Artificial equality

By Regis Nicoll

A truly Christian ethic cannot follow … the architects of Western political tradition, who view the precepts of natural law as concerned mostly with individual rights rather than with individual responsibilities within society. – Stanley J. Grenz

Important cornerstone
The proposition that “all men are created equal” is the cornerstone of the American justice system. The great social movements of our nation: abolition, emancipation, women’s suffrage and civil rights can all be attributed to the moral force of this founding principle.

However, within the last few decades “equality” claims have been used for everything from the legalization of abortion and homosexual sodomy to arguments for same-sex marriage and dismantling the gender wall of male affiliations, such as the Boy Scouts or varsity football teams. This “artificial equality” has made “civil rights” anything a person feels necessary in their pursuit of happiness without regard to social responsibility or real physiological differences.

This has been particularly evident in our educational system.

Artificial equality
In the interest of making sure no one feels uncomfortable about himself, an increasing number of schools have eliminated class standings, “exceptional” curricula, and honorary distinctions, like valedictorian and salutatorian. They call this, “inclusion.”

Notwithstanding the noble intent, such practices do anything but make people feel comfortable because they quash a fundamental longing of the human spirit–confirmation that our work is meaningful and that true achievement, valued to our community. A recent movie about a family of superheroes illustrates the point.

In The Incredibles (2004), Dash is a young boy with superhuman speed. When he asks permission to use his special ability in school sports, his mother demurs, “The world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we’ve just got to be like everyone one else.”

“But Dad says our powers are nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers make us special.”

Parroting the groupthink of the day, his mother sighs, “Everyone is special, Dash.”

In defeated frustration Dash turns and shrugs, “Which is another way of saying, ‘No one is.'”

The scene brings out some important truths about human nature. First, contrary to the founding document of our country, equality is not something that is “self-evident.” Physically and intellectually, we each have different abilities and skills. In whatever aspect “men are created equal,” it is beyond what is evident.

Next, “fitting in” is not a matter of leveling our talents and abilities; but of being responsible citizens, using whatever gifts we have for the betterment of the wider culture. It is through our unique giftedness, not artificial equality, that each of us contribute in a vital way to our communities.

Challenging the notion
Over two decades before the evolution of modern-day egalitarianism, C.S. Lewis wrote an essay in The Weight of Glory called, “Membership.” There Lewis argues, “I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast.”

If that doesn’t singe our modern ears, what Lewis writes a few paragraphs later will set them ablaze: “The infinite value of each human soul is not a Christian doctrine.”

Before you commit all of your C.S. Lewis works to the flames, Lewis goes on to explain that in the divine calculus, equality is about God’s love not our value. Despite our inequalities, God, who is no respecter of persons, loves all equally. Indeed, as the apostle Paul reveals,

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Regardless of ethnicity, socio-economic standing or sex, entry into the Kingdom of God is on an equal opportunity basis.

A shift in emphasis
At the same time, there is no affirmative action program to ensure that all segments of society are equally represented. God may love all equally, but it’s individual response, not corporate “targets” that will determine the final mix.

Instead of the popular trend toward flat, more egalitarian organizations, the Kingdom of God is hierarchal and differentiated. Paul likens it to a body with a central command center (a head) and individual members having distinctive abilities and functions, all designed to work together for the well-being of the whole.

It may come as a shock to some, but in the Body of Christ as in the human body, each member is neither equally gifted nor equally important. I could live to a ripe old age without an appendix, wisdom teeth or even two legs, but I wouldn’t survive a moment without a heart or lungs. Similarly, the Kingdom could advance without tongue interpreters and miracle workers, but without apostles and preachers, it would atrophy.Â

Yet Paul exhorts us to the divine standard of having “equal concern for each other.” After 40 years of rights-centric rhetoric, Paul’s instruction sounds strange and foreign.

In an abrupt shift from our culturally-tuned mindset, Paul invokes responsibility toward others not rights of self. Rather than making demands on our community, we are to treat others with loving concern, even giving “special honor” to those whose appearance is unsightly or whose contribution, minor.

At the same time, having “equal concern” does not mean treating everyone the same. Eyes need glasses, not a hearing aid. Similarly, a person gifted in teaching needs a lectern and a class, not a parking lot and pair of white gloves.

Neither does it mean that every person should be brought down to the level of the poorest performer. A body with poor eyes needs ears that perform optimally, not at a level commiserate with its vision. In the same way, a student with learning difficulties needs to be mentored, encouraged and challenged by those with greater abilities.

Lastly, equal concern does not mean that no one should ever feel uncomfortable. A foot with a lesion needs an operation, not a French pedicure. Likewise, a person involved in an immoral relationship needs to be spiritually counseled, not affirmed.

A kingdom parable
In the well-known “Parable of the Talents,” a master entrusts three servants with five talents, two talents and one talent, respectively, as he sets out on a journey. Upon his return, he learns that one servant earned five talents, another earned two, while the last merely held onto the one he was given.

In response, the master rewards the first two servants, while the third is summarily dismissed and his solitary talent given to the servant with ten.

This parable conveys several things that cross popular sensibilities.

First, the master doesn’t invite all of his servants or those of other masters to oversee his estate. Rather, he entrusts his property to three specific servants in his household.

Second, instead of dividing his estate in equal measures, he splits it, in all likelihood, based on the servants’ abilities to manage.

Lastly, his response to each is based on their execution of responsibility, not because of their entitlements as staff members. Note that even the two faithful servants receive different rewards – the servant with ten talents is given an extra one.

The modern reaction
Falling on modern ears, this story sounds all wrong. Not only should the master have given his trustees equal portions, he should have extended the opportunity to every person in his community and divided it up his estate accordingly.

As to the master’s response, appalling! Has he no feelings, no concern for their fragile self-esteem?

While the invitation to dine at his banquet table is universal – as Jesus disclosed in an earlier discourse – service in his household is based on calling and gifting, and rewards based on faithfulness in service.Â

A necessity, but…
Although rights and equality are not a part of God’s original design or Kingdom, in the kingdom of man they are essential.

In the long shadow of the Fall, no person can be trusted with absolute power over any other. Because of man’s cruel and coercive bent, certain rights, such as equal voice and equal protection have become necessary defenses.

At the same time, artificial equality and the notion that personal happiness and individual expression are inviolable rights unencumbered by personal responsibility should be as foreign in the kingdom of man as they are in the Kingdom of God.

A person’s primary relationship to the various communities of which he is a member is one of service, and not first of all of making demands upon them. – Stanley Grenz quoting Paul Ramsey

For Further Reading:
The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, Stanley J. Grenz
The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis

Scripture references: Galatians 3:26-28, 1 Corinthians 12, Matthew 25:14-30 (New International Version)

Regis Nicoll is a Centurion of Prison Fellowship Ministries Wilberforce Forum. In addition to writing Thinking Christianly, Regis is a columnist for BreakPoint and Crosswalk, and a contributor to Prison Fellowship’s worldview blog, The Point. To receive his free “All Things Examined” weekly commentary by e-mail, contact him at


About Mark Kelly

Jesus follower, Bible reader, husband/father/son/brother/uncle, rider, hiker, snapshooter
This entry was posted in Guest columnists. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Artificial equality

  1. Ryan McGivern says:

    Hello Regis! Thank you for your post. It was stirring and inspiring and I felt I needed to share a response. I want to state right off that there is much that you say that I agree with 100% including: that it is because of humanity’s tendency towards oppression, exclusion, and violence that all people need equal protections, dignity and attention. I also greatly agree with you when you say that it is our uniqueness and personal perspectives, ideas, and actions that enliven and enrich our communities.
    I also like that you included CS Lewis: I have always enjoyed his writings. I especially enjoy his portrayal of inclusivism in “The Last Battle” of his Narnia series. There, he shows people who are righteous and never heard of Christ going into God’s presence.

    There is much here that I disagree with, however, and I feel that it primarily revolves around your using a strawman argument about ‘equality’. It is my understanding of contemporary social justice and prophetic movements that they are speaking of equality in a way that is not close to what you set up here. Just as in the Declaration of Independence, equality means equal treatment, dignity, protection and access to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness, so is equality spoken of in Christian justice movements.

    It is not in my experience that anyone is saying equality means ‘same’. This appears to be the heart of your strawman fallacy, however. Rather, it is truly diversity and difference that is the backbone of what justice and equality is about!

    Abolition, emancipation, sufferage, civil rights: they are all alike in that they were opposed by some Christians at the time. Many Christians now are looking at the more insidious and hidden oppressions that are affecting our communities. This means we’re looking at the ways that power and privilege have played out in terms of race, sex/gender, class, and other social constructions. We are looking at how dignity, protection, access, and political capital are being withheld from some based on those social constructions.

    Also, I believe you misrepresent the traditional and historical arguments against women’s reproduction and ‘sodomy laws’. These were never in my recollection argued against in terms of equality, but rather privacy. There is a big difference and I fail to see the connection.

    I believe we also interpreted “The Incredibles” differently. I viewed it as critiquing those who pay lip service to the uniqueness of individuals but shudder when people’s true identities and gifts from God are displayed. I’ve experienced this when I’ve spoken in tongues and when Christian transgendered friends have encountered Christians who revealed their true feelings about the Spirit’s giftings.

    I love the image of the Body in Paul, but I view it differently. I see it as speaking to the glory of difference and variation in God’s creation and kingdom. Rather than a “top down”, hierarchical model which has been used by many white men, I see a flourishing of communities which are bound together in responsiblity, compassion, vulnerability, and service without hierarchies.

    Thanks for the food for thought–
    Blessings, Ryan McGivern

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s