Talk:Women in Christianity/Archive 2

message: There is considerable duplication between this article and  Christian feminism and this article: Christian views of about women. With the term Christian egalitarianism gaining more positive acceptance, particularly in the Christian community, than a phrase containing "feminism," I propose a merger of this article  Christian feminism into the Christian views of about women article. Comments please. CME GBM 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not certain, but I think Christian views of women simply redirects to Christian views about women. I don't think they're two separate articles. Pschelden 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're absolutely right. What I intended to suggest is a merger of Christian feminism into Christian views about women. Sorry for the unintended ambiguity. (Whew! it must have been late at night when I did that!) And yes, the "Christian views of" article simply redirects to the "Christian views about" article.CME GBM 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Pschelden 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't agree. I believe that alot of this could be merged into Christian feminism, but this article should give discuss to all the views. And not as it seems now, discuss only one point of view for the most point and a couple side notes. Also, Christian feminism is probably different then egalitarianism in some cases. (KVD) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.9.163 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger of Christian feminism into this article 

message: Since this section has been changed back and forth a few times now, I thought it might help to bring it onto the Talk Page to discuss our respective problems with one-another's revisions. Here's the version I don't like:
:: Luke 13:10–17 illustrates what Jesus more than any other has done for woman. He saw woman bent over and unable to stand erect. He freed her from her infirmity, enabling her to stand up straight. Beyond the miracle of physical restoration, Jesus enabled woman to stand up with a proper sense of dignity, freedom, and worth. It is striking that Jesus referred to this woman as "a daughter of Abraham" (v. 16). Elsewhere in the New Testament we hear of "children of Abraham" (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, John 8:39), "seed of Abraham" (John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29) and "sons of Abraham" {John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29). This is the only place in the New Testament that we hear of "a daughter of Abraham." Jesus spoke of her as though she belonged to the family of Abraham just as much as did the sons of Abraham. To the dismay of the religious leaders, he healed her on the Sabbath day, giving her priority over the laws of the Sabbath and over his own security. To Jesus, the person, whether God or a human being, always was took priority over things and even religion itself. A woman was a person, that first. Jesus the "Liberator" said to this crippled woman, "Woman, you are released from your infirmity!" (v. 12).
Most of the language here fails to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. For instance, the first word, "illustrates," shouldn't be included, as one ought to stick with variations of the verb "said," or "wrote," rather than potentially value-laden terms such as "illustrates." This is standard journalistic practice. It makes the tone of the article more neutral. A bold claim like this: "illustrates what Jesus more than any other has done for woman" has no place in an encyclopedia article. At best, such a sentiment could be recorded by including a direct reference to an outside source, but the more I look at this, the less I believe that's useful or necessary.
There is no reason to include the overly long phrase "He freed her from her infirmity, enabling her to stand up straight." All this passage needs are the simple facts: "He healed her, and she could stand." Or something equally simple. Likewise, a phrase like Jesus enabled woman "to stand up with a proper sense of dignity, freedom, and worth" have no correlate in the actual words of the Bible. That means the claim is pure speculation (No matter how authoritative the speculator). If this stands, it contradicts the Neutral Point of View policy.
I see some use for a simple inclusion of the phrase "daughter of Abraham" with a short, simple explanation of its possible significance. But beyond that, a link should be created to an article on the subject, because a segment this long detracts from the central issue of this article.
Here's the version I changed it to, which apparently others don't like:
::  says Jesus saw a physically disabled woman who was unable to stand erect, and healed her, saying, "Woman, you are released from your infirmity!".
:: Stagg interprets this act of physical healing as a self-esteem builder as well for the woman.
I tried to maintain as much of the original's sentiment as I possibly could while remaining within the style guidelines. At this point, I would strike the phrases about Stagg's interpretation (as they do not conform to the neutrality standard), and simply leave the facts of the citation. This should be a simple, neutral recounting of the circumstances--something like,
:: "As Jesus preached in a synagogue on the Sabbath, a crippled woman met him. He healed her so that she could stand up straight. The synagogue leader condemned the act for occurring on the Sabbath. Jesus rebuked the leader, calling him a hypocrite."
What are your thoughts? Pschelden 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to this article, but find it very interesting. This is a major issue in Christianity, and am so glad so many have thought it worthwhile to contribute to it. I can see that it needs cleanup and citations. I ask more people to give some time to help with this article. I cannot imagine it was ever a thought to eliminate it! Concerning reverts, it looks to me that User:Pschelden is very skilled at picking up certain subtleties. However, when the whole article is about to sink without a trace, I recommend spending more effort on getting the rest of the article at least as far as the Jesus/Women section has come. User:Afaprof01 has a good "pulse" on the real issues, and too much of her/his work has been removed. I agree that this user needs to write more succinctly and avoid POV sounds and write more encyclopedic. As to the citations, I think they are there. If so many sentences had the same citation on them, as a user I would have been frustrated. One citation per pargraph is sufficient, unless the source changes. Why should we be so OVERcritical on this section of this article, when so much of the remainder of the article has no sources at all?
Regarding merge from feminism. I see the duplication, but there's a "tone" to that article that I wouldn't want to see/hear in this one. If the merge proceeds, please make sure it doesn't negatively color this one. I don't like the term, and it raises a red flag with the majority of people today (in my opinion).Thank you. Oberlin 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: (11) But let all who take refuge in you be glad; let them ever sing for joy. Spread your protection over them, that those who love your name may rejoice in you. (12) For surely, O LORD, you bless the righteous; you surround them with your favor as with a shield.
Nothing in there about a "mother hen with wide, safe wings outstretched for her young".
Perhaps another version?
(11) But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. (12) For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.
Still nothing.
(11) But let all who take refuge in You be glad, Let them ever sing for joy; And may You shelter them, That those who love Your name may exult in You. (12) For it is You who blesses the righteous man, O LORD, You surround him with favor as with a shield.
Shields, not wings. Clutching at straws, methinks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.193.234 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psalm 5:11-12 

message: by [Anonymous] 18 September 2007
This entire section needs to be deleted because its' sole source of information is from Skaggs. Hand picked by the editor to direct the reader to a particular point of view. Let this be moved to an article concerning the skaggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire section about Jesus interactions with women needs to be removed 

message: The attitudes and examples of Jesus are extremely important. Who could better demonstrate and teach what the CHRISTian attitudes toward women SHOULD be than the record of Jesus' interactions with women? At the time of Christ, a rabbi would not even recognize a woman in public – not even his own wife. One of the blessings assigned to men in the synagogue service said, "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast not made me a woman." In Hebrew law at the time of Christ, women were not considered competent witnesses, either in civil or criminal cases. And there is much more. Christians are part of the church Jesus founded, and which, from the first, has struggled to understand him and to follow him. Jesus' desire to preserve the intention of the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) is clear in . Jesus' intention to correct his heritage is also explicit in the "six antitheses" of  – "You have heard it said...but I say to you...."
The attitudes and examples of Jesus are the model for Christian Views about Woman. Afaprof01 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How come you stay anonymous? It's cowardly for you to be SO negative and critical, and come across like you have all the answers, but don't even register with Wikipedia? I just looked at the history, and read your additions and changes to the article. They are anything BUT scholarly, and don't even follow rules of common grammar. Look at the extended history of this article. It's been in development for years! MANY people have contributed, and most of them seem to have tried their best. They were willing to truly research the issues and cite their sources. If you object to an approach, you should find a credible and noteworthy source, and present it as another view and leave what's there alone. This article is designed to present the two main approaches: Complementarian and Egalitarian. They are very different from each other, and that's OK. But their editors don't rudely criticize others' efforts as being "erroneous exposition and garbage." Your comments in Discussion are very negative, critical, sound angry, and shallow. What ever happened to tact and kindness? What does it profit you if you somehow got all your interpretations correct, but lost your readers (or congregation) in the process by being so rude? CME GBM 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire section about Jesus interactions with women needs to stay 

message: When I study a passage of scripture I always do with the attitude. What is the author saying? What is the thought that the author is trying to convey and how do I apply that to myself and to the 21st century church? Is the application specific to the circumstances or does it have a more universal application. This is known as the inductive study method of interpreting scripture. There are others however who "mine" the scriptures for supporting text for their point of view. Trying to bend the scriptures to conform to a western 20th century mind set is another type of syncretism which the church has been fighting against since Christ began his public ministry. If you are going to understand scripture you must shed all of the "programming" you have received since birth and develop an eastern mind set and interpret the scriptures from a perspective wherein they were written and received. The vast vast majority of christians fail to do this.
Now, regarding Phoebe and her deaconate. If the context of Romans 16:1-2 implied or rather strongly implied or rather conclusively proved that Phoebe held the "office" of a deacon or deaconess then I would be the first to add it to my list of dogmas (which is very few in number). Albeit, although it is not conclusive I do at this time in the development of my theology believe that Phoebe may have held the "office" of a deacon. However, I must also consider not only the immediate context of Romans 16:1-2 but, within the entire context of the New Testament and in particular the requirements Paul set forth to Timothy for those who would be appointed to the "office" of a deacon.
Regarding the word: "prostatis" strongs # 4368. Although the strongs definition is a)A woman set over others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HONEST? So now anybody that you don't agree with is not honest and therefore you imply they are lying? In case you haven't noticed, this article has two sections for two opposing view of this very emotional but important topic: # 7 Biblical interpretations supporting equality for men and women, and # 8 Biblical interpretations supporting unequal roles for women and men. That's very honest! CME GBM 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a real first: an editor who claims to have "all the answers." I think the mental health profession labels that "delusions of grandeur." There is not one single citation in this article that references the New Living Translation. Perhaps this editor also sees things that aren't there. Sorry, I foolishly thought there was rationality and sincerity in the above expressions of concern, but I was terribly wrong. I choose not to respond any further to User:75.132.95.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CME GBM (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You are being uncivil, anon. Knock it off. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't you just be honest ? 

message: It has amazed me how some editors will scratch and claw in the dirt to find the most "scant" evidence to pervert the simplicity of the biblical text. This article was and to a great extent yet is, totally corrupted by feminists wishing to hoist their point of view upon the readers of this article. Back, back, back where you belong. A man of God is here and the game is over. Now, sit down at the rabbis feet. Keep silent, listen and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not encouraged by the arrogance inherent in your comment there. Wikipedia is a collective effort, and we are to work together. You do not get to own the article because you say you are more godly than the editors who have previously edited here. Neutrality (particularly in religion articles such as this one) is not presenting the "correct" point of view, but in showing all significant ones, so that readers can see multiple sides of the issues. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of Sept. 21,07 @ 10:48 pm. cst this article is vastly more neutral 

message: A few days ago I tagged this article questioning its' neutrality. Today however in its' current composition I am moving towards removing the neutrality tag. It is disappointing however how the entire article is dedicated to the polarizing subject of womens authority vs. womens subjugation. There is so much about christian women that can be spoken about in between the two positions. For example. A few days ago I was in my back yard reading while my seven year old son was at play on the swing. Two women from church came walking through my yard toward me and greeted me. "Hello Mr. Pepper" They said. They came looking for my son Nicholas. They had a bag with them decorated, with candy, little toys and sunday school lessons inside. I listened to them talking about how they missed Nick But, what they didn't probably realize is that I was in aww of the beauty of God that was upon them. How beautiful were these godly women who were looking for the little sheep that had not been to sunday school lately. We spoke for a few minutes and when Nick had looked inside his bag they had prepared he told them thank you and at that time they were preparing to depart. As I watched them walk away my heart could not keep from worshiping God. In fact, there are many women I have seen when I peek into a sunday school class or go to the nursing home ministry and see the handmaids of the Lord ministering to the old people that I feel nothing short of veneration for these women. But alas, there are those among us who want to be heard ! They want to be seen and have the preeminence. They demand a platform, a congregation and the opportunity to influence the thoughts of others. How hideous is it that some such as Joyce Meyer act more like a circus side show barker than how the scriptures portray a woman of God. I wonder what would have happened to poor little Timothy if his mother and grandmother were too busy trying to fight their way to the bishopric of the church at Lystra to spend time with him teaching him the scriptures?
"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." 1 cor. 12:23
Dear editor, could you please add the following information at the end of the paragraph discussing junia which is located here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_about_women#Biblical_interpretations_supporting_equality_for_men_and_women
This is an important guestion as to establishing whether there was ever a woman apostle named in the biblical text and was deleted by an editor without explanation. Thank you.
The phrase "noteworthy among the apostles" has its' variants in interpretation as well. Does the phrase mean a) He/She was indeed an apostle or b) that the service rendered to the gospel was "well known" among the apostles. 
: As long as this page is protected, it isn't appropriate for admins to add content like this. Please discuss the issues with other editors and find consensus to have the page unprotected. Then you will be able to edit the article normally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: Seeing a request to look into this article on the WikiProject Christianity talk page, I've decided to see what I can do to contribute here. After looking at the article and some of the more recent talk page comments, I have a few suggestions on what we should do once the article is available for editing again.
# Christian views about women#Some characteristics of a Godly woman This section should probably go. It's not very NPOV. A section on "Christian expectations of women" might be more acceptable as a section looking at what is expected under some of the major traditions.
I will have to disagree with you on this. The foundation for any christian view about women is going to be the sriptures themselves and the scriptures are either going to give us specific characteristics or they will have to be extracted from the charaters within the scriptures themselves. "What would be expected of women" would be a secondary or third source that should but not always may, draw from the foundation source. Regarding "not very npov" You will note, there is no exposition added this is the "raw" text. The heading is open for anyone to add additional scriptures or reliable third party sources. --A B Pepper 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's subject is "Christian views about women," not "Biblical views of women." You are adding POV by bolding sections of the text, as well. The article's focus should be on how the text has been used and interpreted by Christians in regard to women's roles, not the text itself. A section on some of the modern movements to define a "Godly woman" would be quite acceptable, but attempting to define that here is not. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We already are examining views from the first century in the Christian views about women#Women's roles in the early Christian Church section. That section is much more in line with a good encyclopedia article, and should be expanded upon. As I've stated before: This is not a Bible study. Quoting large amounts of source text is simply not appropriate. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a bible study: it's an encyclopedia article. The subject is "Christian views about women," not every woman in the New Testament. No connection is made to how this explains the article subject, nor is the source reliable by Wikipedia standards. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The NLT/TNIV version seems acceptable to me. They probably used the Septuagint to determine if the Hebrew was generally interpreted as "man" or "human beings" in the early church. Since it uses "ανθρωπον," that's probably what Afapro01 was referring to previously . That's beside the point at the moment, though. NRSV is probably the most widely accepted translation from a scholarly standpoint, so I recommend we use that one, but sparingly, as quoting large amounts of scripture is not the purpose of this article. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was simply responding to your comments, as you apparently were not aware of how the Septuagint is sometimes used in Biblical exegesis and translation. If you were thinking about my early responses on this page to some of your comments made anonymously, I will defend any of my fellow editors from incivility if I feel it is necessary. Attempting to mock me will change nothing, except to dig yourself deeper into a hole, so I suggest you rethink that strategy. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't relevant to the article. I'm taking it to user talk. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like good ideas. I definitely agree we should avoid heavily quoting scripture, as the article does now. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to fix? 

message: An historically male dominated ministry in the church has always been the cutting of the church lawn and very few women have ever been able to gain a foot hold in this ministry. It is time sisters to demand the keys to the lawn tractor and show the men how good a job you could do if they would only allow it. Your God given rights and gifts according to the scriptures where there is neither male or female has been denied long enough !....--A B Pepper 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An historically male dominated ministry 

message: Certain mainline denominations have ordained women and many of which are lesibians. This needs its' own heading and I will begin gathering reliable resources to represent it....--A B Pepper 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you think you are making a point, or trying to draw out opponents in some way. I would recommend against following through on it, if that is your plan, as disrupting Wikipedia in an attempt to make a point is a bad idea. Sexual issues such as lesbianism would not fit within the scope of this article anyway. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It all comes from policy Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a section about lesbians and lesbians in the ministry