Talk:Christian egalitarianism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gender equality in Christian church leadership

message: 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)
thread_title: History Section has POV Issues and Lacks Citations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scope melding 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion and politics template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contribution Summary for [[Christian egalitarianism]] 

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

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Major works: quality of sources, original work, expansion of history and criticism sections  

message: you're violating a guideline, gotquestions isn't WP:RS and should not be used.
... and, it wasn't . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable source