![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of this article seems to be written from a POV that argues for Christian Egalitarianism, rather than simply explaining what it is. The NPOV policy states that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.
Many unsubstantiated statements are also made, such as "Some of the same logic that was used by the church to justify slavery and segregation on the basis of scripture is still being used today to justify discrimination against women, particularly in marriage and in the church" in the History section. 203.129.47.66 07:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this it sounds like an argument for Christian egalitarianism and for the support of the fact that the bible teaches this view. There are countless other ways in which the bible teaches the exact opposite of this. The argument should either tell both sides or refrain from supporting this POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.244.23.239 ( talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The statement "Gender equality in Christian church leadership (including pastors) and in Christian marriage is biblically sound" should be removed or altered. The biblical soundness of any given doctrine is dependant on interpretation. The sentence as written endorses one mutually-exclusive interpretation and as such must be regarded as badly POV. I do not wish to execute this decision without the discussion of the group. What say you all? Tallil2long@Yahoo.com
The History section reads more like an argument than like an encyclopedia entry. The paragraph on slavery is of questionable relevance. The paragraph after that offers no citations at all, but only opinions about the treatment of women in Christianity. The language regarding "unequal treatment of humans" at the top of the section is also POV, as it strongly implies that a complementarian view involves such treatment. I think a History section in this article is appropriate, but I don't think this section really covers that history. I'm not sure how or if it should be cleaned up, so I propose to delete it.
SCBC ( talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Christian Egalitarianism is rightly defined in the opening section of this page as the idea that everyone is created equal in the sight of God. The rest of this article co-ops this idea and melds it into an intramural gender role dispute. It takes a larger concept, applies it in the scope of a smaller concept, and then redefines the larger concept as the smaller concept. The issue of gender disputes, and the contrasting "complimentarianism", should be properly scoped as a subsection in this article.
-- 151.191.175.233 ( talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The complementarianism is not necessarily an opposing view against Christian egalitarianism. I don't know how often it is used as such, but in my church context the priests are using egalitarianism alongside complementarianism with no conflict. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Christian Egalitarianism →
Christian egalitarianism –
Seems just like Christian charity to me. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes with sources that where reverted. Egalitarianism is not a moral doctrine, where are the sources for such statement? Also it should be added in the article about the Christian egalitarian activism. [1] [2] Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a very well structured RFC. There's a question of if this is a moral doctrine. It is unsourced. It should then be sourced or changed accordingly. There seems to be some question whether it's political or apolitical. What do the sources say? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of Template:Religion and politics. As the lead says, this article is about the Christian form of the moral doctrine, not the political one. St Anselm ( talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This contribution references works by Rosemary Radford Ruether, a feminist theologian, and Ronald E. Heine, a doctor of Biblical and Christian studies. Its purpose is to explore egalitarian anthropologies; in doing so, the article gains connections between present egalitarian beliefs and the ideas that it is derived from. Readers will gain an understanding of the ideas that shaped egalitarianism over the years. The content of the contribution is under three subheadings: eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism- Ruether's divisions of the egalitarian anthropologies. Eschatological feminism describes a view of women as equal to men in a transcendent state that Christians reach through salvation. Liberal feminism describes a view of gender equality needing to be restored through social reformation. Romantic feminism has 3 branches, conservative, reformist, and radical romanticism. Each of these claim that women are innately morally superior to men, but differ in that their prescriptions for women are different. To see more of my research on the topic, feel free to visit the draft in my sandbox and ask any questions or make suggestions. WordBender22 ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The definition of egalitarianism given in the lede is very broad, but the rest of the article seems to cover only the question of gender.
With such a broad definition, it might be unfair to refer to complementarianism as opposing egalitarianism, if not to construe the position as racist. I can see the point of a broad definition, but while there wouldn't be any theological movement claiming that race or class is relevant to ministry, the gender issue is divisive for Christianity.
Perhaps there is a need for an article strictly about Christian gender egalitarianism, to specifically present the opposite case to complementarianism? In any case, we'll have to carefully nuance the definition and relationship to complementarianism. St.nerol ( talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
For some time I've had this article on my to-do list to work on. After initial vetting, I've found some major issues that need to be worked on:
Based on these findings, I would propose to rewrite the lead, the sections gender equality, biblical justifications, history and criticism. I'll be working on that soon, but feel free to contribute and/or discuss. Pyrite Pro ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Pyrite Pro: you're violating a guideline, gotquestions isn't WP:RS and should not be used.
... and, it wasn't unexplained
. The explanation was
WP:SPS, you might want to read it.
Gotquestions is not affiliated with a church, so they represent no church, they speak for no church, they speak for nobody in particular. So it even fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
It is a self-published site written by a bunch of amateurs. Where did they got their PhD, ThD, or DD? In a box of crackerjacks?
Rumor has it that they are Baptists. But they claim no formal affiliation with the Baptist Church, so they may not speak on behalf the Baptist Church. They cannot be WP:CITED for the viewpoints of the Baptist Church, since they don't have the credentials of publicly representing it.
Press statements by Ed Litton may be quoted to WP:Verify the POVs of the Baptist Church, but gotquestions is useless as a source for Wikipedia.
What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations.
And, correct me if I am wrong, gotquestions are a bunch of anonymous amateur theologians. That completely fails the WP:RS guideline. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2600:6C5E:517F:C00:9CCA:6891:956E:22E4 ( talk) 23:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of this article seems to be written from a POV that argues for Christian Egalitarianism, rather than simply explaining what it is. The NPOV policy states that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.
Many unsubstantiated statements are also made, such as "Some of the same logic that was used by the church to justify slavery and segregation on the basis of scripture is still being used today to justify discrimination against women, particularly in marriage and in the church" in the History section. 203.129.47.66 07:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this it sounds like an argument for Christian egalitarianism and for the support of the fact that the bible teaches this view. There are countless other ways in which the bible teaches the exact opposite of this. The argument should either tell both sides or refrain from supporting this POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.244.23.239 ( talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The statement "Gender equality in Christian church leadership (including pastors) and in Christian marriage is biblically sound" should be removed or altered. The biblical soundness of any given doctrine is dependant on interpretation. The sentence as written endorses one mutually-exclusive interpretation and as such must be regarded as badly POV. I do not wish to execute this decision without the discussion of the group. What say you all? Tallil2long@Yahoo.com
The History section reads more like an argument than like an encyclopedia entry. The paragraph on slavery is of questionable relevance. The paragraph after that offers no citations at all, but only opinions about the treatment of women in Christianity. The language regarding "unequal treatment of humans" at the top of the section is also POV, as it strongly implies that a complementarian view involves such treatment. I think a History section in this article is appropriate, but I don't think this section really covers that history. I'm not sure how or if it should be cleaned up, so I propose to delete it.
SCBC ( talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Christian Egalitarianism is rightly defined in the opening section of this page as the idea that everyone is created equal in the sight of God. The rest of this article co-ops this idea and melds it into an intramural gender role dispute. It takes a larger concept, applies it in the scope of a smaller concept, and then redefines the larger concept as the smaller concept. The issue of gender disputes, and the contrasting "complimentarianism", should be properly scoped as a subsection in this article.
-- 151.191.175.233 ( talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The complementarianism is not necessarily an opposing view against Christian egalitarianism. I don't know how often it is used as such, but in my church context the priests are using egalitarianism alongside complementarianism with no conflict. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Christian Egalitarianism →
Christian egalitarianism –
Seems just like Christian charity to me. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I made some changes with sources that where reverted. Egalitarianism is not a moral doctrine, where are the sources for such statement? Also it should be added in the article about the Christian egalitarian activism. [1] [2] Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a very well structured RFC. There's a question of if this is a moral doctrine. It is unsourced. It should then be sourced or changed accordingly. There seems to be some question whether it's political or apolitical. What do the sources say? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of Template:Religion and politics. As the lead says, this article is about the Christian form of the moral doctrine, not the political one. St Anselm ( talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This contribution references works by Rosemary Radford Ruether, a feminist theologian, and Ronald E. Heine, a doctor of Biblical and Christian studies. Its purpose is to explore egalitarian anthropologies; in doing so, the article gains connections between present egalitarian beliefs and the ideas that it is derived from. Readers will gain an understanding of the ideas that shaped egalitarianism over the years. The content of the contribution is under three subheadings: eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism- Ruether's divisions of the egalitarian anthropologies. Eschatological feminism describes a view of women as equal to men in a transcendent state that Christians reach through salvation. Liberal feminism describes a view of gender equality needing to be restored through social reformation. Romantic feminism has 3 branches, conservative, reformist, and radical romanticism. Each of these claim that women are innately morally superior to men, but differ in that their prescriptions for women are different. To see more of my research on the topic, feel free to visit the draft in my sandbox and ask any questions or make suggestions. WordBender22 ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The definition of egalitarianism given in the lede is very broad, but the rest of the article seems to cover only the question of gender.
With such a broad definition, it might be unfair to refer to complementarianism as opposing egalitarianism, if not to construe the position as racist. I can see the point of a broad definition, but while there wouldn't be any theological movement claiming that race or class is relevant to ministry, the gender issue is divisive for Christianity.
Perhaps there is a need for an article strictly about Christian gender egalitarianism, to specifically present the opposite case to complementarianism? In any case, we'll have to carefully nuance the definition and relationship to complementarianism. St.nerol ( talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
For some time I've had this article on my to-do list to work on. After initial vetting, I've found some major issues that need to be worked on:
Based on these findings, I would propose to rewrite the lead, the sections gender equality, biblical justifications, history and criticism. I'll be working on that soon, but feel free to contribute and/or discuss. Pyrite Pro ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Pyrite Pro: you're violating a guideline, gotquestions isn't WP:RS and should not be used.
... and, it wasn't unexplained
. The explanation was
WP:SPS, you might want to read it.
Gotquestions is not affiliated with a church, so they represent no church, they speak for no church, they speak for nobody in particular. So it even fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
It is a self-published site written by a bunch of amateurs. Where did they got their PhD, ThD, or DD? In a box of crackerjacks?
Rumor has it that they are Baptists. But they claim no formal affiliation with the Baptist Church, so they may not speak on behalf the Baptist Church. They cannot be WP:CITED for the viewpoints of the Baptist Church, since they don't have the credentials of publicly representing it.
Press statements by Ed Litton may be quoted to WP:Verify the POVs of the Baptist Church, but gotquestions is useless as a source for Wikipedia.
What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations.
And, correct me if I am wrong, gotquestions are a bunch of anonymous amateur theologians. That completely fails the WP:RS guideline. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2600:6C5E:517F:C00:9CCA:6891:956E:22E4 ( talk) 23:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)