|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Gender Studies|
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. 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199 (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.
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.
- 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)
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)