PASTOR GORDON: Egalitarianism & The Defeated Church that Embraced It

What is an egalitarian? The word did not exist in the American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828, but the ideas behind its creation are as old as the tree branch upon which a recently fallen Lucifer embodied that infamous serpent. The word comes from the French word “egal,” which means “equal” in English. A rarely used synonym for egalitarianism is “equalitarianism” or the idea that all human beings should in some way be considered equal. This notion of equality has taken two distinctly different paths since the American Heritage Dictionary reports it was first adopted into use during the early 1800s. By combining the words “equality” and “arian,” the disconcerting word “egalitarian” was born.

The first path of meaning, which passes the muster of Biblical literacy, is the notion that all humans have equal standing before the law and justice of Almighty God, and, therefore, proper civil-governments are required by this same Almighty God to ensure that all citizens hold equal standing before the system of man-created laws within their various jurisdictions. The assumption is that man will be wise and obedient enough to ensure that the laws he creates will never be in contradiction to the laws He did not create and cannot change (laws that pre-exist man, like gravity, math, biology, reproduction, etc.) From this view of the word sprang the phrase “all men are created equal” found in the organic law of the United States (Declaration). This first definition of egalitarianism or equalitarianism is largely out of modern use. (This is tragic, since it’s the only honest application of the word.)

In contrast with that first notion, the common use of the word today does not necessarily point to the legal/political realities defined by our Creator concerning legal equality, per se’, but rather, in contradiction with sound reason and experience, it imposes a fanatical and dishonest non-reality that all persons on earth are supposed to be equal in every way (not just politically or legally), and, therefore, it is the duty of the all-powerful state to forcibly remove any perceived obstacles that hinder this noxious inequality no matter how subjectively those perceptions may be acquired.

This use of the word “equality” defies reality, as it ignores the inescapable inequality between human beings with regard to fingerprints, the retinas of the eyes, heights, weights, bone-structures, grasps of vocabulary, intelligence quotients, strengths and weaknesses, mathematical aptitudes, memories, voice textures, the proclivity to win particular board-games, and the sheer impossibility of any winter storm since the dawn of time producing identical twin snowflakes. In a word, this view of equality is a fantasy — a fiction.

The most recent outcropping of this fanatical thinking has recently manifested as follows: men are allowed to enter what was supposed to be an exclusively female sporting event and achieve the women’s championship in weight-lifting, so long as they decide to pretend they are a woman, of course. Only a few short years ago, when people were still somewhat reasonable, this kind of behavior would have been laughed to scorn, if not considered a cause to summon the arrival of necessary police protection. The roots of egalitarian thought can be easily traced all the way back to Eden by pointing out that the first feminist was not Eve; rather, it was Adam.

We can and should point out that radical feminist females (as opposed to radical feminist males, like Adam) brought this folly upon their entire gender. Women who were not willing to be egalitarian merely in the sense of having equal standing before the law of God insisted that they were a co-equal gender in every physical way as well. Then, weak men with mental disorders agreed with the militant feminists of the last century, stuffed their t-shirts with prosthetic breasts, put on lipstick and panties, and declared themselves to be women, too. And when the sporting events were finally concluded and the winners were separated from the losers, these men pretending to be women stole the show and put them all to shame, which was obviously why the exclusively female sporting events were created in the first-place — to avoid the injustice of holding competitions between completely different genders…since that would be preposterously unfair.

The new idiocracy enforces this fraudulent “equality” by nearly criminalizing all rational objections made against it. Objections are angrily compared to sharing intellectual stock with the lynch mobs of yesteryear, who murdered black men by hanging them from tree limbs, not because they had done anything worthy of death, but because their skin color was objectionable. Therefore, rejecting the modern use of the concept of egalitarianism is pretended to be as morally repugnant as bigotry that used to end in the violent injustices of torment and bloodshed. This understanding of the popular philosophy of egalitarianism is the version I have in my cross-hairs as we continue. Why should we reject this egalitarianism and firmly label it as “evil?” For the same reason we should never call a biological man a “woman” or vice versa. Because it is evil, and because it is an especially stupid evil.

Now for the historic origin of egalitarianism. The legacy, if you will, of the “equal+arian” traced across history by hitting a few high-spots:

“I’m just as good as you are” is what Lucifer said. Isaiah 14. Ezekiel 28.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what Miriam said. Numbers 12.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what Korah said. Numbers 16.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what the sons of Sceva said. Acts 19.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what the anarchist said in 1789 France.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what Marx said. 1848 London.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what feminism said in the Netherlands in 1872.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what Lenin said. Moscow, 1917.

“I’m just as good as you are” is what sodomy said in 1973.

“I’m just as good as you are” is the rebel call of egalitarianism in both politics and church government today (not because it’s Biblical, mind you, but because a bunch of pot-smoking hippies allegedly “got saved” in the 1960s and didn’t quite get all the Luciferian thoughts washed out of their heads before they entered the ministry in droves).

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, an inferior cannot be equal to or greater than a superior. A number 4 cannot be equal to or greater than a number 5. A woman cannot be a “king” for the same reason a man cannot be a “princess” for the same reason a woman cannot be a “bishop” for the same reason my car cannot mow my lawn for the same reason the cooper’s hawk nesting across the street cannot breathe under water.

Nature has produced a physical reality where virtually nothing on the planet has any discernible equality.

That is worth repeating, so I will: Nature has produced a physical reality where virtually nothing on the planet has any discernible equality.

Mankind is equal before God’s law; he is supposed to be equal before the laws of any reasonably just human government (though due to the sad state of affairs in our enlightened world, this is rarely the case). But beyond equality before the justice of God, man is pretty much unequal in every other imaginable way.

A man and a woman are equal before God in their redemptive value, but it is absolutely impossible for the two of them to be mechanically equal. I can not breast-feed our six children, and she, most often, cannot open a pickle jar. Our inequality makes our union complementary, beautiful, and precious, but more importantly, it is precisely what makes our union necessary for the continuation of the human species. If all men and women are equal in every single way, then a great number of us are functionally unnecessary, and the world needs to be cleansed of our inefficient, resource-consuming redundancy. If all men and women are equal in every single way, then it’s high time to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint. (See what I did right there?)

This reality is, more or less, the reason that functional and organized egalitarians (Communists) have killed more than 60 million people across the last century. They are being perfectly consistent with their evil thinking.

Perhaps that is why the notion of the existence of a so-called “Christian egalitarianism” is as preposterous and insulting to the legacy of Christ as it is the integrity of one’s personal ability to truthfully interpret a written text.

If there is a “nature and nature’s God” kind of law called “math” and a pecking order in a hen house, then natural law is a reflection of divine moral law and is explained by ecclesiastical law just as Paul taught us it was in Romans 1:20.

One of the names of God is El Elyon which is translated from the Hebrew “Most High”, and the term is used 28 times in the Bible — 19 of which are in the book of Psalms alone. If there is a “Most High” then there is also a “least high” in the absolute monarchy of the Kingdom from Heaven, and the concept of delegated authority is explicitly described a thousand times across the Bible.

In the context of His coming kingdom above all earthly kingdoms, Jesus spoke of greaters and lessers in Matthew 18 and Luke 9. When Jesus said, “Let him that would become the greatest in My Kingdom become the greatest servant,” it is no coincidence that the same egalitarians who tell us that Jesus was a socialist and purvey what has become known as “Hippie Jesus” don’t skip a beat here to pervert Jesus’ remarks into another proof text of Lucifer’s original doctrine of egalitarianism… and claim “Jesus was denying the existence of hierarchy.”

The opposite, of course, is true. Jesus reaffirmed the same hierarchy established in stone across Bible history by merely pointing out that great leaders are first great followers and that, if you won’t follow, you’re unfit to lead. If the 7 sons of Sceva had learned this truth, they might have avoided being publicly embarrassed.

Jesus spoke of teachers and learners in Matthew 10 and Luke 6 (to the bitter frustration of today’s egalitarian authority haters). He bluntly declared that learners are never above their teachers, and to become a teacher they must first be a good learner. This was in perfect agreement with His earlier remarks concerning how to become the greatest in His Kingdom.

Jesus spoke of differing levels of stewardship in His parable of the talents (Matthew 5) and in His parable of the pounds (Luke 19), and both took place in the context of law, lawlessness, and the government of monarchy, a government highly esteemed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 and later valued as precious as gold in the sight of God in Daniel chapter 2. That same monarchy is the government to come, also described by Daniel the prophet, repeated by Jesus during His earthly ministry, and polished by John the Revelator.

John the Baptist declared the exact opposite of the doctrine of Lucifer when he said, “He

must increase, and I must decrease,” in John 3.

Jesus emphasized the necessary kind of attitude required in order to enter into the dominion of the Monarchy of God, our King. He said, “Become as a child.” What does the Bible say to children? It says, “Obey your parents.” Said another way, He admonished us to learn from a teacher, so we could become a teacher. Learn to follow, so you can someday lead. He said to serve and demonstrated why we must also allow others to serve us. He allowed a woman to wash His feet and was sure to see it was recorded that Judas Iscariot did not appreciate how lavishly Jesus was cared for. You can’t teach people to ONLY serve and then NEVER allow others to serve them. To do so is just another typically self-refuting egalitarian myth begun a long time ago in Heaven by Lucifer, the star of the morning.

In the 1600s, the Pilgrims shouted “No King but Jesus” in response to the wicked oppression against Christianity from abusive kings, but their remarks must be taken in the context of their political battles and not misused as carte blanche statements of Bible doctrine. The Bible does not say there is only one king. It says the very opposite, actually, and it declares that Christ is the head of them all. John the Revelator declared God’s goal for His Kingdom in Revelation 10: “And have made us to our God KINGS and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

This process began, the Bible shows us, at the moment Christ ascended from His resurrection and sat down in Kingdom authority, and His first act as King above all kings was to send “gifts unto men,” who are “sent ones” called upon to reflect His kind of government to the Luciferian world below. They are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Ephesians 4 & Hebrews 13:7). Faith flows sideways. We learn that we cannot develop full and mature faith without them. We also learn that we cannot develop full and mature faith by ONLY hearing them, but that we must also study on our own, to show ourselves approved and avoid the shame of mishandling God’s Word by interpreting it incorrectly.

Jesus is the King of kings (kings is plural), and the purpose of the statement is two-fold: 1) To point out that Christ’s rank is highest. He is the El Elyon first described in Genesis — the “Most High;” 2) To point out that there is a delegated authority beneath His Most High position — kings who serve Christ from just below His Most High position extending all the way to the least high position. And who serves where is determined exactly how Jesus said it would be determined. The best followers would make the greatest leaders. The best learners would make the best teachers.

His Kingdom has already landed here on earth, and we are here to reflect His monarchy to a world of egalitarian myth-makers and rebels who respond to that message with the same thoughts of Lucifer, their father, long ago: “I will ascend, and you will descend.” But Kingdom ambassadors join with the opposing Biblical wisdom of John the Baptist and declare: “He must increase, and I must decrease.”

It’s no wonder that in a discussion with a Centurion focused almost entirely upon the Roman concept of class and authority within the military, that Jesus responds with these words: “I have not seen so great a faith in my own nation of Israel.”

Faith is in apposition to obedience. Unfaithfulness is in opposition to obedience.

Disobedience is in opposition to faith. Disobedience is in apposition to sin.

Obedience to Christ requires obedience to His delegated authorities, whether they be parents in the home commanded to use the rod of correction, shepherds in the church commanded to use the staff of correction, or soldiers in the streets commanded to use the sword of vengeance against evildoers (who didn’t benefit by the two other governments from God designed to keep them out of conflict with law enforcement).

The world has been ransacked by egalitarianism because the church embraced it. Pastors rarely (if ever) excommunicate wolves and goats from the flock as they have been commanded to do. Excommunication doesn’t seem loving enough. Parents rarely (if ever) spank their children as they have been commanded to do. Discipline doesn’t seem loving enough. Nations rarely (if ever) properly administer corporal punishment for crimes as they have been commanded to do. Corporal punishment doesn’t seem loving enough.

Egalitarians have commandeered the very definition of the word “love.” And they have “loved” churches and families and nations enough to clap for them after they do wrong but never enough to keep them out of hell. The world has been hollowed-out while nearly every institution handled their proverbial “Eve” precisely the same as Adam handled her — capitulation.

How can we ever escape our clear fate?

Well, we must begin the great escape from the fate set directly before us within the confines of Christ’s church. Saint Peter writes: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” Indeed. True shepherds must shake off the comforts of their velvety robes and stand in the masculine authority of Christ, holding the Law-Word of God in the air above their heads, and fearlessly and publicly mark and remove the unrepentant attenders from Christ’s church. Said another way, stop behaving like effeminate sissies who fear donors more than God!

Then those men of God must teach the parents within Christ’s church to bring back the paddlings of previous generations, to re-instill the ancient notion of actions bringing painful consequences to the psyche of our little ones. Perhaps after the passing of time the spiritual family of the church, in Biblical harmony with the natural families who comprise it, will produce a better kind of man and woman who are qualified under Exodus 18:21 to be entrusted with the power of state government. Perhaps then the state will do its duty before God and properly punish criminals and reward the righteous for a change.

Their cases rise and fall together, beloved.

Or, we can just maintain our current trajectory, which ends in hell, where there is a pretend equality between all of humanity, where do-gooders and do-badders are equally celebrated, where inferiors are greater than their superiors, where fours are equal to fives, where men can be queens, where women can be kings or bishops, where cars can mow lawns, and hawks can breath underwater.

A now long-dead fat man once mused to himself, “I figure as long as they make bigger pants, I might as well stay the course.”