This is the second post in a series on Stephen Clark’s list of guiding principles of for modern thought. Here is the list with a link to the first post.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a “Full-Person”

Here is Clark’s second principle that guides modern thought.

The Principle of Freedom-“Each individual should guide his or her own life and make his or her own decisions independent of the thoughts or interference of others. This principle considers all forms of social control other than state-authorized bureaucratic or educational forms as morally wrong, and it regards them as forms of oppression or domination. Personal subordination is evil and degrading. Underlying this Liberal principle of freedom is an individualistic notion that the highest good resides in the greatest degree of personal autonomy and freedom of movement.

Scripture also teaches a principle of liberty, but is the liberty to be sons and daughters of God and freedom from that opposes this status-especially the world, the flesh, the devil, and sin. The type of freedom scripture describes is compatible with a strong commitment to a body of people and with the acceptance of personal subordination. In fact, scripture sees corporate commitment and personal subordination as aids to freedom.”

A couple notes on this principle:

First, state control seems at odd with this principle, but Clark understood that state control would not be seen as restricting freedom. Clark wrote this 35 years ago. The state would set itself up as the guarantor of freedom. Isn’t it strange that we all cry for freedom and person autonomy, yet we send our children to state run schools that have a state approved curriculum administered by state approved teachers? Even those of us who do not do that must usually be “state approved” in some way. How odd that a people who value personal autonomy allow their sons and daughters to be shaped for years by the state? Clark understood that we all serve someone.

Second, here is why many forms of libertarianism are modern through and through . Supreme value is placed on personal autonomy.

Third, here is one of the roots of post modern relativism. Who are you to restrict my freedom, especially in moral areas? Who are you to tell to me what I can and cannot do? This flows easily from the first principle of equality. If all men are to be treated equally then they should have freedom to do as they please. Restriction, for the modern, equals inferiority. So if you take away my personal freedoms you are not treating me as a equal.

Fourth, freedom for the Christian is always freedom from sin, never freedom to be whoever we want to be. A Christian teacher who says that Christ came to set you free must carefully explain what he means. The modern mind naturally drifts towards freedom meaning “no restrictions on my life.”

Fifth, in the Christian life subordination is part of our freedom in Christ. A Christian wife is not enslaved to her marriage or her husband. She is free. The modern mind has a hard time grasping this. But Ephesians 5 is particularly strong in this area. Freedom means freedom to obey. Slaves are free to obey. Wives are free to submit. Children are free to obey. Freedom does not mean I escape from obligations and responsibilities to God’s Word.

Stephen Clark lists five guiding principles of modern thought. The list was written over 35 years ago. Looking back one can see that Clark may not have been a prophet, but he was correct. How did we get to a place where sodomite marriage is fine, abortion is fine, women go into combat, and the rejection of one’s God given status as a man or a woman is a right? This list gives you the blocks that build the modern mind.

The Principle of Equality
The Principle of Freedom
The Principle of Developing Full Potential 
The Principle of Authenticity
The Principle of Being a “Full-Person”

Clark is not a fan of these five principles Here is how he closes the section:

These five ethical principles exert a powerful influence over Christian discussions of men’s and women’s roles. Yet none of them are intrinsically Christian principles and none of them derive from a Christian ethical system.

The Principle of Equality-This principle states that all individuals should be treated identically, except for differences in ability or interest…Sometimes the principle of equality is phrased as an attack on anything that would make one person be regarded as ‘inferior’ to another. This principle militates against social roles ascribed according to age and sex and also against personal subordination.

Scripture also teaches a principle of equality, but it is a principle of equal care for all members of the body. The scriptural principle is compatible with social roles and personal authority. It is not based on the individualizing of people for a functional society, but is instead based upon a communal life and personal relationships.”

The idea in the modern principle of equality is that no one should be made to feel inferior to anyone else in any area. People may choose different jobs, roles, etc. but that is simply choices they are making. No one is superior to anyone else.  We just make different choices.  Even Clark’s idea that people are treated differently based on “ability” has fallen by the wayside in many places. There are several things to note about this principle:

First, equality as defined by moderns naturally leads to sodomy, transgenderism, and the rejection of male/female roles, among other things. All “roles” become choices we make based on what we enjoy and like, not based on any inherent, built in standard. So a person might be fine with my wife bearing children, but they would not be fine with me saying, “Having children is the normal, God-ordained, path for women.” A person might be fine with men leading my church, but they would be upset with me saying, “Men must lead the church.” Each person is equal and what they end up doing is based in the individual’s choice, not in any divine law. It also means we can move in and out of “roles.”

Second, modern equality means you forcefully eradicate anything that makes one person “inferior” to another. The goal is to destroy all positions of authority or empty them of their power.  Egalitarianism is militant.  It is not content to let others believe in hierarchy while it rejects it. For a while, it pretended to get along, but the goal has always been to drive out by force anything that smacks of inequality. We cannot all just get along. Egalitarians know this better than many conservative Christians.

Third, a plain reading of Scripture beginning in Genesis 1 shows how unbiblical modern equality is. A plain reading of nature shows how unnatural it is. Hierarchy in every area of life is inescapable. The question is will the superiors be held to a standard of righteousness or not. But if you say all men are equal in all ways then you end with no one having any obligations or duties to anyone else. After all, we are equals. Therefore I owe you neither the honor due a superior nor the kindness due an inferior.

Fourth, there is an equality in Scripture, but that equality does not eradicate power, authority, hierarchy, male/female roles, etc.  Just because all men are saved the same way, by faith in Jesus Christ and all humans are made in the image of God does not make all men and women androgynous, equal in wealth, power, authority, background, knowledge, age, and experience.