. The debate of the Continental Congress in 1776 as to whether slaves should be set free and eventually considered equal shows the early signs of egalitarianism's shared biblical idea that all men should be included in being given the opportunity to partake in all stations of life.

The churches that did well in America were largely churches that had an egalitarian structure, since the Enlightenment was largely suspicious of any authority that did not find its origin and checks and balances in the people. Kings had been and would be executed in Europe. Replaced by parliaments that would represent the people, the inclusive egalitarian model had won the day, not because anyone made a biblical argument for it, but precisely because the Enlightenment had set the Bible aside and replaced it with the Spirit leading the masses through prayer, personal revelations, or just plain natural intuition.

Presbyterianism looked more like the political structure of England (a king // pastor, lay elders // parliament, the session // the voting masses). Baptists installed their elected pastors so that he looked more like a president than an elder to whom the people must submit and obey. The congregation decided whether he would have his job and so also retained the power for themselves. In the same way, Congregationalist churches hired and fired their pastors and so kept the power for themselves, a shared power where everyone was included.

Some Anabaptist groups, Quakers, the Holiness Movements, etc. left church leadership open to laity, so that everyone shared in it. It is not a coincidence that women also many times took part in these groups where the egalitarian spirit had come to a more advanced fruition.

This inclusive assumption is largely why these same groups tend to shift with the cultural tides. It is why the church struggles with whether women should be pastors or function as pastors without the title. It is why it often tends toward inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered groups. It's why laymen are often teaching Sunday Schools in churches and even take the pulpit. Everyone must have a say. Everyone must be included. Authority must be shared with the masses. There can be no taxation without representation, and if I pay my tithe I am paying for my say. It is why membership is oh so important to these churches as they still exclude people just walking in off the street deciding what the church will spend its money on.

None of this is biblical. The Bible forbids men to abdicate their responsibility to guard the garden from the serpent. Women are to be loving wives and mothers who are workers at home. The transatlantic slave trade could have been wiped out by just obeying the Scripture and executing anyone who either kidnaps a man to sell him into slavery or buys a man who is kidnapped. Racism is destroyed by the gospel for all Christians since all men are new creatures and made one in Christ. Laymen are not qualified to be elders or even function as elders, so they do not rule or have a vote in any way. Elders rule the household of God as fathers of the household, and fathers may get input from their children but they are not subject to their desires. Lay authority actually makes it impossible for a congregation to obey their elders. Instead, they just obey the majority vote of the masses. They are leaderless or often led by aggressive laymen who are largely unqualified to lead.

The church is a nation that should become the standard for the nations. It is what the nations should be doing. Hence, the church is ruled by a king. Monarchy in a secular society best represents this. The rule of the masses is a rebellion against God in the Bible, which is why the Enlightenment tried and tries hard to get rid of it as the primary source of revelation to man. The Bible is exclusive, not inclusive. It excludes all men from salvation outside of Christ, it excludes unqualified men from church leadership, and all women from that leadership. It rejects the unrepentant, sexually immoral from fellowship. It is exclusive when it comes to theology and ethics through and through. It includes all genders, races, and classes who repent in salvation, but excludes all genders, races, and classes who don't. God elects some and excludes others. Christ prays for His disciples and those who believe through them, but not the world in John 17. He chooses 12 men as apostles and not other men and no women. Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion. And this is the problem. The religion of the Enlightenment that had its roots in the Reformation is the opposite of the religion of the Bible, which essentially means that the Reformers both adopted biblical religion and its complete opposite depending upon what ideas were advanced. The great irony of the Reformation may be that it carried with it both the potential to transform the world with the gospel and the assumption that would undermine the gospel at the same time.

The river of egalitarianism, of course, eventually flows into the sea of Marxism. It is no coincidence that the social gospel and social justice have often moved to eclipse the church's message and set aside the authority structures set in place to guard the household of God with that message.

It is perhaps the greatest feat of Enlightenment cult that the church was and is convinced that its intuitive, natural religion of inclusion that is accessed through the Spirit is true Christianity at its core.

So the Bible is not egalitarian. Egalitarianism. and the Inclusivism that produces it, is the religion of antichrist. And to claim that the religion of antichrist is somehow Christianity is just plain Cuckoo.