Talk:Christian egalitarianism

Regarding NPOV

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)

Gender equality in Christian church leadership

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 statement to which you referred is a statement of the beliefs of this view. Since it was unclear to you, I have added "According to Christian Egalitarianism...." Thanks for being observant. Afaprof01 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

History Section has POV Issues and Lacks Citations

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)

Scope melding

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)

Yes, I agree, as I am of the view that egalitarianism is not the contrary of complementarianism, and that sola scriptura can be inappropriate when discussing Church-related anthropology. ADM (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Complementarianism

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)

Or maybe I'm confusing Complementarianism with the complementariness message of 1Cor12. (My priests are 50% women). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon stupid me! Now I read: "An alternative view...". Nice article, guys! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support - uncontroversial In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Christian egalitarianism and politics

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)

I don't understand the links to refer to. The first doesn't mention egalitarianism; the second doesn't seem to be talking about this topic at all. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First link: "But when we use the phrases 'Social Justice', 'Economic justice or Liberation Theology' in certain Christian activist circles, we mean political or economic egalitarianism or even revolutionary activities calculated to oust the established government in order to put such egalitarianism into place.". And the statement that egalitarianism is a moral doctrine is still unsourced and is contrary to the sources that I added, wich are the same sources used here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. For some reason, it didn't come up in my search. The point is, this article is not about economic justice or liberation theology (though there are certainly some connections with social justice) - rather, it is about a particular form of egalitarianism, that is essentially apolitical. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

From this very article:

"They believe that the Bible teaches the fundamental equality of believers of all racial and ethnic groups and all economic classes."

"The term 'Christian egalitarianism' was in 1979 in an article in the journal 'Theology Today.'[13] The first organization whose purpose was advocating Christian egalitarianism"

"We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society."

"We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society". Rupert Loup (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy, though, if we dropped the word "moral": a Christian form of egalitarianism. The scope of the article might need to be reviewed, though. The lead refers to all sorts of equality, but really the article is about gender equality, and indeed the specific movement that is opposed to complementarianism. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 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)

@Serialjoepsycho: The sources of my edits say that egalitarianism is political doctrine or social philosophy. There are not sources here that says that is a moral doctrine. The article talks about both the political and apolitical aspects. The religious aspect relies too much in the Bible as a source, which is primary. And the article talks about the Christians for Biblical Equality, which is an advocacy organization, and its interpretation. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As it is also talks about the political aspect I think that it shoud have the "Religion and Politics" navbox. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes the two sources you provide above do seem to suggest it's a political doctrine. The bible wouldn't be a primary source for Christian Egalitarianism. It may be a source from which they derive their views but it wouldn't be a source for Wikipedia purposes. There should be a source where that explains how the bible is connected to Christian egalitarianism. But anyway, I digress. You can be both political and apolitical. Some points of politics may be necessary in Christian egalitarianism. Pretty much if they are political and you have a source your change is justifiable. Anyway if it's political you should probably have it discussed in the article before there's navbox. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Loup Can you please re-state the request you are making in this RFC and add links? It will make it easier for other editors to provide input. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the rfc is needed right now. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Religion and politics template

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. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Contribution Summary for Christian egalitarianism

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)

I'm placing the finishing touches on the draft in my sandbox, and the contribution should go up in the article some time this week. Ideally, I will be adding more sources to corroborate Ruether's work, but with the limited dialogue on the topic, I'm not sure I will be able to find any more than what I currently have. I welcome any suggestions on sources or where to look for them. I also welcome any and all feedback! WordBender22 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at your sandbox, and it looks pretty good. The main thing is that you've written in a neutral tone. So well done! The only issue that I can see is that adding so much of Ruether's work might be undue weight in this article. StAnselm (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for your feedback, StAnselm! I was also hesitant to rely so much Ruether's work for this contribution, but I haven't had much success finding reliable related sources to broaden my evidence base. If you have any recommendations for sources, I would love to hear them. WordBender22 (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition: Gender, race, class, religon and "any other differences"

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)

Major works: quality of sources, original work, expansion of history and criticism sections

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:

1. Quality of sources: some references in the lead section, gender equality section and biblical justifications section are quite low quality. They refer to blog posts and outdated/archived web pages. The claims that are supported by these references are not verifiable. Furthermore, there are lots of references to materials of Christians of Biblical Equality, which should be supplemented with other credible sources.
2. Original work: The gender equality section and biblical justifications section contain some original work with claims that are not supported by reliable sources. Also, someone already tagged the article as using religious texts without secondary sources. That tag is justified, looking at the contents of those sections.
3. Expansion of history and criticism: I've already started expanding the criticism section, but I think we can expand it a bit further. For example, we can look to church denominations that do not support Christian egalitarism. The history section is too short to be a level 1 sub-heading. I think that could also use some expansion.

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)

Reliable source

@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)

@Tgeorgescu: thank you for your explanation. When removing content, please write a clear edit summary, as simply tagging WP:SPS is not enough. Such edits are quick to be detected by anti-vandalism tools and provide too little information for others. Furthermore, your change has been reverted, so you should discuss this issue on the talk page (WP:CYCLE) before making the change again. Otherwise, you might end up in WP:EDITWAR. Considering your comprehensive explanation (and ignoring the heavy language in it), I'm inclined to agree with you that mentioning GotQuestions might not comply with WP:SPS, so I'll consider the current version to be status quo. Thanks for your contribution. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2600:6C5E:517F:C00:9CCA:6891:956E:22E4 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)