Egalitarianism stretches further than just a gender issue

[mkgal1]

Indeed you should. But beware - it can be very - unchristian - at times. Violent, immoral and a bit cultic.

Thanks for the warning, but that's part of what I'm wanting to discuss here.....this attraction to divide things up into a binary of "that's good---that's bad". It seems like it's a habit that is ingrained in us.

 

[mkgal1]

Unfortunately, people darkened by their sinful nature are not blessed by justice no matter what criteria for "justice" are used.

You seem to be limiting that group to a select few (when you wrote, "people darkened by their sinful nature"). That's what I mean about "egalitarianism stretches further than gender". Aren't we ALL "darkened by our sinful nature"? Why single a few out?

These are a couple of examples of what I believe to be "restorative justice" It's not in place of typical justice--it's along side of:


Pawsitive Change is a progressive and intensive rehabilitation program which matches death row dogs with inmates inside California State Prisons. Our goal is to reduce inmate recidivism by providing them a viable skill, while at the same time savingdogs lives. The program is guided by 4of our experienced trainers over 14 weeks, during which the inmates work towards vocational accreditation and the dogs towards their Canine Good Citizen Certification. Both man and mutt will use the skills gained in this program to better their lives and stay out of prisons and/or shelters--respectively.

We live inside a place where we can't show our emotion--it's considered a weakness. But with this program, we can feel--give and received affection. We become cold in here, much more cold then when we entered. But these dogs give us a chance to be human.

-InmateParticipant,CycleII

Providing a safe emotional space and respectful environment allows us to build relationships and therefore effectively communicate the tenets of dog psychology and energy recognition. By focusing on respect and emotional honesty, our program has forged outstanding dog trainers and revealed tremendous emotional breakthrough. Deep relationships are nurtured between inmate, dog and staff, thus laying the groundwork for Pawsitive Change in all of us.~Pawsitive Change Prison Program – Marley's Mutts Dog Rescue

and

Homeboy Industries provides hope, training, and support to formerly gang-involved and previously incarcerated men and women allowing them to redirect their lives and become contributing members of our community. Each year over 10,000 former gang members from across Los Angeles come through Homeboy Industries’ doors in an effort to make a positive change. They are welcomed into a community of mutual kinship, love, and a wide variety of services ranging from tattoo removal to anger management and parenting classes. Full-time employment is offered for more than 200 men and women at a time through an 18-month program that helps them re-identify who they are in the world, offers job training so they can move on from Homeboy Industries and become contributing members of the community - knowing they count!~Homeboy Industries - Why We Do It |

http://www.homeboyindustries.org/site/video_frame

Do you see the thread running through these two programs? The restoration of their humanity and that they count, is what I see. To me....that's what egalitarianism means---that everyone is considered in their full dignity.

 

[Greg J.]

Where do you get the idea that supports the bold text?

Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:21, 1984 NIV)

Also, Exodus 21:29, Leviticus 20:27, Leviticus 24:16, Leviticus 24:17, Numbers 15:35, Deuteronomy 13:10, Deuteronomy 17:5.

"Purge the evil from among you": Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 17:7, Deuteronomy 17:12, Deuteronomy 19:19, Deuteronomy 21:21, Deuteronomy 22:21, Deuteronomy 22:22, Deuteronomy 22:24, Deuteronomy 24:7, Judges 20:13.

God is rejecting restoration of a perpetrator when he is to be executed. I'm not saying we should be doing capital punishment according to the Mosaic Law, but it does show us that some harms to society are best dealt with without restoration to the perpetrator.

 

[Greg J.]

You seem to be limiting that group to a select few (when you wrote, "people darkened by their sinful nature"). That's what I mean about "egalitarianism stretches further than gender". Aren't we ALL "darkened by our sinful nature"? Why single a few out?

No, some have set themselves apart: those to whom God's correction does not correct. But I think we are talking more and more about different things.

 

[mkgal1]

God is rejecting restoration of a perpetrator when he is to be executed. I'm not saying we should be doing capital punishment according to the Mosaic Law, but it does show us that some harms to society are best dealt with without restoration to the perpetrator

In my view, that's our immature sense of justice. I think the New Testament portrays what we should replace that with.....grow into (The New Covenant).

 

[Greg J.]

God's commands are an immature sense of justice? He is all-knowing, all-wise, and the only one who really knows what justice is.

 

[mkgal1]

No, some have set themselves apart: those to whom God's correction does not correct. But I think we are talking more and more about different things.

....but you believe that men and women are equal in God's sight....correct?

I guess that's why I began this thread (and, honestly, am still processing as I wrote in the OP). I've noticed a greater issue....a bigger divide....something that goes beyond just the genders. I know it probably sounds like I'm talking in riddles, but it seems difficult to discuss just "gender equality" when I believe it's more about "human equality".

 

[mkgal1]

God's commands are an immature sense of justice? He is all-knowing, all-wise, and the only one who really knows what justice is.

No....I believe He was appealing to OUR immature sense of justice and used that as an illustration--a contrast to the New Covenant.

 

[mkgal1]

Another program I just thought of (and am still searching for) is an addiction program that fosters empathy (the key component I'm noticing in ALL these programs).

I did find this article:

Locking addicted people up in jail often perpetuates the cycle of abuse and addiction. Dr. Fred Osher is the Director of the Center for Behavioral Health, Justice, and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He tells CBS News, "mental health, and co-occurring substance use disorders are over-represented in the criminal justice system. With longer sentences, and higher return rates, once these people get in jail, they're stuck there."

Maté believes we have to eradicate the stigma surrounding addiction and change the way the justice system works in order to effectively treat people.

"The justice system is perpetrating trauma on people that have been traumatized as children instead of offering treatment and help," he said.

Vicky Dulai personally witnessed the failure of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate drug offenders. Her brother, Balraj Dulai, was in and out of jail for drug related crimes until his death at the age of 31. The loss of her her brother inspired Vicky to study everything she could about the disease of addiction, which led her to Maté's work.~#14Days: A cry for compassion in treating addiction

ETA: This is the article I was thinking of: The Opposite of Addiction is Connection

In truth, the often parallel work of 12-step recovery programs and formalized addiction treatment programs — after the initial experience of detox — involves connecting the addict to other people. And not just any people, either. We’re talking about safe, supportive, reliable, empathetic people.

Much of the time these safe and supportive people are other addicts in recovery who know exactly what it feels like to be addicted and to embark on the lengthy process of healing. However, this newfound sense of connection doesn’t always have to be with other recovering addicts. For instance, as Hari discusses in his TED Talk, the nation of Portugal, which decriminalized illicit substances (i.e., addictive drugs) in 2001, takes a broader-than-normal approach to overcoming addiction. Instead of spending money on incarceration, Portugal has focused its efforts on helping addicts connect with society at large. If, for instance, an addict was a computer programmer prior to his or her downfall, the government will find a company that needs a computer programmer and offer to pay half of the addict’s salary for the first year of employment if the company will give that person a shot. Additionally, the government funds traditional treatment opportunities and various other forms of social support. In short, Portugal tries to reintegrate addicts into the human rat park in a way that helps them learn to trust and connect.

Instead of focusing on who *doesn't* belong......don't you think we'd be seen as "more loving like Christ" if Christians, instead, began at a point of believing that ALL belong (and the rules apply to ALL in the same way)? That's what "egalitarianism" means to me.

 

[mkgal1]

This isn't exactly what I was thinking of....but this program, to me, is what egalitarianism is about:

Moulton on Thursday announced the department’s plan to launch Operation Hope, modeled after the Angel initiative underway in Gloucester, Massachusetts.

The department is partnering with the Portland Recovery Community Center and the Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative to help addicts get treatment instead of sending them to a cell in county jail.

“We signed up for this job to help people and there are people who desperately need help,” Moulton said during a news conference at police headquarters. “We will treat them with respect. We will keep them safe. We will try to get them in recovery.”

 

[mkgal1]

those to whom God's correction does not correct

...wouldn't that mean that God *doesn't* "win" in the end? I believe that eventually God's love WILL reconcile ALL of creation unto Him--every knee will bow (as Scripture says).

There's a term I just read about the other day, "scourge with love". I'm of the mind that that's what the after-life will be for those that you're calling "those to whom God's correction doesn't correct". Maybe it's "man's correction" that's the trouble?

 

[mkgal1]

I was raised with the substitutionary atonement theology as well. But these days I lean toward a more covenantal reason - that no covenant can be initiated without shedding blood - Heb 9.17-18.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you asserting that the blood was shed in order for God to not be considered a liar? That is was something that would be recognized as a covenant? If so....that's what I agree with. The blood shed wasn't for God---it was so humanity could recognize the sacrifice....the covenant...the love.

Forgiveness of sins is a provision of being in the New Covenant:

Jer 31.33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Yes.

 

[mnphysicist]

In my view, that's our immature sense of justice. I think the New Testament portrays what we should replace that with.....grow into (The New Covenant).

In an idealistic sense, sure.. but very very dangerous individuals do exist.

I don't ascribe to capital punishment, but there are situations where in separating an individual from society is the only means of keeping society safe, until perhaps when time passes, maybe they do grow into the new covenant, but then again, perhaps they never will. Part of the problem with that, is that in separating such folks, we put in place policies and procedure which end up discouraging them from doing so. Some of it is a function of costs, some of risk analysis, and some a sense of societal need to extract a pound of flesh so to speak to mitigate societies own leaning towards vigilantism and/or Hatfield and Mccoy scenarios.

And yet, many folks who do not fall into the very very dangerous individual domain are still set apart. I used to teach Sunday school for 7th and 8th graders years ago... and I think back to one of the kids. He was pretty smart, devoted to Jesus, and his potential was incredible. Sadly, someone introduced him to drugs and alcohol in high school. It wasn't too long before he'd had a few run ins with the law, which got him cycling in and out of the jail system for a few years. He was actually not doing too badly for a number of years after that, until one night, he went to a party, after having found some pain meds from a deceased relative, and proceeded to share them with his friends while they were all doing some pretty heavy drinking... and one of his buddies died. He will be in jail for decades... in large part due to a series of circumstances that tripped a bunch of mandatory sentencing adders. Is he guilty, yes, he even plead so, but does locking him away for that long do justice to his friend who died, to society as a whole, or even as a means of restoring him? Such is a real problem with the US justice system.

 

[mkgal1]

but very very dangerous individuals do exist.

Oh....I agree, and I'm not really proposing a Polly-Anna sort of view. We NEED to focus on keeping society safe. We can't put anyone in danger. I just think--on the other hand--we also can't throw people away as "unfixable" or "beyond repair". What I see from most of those gang members and prisoners is that once they felt valued and had a purpose (and hope) they began living their lives differently.

 

[mnphysicist]

I think our views of atonement (or "at-one-ment") also are relevant to egalitarianism. I believe the divide is: either one believes in a God that is about a system of "punish and reward" (and some "make it" and others are "out"--there is no in-between).....or we believe in a God that desires to reconcile ALL creation back to the Creator and evil is slowly worked out with the enduring love of God.

I believe that patriarchy has more to do with an overall system of control....much more than it has to do with gender. I see it across this forum---those that are rigid in their beliefs, really seem to view God in terms of "what He punishes" (with a focus on fear) instead of the focus being on love. There's also a certainty with the patriarchal view (ISTM)....things are very formulaic and simplified (with no room for any nuance)---and I wonder if that's the allure? The certainty.

Consider that the theory of penal substitutionary atonement came about during the protestant reformation, with mostly a Calvin influence, its a rather late development (albeit one can see the earlier ransom and satisfaction theories opening the door that way a little bit). In contrast patriarchy has been part of various world cultures going back to the time of Moses... albeit Job being the oldest book in the Bible a bit leans differently. As such, from an 4000 year history point of view, I don't think your idea fits too well

However, from a recent view of history, it seems to fit like a glove.

In the 1800's, higher criticism came on the scene for the masses, basically a means of interpreting the scriptures in light of cultural linguistic and historical lenses. This did not go over very well with a fair number of folks. So much so, that about 1910 the five fundamentals were written, basically to try and keep the higher criticism folks at bay.

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles

Alas, that is a big problem, as it taking it on face value, means the higher criticism folks fit right in as do folks who ascribe to evolution etc. I mean its a rare Christian who would take issue with any of the above...

So things were added, inerrancy was defined to be exceedingly narrow, and some take it to the point of biblical literalism like Ken Ham who teach that without a literal Genesis, the fall didn't occur, we don't need to be saved and thus Christianity is not valid. In a similar view, Christ's death was an atonement for sin, means only penal substitution theory is valid.. and in a related vein, Complementarianism is the only option for Christian marriage.

I see a desire for certainty as a key part of this progression, but I think it goes further into the power and control realms too.

 

[Dave-W]

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you asserting that the blood was shed in order for God to not be considered a liar?

Not sure where the "liar" part fits in. Care to explain? Then perhaps I can give a proper answer to that.

 

[mkgal1]

Not sure where the "liar" part fits in. Care to explain? Then perhaps I can give a proper answer to that.

Maybe that's not the word I should have used, but I was trying to express that since the culture of the Old Testament recognized the blood sacrifice to be a main element of covenants.....if there was no blood shed, they might not have recognized at all that Jesus' death on the cross had anything to do with a covenant. Sorry. Does that clarify that?

 

[Dave-W]

Maybe that's not the word I should have used, but I was trying to express that since the culture of the Old Testament recognized the blood sacrifice to be a main element of covenants.....if there was no blood shed, they might not have recognized at all that Jesus' death on the cross had anything to do with a covenant. Sorry. Does that clarify that?

Yeah - that helps.

All the way thru every covenant was ratified and initiated by shed blood. So for those who had eyes to see or had heard Him say of the cup of wine at the last seder, "This is the Blood of the New Covenant," it would have been obvious. But unfortunately, most missed it.

 

[mkgal1]

This thread [I'm linking] is a really good example of what led me to look more closely at this whole issue of "egalitarianism" and how far it stretches. This is exactly the sort of disagreement that keeps occurring in threads I post in, and I was always so confused by it. My faith is built on things I grew up with, songs like "Jesus loves me" and "They will know we are Christians by our love....by our love"...so when I kept getting opposition to my posts, I couldn't understand it (isn't that what MOST Christians believe on a foundational level?).

Now I think I may understand. See where the main argument is? That God is "omnipresent"? I've gotten a lot of opposition on that in the past as well (prior to that--I took it for granted that most Christians believe about the same things when it came to topics like that). My speculation is that some people don't want to believe God is "in" other people (as in ALL people)--and I think (I can be wrong, I'm sure)....but I just wonder if that's what allows for so much ugliness and quarreling amongst Christians :

This is the thread I'm referring to: The Shack

Also.... I believe this from Richard Rohr to be true, "Most people who want to hold onto power view God as vindictive and punitive. Powerful people actually prefer this worldview, because it validates their use of intimidation."