Talk:Christian ethics

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

America - Centrist

In the section on Abortion, a line reads "African-American Protestants are much more strongly anti-abortion than white Protestants" - this doesn't seem (to me) to fit into an article about a religion which is widespread across the world, not just in the U.S., and I think it should be removed, or at least a section built to incorporate Christian ethics in the specific context of the U.S. Is there a reason to keep it? Xx78900 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Xx78900 I thought your observation just, and I invite you to take a look at the current rewrite. I'll be asking for a peer review soon, so if you wanted to help out by getting a jump on that, it seems to me your observations would be valuable. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment

"The tremendous diversity of the Bible" I'm guessing it means something like written by a lot of people over a long time, but I'm not quite happy with this in WP-voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"In this, Jesus was reaffirming teachings of Deut 6:4–9 and Lev 19:18. He united these commands together and proposed himself as a model of the love required in John 13:12, known also as the New Commandment." Here, it sounds to me like we are to some extent talking theology in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A leftover from the original author who I am guessing is Tahc. It is theology, but ethics is an aspect of theology, so maybe. I left it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

About lead: There's nothing about Virtue ethics in the body, and I generally think it's unnecessary to name specific scholars in the lead of an article like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

All have now been addressed, I hope, to your satisfaction. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

historical Christian ethics

Resolved

@Tahc: This article does not state that it is Current Christian ethics only - anywhere. It is not titled that way. Its content previously had some history - Thomism and scholasticism and so on - so the complaint isn't even consistent with what was already there. Please do not remove content without getting consensus again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your interest in this article, but Wikipedia does not lend itself to statements like "this article is about current Christian ethics only", but I am open to ideas on how to indicate this. While the sources section of (even current) Christian ethics is rooted in history, and that section is mostly chronological in format, it is not about the history of Christian ethics, aside from sources of current Christian ethics. It would really be much easier to gather and document great quantities of information on Christian ethics in history, but I think Wikipedia readers deserve an article (with sub-articles) on the tricky area of current Christian ethics. I do not see any current consensus that this history sort of "more" information would be better. I think adding some history to the current Christian ethics would invite editors to continue to add more and more on the history of Christian ethics. Per WP:BRD and all Wikipedia policies, you would need a new WP:consensus it change the topic of the article. If you think we need to create a Wikipedia article on the history of Christian ethics, you can create that elsewhere. tahc chat 05:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Resolved

@Tahc: The reason you gave for reverting - multiple times - of everything added into this article is This is an article on current Christian ethics; the history of Christian ethics can be discussed elsewhere. Here's the dif that says so: [1] and another one: [2] But the article does not say it is current Christian ethics. That is not in the title or in an 'about' statement, nor is its content limited to current Christian ethics, nor is there any definition of such, nor is the historical information that is there connected in any explicit way with current Christian ethics. While the sources section of (even current) Christian ethics is rooted in history The article does contain history. Topics are defined by titles and vice versa. The topic is [Christian ethics]; the topic is not [Current Christian ethics] or [Contemporary Christian ethics] or [Modern Christian ethics]. None of those exist. If you want to create one, that would be great, but this isn't it. This is the broader topic of [Christian ethics]. If I were a reader looking up Christian ethics, I would not expect an article limited to only the modern day. I would expect a more comprehensive discussion of the whole topic. Because that's the title. I requested that you not make any further reverts without consensus, yet you went ahead based on "I think", "I do not see" and more "I think" while making no effort to talk here, or gain consensus, before doing so. Please demonstrate courtesy and good faith and self revert this last revert until such time as you get consensus support for your views. This was an opportunity to demonstrate good faith tahc and yet you have not taken advantage of that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC) This was an to opportunity for us to discuss the issues, but you did not even try. You merely asked me to cave to your view right away, and since I didn't, you called for a RFC. Even then, you continued to avoiding discussing any issue I raised. You just don't see demonstrations of good faith when you get it. tahc chat 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC) If we need to call for an RFC then let's do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777, even if you think the current article would be better with a focus on historical Christian ethics, and you think the article name allows for the focus on historical Christian ethics, you have still made controversial edits to the article without first gaining consensus for them. Per WP:BRD, you may may boldly make changes you think to be improvements, but once they are reverted and shown to be controversial, it is contingent on you to gain new consensus to match the changes you seek. (Although I have tried to show you the rational for the article on current Christian ethics.) You do not get to make all new changes to an article and then ask other editors to find a new consensus for the article as it already was. tahc chat 08:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) As a reader, I find it reasonable to find something about historical background in an article with this title, like in, say, Italy or Painting. The name indicate "Top level", it is not Modern CE or Contemporary CE. Even if "History of Christian ethics" is created I would expect to see a section on it in this article. Rfc may be the way forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC) @Tahc: Other than your unsupported personal opinion that this article should be limited to current ethics and not contain history, there is nothing controversial about those edits. The only controversy here is that assumption and your action. We now have a third opinion here that does not support your view. With no evidence of cooperation or evidence of intent to do so on your part, I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and will post an RFC. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

Resolved

Is the topic of this page limited to current Christian ethics only? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Airborne84 Jzsj Xx78900 You have previously demonstrated an interest in this article, so I hope you will return and comment here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777-- Linking to only some editors of this article and not others, as you have done above, is a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing, and is generally considered disruptive to the normal consensus decision-making process. tahc chat 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Those were the only two three I found on this Talkpage. I looked because it is normal to ask for comments from those who have already contributed to the article. Canvassing is done "with the intention of influencing the outcome" and there is no such intent. How could there be? I don't know them. I don't know what they'll say. I pinged them because they were already here. You are welcome to go see who I missed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Copypasting my above comment: As a reader, I find it reasonable to find something about historical background in an article with this title, like in, say, Italy or Painting. The name indicate "Top level", it is not Modern CE or Contemporary CE. Even if "History of Christian ethics" is created I would expect to see a section on it in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång That would be a No from you then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I never asked for all reference to history to be removed. As I said above, the section on sources of Christian ethics is (i) shows the sources to be rooted in (Christian) history and (ii) that section is mostly historical in format. My main object to the Rfc is how you have created it in a biased way. It is a false dichotomy to ask for no historical Christian ethics or some historical Christian ethics-- because your past efforts have been to rewrite the entire article as a history of Christian ethics. For example, your efforts (1) made the section on sources of Christian ethics a through mixture things both relevant and irrelevant to current Christian ethics, and (2) made the section on applied Christian ethics a mere addendum of the last historical time period. Since all your efforts were to create an article on the historical development of Christian ethics, it would be much better to give your efforts that name, or a similar name, instead of the name used here. I also object to creating this Rfc without first clarifying why you are avoid and ignoring this obvious solution. tahc chat 20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC) tahc The question for the RFC is plain and simple. Please let it play out without interfering in the process - such as moving its section heading under reverts as you did here: [3]. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Adding to an existing article instead of creating a new one is not that outlandish, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) It is when dealing with a sense of ownership. The obvious solution is for everyone else to go away and leave his article alone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) So if people ask for even more historical Christian ethics, you won't mind it being in its own section as Gråbergs Gråa Sång seems to indicate? Or maybe this Rfc about keeping the historical Christian ethics already in the article now? Your framing of the question does not make clear that it already has historical Christian ethics, but limited to relevant sources. How long should the section on other historical Christian ethics be permitted to get before its is made into a separate article? Should the criticism of Christian ethics be for both criticism of past Christian ethics (mostly past behavior) and criticism of current Christian ethics? If permitted, should the criticism of historical ethics be a subset of the historical Christian ethics section or a subset of the criticism of Christian ethics section? If you will not talk about it now, or even before this Rfc, will you just jump into a new Rfc when needed later? tahc chat 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) none of these are pertinent until the topic is determined. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) If it helps for clarity, I can write a bolded No as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Since that is the response others are giving, I would say yes, it does help. I will add mine in as well: No. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No, Christian ethics presumably has roughly 2000 years of history (and readers could probably benefit from learning about the background of precursors to Christian thought in ethics as well). It would be appropriate to spend a decent portion of the article describing the historical evolution of Christian ethics over time (and presumably across space, where applicable). signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: Please go look at the article (as it was and as it is now); it already does spend a decent portion of the article describing the historical evolution of Christian ethics over time-- my interest is avoiding all forms Christian ethics over all time. The veneration of Mary and medieval views on the Jews are considered relevant to Christian ethics today, and mixing in such factoids with genuine sources on Christian ethics is misleading or worse. It does not make the article better if the goal is to understand Christian ethics, as it would be taught today. tahc chat 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Christian ethics =/= Christian ethics as it would be taught today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "As it would be taught today" is the issue though isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC) No The article has to cover 21 centuries of Christian history, and not emphasize the last few years. "Christian ethics as it would be taught today" is only a trivial aspect of the subject. Dimadick (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't say trivial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Besides the reasons already listed above, Wikipedia's Featured Article criteria requires that an article reaching that status "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". History adds to context. Airborne84 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Just my feeling, but the article does not seem to cover the academic field that the title is. The current article seems to focus on recent events/issues and actually [earlier versions] seemed to have a better perspective. Could add back much of that content, or else split off ‘current topics’ from the article about the field. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. It's a monstrously large topic, but positions maintained today cannot be understood apart from their historical genesis. Jzsj (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Historical aspects are much more important than the present. Nyx86 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) This Rfc is now closed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) RFC discussion @Jzsj: So-- you think the current article ignores the historical genesis? Is there some other historical genesis besides the "New Testament" you wish was covered? Is there some part of "historical genesis" that would not fit under "sources". tahc chat 02:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Please remain calm. This is a WP article, not real life. In answer to your question, yes, there is much of the historical genesis that cannot be covered under sources, and much development and evolution of CE not covered anywhere else in this article. CE is not just what it is now. That's kind of the whole point of this RFc that everyone else here readily recognizes. The people here want to produce the best work, for the best encyclopedia, and we do that by working together, by compromising, and by accepting and cooperating with consensus. Stay with me and work with me tahc. I did graduate study in ethics. I love this field. I will do you proud if you will just collaborate and not obstruct. We can work this through, but we have to do it here on the talk page, and we have to do it accepting that this article can't be limited to current Christian ethics. I always let other people edit me - just not revert without cause. If you can agree to that, we can do this, and there is no reason why we can't do so together. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC) I appreciate claims to want to collaborate and not just obstruct. If you limit forms of not assuming good faith-- such as sarcasm-- then I think that will make a big difference. I am sure your graduate study in ethics is helpful to the article, and know many facts about Christian ethics, but I think the article can be written in a way that is readily understandable to the layperson, and not just specialists. I find a RFC and sometimes attracts editors that look at the questions, answer it at face value, but do not really understand or address the actual difference in opinion that you and I (seem to) have. tahc chat 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I assure you there is no sarcasm at all in my comment on working together. That's the way WP is supposed to work, and I genuinely believe that practice is what has produced an encyclopedia that has outlasted all others of its kind. The sentence in this Rfc is based on your reason given for your reverts, but if you think it doesn't cover our disagreement, then how would you state it? Let's see if we can agree on that, then we can see if we can work together here or not.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I have just gone and asked one of the great and wonderful FA reviewers to take a look at this as I think the solution here will be in renaming this individual article or just transferring some of your material into a new "Current Christian ethics" or whatever he thinks it should be called, then writing sister articles for the different eras, and a final summary article titled what this one is titled. How would you feel about that approach? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC) In some ways the article "Christ" does (or did) cover mostly the same topic as the article "Christology", but Christology was more from an academic perspective, and Christ from a more layman's approach. Not every topic has a pair of terms to facilitate this distinction, but an ideal solution might (otherwise) be this. One Christian ethics article from an academic perspective-- and one from a layman's approach. This is still not a perfect analogy but maybe you get the idea. Assuming that will nor work, we could have (a) Christian ethics and historical Christian ethics (b) current Christian ethics and Christian ethics, or (c) current Christian ethics and historical Christian ethics. I would prefer "a" and assume you would prefer "b", but I am open to trying to find compromise. I think choosing between these options, or perhaps other options along these lines would have been a better question for the RFC. Maybe your "great and wonderful FA reviewer" could express a thoughtful view on these options. tahc chat 21:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) This is good tahc, this is very good. It's progress of a kind! First, I can't choose 'a' or 'c' because there is no such animal as "historical Christian ethics" as a thing in itself. History 'of' something, and that same something being 'historical', are not the same because 'historical' also means "belonging to the past". There is no such thing as a "historical ethic", as such, because the ethic continues. It is not a thing of the past. Christian ethics is sometimes broken down into: "Early Christian Ethics", [4] which is pretty much limited to the first four centuries and it would include some history as context.[5] Then there are sometimes classes and books in the category of "Ethics of the Middle Ages", which is further broken down into early and late middle ages, and this would also include some history for context. [6] and [7] Then something like "Christian ethics in the modern and postmodern world". Here is a book you should definitely check out: Readings in Christian Ethics Theory and Method [8] All of these would include some history. Without history, we run the risk of disconnecting ethics from its roots, and making people think the modern era invented its own ethic out of thin air. The connection between past and present should always be discussed and shown, in every era, but not excessively, I agree. I cannot agree to a layman's vs. an academic approach either. Christian ethics can be made accessible to non-academics, and indeed, that is part of what we do here on WP, and part of what every teacher does. We explain physics to first graders, and complex concepts to high school sophomores. I'm used to that. If anyone doesn't understand something I've written, all that's required is to say something and I will change it. It's how we roll on WP. But we cannot breakdown articles based on that kind of division. We are left with breaking them down by era, including some limited history in each one, then making a summary article of them all titled "Christian ethics". Christian ethics is the broad big topic. Any article with that title must cover the whole topic and not be limited to one of its eras. WP guidelines indicate an article that covers the topic "Current Christian ethics" must be titled accordingly: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles... Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,[9] Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia has a certain bias for an academic point of view but there is a limit to this. Sometimes a word has one meaning in an academic field but a different meaning in a different context. Wikipedia has to address all situations, not just interpret all terms as academic terms, merely because it can be a academic term. I also have to disagree with your view that there are no historical ethics. As I said above, we could find another term to use-- but some ethics do belong in the past. People no any longer go on Christian crusades, nor should people go on crusades. This ethic belongs in the past. We just might not always agree on which ethics "belong in the past" It is this very fact-- that some ethics belong in the past-- that causes me to prefer modern Christian ethics. There is some use to understanding bad ethics, but not as much use as understanding good ethics. If you study Christian ethics at some (secular) schools, it might be all descriptive. If you study Christian ethics at a seminary I expect it would be more prescriptive. tahc chat 02:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Sometimes a word has one meaning in an academic field but a different meaning in a different context. But words still have defined meanings. Find me a valid source that defines Christian ethics as current Christian ethics and does not include the history of ethics somewhere in its description, and post it here, please, so that I can go read it. I will want to see that. What you are referring to as historical ethics are not ethics, they are morals: concrete individual positions - particular applications - of ethics. You are right in saying some of those have passed away, just as the context that created a requirement for them is no more. Some of them may even have been bad, though I don't think I would use a modern judgment to say which. But the system of Christian ethics is ancient and ongoing and continues into the modern day with m ost of its ethical principles intact. Your example of crusade is a good one to make that point. People were called to go on crusade as an act of Christian love, to help those in need, to aid fellow Christians who were being persecuted and killed because they were Christian. We may not go on crusade using that word anymore, but we do still put out the same call to aid the persecuted for the same reasons. Application have changed with context. The underlying ethical principles have not. Christian ethics is not historical, it is not past, it is ancient and it is also ongoing, and this article should convey that. Its current applications are not all it is. Herin lies the problem: It is this very fact-- that some ethics belong in the past-- that causes me to prefer modern Christian ethics. There is some use to understanding bad ethics, but not as much use as understanding good ethics. If you study Christian ethics at some (secular) schools, it might be all descriptive. If you study Christian ethics at a seminary I expect it would be more prescriptive. What you prefer cannot define this article. It isn't yours. It belongs to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has requirements. What we write must be defined by what the sources say and not by what we think or prefer. We cannot write our personal preferences or opinions or feelings or beliefs. That's called blogging. It is not our place to make judgments. It is our place to present information, all the pertinent information, in a neutral manner. Going to seminary is no doubt prescriptive, but Wikipedia is not a seminary. Wikipedia is not the place for advocating or denigrating any particular set of views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: [[10]] Please demonstrate some willingness to accept these WP requirements. References Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) i. But words still have defined meanings. No, not always. Words always have meanings that can be defined-- but you cannot always find a "valid source" for the meaning that a term does have. tahc If you can't find a source for your definition you can't use it on wikipedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Your comment seems to purposely misunderstand my point. Please try to understand my comment in context. Not every word needs an explicit definition. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) I have no idea what your point is beyond that you get to define things as you please without having to reference any source or meet any standard beyond your own preferences and biases.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) ii. While you claim "what we write must be defined by what the sources say, WP:Article titles-- as you quote above-- merely says that "the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject". A goal is an ideal, but not a "must be." Splitting hairs. This is the standard and ignoring it is grounds for deletion of an article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Now you are just making groundless threats. You don't get to claim you summery of of a policy is the actual Wikipedia policy. Again taking you this out of context does not help. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I intended no threat. The list of content policies is here: [[11]]. At WP:deletion policies it says: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. This article was tagged for both of those failings. When I added content, I removed those tags, but when you removed my content you did not replace them. Either content or tags need to go back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) iii. Notwithstanding my caveats above-- I am willing to consider a defined meaning for Christian ethics if you can find one in its suitable context. If you think that "what we write must be defined by what the sources say" then show us what you think they say.tahc chat 20:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) I do not follow your point about Crusades, but maybe we don't need to if you just want to rely of what a book defines Christian ethics to be. I have never yet tried find a book define the scope of Christian ethics per se, but I am somewhat sceptical of the process. Some subjects-- like Christian history-- or high school biology-- you can pick any book on the topic and the table of contents each look fairly similar. But Christian ethics does not seem like that; I have looked a number of different books on Christian ethics and the table of contents of each look very different. tahc chat 20:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC) It's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Definitions aren't found in the Table of contents, they are found in content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Please do not break-up other editors comments in this way. By including numbers such "i. ii. iii..." you can now refer to them below without breaking them up with yours. At the very least, do not put breaks in the middle of my paragraphs. It is comments like these... advice on where to locate definitions... that comes across as sarcasm, rather than your comments on working together. tahc chat 02:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I apologize for distressing you. I am in the middle of a FAC review and a GA review, both going on at the same time, and this is how you answer their comments - where they say i, you answer with one additional indent directly beneath i; where they say ii, you answer directly beneath ii and so on. It makes it easier to keep track and follow what goes with what in long discussions like this. So that's what I automatically did here with you. It's just easier. I assure you there was no sarcasm intended in my comment on locating definitions. I was just offering information you didn't seem to have. I apologize if that was an error on my part. I meant well. RFC definitions tahc In answer to your request: On encyclpedia.com [12] it says: "Christian ethics operates on the level of the theoretical and the scientific and tries to explain the Christian moral life in a thematic, systematic, coherent, and consistent manner. ... The subject matter of Christian ethics is the Christian moral life and teaching, which is much broader than biblical moral life and teaching. ... Contemporary ethicists speak about three generally accepted formal approaches to ethics..." Please note it separates contemporary ethics from the rest. Brittanica does as well. Norman Geisler has a book titled Christian Ethics Contemporary Issues & Options, which lists many of the same issues you list in this article. The title let's readers know, up front, this book is limited to "current" issues. [[13]] In this book: [[14]] Servais Pinckaers has four Catholic definitions. First, it begins by saying "definition carries with it a choice of direction" (page 3) which is all that WP acknowledges with its own standards about this. They all include, "Christian ethics is a branch of theology that studies human action subject to moral law in the light of revelation". None of them say anything about current or contemporary ethics. Christian Ethics Moral Theology in Light of Vatican II: General Moral Theology · Volume 1 [[15]] has the same definition as Pinckaers on page 3. The Divine Imperative: A Study in Christian Ethics [[16]] has a truly interesting discussion of what CE isn't and is in the second paragraph on page 85. It's essentially the same as above. [[17]] says that it "Redefines the field of Christian ethics along three strands: universal (ethics for anyone), subversive (ethics for the excluded), and ecclesial (ethics for the church). It is a contemporary redefinition, but it begins with history on page 1. Moral Discernment in the Christian Life: Essays in Theological Ethics [18] defines Christian ethics on page 7 as "faith doing". I particularly like that one. It's simple and elegant. I cannot find a definition of Christian ethics anywhere that limits it to the current or contemporary ethic that does not specifically say it is contemporary Christian ethics. Christian ethics in general is not limited in that manner. Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction [[19]] includes history. An Introduction to Christian Ethics[[20]] includes history. Introducing Christian Ethics[[21]] includes history. There are obviously many more. Christian ethics includes the whole field, including some history, by definition. But you know, honestly I wouldn't mind creating a separate article titled History of Christian ethics if you could also agree to renaming this article Contemporary Christian ethics then allowing Christian ethics to be that summary overview that includes both and more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) I think that renaming the current article Contemporary Christian ethics would tempt editor to remove the many elements on the sources of Christian ethics found in it that are based in history. As far as I can see, none of these possible definitions above require that a Wikipedia article on Christian ethics to be entirely divided into ethics by time period, which you did, nor do they seem to require that a Wikipedia article include uncurrent Christian ethics-- like the Crusades-- which you did. It seems to me, that if we both want to have a main Christian ethics article, then what we really need is a way to agree on the outline for a Christian ethics article, and I can think of a much more natural way to approach this then a starting with a definition. I am sure your efforts in this way are intended to be helpful, but as of today, I find so many to be frustrating look at. Why don't you tell me which one of these you think would be the most helpful for me to look at. If you really think starting with a so-called definition, you will need to start with picking one to discuss first. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Please follow proper indenting. It makes it hard to follow when you don't. I think that renaming the current article Contemporary Christian ethics would tempt editor to remove the many elements on the sources of Christian ethics found in it that are based in history. I doubt that would happen, but let's say it did. You would come to the talk page and tell them why that is a wrong revert, and why some history is necessary. You could point to this Rfc where everyone agreed history is necessary. And then put your material back. Hopefully they would be reasonable and cooperate. If not, you could always call for another Rfc yourself, and then put your material back. You would have a leg to stand on in doing that, and if they were still uncooperative, you could take them to arbitration, and if they persisted, you could get them banned from the article altogether by pointing to the results of multiple Rfcs. But that isn't how we are supposed to work on WP. Surely working together to find a compromise always produces the best result. I would assume that is the approach you would take to any potential future issues. After all, it's not like this article hasn't had one problem after another as it is. Changing its name would prevent those problems that have actually occurred; the possibility of hypothetical problems isn't really a good reason not to change its name. :As far as I can see, none of these possible definitions above require that a Wikipedia article on Christian ethics to be entirely divided into ethics by time period, which you did, nor do they seem to require that a Wikipedia article include uncurrent Christian ethics-- like the Crusades-- which you did. It does not have to be divided into time periods. You are absolutely right. I did that here because the article was already divided that way. It began with sources, went to Early Christianity, skipped a bit then went to Thomism and scholasticism in the middle ages, skipped a lot then went to modern - in chronological order. I just filled in some of what had been skipped over, that's all. I didn't change the structure. The crusades matter because they were motivated by the Christian ethic of love and responsibility for one's neighbor. It's a conundrum that bears discussing. There are at least four different views on war in Christian ethics, yet all that's in this article is pacifism. Other views aren't even mentioned, but they do exist. The crusades also created changes in Christian ethics by inventing chivalry and contributing to the veneration of Mary. Those values remain part of current Christian ethics. War remains an issue. It is inadequately covered here, and including some contemporary scholarship on the crusades would be appropriate for expanding that discussion. An article on ethics is more easily divided by ethical concepts and not by era. When I wrote Ethics in the Bible, that's how I sectioned it. It contains history, but it is not divided by era. It's divided by topic - and by definitions. It seems to me, that if we both want to have a main Christian ethics article, then what we really need is a way to agree on the outline for a Christian ethics article, and I can think of a much more natural way to approach this then a starting with a definition. We can both have the main article. We'll move it to draft space, and there is absolutely no reason why we can't collaborate and work on it together. I like collaboration with cooperative people. It's fun. I have worked on several articles that way. But there is no getting around the need for definition. All philosophy - and ethics is one of the three fields of philosophy - begins with a definition. Everyone has to agree on what they are talking about before talking. Otherwise, assumptions are made, that others won't make, and people get talking crosswise past each other, and it all ends up in the dumpster. Christian ethics is not just current Christian ethics. You want an article that focuses on current Christian ethics. That is actually a good idea, but the title should reflect that. Titling an article that talks about a small piece of an idea, as if it talked about the whole big idea, is misleading and dishonest and just plain bad scholarship. Do you agree that current Christian ethics is only one aspect of the much larger concept of Christian ethics? On what basis can you justify using a title that includes the whole pie when you only want to talk about one piece of that pie? I am sure your efforts in this way are intended to be helpful, but as of today, I find so many to be frustrating look at. Why don't you tell me which one of these you think would be the most helpful for me to look at. If you really think starting with a so-called definition, you will need to start with picking one to discuss first. It is not on me to make a decision between them. It was on me to find what the sources say, and I did. For this article, I would write a short paragraph on definition and include them all. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I did as you asked. Look at all of them - I did - and I don't know why you should do less - or look at none of them, I don't care much anymore. The Rfc clearly supports putting back the historical material you removed. The sources all support including historical background in an article on Christian ethics. There is no source that limits Christian ethics to its contemporary forms and issues that doesn't specify that it is about contemporary ethics only. You have produced no source that supports your view. If you want to keep this article's content as it is, it needs renamimg; if you want to keep the name, it needs new content. You can't legitimately hold on to both as is. You make your choice. I will accept either one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC) areas of agreement The Rfc does not "clearly supports putting back the historical material you removed", because the RFC did not ask that question, and I am sure very few (if any) of the commenters even looked and difference between the two versions. None the less, I think we are much closer to an agreement now. Please consider that we want the same things in the article, but that we have not used the same terms to do so. A. I can support a (main) Christian ethics article with a different outline that the current outline. Neither of us find a historical outline to be necessary or even best, so I assume we can work something out. A new outline for the article is the main thing I would like to discuss next. B. I can agree to having some sort of definition for Christian ethics in the article based on the items you found, and thus not explicitly calling Christian ethics to be contemporary Christian ethics. Write whatever want and I expect it will be fine. C. Because of the sad state that I found the article in-- many years ago-- I objected to promoting (things like) the Crusades as Christian ethics as for simplicity (and other reasons). I primarily object to them being inaccurate Christian ethics. But if we assume that the Crusades do demonstrate accurate Christian ethics (and that this is supported by RSs) then that good enough for me... as accurate (or contemporary) Christian ethics-- in principal-- for the general article on Christian ethics. In practice, it would seem there would be more some other more clear way to discuss Christian love, or whatever Christian ethic is involved. If there is anything else that we did disagree on, I don't know what it would be. tahc chat 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc A. Agreed. B. Agreed. C. I do not promote the crusades as ethics, but they were a demonstration of the ethic of the time, and we have no right in our world today to claim them accurate or inaccurate. That's a logical fallacy called presentism as an act can only be fairly judged within its context. Within its context, the crusaders were noble and good and acted on a genuine ethic that we still attempt to figure out how to practice today. If defending the weak is wrong, what's right in that circumstance? Anyway, the crusades are part of history, and I agree to them staying there. Also agree to better ways to discuss love. So! This is wonderful! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

outline

Jenhawk777 outline

I now have an offering of an outline:

• I. Definitions
• II. (Some) Historical background
• III. Meta-ethical themes

A. Metaphysical foundations (what is the nature of reality itself?)

a. The nature of God; the nature of reality, existence, life, human will and power: all as derived from Being itself: God;

b. the will of God: freewill and determinism; the ontology of divine command: the ontological status of moral norms as absolutes;

c. the axiological and aesthetic assumptions about the nature of value and beauty: (the nature of value, what makes something valuable? what kinds of things are valuable?)

B. epistemological foundations (how do we know? )

a. what is knowledge, truth, and belief: knowing through revelation and reason;

b. what are the criteria for moral discernment: virtue is knowledge, knowledge is virtue;

c. knowing through grace and law; moral authority/the will of God;

C. Meta-ethical assumptions (major beliefs - what Christian ethics is founded on)

a. the meaning of good and evil, and a sentence or two on theodicy;

b. Grace/love/mercy and Law/justice/personal responsibility; Christian as both new creation and fallen; ethics on respecting authority and personal autonomy; self-affirmation and self-denial;

c. nature, and the kingdom of God;

d. autonomy and service; goodness as virtue;

e. inclusivity and exclusivity: could include natural law/cultural pluralism and tolerance as virtue vs. belongingness and community exclusivity

D. Wells and Quash: universal, subversive, ecclesial ethics

• IV. Topics and applications

A. Politics

a. war and peace

b. civil disobedience

c. criminal justice

1. capital punishment

B. Relationships

a. covenantal community and loving one's neighbor

b. friendship and Platonic love

a. marriage and sexual love

b. divorce

c. abortion

C. Biomedical

a.( could put abortion here )

b. stem-cell research

c. euthanasia and assisted suicide

D. Environmental

a. ecology

b. animal rights

I think that covers most of what should be in an article on Christian ethics, though I may have missed some. Obviously we would be writing very short descriptions of these which are not much more than a mention. Even then, this will be a long article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• This outline is not bad, per se, but I think overly detailed for this sort of Wikipedia article.
• I think the "Topics and applications" would be better to be alphabetical. Then we don't have to have disagreements over the names of the 4 large topics and what goes in what.
• The meta-ethical themes also seems like a difficult thing for Wikipedia readers of all different Christian background to gain consensus on. Maybe a less detailed set of meta-ethical themes would work. I am sure there are also terms we can use that are more clear than "meta-ethical". We cannot assume readers will read the article l ike a book-- in order-- so each section should make as much sense as possible on its own. Do you find that many books on Christian ethics have a large section on meta-ethical themes? If so, how are Christian meta-ethical themes different from Christian ethical themes? tahc ^chat 23:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, we would have to keep a check on each other and be sure and not go into too much detail. I generally gauge my work toward the high school to the college sophomore, who might be writing a paper, taking a general survey class, something like that. What I think they need is a broad overview of the main points with nothing too in depth. Sort of like a Freshman college survey class: Intro to CE.
  • Alphabetical is fine - for everything we can, it's a good idea.
  • That's also a good point. Every book on Christian ethics does indeed discuss meta-ethical themes, but most often they do so without using the term. We should follow that example. We can just call that section 'Basic ethical assumptions', or 'Underlying ethical principles', or something that's a bit easier to understand. It's a way of organizing the principles of ethics from the big ideas that everything else is built on down to the particulars.
  • Applied ethics focuses on what is moral, meta-ethics focuses on what morality is. Norman Geisler's book that I mentioned above? It's entire Part one is dedicated to establishing that moral principles from God are absolutes: he defines what morality is for almost half the book yet he never says the term meta-ethic. But that's what it is.
  • You are right again, imo, that each section must make sense on its own. And if we write each section well, it will work out that way. In a wp article, we can't afford the space for repetition.
  • You will laugh, but looking at this and thinking of how long it will be, I am now thinking like you that a separate article on the history of Christian ethics is called for. Maybe a short paragraph here to summarize what that one says. We'll have to do it backwards - write the summary before the article - but it will be so general I doubt it will be a problem. I'll try working on the definition and the historical background paragraphs in my sandbox for a bit. What would you like to work on first? You have put so much into the topics already, perhaps you could start adding to them. I suggest War: Four Christian views by Clouse as a jump off for that section; there's a second book too. They're both good overviews of the topic of CE and war.
  • Thank you tahc, I know we will do great things together! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • tahc I just want to ask that you don't panic since I am removing so much from CE right now! I am moving it all to my sandbox for writing the inevitable history of CE that I am hoping you will help with as well. I am stealing all your stuff to use there! I am doing my best to edit history down to as little as possible so we can have more on topics and themes instead. How are you doing? Are you working on something? Don't feel pressured, take your time, but I hope you will do this with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• If I were you, I would create the history of Christian ethics first, then write a lead section to summarize that article, and then reuse that lead section, or part of it, in this Christian ethics article. tahc ^chat 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• You know, you're right. Trying to write this history as small as possible is making me a little nuts! I should do exactly as you say, and I think I will, but since I started the reboot here, I will finish that first - leaving out history - then come back. Thank you! That helps! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

broken ref

Hi, in order to fix 2 broken reference names, I just changed <ref name="Wogaman"/> to <ref name="Wogaman2010"/> following consistency within the new section, assuming it was not <ref name="Wogaman93"/> as in some other places in the article. As I don't have the source, please correct if wrong. And of course, happy editing. Wakari07 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wakari07 Well bless your little pea-pickin' heart! Thank you! You did good! Happy holidays and happy editing to you too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

images from old testament

@Tahc: Hey, I was glad to see your name on some edits but a bit dismayed at the reason. Removing Old Testament images is inconsistent with Christian ethics which includes the Old Testament. If you can find a source that says Christian ethics excludes the Old, then I will accept this, otherwise, I will probably put at least one back.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments comes to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite complete imo

To whomever is interested in this article, I believe I have completed the rewrite. Please review it for any problems. If they are small, please just make the changes needed yourself. If you think they might be controversial, please bring them here, and we will work it through. We have already shown that cooperation produces the best result, so don't be afraid to note whatever you think needs changing here. I'm going to give it a little while and will then post a peer review request. Thank you for your contributions and support in improving this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777, hope you had a nice New Years. I've read the lead, so far.

"Evidential, Reformed and volitional epistemology are the three most common forms of Christian epistemology." As a reader, I don't now what this means (fine, I'm not that sure on scholasticism either), but hopefully the article well tell me further down, if I get that far.

"but the debate is waged using both reason and revelation" This doesn't seem to quite fit in WP-voice, assuming revelation means "What God told somebody." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång, what a faithful friend you are, thank you for showing up and reading anything at all! Since the lead is just a summary, and epistemology is explained in its own section, I thought a mere mention was adequate. It's what I've done in other articles where explanations get complicated. I don't quite know what to do about the WP voice thing. It's a reference to what is said in the part on basic ethical principles. I didn't have a separate section for that principle - one sentence seemed adequate - but if you don't agree I will change it - I just don't know exactly how. What would you suggest? Would adding the phrase, 'Christian ethics uses' make a difference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I did a rewrite, is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Awesome! I also aded links to the epistemologies, does that help? On the who? tag, it was a typo, so I fixed that. I wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't tagged it. These are great and valuable comments - as your comments always are. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tahc: What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Some comments

@Jenhawk777: I want to go through the article more thoroughly but I thought I should say this. The article is quite long and would benefit greatly from summary style—a bird's eye overview of Christian ethics focusing on its history and general philosophy, rather than details about all of its varying positions. "Wealth and poverty", for example, is three paragraphs long, and if I wanted to learn the details of Christian views on poverty, I would click the hatnote. A one paragraph summary would let me go through without getting caught up in the details. For example,

Christian ethical views on poverty and wealth vary widely. Some people (maybe cite a couple scholars/theologians here) believe that excess wealth is an evil; theologian John B. Cobb even argues that Western overvaluing of wealth has taken the place of God. On the other end, some Christians view economic prosperity and well-being as a blessing from God, citing their opposition to the destitution and hardship associated with poverty. Professor David W. Miller constructed a three-part rubric presenting three prevalent Protestant attitudes towards wealth: that wealth is an offense to the Christian faith, that it is an obstacle to achieving faith, and that it is an outcome of faith. Maybe add a sentence about Catholic views.

If that's the only thing in that section, along with a hatnote, I get a better understanding of the debate. Note that a lot of what you wrote can just be merged into their respective subarticles! And as a reader and reviewer, it would also let me process the article a lot better. Sorry if this came across as harsh, but I think you'll agree that our main motivation here is to help our readers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I'll do it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus I removed over 6,000 bites, so hopefully that helps toward a summary style with a little more consistency. It's hard for me not to discuss every argument in detail! Thanx for the help, it actually was a help, and I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and thank you for your work! I sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness. :P

I know it's hard to summarize—especially since you've probably spent much of your life studying this stuff!—but I'm still a bit concerned about the length of Areas of applied ethics. I think the sections on sexuality, slavery, abortion, alcohol and war could also be shortened a lot because they have respective subarticles. I'm thinking two to three medium-length paragraphs each. My sense of this article is that it should focus on the ethical principles and their history, then give an overview of some of the great Christian moral debates, but leave their details for the subarticles—if they exist. Hopefully some other editors can weigh in; pinging Gråbergs Gråa Sång who also seems interested in this article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

HAH! Your timing is perfect! I was just coming here to write that I had moved on and edited the rest as well removing about 15,000 bites this time! I tried to get all the "Applieds" down to one paragraph, but was unable to in every instance. The paragraphs are short, but the division of concepts seemed to require separating. If you can think of a fix for that I will be forever in your debt! Gråbergs Gråa Sång rules!!

You Ovinus sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness because you are perceptive and right! I love remodeling and repairing. I have only started one article myself, but this is my bread and butter. Any articles you run across that are heavily tagged that you think might interest me - send to me! Please! Thanx again for your input here. It helped! Ovinus rules too!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh, we all rule! :D The length is significantly more manageable and I'll try to do a more in-depth review in the coming week. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We all rule!! I am going to post a request for peer review here soon, so this will either prepare it nicely, or you can wait and do it then. As you see fit. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No mention of Galatians 3:28?

I would have expected to see it somewhere. I wrote an article a while back at Galatians 3:28 since it has an extensive bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)