For many, this is the most important ideal to which a society can ascend. Even before the Constitution was written, the Declaration of Independence boldly asserted that the fact that all men are created equal is self-evident.
Since then, many people have fought, and even died, so that all people, regardless of race, gender, station, or faith, would enjoy equal protection under the law in the United States.
Of course, the idea of equality is not new. Even in Biblical times, it was accepted that God was "no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34) When it came to the atonement money collected by Moses, the standard was half a shekel whether rich or poor. (Exodus 30:15)
These facts make it easy for some to believe that equality is always a good thing. It is not.
The book of proverbs spends a great deal of time highlighting the inequality of the wise and the foolish. Consider this passage that explains the inequality between the slothful and the industrious: "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich." (Proverbs 10:4)
The inequality between God's treatment of Israel and Egypt is a critical theme in the Exodus. Ten devastating plagues came upon the Egyptians, but they were not had in the land of Goshen where the Hebrews dwelt. The city of Jericho was leveled to support the invading forces of Israel.
Even among the house of Israel, not all were equal. The priests had the authority to bear the Ark of the Covenant, and when Uzza put forth his hand to steady it, God killed him. (1 Chronicles 13:7-10) Korah pointed to equality as a justification for protesting the rule of Moses over Israel in the wilderness, but God opened the earth up and swallowed him and his followers. (Numbers 16)
Of course, some people who, like Korah, are overzealous in their love of equality, would suggest that the Old Testament does not count, and that Christians should get a better understanding of how to live from Christ himself.
What these individuals fail to understand is that Jesus seems to oppose equality.
Consider the explanation Jesus gave for why he taught in parables:
"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (Matthew 13:11-12)
In his parables, he emphasized inequality. Consider the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13). In his parable of the sower, Jesus compared different kinds of people to different kinds of ground... and even the good ground produced various amounts of fruit. (Matthew 13:3-9)
While he had power to do miracles wherever he went, access to his power was restricted by faith. (Matthew 13:57-58) To a Canaanite woman who plead for his help, Jesus declared "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26)
Even the most zealous proponents of equality in all things will note the differences in how he evaluated the rich and the poor. Consider the statement "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus echoes the same sentiment. (Luke 16:20-31)
For someone who is lauded by some as the champion of equality, Jesus certainly seemed to oppose it.
How can a person reconcile the inherent goodness that can be perceived by correcting the injustices in society, with the source of all goodness seeming to perpetuate inequality?
A large part of the issue comes from the ambiguity in the term equality.
There is a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. A favorite example that has been used by multiple sources, including Ben Shapiro, is seen in the salaries of professional athletes. I do not have the abilities of a Lebron James, so even if I put in the same amount of practice, I should not expect the same outcome in terms of income for my basketball performance.
A similar distinction can be seen in conversations about gender equality. There is absolutely a sense in which men and women are equal. The Family: A Proclamation to the World clearly states
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, emphasis added)
The sense in which men and women are equal partners obviously does not mean they have the same primary roles... since primary roles were described just above the affirmation of equality. In this sense, equality has more to do with accountability for the well being of their children. No mother should withhold from her children because "it's their father's job to do that," anymore than a father should neglect his obligations because "their mom isn't doing enough." Both parents must ensure that their children are raised in love and righteousness, and that their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are met. This sort of equality may mean that a wife needs to help her husband emotionally so that he can be productive, or that a man might need to reinforce his wife's guidance in the home.
This sort of equality does not try and deny gender roles. It is perfectly appropriate if female models make more money than male models, or if male athletes make more money than female athletes... because in a large number of important qualities, men and women are different, and it is prudent for men and women to play to their strengths.
Another sort of equality that seems to confuse some people is equality of access to God. While it is true that Jesus loves every person, and that each of us is a beloved son or daughter of God, he speaks to us in different ways, and gives us different strengths and weaknesses.
Even in the New Testament, Paul compared the different types of individuals to various parts of the body:
"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:14-31)Rather than conflating legitimate inequality with injustice, people have an obligation to do the best they can with what they have been given. The man given five talents should work hard to gain five more. The man given two talents should work hard to gain two talents more. The man given one talent should not bury it or envy those that have more... he should work to do the best he can with what he has received.
This is not to say that true injustice should be accepted. Cases of criminal behavior... theft, fraud, murder, etc, should be criminal for all individuals. People with greater affluence should be held to the same standards of conduct as those who have none. It is wrong to falsely accuse a poor man who is unable to defend himself or to falsely accuse a wealthy man who many be more likely to settle financially. This is the sort of equality that is self-evident... and that is the kind of equality that persuaded great men to declare independence from European monarchs in past centuries.
This is not the same as the equality touted by some contemporary zealots. The quest to make people "equal" in the French Revolution robbed many of life and liberty. The same can be said for socialist movements in Russia, China, and Venezuela. Societies should extend equal protection under the law, because this equality is compatible with freedom, but societies cannot force equal outcomes for individuals without robbing people of their freedom.
Ultimately, Jesus did not even preach equality. He preached humility. A humble man is less concerned with the success or position of others... a humble man is grateful for what he has, and does his best to do what is right and help those around him. A humble man lays up treasure in heaven, regardless of how many around him revel in treasures on earth:
"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:11-12)
