Talk:Women in Christianity/Archive 1

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.

Request for comments

This is all "Christians think women are inferior/property". Does anyone think they can NPOV it, or that the subject is cohesive enough for a single article? Vicki Rosenzweig 21:06, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good grief this bad. I don't think you can cover what the title suggests needs to be covered in this article. I think some of it can be moved to something like Biblical references to the treatment of women where facts and not value judgments can be placed. Then, the subject of modern Christian views of women can be inserted in many articles that describe each denomination or movement within Christianity. There are about a zillion and you can't lump their views into a single encompassing article.Ark30inf 21:14, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought it was primarily Muslims, Hindus and East Asians who thought women are inferior to men, or that they might be considered "property". It hadn't occured to me that there were any Christians left who still thought that way, particularly in post-feminist America (at least, not living on the "Upper West Side" of Manhattan). I'll take a look, but I don't promise quick results. --Uncle Ed 21:33, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In my old church the women ruled with an iron hand. I'm not sure you are going to be able to encompass all the different "Christian views of women" in an article less than 500 pages long. Good luck.Ark30inf 21:36, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson, another UTS professor, writes: "The equality of all persons, male and female, rich and poor, of any race, class, or caste, is proclaimed in the scriptures of all faiths. This is true despite the conventions of many cultures that discriminate between people on the basis of caste, or class, or race, or sex. Regrettably, such discrimination is also on occasion supported by certain conventional interpretations of passages from sacred texts." [1]

Ed, the article header says Christianity, in all its variations, relies on the Bible as a guide. Therefore, the Biblical perspective of women is the Christian perspective of women. The following quotations are from the Bible. and does not indicate that there are many differing interpretations of the verses listed which leaves the reader to assume a default interpretation. For example, the interpretation of the verse about submitting to the authority of the man is also influenced by So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.. Some churches are hardline and lean toward the supremacy of the former while some churches think that you cannot view the verses as being separated at all. Some caveat about the varied interpretations of these verses and the vast differences in Christian practice needs to be included if the article is going to remain under a single title. I just wonder if the article is about actual Christian practice or hardline interpretation. Thanks Ark30inf 21:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian nor particulary prone to agreeing with Christian views, and even I see this article as horribly biased. This is a selection of snippets from the bible that 'prove' that it has an anti-woman bias; however, the bible is way too self-contradictory for those to be the ONLY views stated in the entire work. Plus, most modern Christians do not believe all of the old testament to be binding, I believe. To be even remotely NPOV this article needs a representative sample of biblical quotes, not a specially selected bunch; and it needs explanation, with quotes by preference, as to what the beliefs of modern Christians are. Which are, of course, highly varied. --Morven 22:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lets make Old Testamentical views of women and New Testamentical views of women because they are smaller topics -> more detail -> less room for POV -> better articles. Then Biblical views of women and then there is still way way way way way much more to cover before Christian views of women can be a good article. IMHO BL 22:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I can dig that. But I would say Modern Christian views of women rather than Biblical views of women which would have been covered in the other two. Or as an alternative, the modern views could be included in the various articles about the denominations.Ark30inf 22:33, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ark, about the Biblical perspective -- In more than 30 years of dealing with Christian evangelists, I've found nothing more common than this: the assumption that what the individual evangelist is trying to convince me of is not his church's interpretation of the Bible but what the Bible says. These guys are too stubborn and/or ignorant to concede that they are interpreting the Bible, which really used to piss me off. Nowadays, I take it in stride (usually), but I had many a lively debate in my youth, let me tell you!

That's one reason I like Wikipedia so much. It's a given that whatever you or I think is our "POV" and no one can get away with palming off their own ideas as common knowledge or "the obvious truth". (Okay, except maybe in that tiny minority of really controversial subjects like the Arab-Israeli conflict.)

Anyway, let's try to identify a few of the major themes in Christian thought about the role of women, which is (I think) Vicki's original request: which Christians regard women as inferior, and why? Also, which don't?

A related but tricky question is whether men and women can have different roles but yet have equal value, which is the official view of my church but is controversial even amongst us laiety. Is subordination necessarily abusive? Is equality rebellious? All sorts of deliciously contentious questions spring to mind! --Uncle Ed 22:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To illustrate, in my denomination (I am not an attender any more) there was a policy of not keeping Ministers around permanently. They came and then were reassigned after a few years. But an "associate pastor" was not restricted in this way and were usually a member of the local congregation. The associate pastor at our church was a very strong woman. She was the associate pastor for almost 40 years. Where do you think the power was in that church? The minister who would stay 3 years or the associate pastor who had been there for decades and knew everything about the inner workings? The minister was essentially the sermon producer, the associate pastor, well, she managed and ran the place like a swiss watch.Ark30inf 23:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All right, after typing away for 45 straight minutes, I hope I have fulfilled Vicki's request in part. Much more remains to be done, of course. Any other Christians want to help? --Uncle Ed 23:46, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh. Just realised all edits you've done. Seems like you have made in a better way what I was trying to do in Old Testament views of women. But I still maintain that the subject is to broad. I know what I think about women but I honestly have no idea what Christians in general think about women. And also, all quotes from the Old Testament are ofcourse as much Jewish and Muslim views as they are Christian. BL 03:21, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Is it really possible to discuss Christian views of women without mentioning the Virgin Mary? Vicki Rosenzweig 21:21, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I got email from someone who identified himself as the creator of this page, and asking for my reasons for listing it. It sounded as though he wanted me to provide Biblical texts opposing his, which I'm not prepared to do. I sent him an email including "That statement [that all Christian viewpoints are based on the Bible] is false in terms of what many Christians actually believe and practice. Also, selective quoting can be used to slant any number of things." and inviting him to come here for discussion.Vicki Rosenzweig 11:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I am the author of the original text of 'Christian Views of Women.' Here are some comments on the dialogue so far... (1) If anyone can provide me an instance of a Christian individual or organization at any time in history that does not (does not) base its beliefs on the Bible, I would be pleased to learn of it. (2) No argument about Old Testament vs. New Testament is valid here, because as stated in the original text and remaining there still Jesus Christ confirms, twice, that 'the old laws' are valid eternally. (3) If there are quotations from the Bible that offer a different view of women than the ones I listed then I would be pleased to read them. I'll have to be a stickler for detail here: you can't just point out views on people in general. If anyone thinks the Bible says anything different than what I quoted about or for women, specifically women, then let me know. I've pointed out a representative sample of what I know the Bible says about women, but maybe others know about parts I have missed so far. (4) That my entry has generated interest is a point of pride. That the first and most active responce has been an effort to delete my entry has been a disappointment. Quotations from the Bible are anti-Christian? That seems strange to me.

I have admitted error many times before but I appreciate all the practice I can get. Also, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia: please be patient with my wiki skills. William Trevor Blake 30 September 2003

Thanks for bringing the discussion here. To answer your questions: (1)Many Christian groups base their views on both the Bible and other things--for example, Catholic theology and practice are also based on other writings, church councils, and papal statements. (For example, and for obvious reasons, there's nothing explicitly in the Bible about hormonal contraception.) Furthermore, a lot can be lost, or added, in translation. How are your Hebrew and Greek? The King James translation reflects the views of Jacobean England. (2) In practice, most people pick and choose among the old laws--they observe the Sabbath on a different day, they eat pork and shellfish, they mix different fabrics.... (3) How about Proverbs 5:18: * "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth.... Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." (4) Quoting bits of the Bible to support the claim that Christians, or Christianity, look down on women is anti-Christian.

Also, this is just too large a subject. A good article might be written on, say, Southern Baptist views on the role of women. An article on Shaker views of women would be very different: The United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing believed that a woman was the Messiah. Roman Catholicism's position is different from either. Vicki Rosenzweig 23:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. (1) and (2) If the majority of Christians do not follow the Bible word-for-word and literally (I agree this is the case), why do they not change the Bible? Because Christians believe the Bible is the infaliable word of God. Whether they follow the Bible or not is another issue: that the Bible says what I said it says, that I quoted it accurately, neutrally and in-context is true. (3) An excellent find and most worthy of adding to the page. I do hope you will add this quotation! (4) I may be misunderstanding you, and if so my apologies... are you suggesting I did not select representative selections of the Bible's view on women? If so, please show me as many or more quotes that are in contradiction to the ones I offered. The quotations I listed are consistant and cover large sections of the Bible. So far one (1) quotation in contradiction to the initial quotes has surfaced. So... what is the non-neutral perspective here? What perspective has empirical evidence on its side, and what perspective is bolstered by unattributed quotations from outside the source? (Largeness of subject) I'd say yes and no. Christian interpretation / application of the Bible is large and diverse, but the Bible itself is not. If Christianity is based on the Bible, any Christian group or individual must say which verses they do and do not uphold. If Christians do not support the Bible as it stands, they should change the Bible. Having had a few thousand years to change the Bible (in part and as a whole) and having chosen not to do so, I maintain that the statement Christians base their faith on the Bible is accurate and neutral.

The Bible states rabbits are 'unclean' because they chew cud (Leviticus 11:5, Deuteronomy 14:7-8). Whether or not they are 'unclean,' empirical evidence cannot say ('cleanliness' and 'uncleanliness' being supernatural qualities). But whether or not rabbits chew cud can be confirmed or denied by empirical evidence. Do rabbits chew cud? Any kind of rabbit? Now or in the past? The answer is no. No rabbits chew cud, not now, not in the past, not any kind of rabbit. This is a very small error in the Bible. Who knows why some anonymous author thousands of years ago had that odd idea, or why it mattered. Changing it would not lessen the Bible in any way. But has this falsehood been corrected in the past few thousand years? It has not. Why? Because (again) Christians view the Bible as infaliable and accurate. To change any one thing would question the whole thing. My point is this: Christians keep the Bible as it is because while they may say they they don't follow this or that part of it, they (deep inside) believe they should follow all of it. My proof is that the Bible does not change, no matter how at odds it is with empirical evidence or contemporary morality. If the Bible is mistaken, why is it not corrected? If Christianity is not based on the Bible, what is it based on? Rabbits chewing cud; who cares. Women are cattle (or women are worthy of love, as you have pointed out); rather more important. If Christians and their Bible have claims about women they should not hide them (and this entry should not be deleted).

But... perhaps if this entry were titled "Biblical views of women" it would be a more managable beast. That way, Christian X vs. Christian Y views would be omitted in favor of straight-up Genesis to Revelation quotations from the source. I maintain my initial post was neutral. I welcome improvements upon it, including those that may contradict my initial offerings (and again - please do add the quote you have found!). William Trevor Blake

• and dont forget the parable of the mustard seed, the one that doesn't grow up to be a tree.4.41.26.37

Despite all but one non-anon vote to delete this, I am moving the VfD debate here as there seems to be discussion still underway on this page. Angela 00:36, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

• Christian views of women -- Incredibly POV and anti-Christian. Also probably tries to cram too much under one topic. If someone wanted to fix this, a plausible approach might be to write a very general intro, and then links to articles on the views of different Christian groups. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Vote againt deleting. If the article is POV'd, then it should be listed under pages that need attention. -- Taku 22:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Again, this and "Marriage in the eyes of god" (as an article) are incredibly hard to justify given NPOV guidelines.
  • As it stands I say delete. But I reserve final judgment until I see what Ed Poor comes up with.Ark30inf 22:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete -- can't imagine this becoming NPOV, and don't see it adding any substance to Wikipedia. Also, this page seems to be in the same vein, but maybe it's a start on a fix: Old Testamentical views of women. Bcorr 22:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • If it's not fixed to something reasonably NPOV within the seven days, delete it. --Morven 22:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Most of this is a factual quoting of Old Testament text, cited verbatim. As far as POV in articles goes, I've seen much worse. However, it is still one-sided (in terms of not showing us the whole picture about what the Bible says, in both Testaments and various books). If we make the article into a thorough examination of the Bible's statements on women, keep. Wiwaxia 16:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Vote against deletion. Initial post had brief, neutral statement ('the following are quotes from the Bible') followed by quotes from the Bible. Consider the implications if accurate quotes from the Bible are inherently un-neutral at wikipedia. (I cast this vote before I know how to log in, cast a vote, etc. - please consider it a non-anonymous vote) William Trevor Blake
  • Subject deserves an article, and the current one has good bits, although most is POV. Maybe we should just cut out the extraneous and start again. Vote against. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Unusable title. For any given idea, principle, whatever, there are at least two Christians who hold different positions. There is no Christian view on anything. (Except that which is a matter of definition: "Christ was, is, and/or will be.") -- Jake 20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I got email from the page creator this morning, asking my reasons and for counter-quotes--he also seems to feel that selected Bible quotes are inherently NPOV. I pointed out the problems of selection, and asked him to come here or to the article's talk page to discuss the matter.Vicki Rosenzweig 12:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely delete. As an atheist, I share many of the views of the page's creator, at least in how the Bible itself depicts the proper treatment of women. However, to suggest that modern Christians as a whole group interpret those verses in the same way is ludicrous. His is certainly one take on the Bible, but it is not shared by all. Any page that suggests that all Christian groups are in agreement on ANY point of Biblical interpretation should be deleted because it simply isn't true. Unless the page is going to be altered (quickly and substantially) to include quotes/links from various modern Christian groups discussing their views on the "proper" Biblical depiction of women, the page should be deleted. -- User:Tuckdogg 03:35, 01 Oct. 2003
  • Delete, my comments are near the botom of this page. David 01:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Vote AGAINST DELETION. While many people have "belief" systems that find it hard to justify their system's document of record Wikipedia should be above forging its pages from systems with historic track records for twisting facts to more closely reflect those "belief" systems. If Wikipedia wants to stay above the fray we all need to write and value our pages not from dogma or the ages old rule of belief systems but from fact, intelligence and knowledge. User:Tomwsmf

• "Despite all but one non-anon vote to delete this..." One? I see three non-anonymous people saying not to delete: Taku, Wiwaxia, and DJ Clayworth.
  • Sorry, I misread DJ Clayworth's comment. Wiwaxia seemed to be supporting deletion unless the article was changed, so I didn't that vote in the against category. I should have said one non-anon supporting outright deletion. Actually, I should have said 2 - including DJ. Sorry for the error. Angela 00:59, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Question for Taku, Wiwaxia, DJ Clayworth: Do you believe this is really the proper title for the article? I'm in favor of Ark30inf's suggestion of Old Testamentical views of women, New Testamentical views of women, and a Biblical views of women... though the word 'Testamentical' kind of pains me. I'd say that this page should perhaps contain the first paragraph, and link to those three articles. -- Jake 01:17, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• If you're moving the content, then "Christian views of women" can be kept as a redirect (although to which of the three it would direct, I'm not sure . . .) Wiwaxia 01:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I actually prefer this title. Firstly because I think more people will find it they will naturally search for 'Christian' rather than 'New Testament'; secondly because Christian views actually differ from New Testament views. In the latter case this is because (a) some Christians have views on women that are hard to find justification for in the New Testament (I'm ashamed to admit); (b) the Catholic traditions about Mary the Mother of Jesus should be discussed, although they have little foundation in the New Testament (c) some of the things said about women in the NT were clearly said in a 1st century context, and the specific practices of the time are not (generally) the same as today's.

However there is certainly space for 'Old Testament view...' (where it is different from Jewish View...) and possibly 'New Testament view...' as well. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Also to add the 'New Testament view...' is better than 'New Testamentical view...'. Short is better than long, and there is already an adjective from testament - "testamental". DJ Clayworth 16:52, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Question: Where are the supporting facts and instances to prove this page needs removal? SO far there has been a lot of personal reasons but as far as factual counterpoints there have been very little. To delete this page outright is to admit wikipedia is simply a collection of subjective viewpoints and not supported by factual underpinnings. Which would be more damning, Bible suporters to be asked to show supporting facts for thier removal calls or for wikipedia's factual article be ruled by the same mindsets that brought us the Inquistion, Galileos little problems, and a rich history of fact revison.

Arguments have already been adduced: primarily that while this might be a plausible selection of biblical quotes on the subject, it doesn't begin to serve as a complete or accurate description of the teachings or beliefs of any Christian group, let alone all of them. Its claim to be so is misleading and thus un-encyclopedic. (As a side note, I'm amused to be classed as a "bible supporter".) Vicki Rosenzweig 22:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think all the old testament quotes and discussion can be replaced with a link to Old Testament views of women. What's important for an article with this title is what Christians actually think, not which the religious texts that they largely ignore or reinterpret to pieces tell them to think. Martin 23:08, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Exactly the right question. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then these quotations direct from the KJV, with full context, must necessarily represent the beliefs of those who agree with that contention. To pick and choose among scripture so that only the nice parts are revealed is at best a revisionist approach to describing Christian beliefs and is certainly a disservice to those who believe (as many claim to), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

NO. The KJV does not represent the beliefs of ALL who 'agree with that contention'... there are other bibles that people use besides that one.4.41.26.37 05:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Context is important. More important is that we're writing an encyclopedia, not religious tracts. I could write a page on "Christian views of food", quoting Leviticus at length in order to "prove" that Christians believe that it is wrong to eat pork, shrimp, or catfish. Relatively few Christians actually believe this, however. The goal of Wikipedia, in discussing religion, is to describe what people actually believe, not to prove that they ought to believe something else.Vicki Rosenzweig 03:12, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote: "The goal of Wikipedia, in discussing religion, is to describe what people actually believe, not to prove that they ought to believe something else." I agree. That is why I have never once said it was 'right' or 'wrong' that Christians make certain statements. I quoted the source and let the quotes speak for themselves. Others have gone on at length about how 'wrong' those statements are, but that they can be made 'right' if understood in context. My neutral point of view? Voted for deletion. Others' non-neutral point of view? Discussed at length and spawning several new entries. Evidence supporting the claim my original post was not neutral? Lacking. Bluster and 'you know' and good intentions and votes for deletion? Plenty. So while I would agree that the goal of Wikipedia regarding religion is neutrality, so far I haven't seen that neutrality. William Trevor Blake 9:07 PST 12 October 2003

The problem is that the presence of those statements in the Bible doesn't mean that they are what Christians believe, if it's even useful to say "Christians believe" about more than a very few statements (for example, that Jesus was important). Similar quotes can be adduced to "prove" that π=3 and that it is wrong to mix wool and cotton in a garment; few if any Christians believe either of these things. By "ought to" I didn't mean "it would be a better world if people believed these things" but "if X is in the Bible, Christians ought to believe it", the latter of which seems to be the basic assumption behind this quote collection.

I am not a Christian apologist, except in the sense that I will defend everyone's right to fair treatment, however much I disagree with their theology.Vicki Rosenzweig 22:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to note that I've made my own attempt to NPOV what's here. I also want to say that there is no way to do this topic justice. I'm a Christian (don't want anyone to think I'm hiding it) and I can think of countless counter-examples to add here--too many. What of all the strong woman figures in the Bible (Mary, Ruth, Esther, Priscilla, the widow with her two coins, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Rebekah, etc., there are too many to count)? What of Jesus's deep respect for women, or of the fact that the witnesses to the resurrection were women--Jesus (acording to the Bible) appeared to them first, and only afterwards to the men. The book of Hebrews is thought by many (me included) to be written by a woman. Many of the passages quoted have come to be interpreted in a new light (some of which I could address). Frankly, I could explain my understanding of all of them (after all, I am a Christian but by NO means anti-woman), but is WP really for Scriptural glossing and explication? Do you want me to dig up the numerous commentaries that discuss what "submission" meant in the original Greek, or to launch into an explanation of how many rights Christianity gave to women that had _long_ been denied them in the Roman Empire?

I could keep ranting like this a while, but I hope I've made my point. I've done what I can to make this article less offensive in a small way...to do all that I note above (all of which I think has a bearing on Christian views of women) would create a ponderous page sinking under its own weight, not to mention an article that has degenerated into two partisan perspectives of Christianity, one of which sees it as the means for enslaving and controlling women for centuries (not that I'll deny women have been mistreated in the name of Christ--many evil is done in good's name, Christian or no), and the other of which sees Christianity as the one force in history that grants equality and fair treatment (as Paul says--this is a paraphrase, not a quote--in the church, we do not place barriers between men and women, slaves and free humans, Jews and Gentiles, because in our faith we are united and as one). Okay, I think I should stop now, and I'm sure this post will be flamed shortly. I just had to get some things off my chest. As for what becomes of this article....I dearly hope a non-Christian steps in and mediates things, because I don't think I'm the right person for this job--too close to my heart. That's my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:06, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've been tempted to do a rewrite myself but, precisely because I'm not a Christian, didn't think I knew enough. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:56, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) (no relation)

I know the Muslims and Christians (and possibly others) share belief in the Old Testament, but I don't know if they both have the same name for it. Besides, I agree with Jwrosenzweig. The author is concentrating on the "submission" or "subjugation" of "women's rights" in the article. Renaming/moving it to Acts of subjugation of women in religous scripture (or something similar) would perhaps be more appropriate here. Phil R 21:33, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Muslims do NOT believe in the Old Testament; they think it is corrupt, and do not value it as scripture; the Koran is their only scripture. The Koran happens to contain many of the same stories that are found in the Old Testament. Vicki, to go back to a much earlier comment of yours, you're absolutely right that how Mary is viewed must be remembered when considering Christian views of women. Wesley 17:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In Christianity women and men are EQUAL

It is clear; the Bible says, if a person is in Christ (in other words a Christian), there is NO male and female, i.e. women are EQUAL to men and vice versa.

It certainly is clear to you and me, but this article is not about your beliefs or mine. It's about what Christians in general have believed throughout the centuries. There have been many different views, and there still are. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are also different ways to view "equality". Does it mean that men and women are interchangeable in all situations? If so, that could be applied in one instance to justify the ordination of women. The same view could be applied in another instance to justify marriage between homosexuals. Neither has been the historical view of the Church however, and without that much difficulty. See Vincent of Lerins. Wesley 17:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I am glad to see that either the recommendation to delete Christian Views of Women was withdrawn or that the vote was in favor of keeping it. While efforts were being made to delete my original post I refrained from editing the entry (others, however, both voted against it and edited its content). I now feel it is appropriate to work on the entry again; whether I do or not is another story. I stand by my original post and all I have said here. Thank for the food for thought from everyone involved. William Trevor Blake 8:19 PST 19 October 2003

Mr. Blake, a simple quoting of scripture passages can never fully encapsulate "Christian" belief on any signficant subject. You asked why Christians haven't tried to change the Bible to suit them? The fact is that they have. The early church primarily used the Septuagint for their Old Testament and eventually (fourth century) canonized their New Testament. As Jerome translated the Bible to Latin, he favored the Hebrew texts over the Septuagint and tried to omit several books found in the Septuagint, but the Pope wouldn't allow it. So they stayed in (with some of Jerome's deprecating notes) up until the Protestant Reformation, when lay Protestants finally ditched what the called the "Apocryphal" books of the Old Testament. Martin Luther tried to ditch the Epistle of James as well, but failed, managing only to discredit it instead. In the last century, we've seen a wide variety of innovative Bible translations. While many have been helpful, a few of the more extreme departures have sought to radically change core Christian doctrine by changing the Bible, such as the New World translation prepared by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Joseph Smith's editing of the King James Version (working under the same inspiration that gave him the Book of Mormon). Partly for this reason, the Bible has historically been interpreted by the entire Church, not by separate individuals. Wesley \

To discuss Christian views of women, one must discuss not only the Bible but also church history. It might also be helpful to include, for purposes of comparison, Christian views of men, of humans, of God, of the persons of the Holy Trinity. Trying to discuss any of these in isolation will lead at best to a lopsided picture, as they all depend upon one another. Wesley 17:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have contributed the shell of an alternative Christian view which should help the POV problem. Needed also is a Roman Catholic view, which I don't feel qualified to attempt. Anyone? Pollinator 20:12, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Absolultely agree with the above (especialy Wesley). Although there is good strong evidence from the New Testament that men and women should be equal, at least in theory or in the eyes of God, there is a whole history on how the church did or didn't put this into practice. Some suggestions of specific subjects from my dim and unreliable memory:

• Allowing women to be leaders; whole history
• whether sex is an impediment to holiness

DJ Clayworth 18:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Revisionist Writings

Ok, this paragraph from the article is extremely POV, I would like some help revising it. For starters Pauls writings are far more influenced by his Pharisaic background than his Roman citizenship (if it is influenced by the latter at all), so that sentance has got to be changed if not tossed. Here is the paragraph in question.

Paul combined Jewish ideas with Roman ideas and the Gospel in his many epistles to the growing church, and it was he who wrote about women keeping silent in church, covering their heads, and "subjecting" themselves to the rule of men. Some recent Biblical scholarship suggests that Paul has been partially misunderstood, particularly his infamous quotation from 1 Corinthians which demands that women be silent in church. Based on textual evidence, some scholars have argued that Paul is quoting part of a letter from the Corinthians to him, and refuting their anti-woman arguments in the subsequent passage. Other scholars, however, disagree, and feel that this is an attempt to rehabilitate Paul's image and reduce feminist criticism of the New Testament.

I am unaware of any evidence for any of the items stated above as fact. Assistance in editing this is requested. However I will proceed on my own in about a week and a half if I don't get some input from the community.

Also, as has already been pointed out several times, so-called Christian views on the place of women vary widely. Perhaps this article should be renamed Biblical Views of Women and let different denominational views sort themselves out into pages on those denominations. Or, since it is at least semi-apparent from the first post on this page, this entire article could be trashed since it was created for the sole purpose bashing the Christian faith.

Respectfully,

David 13:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, Paul wrote that from prison, and prison can influence a man's thoughts greatly. Many of the things Paul wrote seem to be at variance with Jesus' teachings. I myself, as a person who believes at the very minimum that Jesus had a great understanding of the spiritual side of man and may even have been enlightened to a greater truth than most can see, BUT disagree with what I consider to be a confusing and confused understanding of his teachings that seem to be the core beliefs of many who call themselves Christian, I personally usually go with (roughly in descending order of importance)

• the actual words of Jesus, where they are quoted (this is only several hundred words in the Bible)
• the teachings as represented by the stories Jesus told (and I believe he told stories as a way of avoiding being misquoted ((we all know the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears but none of us can likely quote it verbatim)) by people... as his words were at first passed along by word of mouth and memory, the stories may be more of an accurate 'quoting' of Jesus than the "quotes" from Jesus in the Bible
• The stories told about Jesus by others

(and lastly)

• the doctrinal assertions made by the apostles.

though I disagree on many points with some "Christians", I believe that many others use the same or similar hierarchy to 'weight' different portions of the Bible. So I don't think that Paul's views on women are particularly central to Christian beliefs. But then I'm not a "Christian" in the sense that I 'go to a Christian church', I am a follower of Jesus, and a part of the community of Christ, the church which Jesus himself is the head of, and which Paul refers to in Ephesisans 4 as 'the body' which Jesus himself is the head of and whose members are organs of that body, "joined and fit together by that which every part supplies" and that "builds itself" in Love. (one part that Paul seems to have gotten exactly right.)Pedant 00:39, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Vision of Jesus

Paul does not refer to his Damascus Road experience as a vision, but a personal encounter in his later writings, which I suppose would be suspect if you consider him a liar, or deluded. It could still be debated, but it makes a whole lot better sense now than just cutting off the sentence, so I won't alter it. Besides it's rather a peripheral point. Pollinator 01:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a periphal point. Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle because of a personal encounter with the risen Christ. Acts 9:7 states that the men with him could hear a voice, but saw no one. To claim that this is a "vision" is to make it a subjective experience, not an objective one, and serves no other purpose than to undermine the authority of the epistles written by Paul.

I will edit out the word vision unless someone can show me a valid historical document where an eye witness or something written by Paul himself tells us that Paul said it was a vision.

Respectfully - David 00:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no expert. Thank you for the correction Pollinator :)Dyss hmmm I need to log in before editing.

I put "see" in as midway between "meet" and "had a vision", and added the fact that Jesus had been killed a year before being seen. -- Nunh-huh 04:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll accept that as an NPOV compromise, despite the fact that the text never says that he "sees" him. All it says Paul sees is a bright light. Thanks for making an effort to see my point of view here and reach an acceptable compromise. - David 12:56, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We should strive to be perfectly accurate. Heard a voice which claimed to be Jesus? I don't think there's probably a need to go into whether those with him did (Acts ix:7) or did not (Acts xxii:9) also hear the voice. - Nunh-huh 21:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whatever he saw blinded him for three days, and he neither ate nor drank after the encounter for 3 days. "Light" is a common theme throughout the Bible. When Moses asked God to show hemself to Moses directly, rather than as a burning bush, Moses was warned by JHVH/God that he could not see his (God's) face, and live, but put Moses in a crack in a boulder, then, "after he passed by", God showed him his back. If Jesus is God or has within him even some of God's nature, it is quite understandable that Paul saw only a bright light after his death, rather than his bodily manifestation. Even as a mere avatar, he might easily have appeared as a bright or even blinding light.

The reference in Acts 22:9 is a firsthand account by Paul, at least it is told in the first person, the reference in Acts 9:7 is told in the third person. Paul may not have known himself whether or not the others heard a voice (he did have quite a lot on his mind at that point), alternately, the others may either not have heard a voice, and for some reason later claimed to have heard it, or the story may have changed in the retelling, in fact either or both versions may be or not be accurate.

What remains is that Paul encountered something on the road to Damascus, and that it appeared to be a bright light, and that Paul spoke with it, it answered him, Paul believed it to be Jesus, Paul was blind for days afterward

This page is a mess

I know that many people have worked hard to attempt to NPOV this but it points out all the negative things the Bible says about women, and somehow manages to skip the positive ones. For example, Eve was created after Adam, and from Adam, not dirt. Now in my reading of the Bible (and applying a little common sense) this should clearly state to anyone who cares to consider it that women are superior to men, but you don't get that from any of the Political Correctness crowd.

Or how about only quoting the verses from Ephesians about the woman should submit to the man, but completely neglecting the order to husbands to "...love your wife as Christ loved the church". Let's examine that a little more closely. Christ, all-powerful, all-knowing and author of creation (to just name three attributes) humbles himself taking on the "...very form of a servant" and giving up much of his rightful authority and power to enter our existance as a man, and submitting himself to what is arguably the most gruesome form of death-by-torture that mankind has ever devised (Phil 2:5-8). The Bible argues that while leadership is given to the man, he is to be a servant-leader, "..as Christ loved the church."

Tell me again, in terms of NPOV, why this page is here? - David 12:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

NPOV of this page

I can't even begin to start on this page. If you go through all the Biblical references, you'll notice that it quotes Judges 14:1-3 (I'll quote the NIV which is accurate enough for my points):

Samson's Marriage

1 Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. 2 When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife." 3 His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me."

You'll notice that this is not a proper Christian attitude (incidently, quoting OT and saying they are Christians might be debatable, considering Christ wasn't yet around, thought the OT does point to Jesus), you'll note later in Judges that Samson pays the price for his folly.

Judges 19

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

Look at this in it's wider context - there were awful consequences for the Benjamites because of this.

Genesis 29 24 And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant.

No mention of the context of this verse. In fact, there is no mention of the context of any of the verses. Any Bible college student, or even historian, knows you can't read out verses without explaining what they mean!

This appears to be just a list of the "worst" verses from the Bible. In fact one of them appears to be commenting on Christian behaviour, yet is totally wrong because it's referring to another non-Israelite tribe! The verse quoted is Judges 5:30 (Song of Deborah):

Judges 5

The Song of Deborah

1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:

2 "When the princes in Israel take the lead,
when the people willingly offer themselves-
praise the LORD !

3 "Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers!
I will sing to [1] the LORD , I will sing;
I will make music to [2] the LORD , the God of Israel.

4 "O LORD , when you went out from Seir,
when you marched from the land of Edom,
the earth shook, the heavens poured,
the clouds poured down water.
5 The mountains quaked before the LORD , the One of Sinai,
before the LORD , the God of Israel.

6 "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath,
in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned;
travelers took to winding paths.
7 Village life [3] in Israel ceased,
ceased until I, [4] Deborah, arose,
arose a mother in Israel.
8 When they chose new gods,
war came to the city gates,
and not a shield or spear was seen
among forty thousand in Israel.
9 My heart is with Israel's princes,
with the willing volunteers among the people.
Praise the LORD !

10 "You who ride on white donkeys,
sitting on your saddle blankets,
and you who walk along the road,
consider 11 the voice of the singers [5] at the watering places.
They recite the righteous acts of the LORD ,
the righteous acts of his warriors [6] in Israel.

"Then the people of the LORD
went down to the city gates.
12 'Wake up, wake up, Deborah!
Wake up, wake up, break out in song!
Arise, O Barak!
Take captive your captives, O son of Abinoam.'

13 "Then the men who were left
came down to the nobles;
the people of the LORD
came to me with the mighty.
14 Some came from Ephraim, whose roots were in Amalek;
Benjamin was with the people who followed you.
From Makir captains came down,
from Zebulun those who bear a commander's staff.
15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah;
yes, Issachar was with Barak,
rushing after him into the valley.
In the districts of Reuben
there was much searching of heart.
16 Why did you stay among the campfires [7]
to hear the whistling for the flocks?
In the districts of Reuben
there was much searching of heart.
17 Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan.
And Dan, why did he linger by the ships?
Asher remained on the coast
and stayed in his coves.
18 The people of Zebulun risked their very lives;
so did Naphtali on the heights of the field.

19 "Kings came, they fought;
the kings of Canaan fought
at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo,
but they carried off no silver, no plunder.
20 From the heavens the stars fought,
from their courses they fought against Sisera.
21 The river Kishon swept them away,
the age-old river, the river Kishon.
March on, my soul; be strong!
22 Then thundered the horses' hoofs-
galloping, galloping go his mighty steeds.
23 'Curse Meroz,' said the angel of the LORD .
'Curse its people bitterly,
because they did not come to help the LORD ,
to help the LORD against the mighty.'

24 "Most blessed of women be Jael,
the wife of Heber the Kenite,
most blessed of tent-dwelling women.
25 He asked for water, and she gave him milk;
in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk.
26 Her hand reached for the tent peg,
her right hand for the workman's hammer.
She struck Sisera, she crushed his head,
she shattered and pierced his temple.
27 At her feet he sank,
he fell; there he lay.
At her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell-dead.

28 "Through the window peered Sisera's mother;
behind the lattice she cried out,
'Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?'
29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
indeed, she keeps saying to herself,
'''30 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
a girl or two for each man,
colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,
colorful garments embroidered,
highly embroidered garments for my neck-
all this as plunder?''''

31 "So may all your enemies perish, O LORD !
But may they who love you be like the sun
when it rises in its strength."

Then the land had peace forty years. 

The ladys aren't Israelites, they are Canaanites. See Judges 5:2:

2 So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. 3 Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.

I guess this was the clincher for me. It really is badly written, poorly researched piece of writing. It's almost a candidate for removal IMHO.

One last thing: there seems to be a lot of weasel words in this piece:

• "Some interpreters view the two verses from Deuteronomy" - which ones?
• "Others see these ancient Jewish scriptures as elevating women from the status of chattels" - which ones?
• "Some historians believe that in ancient times, men used their superior strength to force themselves on women to whatever the degree their physical or power permitted." - which ones?
• "Some recent Biblical scholarship suggests that Paul has been partially misunderstood" (no link explaining this evidence, we need proof!) which then says "Other scholars, however, disagree" (which scholars?)
• "many take this as the Bible implicit agreement with the double standard that men may be promiscuous and women may not" - who are the many? please give an example
• Others suggest that there is an implication that men would be held to the same standard, and that certainly there is no open statement that men are allowed to be promiscuous (numerous verses in the Bible denounce extramarital sex on the part of men and women). - this is a doubly bad sentence. Firstly, who are the others? Secondly, it's just stated that many verses in the Bible denounce extramarital sex on the part of men and women. This may be the case, but which verses?
• "Some Christians look upon these passages" (which Christians?)
• "Christianity, in many of its variations" (OK, should be self-evident, however because it says "in many of its variations" it needs to state which ones, or state which ones don't believe in the Bible.
• "Some opponents of Christianity and Fundamentalist Christians tend to focus on these verses which seem to deny women equality." - excuse me? I believe this is a POV I don't necessarily agree with. I want some evidence (quotes will do!).

Also, though the article states that the verses are from the Bible, it neglects to mention which version.

Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow. This article is a mess. I don't even know where to start. It is a typical example of someone starting a simplistic article for POV purposes (even if they possibly aren't aware of it) and a subsequent history of attempts to somehow clean it up enough to be presentable from various others. The Bible is such a complicated piece of work that the blanket statements and generalizations in such an article cannot do it justice. BTW, The Song of Deborah is an amazingly interesting part of the Bible. It is one of the oldest traditions, from a time before Israel was a monarchy, a time when Yahweh was considered king and any human claiming that title was vilified in Israel. Deborah, as "judge," had to be consulted by Barak for permission to use the Israelite militia in battle. Hence the taunting of "kings" and "rulers." Fire Star 04:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Modifications I've done to OT section

Old Testament verses about female slaves

Deuteronomy 22:13-30

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed.

Deuteronomy 22:13-30 (NIV)

I've removed this verse because it's not about female slaves, it's about how a man should act within marriage, and also about rape. It should be in another area, so I'm putting this here so we can put it back in again - this time however after we actually read what the passage is about! (please excuse my cynicism.)

Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hosea 3:2

So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley. Hosea 3:2 (NIV)

I've taken this out, because it's not about a female slave. In chapter 1, Hosea is told by God to take an unfaithful wife (presumably a prostitute), who leaves him to pursue lovers. Hosea is told to do this because he is going to model how God has been treated by unfaithful Israel. In Hosea 3, Hosea is told by God to "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes." Hosea goes back and is restored to Hosea. Presumably he has to pay to get her back again because she is involved in prostitution.

If the author had actually bothered to read the verse in context, this would have been very clear to him. This verse should not be under the section female slaves, so I've taken it out. I'm putting it here because it might be worthwhile putting it into another section not yet created.

Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Genesis 19:8

Genesis 19:8 is mentioned, with no explanation for why it is significant to female slavery. It's totally impossible to understand without it's looking at it's context. It would have been better for the author to have used Genesis 19:1-13:

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."

"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

Genesis 19:1-13

(The relevant verse is in italics.)

Here, we see the dreadful acts of both the men of Sodom, and the terrible offer by Lot of his two daughters to the mob. One can only imagine how they would have felt when they heard their father say this! Yet I think it would be wrong to say that the Bible condones such behaviour. What it does show is the wickedness of mankind and the terribly corrupted relationship that man has even with other men.

I have taken the passing reference out of the section because, terrible as it is, the verse has nothing to do with female slavery. It would be misleading to keep this reference in this section. My other objections are that Lot's reaction is not how a Christian should act and in any case Lot was not a Christian as Christ had not come into the world. To say that this verse represents how Christians "view women" (which is what this article is: "Christian views of women") is grossly misleading and incorrect.

Genesis 29:24,29

Another passing reference to Genesis. With all these references, it sure makes the piece look authoritative, doesn't it?

After Jacob had stayed with him for a whole month, Laban said to him, "Just because you are a relative of mine, should you work for me for nothing? Tell me what your wages should be."

Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah had weak (or delicate) eyes, but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel."

Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me." So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her."

So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her. And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant. When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn't I? Why have you deceived me?" Laban replied, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work." And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife. Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant. Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.

Genesis 29:14b-30

(the verses are in italics)

I've left these references in here, though they only mention the fact that a servant was given to both Rachel and Leah as a maidservant. Again, note that I think it grossly distorts the fact that Laban was not a Christian as Jesus had not yet come into the world, however I do know that many Christians (myself included) see the New Testament flowing from the Old Testament, so these are important sections. I will more than likely add a better explanation to why we even need to include the old testament verses into background section.

Exodus 20:17

This verse refers to one of the 10 commandments:

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17

This does not refer to female slaves, so I'm taking it out.

Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 5:21

This verse also refers to one of the 10 commandments, and is a reiteration of the laws that Moses gave the Israelites:

"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Deuteronomy 5:21

This does not refer to female slaves, so I'm taking it out.

Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 25:5

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. Deuteronomy 25:5

This is not about female slavery. You could argue this is about inheritance issues (see Matthew Henry commentary). Marriage of the women was seen as respecting the widow and also honouring the name of dead man because if the women married the brother and not another then it was understood that the man's name would be ongoing and not "die" in Israel. However, this verse is also talked about in the New Testament in Matthew 22:24-43, where Jesus says that they don't understand scripture at all and that "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (NIV)

This is also being taken out.

Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

I have quoted this in full, using the NIV translation. I've also shifted the text that talks about the "two verses" of Deuteronomy to reside under this text, and have altered that phrase as there is only one Deuteronomy verse now. I've also added a section from Matthew Henry's commentary to try to try to improve the weasel words. I'd like to get rid of the other weasel term from the sentence, but I'm not as familiar with critics of the Bible.

Ta bu shi da yu 17:57, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Judges 1:12-13

Judges starts just before the death of Joshua. The Israelites have just entered into Canaan, however there are many Canaanite tribes still in the land and who still resist them, so although they have entered the land they do not have full control of it. Judges 1:3-21 is an account of the military campaigns of the southern tribes of Judah and the Simeonites. The defeat the Canaanites and Perizzites and capture the leader Adoni-Bezek. (Judges 1:4-7). Then the Judeans capture Jerusalem (Judges 1:8), advance on Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills (Judges 1:9), then continue advancing against the Canaanites that lived in Hebron, defeating Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai (Judges 1:10). Then, they advance on the Canaanites living in Debir (Judges 1:11). As this was a royal Canaanite city, it was seen as being an important city to capture, and evidently Caleb becomes impatient to capture it as he offers the hand of his daughter in marriage to whoever defeats the city.

And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. Judges 1:12-13

This is clearly seen to be an arranged marriage and not female slavery. As it's not female slavery, I'm taking it out of this section.

Incidently, I feel that if this passage is later included it would be important to note Judges 1:14-15:

One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him (Hebrew; Septuagint and Vulgate Othniel, he urged her) to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?"

She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." Then Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

Judges 1:14-15 (NIV)

In this verse we see that Israelite women could possess land.

Judges 5:30

This appears to be just a list of the "worst" verses from the Bible. In fact one of them appears to be commenting on Christian behaviour, yet is totally wrong because it's referring to another non-Israelite tribe! The verse quoted is Judges 5:30 (Song of Deborah):

'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:

a girl or two for each man,

colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,

colorful garments embroidered,

highly embroidered garments for my neck-

all this as plunder?'

Judges 5:30

Seems pretty damning, until you realise that it's a Canaanite speaking and not an Israelite. It's outta there! Another example of the agenda of the author.

Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Judges 14:1-3

Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife." His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me." Judges 14:1-3

Arranged marriage, not slavery. Taking it out.

Judges 15:2

And Samson's wife was given to the friend who had attended him at his wedding.

Judges 14:20

"I was so sure you thoroughly hated her," he said, "that I gave her to your friend. Isn't her younger sister more attractive? Take her instead."

Judges 15:2

Basically, what's happened is this: Samson has taken a Philistine bride against the advise of his parents. They then give her away to his friend. What does this show? It shows up the sin of both Samson and his parents: Samson for taking a Philistine wife, and his parents for giving her away after she was married to Samson!

OK, now that's cleared up I might just point out that, again, this is not an example of slavery. Taking this out.

Removal of whole sections

Firstly, whoever wrote that section in the first place doesn't understand Biblical theology very well, didn't understand the importance of context, and doesn't understand the difference between Old Testament Judaism as opposed to New Testament Christianity. So, I've removed it. Besides this, there is a whole article on this that does a much better job called Old Testament views on women. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title question

Shouldn't this article be titled "New Testament views of women" so as to parallel the Old Testament views of women? Posiduck 21:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No. That would be a different article. The original author wanted to write an article about all Christians' views on women. Take a look at the edit history for what his "vision" was. Highly POV, and didn't take into account the context of the verses he quoted from the OT. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article has gone too far the other way

As someone who tried initially (on this article's arrival) to help keep this article from bashing Christianity as openly as it once did, I feel odd saying this, but I must. The article as it stands doesn't seem to address any of the arguments used to deny women certain roles and statuses in certain Christian denominations. While I may agree with the position in this article, I know there are many sincere Christians (who do not consider themselves anti-woman or even anti-feminist) who believe that men and women have been given different roles to fulfill in the church. We need to fairly and neutrally represent their ideas -- is there a reason that all of the information about that perspective has been removed? Jwrosenzweig 21:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said. Ditto here. The page has been hijacked by another viewpoint. It needs balance. Pollinator 22:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, basically if you call "removing badly researched material" POV, I'm guilty as charged. It most certainly needs to include negative criticism (this would be just) but just quoting OT and NT passages without even bothering to look at their context was misleading and didn't represent Christianity at all. Heck, look at Judges 5:30, which is apparently quoted because it represents OT "Christian views" (strange that. There were no Christians in the OT, but I digress) of the Israelites. Of course, it helped to have actually read the passage in full because the speakers weren't Israelites, but their opponents: the Canaanites. Still think that I was unfair? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu, I didn't intend to call you unfair, and apologize if you felt I did. I think it's fair to cut material that doesn't belong here. But I think that, for this article to be fair (and I'm not saying it ever was), it needs to present more to establish why Christians have often had the reputation (especially in modern times) of being anti-woman. Can we agree on this? (I have to imagine we do.) It may not involve as many Biblical quotes as it does cited actions by Christian churches, and proclamations of particular types of dogma, but I think it needs doing. I still don't have much enthusiasm for it (about as much enthusiasm as an environmentalist contributing criticisms of Ralph Nader to that article, I imagine), but it needs doing eventually. Jwrosenzweig 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I say, I don't mind that being sourced. But a few things: no weasel words, no peacock terms and no unsourced information should be allowed into this article! Along with adding Bible verses to try to prove a POV, unless an outside commentator has explained it in a certain way. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...Ta bu, I hope you won't my saying this, but your reply to me seems a lot more confrontational/defensive than I expected (what I see in your reply to me looks like a list of demands, punctuated with an exclamation point, that leads me to believe you see something adversarial in the discussion we're having, which I did not at all intend) -- am I completely misreading you? I do that occasionally here, and I try to watch myself on that account. I don't want you and I to come into this article at loggerheads, especially since (as far as I can tell from previous interactions with you) we share a number of personal beliefs about truth, faith, and women. I'm a little concerned that you're setting the bar extremely high for this article -- if I can provide a Bible verse which I know is used to suggest a negative Christian view of women simply from experience (and because the verse, on the face of it, gives that impression to most casual observers), are you going to demand that I cite a source that uses that particular verse? If so, do you have a set of standards for what sources are acceptable, or would an atheist anti-Christian web site be sufficient? I have no desire to post any verse without establishing its context clearly and without explaining the counter perspective. I guess I'm just a little wary because of the tone I believe I'm perceiving, and I want to make sure you and I are comfortable with each other's approaches and assumptions here before we go too far. So, how do you feel about the questions I'm raising? Jwrosenzweig 02:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone... that's not the way I meant that to come across :( What I'm saying is that it would be best to source a commentator on the Bible verses, otherwise it comes down to what your own opinion of the verse is. My suggestion is to include a commentator from a non-Christian POV and also a Christian commentator. Every single verse of the Bible has had some form of commentary by a Christian, so that shouldn't be too hard! Also, sorry that it sounds like a list of demands. That wasn't my intention also. However, the previous effort was most definitely POV, mainly because that author went through the Bible looking for what he/she thought were verses that would show Christians in a negative light (as I've proven above). That's why I think we should implement the things I've talked about in my reply. Anyway, sorry for sounding aggressive. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be too apologetic -- my feelings weren't hurt, and I suspected that you didn't intend the reaction I experienced. I just wanted to be absolutely sure we understood each other, and I feel we do. I agree completely with what you said about the initial article....somewhere in the page history is a record of my initial attempts to salvage an article from the crap the POV pusher initially posted (though my changes did not all persist, and I grew weary of fighting battles here very quickly). I think you're right that we should be more systematic and careful in reconstructing the article -- I'll have to dig around for some decent commentaries (have any good ones gotten online?). It will be slow work, I expect, and unpleasant, but we owe it to NPOV, I guess. :-) Thanks for your quick and kind reply: I hope and trust you don't feel I was harsh with you (I intended not to be) and I'm glad it's quickly sorted. See you around this page, I guess, for the next few months off and on or until we get it in shape. Jwrosenzweig 02:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to do some of the work here, but as a Christian who shares the POV already expressed in the article, I doubt I'm best for the job. I think an outside observer of Christian practice or someone who holds to the missing POV would be better -- I'd be happy to work with them on consensus. Is anyone out there willing to play along, or will I end up wrestling with this myself? :-) Let me know, here or on my talk page. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of those Christians you mentioned who holds the missing POV. Well, it's not exactly missing, but the section on it is unsatisfactory, and the rest is apparently writen by someone who thinks non-feminist views are necessarily derogatory to women.

But I've encountered just enough feminist theory to notice that while the article is called "Christian views of women", there's no article called "Christian views of men". My first suggestion is moving the article to "Christian views of gender". The current title, beside being a legacy of the original version (which I've read -- yikes!), assumes that women are the different ones, and that one wouldn't expect the Christian religion to have anything to say about men. A.J.A. 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes on edit 7 April

I thought the opening list was still POV, so I split the third group into two groups. I agree with the first group personally, but I don't think it's accurate to say that it's contrary to international law to believe a woman should be subordinate to her husband as a theological belief. (Believing that women should be legally barred from certain professions or from voting, etc. is another thing; hence four groups instead of three.)

I also thought it would be beneficial to distinguish between what churches say now and what various churches have said in the past, hence the currently/historically division. There isn't much in either section now, especially the historical one, but that can be remedied in time.

I organized all thoses verses into "biblical arguments in favor of equal roles". I also added a little on Quakers in historical section, because that's what I know about; ideally we'd have a lot more than is there by other denominations.

I think we should also have a following section on the arguments against, since that's where most of this issue stems from in the first place. And, as Jwrosenzweig said, it's currently too Christian friendly. Also, I think we should have a section, "By issue", with subsections "Women in the church", "Women and marriage", and probably "Women themselves". In the latter could go things like Aquinas's view on women as defective men, etc. I added these to the to-do list.

As it stands it's still needs work, but I think it's better organized. Zach 22:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Source requested regarding women bishops

about this line:

There are also numerous accounts of female deaconesses, elders and bishops.

I've heard and read a bit about deaconesses, but elders (priests)? bishops? These are new to me. Can anyone cite some specific examples? Wesley 04:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the NT i'm pretty sure there aren't any. But I'm also pretty sure that Gnostic Christians had women bishops. Which doesn't help us any since the section is Biblical arguments... Maybe it should be changed to

• Arguments for equal roles
  • Biblical arguments
  • Other arguments

and so on for "Arguments for equal yet distinct"? Zach 23:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biblical arguments for distinct gender roles

That section ("Biblical arguments for distinct gender roles") is appallingly written, I can't even see what its trying to get at, or even if it contains a proper sentence. Could the person that wrote it please do something to make it make sense? --francis 20:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok,ok...sigh. The fact that the bible was written by men and not woman says it all. You can quote scripture all you want. Winninie, bleat and moo all you want,Chritianity as well as all other religion is sexist. I"ll change my mind when i see a female pope.

A female pope such as Pope Joan ? --75.39.248.28 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

I have started the article Women as theological figures, and would like people to contribute to the subject.

Where do the Apocrypha fit into the discussion on the Chrietian views of women?

Jackiespeel 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(Is this page long enough for an Archive page to be set up?)

Taking on NPOV

I made a lot of changes to the first three sections of this article, including "introduction" and "historically." This should remove a great deal of the original's biased writing. Any comments, advice or suggestions are welcome.

Define "gender equality"

No historical Christian denomination is known to have practiced complete gender equality from its beginnings, although some were more gender-equal than others. Some churches adopted more liberal views when they were founded. Other churches changed their positions in the 20th century as they were influenced by feminism and other social forces. Some historians believe that the early gnostic groups within Christianity practiced gender equality.

This is all very nebulous. What exactly is meant by gender equality? Does this mean that genders should be uniform? Are we running this article from a POV that submission automatically means inequality? If so, then how does one reconcile the opinion of some theologians that submission does not necessarily mean inequality (cf submission in the Godhead)? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's false. There were some "heretic" denominations, such as the Cathars that believed in gender equality.

Women were treated as equals, because their physical form was irrelevant; their soul could have been a man's soul before, and it might once again become one. (from Cathar) bogdan | ^Talk 16:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as noone else is commenting, I'm removing it as it's POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da y,

I think your recent addition hurts the article and possibly threatens Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The addition of that long paranthetical statement in the second paragraph makes the article 1) far less legible and 2) far less within the accepted style guidelines of the encyclopedia. It also adds a counter-argument to an argument which was in turn a response to a counter-argument-supporting argument, which is not only complicated but also one-sided.

If you absolutely must include this piece of information somewhere on the encylopedia, I would suggest you create a new page to continue this argument thread. But I really think it should be removed, because instead of shedding further light on the topic of Christian views regarding women, it stirs up further controversy. Pschelden

Could you please rereview the NPOV policy? The material that was in brackets was not entirely necessary, or at least should not have been in the form it was because it appears to be commentary from Wikipedia. This in itself would at first glace appear to be pushing a POV with negative connotations - that the Bible says nothing about a man being submissive to their wife. I have balanced this viewpoint with the fact that the Bible also has things to say about the responsibility of men. This is part and parcel of a Christian view of women, it would not be NPOV to skip out this information entirely! If you have a problem with the long sentence, may I suggest that you rephrase the sentence? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the artical

Though there are a few points he has wrong this doesn't sound bias at all. Articals covering controversial issues can easily become targets for the bitter reader.

Inaccuracies

There are also numerous accounts of female deaconesses, elders and bishops.

'False. First, can we say 'weasel words'? Please cite your sources, as well. Because in the Bible, there is a single deaconess, Phoebe, mentioned in the Bible, and that is all. Not a single elder. (In fact, Paul disallows women elders and ministers.) And since bishops were not even conceived of in 'Biblical times', women being bishops (which I have not heard of) is hardly a 'Biblical argument.' - ElAmericano | talk 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the case that the Bible makes no mention of female elders and deacons. In Paul's "Pastoral Epistles," the Greek word, "presbuteros" is generally translated, "elder." In 1 Tim. 5, both male and female versions of this word appear. Furthermore, in context, 1 Tim. 3:11 could well be referring to female deacons. It is inappropriate to dogmatically state that Paul forbids women elders and ministers, since this point is at the crux of the debate.

"Bishops" most certainly were known in Biblical times. The word, "bishop" is merely the Latin equivalent of the Greek, "episkopos," meaning "overseer." Comparing diverse passages suggests that "overseer/bishop," "elder," and "pastor/shepherd" are closely related terms.

In the section about "Current Church Views" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_about_women#Current_church_views_of_women.27s_roles -- The Assemblies of God should be categorized as "Full ministerial authority, restricted secular authority." Evidence: This AG document -- http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4191_women_ministry.cfm -- shows the AG recognizes women can hold any role including apostle. But this document -- http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/relations_07_ldrshphome.cfm -- shows that the AG believes that in cases where a couple cannot reach agreement, the husband's will must prevail.

Christian views on women

Couldn't this be renamed the Christian views on women, to clarify that it's not about Women's Christian views? -- TheMightyQuill 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a big deal; I don't think many will confused. But the change is slightly better. --Ephilei 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)