Talk:Women in Christianity

What to fix?

The article's subject is "Christian views about women," not "Biblical views of women." You are adding POV by bolding sections of the text, as well. The article's focus should be on how the text has been used and interpreted by Christians in regard to women's roles, not the text itself. A section on some of the modern movements to define a "Godly woman" would be quite acceptable, but attempting to define that here is not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

1. Christian views about women#Jesus' interactions with women could stand to be trimmed back a lot. Several of the sub-sections, such as Christian views about women#Peter's mother-in-law, only bloat the article. It should focus on significant interactions that indicative of Christian viewpoints, and even many of those need to be reworked for improved NPOV.
2. It's not a huge deal, but I don't generally prefer the King James Version for this kind of thing, as it's not widely used these days outside of very conservative groups. The New Revised Standard Version is a good one generally accepted among scholars and a number of major denominations. Contrary to the anon's claims above, the New Living Translation is perfectly acceptable, and is not a paraphrase (I believe anon is confusing NLT with The Living Bible). Of course, what anon actually seems to have mistaken for NLT was the TNIV Today's New International Version, which is also acceptable. Whether or not the translation uses "gender neutral" language has little bearing on what version is used, though.

Hopefully some direction for which way the article should go can be decided upon while it's protected. What is everyone else's opinion on the suggestions? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The intro needs referencing, to sift out the errors (e.g. the claim that "only since the 1970s have more diverse views emerged.")
• The history section should cover history. Per WP:NOR, it should not interpret scripture, though it can describe interpretations of scripture, e.g. by the church fathers.
• The early Christian church section should be a subsection in the history section and could be expanded, and followed with sections on women's roles in the church in Late Antiquity and in the Medieval church. Jacob Haller 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good ideas. I definitely agree we should avoid heavily quoting scripture, as the article does now. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is an informative and thorough page. The disputes here seem to be more about overarching cultural issues resulting from hellenistic society than about getting at the root of biblical teaching. Although this phenomenon applies here, it is better suited for a few other, independent pages, perhaps something that deals with inaccuracies in translation arising from cultural views driving misinterpretation (which clearly applies here if you research it), hermeneutics, exegesis, hellenism and the greek/philisophic views of women of the time, etc. Personally, I think that if this author wanted to be one-sided, he could have been, because he clearly has done his homework and could have stated a lot more... This page appears to be an attempt at an overview and touches upon all of these issues. If you don't think that it's detailed enough, add some links and move on!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.195.19.41 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's Remove "Jesus' Interactions with Women" From This Article

Originally I thought the "Jesus' interactions with Women" section was a natural subsection to this article, and even spent quite a bit of time trying to edit that section to bring it up to standard. After giving it more consideration, though, it just doesn't make sense to include source material from the canonical gospels as though they spoke for themselves. If they did, why have there been thousands of theologians since the 1st century attempting to clarify these writings?

The problem that I now perceive with the approach to the overlying topic (Christian views about women) implied in the inclusion of the "Jesus' interactions" section are twofold:

1) The section has continued to be biased in favor of orthodox source material (the traditional four canonical gospels), which implies that the only "true" Christianity is orthodox, which is an implicit endorsement of orthodox Christianity. The problem with that is not that the orthodoxy is wrong or right, but rather that encyclopedias shouldn't be in the business of deciding these kinds of problems. Rather, groups that self-claim as Christians should be considered for educational purposes here. Those groups would include Mormons, ancient gnostics, Presbyterians, Catholics, Seventh-Day-Adventists, etc., etc. Some small attempts made to balance this bias have been erased without comment.

2) The idea that the text of the four gospels somehow "speaks for itself" is unsound in the face of 2,000 years of migrations, cultural interactions, exchanges of values, linguistic variations, etc. that the religion has undergone, and with those powerful changes, the ways sects of Christians have generally understood their scriptural requirements regarding gender treatment have changed as well. You don't even need to look very far to see how amazingly varied Christian responses to women have been even in the United States during the 20th century by denomination.

I hope this argument has been clear, and I hope I'll get some feedback on these issues. Let me try to restate the position again, a little bit more succinctly: Including each of Jesus' recorded interactions with women is interesting, but irrelevant to this article because it invariably assumes one perspective (the perspective interpreting the source material) and it ignores the important interpretations of this source material in the context of actual Christians. Remember: this article is about Christians responding to that very source material, and NOT what that source material "really, truly, genuinely" says. Please respond. I'll give a reasonable amount of time for discussion before taking any further actions. Pschelden 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to a certain extent. I do think that the section is way too long, and includes some pretty minor persons in the narratives as well. I agree that we should consider trimming and reorganizing the information to look more at women considered significant and how the interactions have been interpreted (the Samaritan woman and the adulteress would be good examples). I'm not a fan of quoting or paraphrasing the text more than absolutely necessary, either. I imagine we may have to cut the section and restart from scratch, though.

As far as including sources from branches such as the LDS and gnostics, that seems reasonable, though they would probably have lower weight, as comparatively small sects. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's DON'T Remove "Jesus' Interactions with Women" From This Article

To do so seems more like the "baby being thrown out with the bath water" crude example.

When I first began work on this article, it seemed like an impossible challenge. It was several years old, and lacked sense of organization. There were, and still are, many things wrong with the article, including need for greater organization, redundancy of scripture quotations, lack of citations from credible sources on some of the conclusions, and (a-hem) need for more NPOV.

I've made a huge investment in it, despite so much criticism and discouragement, because I believe so strongly in the importance and relevancy of the topic. The recent variety, quantity and energy of responses to the Deletion proposal somewhat support this conclusion. It is that strong belief that makes it ever so difficult for me to "sound" neutral, and I need everyone's help in this area.

The first three words of the previous subject/heading read: "Let's remove Jesus...." That's taken out of context, but in a sense that's what is being proposed. If the canonical gospels don't speak for themselves, then there's probably no Jesus. And if that's the case, this whole thing is a moot point.

As to why so much effort to clarify these writings? The effort has been to clarify the handful of unclear statements in the Pauline and Petrine epistles, at least with respect to women in marriage and in ministry. A cliché says that if we look only at the red letters (in a Bible that puts Jesus' sayings in red), we would come away with a very high view of and respect for women. The section you want to remove is THE most important section to this article, for it gives the basis of what SHOULD BE (but has never been) the Christian view of women. The section surely can be improved, worded better, tightened up. But without it, the best this article can be is a meandering tiptoe through the tulips of some reported views of women by "this group" and then "that group."

We're having enough trouble presenting the various views of "mainstream" Christianity without worrying about Heterodoxy or schisms. Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Bible is God's inspired word (especially those who believe it is "inerrant" however that gets defined) represent the largest group of people concerned about this issue. They are the ones struggling to understand what Paul meant about "submit to husband" and "be silent in the church" and "man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man," et al. People without a high view of scripture have no problem here, because it doesn't matter to them whether the Bible teaches male superiority/advantage or not. (BTW, User Pschelden, erasure of your attempts at balancing bias did not come from any of the "regulars" on this article. Feel free to put them back.)

There are millions of women out there who have must deal daily with prejudice, discrimination, and even mistreatment – all (sadly) done in the name of Christ. They are looking all over for some glimmer of hope that the real message of Jesus is one of freedom, that there are other credible Christian theologians who understand those very same passages to be saying something quite different.

Both "sides" – Complementarian and Christian Egalitarian – need to be presented fairly. I loudly and convincingly promoted the former position for many years, believing it to be the only "inspired" understanding of that handful of verses. I know it well! It gave my own gender a real "edge," so I lacked motivation to dig any deeper than the "plain readings" and discover, and try to reconcile, differences between Jesus' examples and teachings on the one hand, and barely a handful of seemingly contradictory male-dominant rules from Paul and Peter.

I am a relatively new convert to the latter position, so I've had a LOT to overcome. But so do thousands upon thousands of others of both genders. There are those who like where they are and won't even bother to dig any deeper. They don't want to be confused with the logic. There are many others, mostly women who are having trouble being "graciously submissive," but also women who are called to leadership within the Body of Christ – the Church, who feel they must just say no to their perceived call from God, and resign themselves to an unfulfilled, frustrated life.

Please give us an example of how one might interpret "this source material in the context of actual Christians"? What the source material "really, truly, genuinely" means IS very relevant to the high-view-of-scripture people. The cultural context in which Jesus and Paul and Peter lived IS very relevant to understanding the meaning and intent of those very few verses from the Apostles which on the surface appear to stand in contradiction to the clear teachings and example of Jesus. As Founder of Christianity, not to mention God's only Son and Savior and Redeemer and Risen Lord, Jesus is the only one with the authority to say, as he said in the six antitheses of Matthew 5:21–48: ("You have heard it was said…but I say unto you….").

Thanks to Users Pschelden and Sχeptomaniac for being the two editors indicating your genuine concerns and interest. Let's get to work – together. Afaprof01 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)]]

What you forget is that from a truly neutral point of view, there probably was no Jesus. He is not accepted as a historical figure by most of the world. To be encyclopedic, this article must be in reference to the beliefs of Christians, but cannot treat any portion of Christianity as necessarily true.Kww 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Kww. Reliable, historical and sociographic information is what I'm after. First, Afaprof, while your teleological perspective is useful in certain contexts, the idea that such a narrow audience as "Christians who believe in an inspired Bible" are the only ones this article is written for fails the rest of the population on an issue that really does effect more than that small group. I don't think the end purpose of information is important, but remember: with a 1,700-year history of politically-enforced Christianity, all of western society is influenced by this religion. It's not just the ones who believe one way or another.

However much I might agree with your goals, if you try to demonstrate what "SHOULD BE (but has never been) the Christian view of women" in this article, i.e. Jesus' Interactions With Women, you will only confuse the people coming here to find reliable information about Christians in the context of societies and histories. That's what must be done in an article of this nature: We must write about Christians, not Christ. Their published reactions to Jesus are fair to include, but long, Original Research-laden criticisms of original texts of the Bible are utterly out of place. I'm sorry if you spent a long time already doing this, but it does not fit the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. I wouldn't add information to an article on fruit flies without secondary sources for research, let alone a topic as potentially controversial as religion.

I think the "Complementarian Vs. Christian Egalitarian" emphasis is too narrow historically. Remember: different Christians and different groups had very different attitudes about women throughout church history. To cite just from the era and society I'm most familiar with, 18th century England, women were largely encouraged to act as the standard-bearers of virtue, while they were largely discouraged from preaching (though not entirely prevent from it). This kind of variety can be found throughout Christian societies, and need to be exposed for people in an encyclopedic context.

Sχeptomaniac: Your points are well-taken. I suppose the information for this article could be organized under the headings of Jesus' Interactions with Women *if* it was composed of secondary source criticisms, and those secondary sources were put into their proper social/historical context. This section hasn't had that kind of treatment yet, and it seriously needs it.

Pschelden 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I should be more specific, so here's my specific thoughts on the subsections:

• Jesus and his mother - Keep, for what I think are obvious reasons, and probably expand some (her veneration in Catholicism might be an good subject if sources can be found relating it).
• Mary Magdalene - Keep, but maybe rework some. (The speculation regarding a sexual relationship with Jesus has certainly seen a lot of press, but I question how widely held it is.)
• The woman bent double - remove as not significant enough.
• A widow of Nain - remove as not significant enough.
• A widow's offering - Not significant to views of women, IMO.
• A woman who anointed Jesus' feet - As it stands now, I think it should be removed, but this woman does have significance in Christian teaching, so might be acceptable if rewritten.
• A woman who touched Jesus' garment - Maybe rework some, but I think it could be kept.
• A woman rebuked - Remove. It really doesn't detail any common teachings.
• A Syrophoenician woman - Remove. It's really about Jewish relationships with Gentiles, and not so much about women.
• Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Definitely keep, but it probably needs some work.
• The woman at the well in Samaria - Keep.
• Mary and Martha - Keep.
• Women who ministered to Jesus - Remove (at least for now) due to OR and NPOV issues.
• Twelve and no women - Remove (at least for now) due to OR and NPOV issues.
• Jesus on family relationships - Probably not a subsection, really, but there is some potential here, so I'm hesitant to call for removal.

Is there agreement/disagreement on these?Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Sχeptomaniac. Very helpful specificity. I vote YES on your proposal. Afaprof01 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think whether to keep the on-the-fence material should be based on what secondary sources have already done with the stories. I definitely think the Jesus and Families section is relevant to the article, but it seems out of place because it deals generally with women and not with an individual.

Whatever our approach, we need to remove big chunks of OR for the sake of NPOV. Pschelden 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:Pschelden, please re-read the definition of WP:OR. Then, please give me an example of one "big chunk" of OR--so I'll know what you consider OR. It's not OR if it has a credible source, and Staggs and Belezeiken are certainly credible, highly credentialed sources.
• I'm also wondering if you might tackle one of the other areas soon so we can begin to understand what you mean
• And, please give us an example of how one might interpret "this source material in the context of actual Christians"? I'm very unclear as to what you mean. Thanks. Afaprof01 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not OR if it is properly accredited to a source, not if it simply has a credible source. Making an encyclopedia isn't just providing facts and opinions: It also entails providing suitable reference to secondary source material. As for providing examples, I did that for you in April, which could be brought back to the current discussion page if you wish. Finally, when I wrote that source material should be consistent with actual Christians, I meant that it should reflect historical, social, and demographic facts as much as possible. Even when modern scholars are cited to give the "real, true, genuine" meaning of a text, they should be put in their proper context and made distinct from historical approaches to that same text. Is that clear? Pschelden 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request. I acknowledge reading your response. Afaprof01 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut the sections that we seem to agree should be removed. I'll start considering what should be done to reorganize/rewrite the remaining material. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus interactions with women should be deleted or placed under Jesus views about women. It has nothing to do with aiding to define the difference between complementarian and egalitarian views about women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Location: United States [City: St. Peters, Missouri]Charter Communications NETBLK-CHARTER-NET (NET-75-128-0-0-1) 75.128.0.0 - 75.143.255.255(talk) 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Most likely User:A.B.Pepper

After reading this section about Jesus interactions with women it looks like it may be a cut and paste job from a book by Stagg. I am going to investigate the matter further and see if it does not violate wp guidlines concerning copyrighted material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Location: United States [City: St. Peters, Missouri]Charter Communications NETBLK-CHARTER-NET (NET-75-128-0-0-1) 75.128.0.0 - 75.143.255.255(talk) 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Most likely User:A.B.Pepper

As I suspected this section "jesus interactions with women" takes almost an entire chapter word verbatim from the book "Women in the world of Jesus" stagg. Soon I will upload photocopies of the pages of the book on my personal website for administrator review.

When Jesus was arrested, women remained firm

This text in the article; "When Jesus was arrested, women remained firm, even when his male disciples are said to have fled" is blatantly incorrect. Lets examine the evidence.

a) Between the beginning of the last supper and Jesus being led to the crucifixion there is absolutley no mention of women. The women only appear again in Johns'gospel when Jesus is being led away to be crucified.

b) More likely than not it was only "the twelve" and a few others that were with jesus during his arrest. However, the text says "disciples" which could have included his female disciples.

c) The text says "all" of his disciples fled. If there were women among his disciples that would have included them. matt. 26:56

d) There was a "certain young man" that fled naked only after they laid hands on him. mark 14:51-52

e) This flight was of short duration whereas both Peter and John followed Jesus into the palace of the high priest. (no women followed Jesus into the palace of the high priest) John 18:15-16

f) "Most" of the female disciples witnessed the crucifixion "afar off". mark 15:40

g) The disciples who had fled which may or may not have comprised women was as a result of Christs intercession and so that the scripture may be fulfilled that "not one of them would be lost" john 18:8-9

h) There was at least one male disciple in the immediate vicinity of the crucifixion. The disciple who "Jesus loved" (John or Lazarus) took Jesus mother into his household. john 19:25-27

As you can see, Carolyn Dearmond Blevins who is cited for this preposterous claim does not know the text of scripture. Therefore, this erroneous statement needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Location: United States [City: St. Peters, Missouri]Charter Communications NETBLK-CHARTER-NET (NET-75-128-0-0-1) 75.128.0.0 - 75.143.255.255(talk) 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Most likely User:A.B.Pepper

Regarding some recent additions

I thought I would go into a little more detail as to why I think some recent additions don't fit [1], since the anonymous editor inserting them wants discussion. Firstly, this line: "The context of the verse does not deal with the issue of a womans role in the new testament church." I dislike commenting on what isn't said unless there is a significant source. It's better to focus on clarifying what the verse is saying. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Galatians 3:28 has been taken out of context to argue for certain ecclesiastical positions in the church but the context of the verse only deals with salvation in or through Christ and being an heir of Abraham. But, I will do a little research to find a reliable source who has published this arguement so that it is not construed as OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 09:42, November 2, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second passage: "Pamela Eisenbaum, self proclaimed feminist and associate professor of theology at Iliff school of Theology agrees that this is the intended meaning of the following verse." I have two problems with this. Firstly, what makes Pamela Eisenbaum worthy of mention here. Simply being an associate professor doesn't mean she should be mentioned by name. Secondly, what source is this coming from? I'm very uncomfortable with attributing a position to a person without a source to back it up. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what makes Staggs worthy of mention here Firstly, what makes Nicole worthy of mention here Firstly, what makes Bailey worthy of mention here

I have no problem if you wish to remove the mention of Eisenbaum as long as you also remove all of the mentions or persons through out the article. (unsigned)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 09:42, November 2, 2007 (UTC)

Two other problems with this passage: 'self-proclaimed' is a weasel word, somehow implying that it's a false claim; and "agrees" doesn't make sense unless it says who she is agreeing with, in which case lets quote the person she agrees with. 199.71.183.2 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with you on both counts. I am not sure what the proper terminology should be. In the citation she claims to be a feminist. Not that it is a big deal other than a feminist concedes that Paul was stating that man and not woman was created in Gods' image. Agrees, after reading your point i agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove it again. The work used to cite the view is regarding ethnic differences, not gender [2]. She says nothing in the article about Paul suggesting only man was made in God's image. The citation needs to support what you are claiming Eisenbaum believes.

Obviously you did not read the article or more likely did not understand what you read. Allow me to break it into little bite size pieces for you. The article is about the paradox between Pauls' sayings in one text and something contrary in another text. Go back and reread the article until you understand what she is saying. Also, your participation on the talk page is disingenious. You are to accept my edit in "good faith" and if you disagree we discuss till a concensus is reached. But you revert my "good faith" edit and then declare what you did.

On the other hand, Stagg is included by name in the article because he's a notable theologian. It's not absolutely necessary to name him, so rewording is possible, but there's an article on him, so the immediate response isn't "who?" Eisenbaum might be a good source for the existing line, if a source can be found, but you really haven't made a case for naming her in the article. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Define; "noteable theologian :-) If she is disqualified per a scholarly definition (not your personal definition) then I will consider your point. Also, If yours second criteria for deletion is a wikipedia article on Eisenbaum I will create a stub and you can add all the additional information you would like to see. So now your arguements have been neutralized. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I read through the section at the bottom twice before I last removed that section. It doesn't say what you are claiming. On the other hand, you have now violated the three revert rule. While I don't think it's necessary to make a big deal and get admin intervention yet, you need to stop re-adding the same text until you have some support for it on the talk page. The burden of proof is on you, not the four people who have removed it. You have not established a good reason why the text should be added, much less dealt with the false citation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in response to notability, the article establishes Stagg's notability through his article. It's possible Eisenbaum is notable, but the text doesn't establish that, as being an associate professor at a school of theology is not. However, establishing her notability doesn't fix the problem of the false citation, nor explain why we need to specifically name her. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have read through the article twice then please give me the Pauline citations she uses to establish a mysogynist viewpoint of Paul in juxtaposition to what seems to be Pauline citations to the contrary. Hint; she listed them A and B. This is an open book test. Take all the time you need. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

EISENBAUM and 1 Cor 11:7. "Our" CVAW article presently states:

"Paul's interpretation of the creation narrative seems to imply that man alone (male of the species) was created in the image of God and not woman. Pamela Eisenbaum…among others, considers that this is the intended meaning of the following verse:" and then 1 Cor. 11:7 is quoted.

That misrepresents her article considerably. Her ONLY reference to 1 Cor. 11:7 ("a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man") is in the context of her discussing the ambiguity of some of Paul's writings: "he has good as well as bad things to say about women and Jews." She says nothing even close to "man alone created in God's image." Neither does she exegete 1 Cor. 7 except to use it as an ambiguous contrast with the clearly egalitarian appeal of 1 Cor. 7:3-4. Therefore, I have deleted what I consider an erroneous attribution to her article, and quoted her in another context more germane to CVAW. I was unfamiliar with her article, and appreciate the editor's locating it and interjecting it, albeit with incorrect attribution. Afaprof01 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to represent her article comprehensively. If I were I would cite her conclusion that Paul was not attempting to negate or disregard distinctions with respect to the subgroups in question.

As you afaprof01 were able to deduce from the John Mcarthur article that he was refering to "secular" feminism (although the word secular never appears in the article) I was able to use the same reasoning to deduce what Eisenbaums interpretation of Pauls statement in 1 cor. 11:7 Never did I state that she agrees with the interpretation. The point being this. Let us keep the criteria for editing consistent. The rules of engagement so to speak must be applied and adhered to equitable among all editors without regard to their point of view. I intend to exercise the wikipedia tenet of assuming good faith and therefore I expect other editors to assume good faith with regard to my contributions as well. The alternative is that of engaging in reverting and edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm not assuming good faith. Ironically, casting aspersions regarding a person's motives are the very definition of failing to assume good faith (also see Assume the Assumption of Good Faith). I have not questioned your motives, while you have questioned mine multiple times. Please stop now. Debate me by answering my points of argument, and if you don't understand a point, ask for clarification.

The Eisenbaum insertion is way off, because, as Afaprof01 has stated, she only lists the quote in her essay as part of the ambiguity of Paul's writing, and doesn't make a claim for what she thinks Paul intended. Towards the end of the essay, she says, "God creates an originary human being, called adam in Hebrew, and then divides adam into two genders." This is very different from saying that God only created Adam in his image, and not Eve. I will not leave claims as to what Eisenbaum believes in this article until we have a source that backs it up, and the current source does not come remotely close to doing so. I'm removing the line until you get a source that clearly shows what Eisenbaum believes Paul is saying. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok sexytoes. Although the discussion had not yet ended we will leave the subject in its' present form for the moment. Now let's isolate the text in question so that you are not overwhelmed with the entire content of the article. Consider the statement she had made and then consider why she cited these two scriptures in juxtaposition. Then I will ask you to conclude what she considers Paul to be implying in 1 corinthians 11:7 that would in her interpretation consider it to be contrary to the verse that it is in juxtaposition to. Ready? Begin.......

(("Paul himself is partly to blame. He seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth; he has good as well as bad things to say about women and Jews. Ambiguity plagues both subjects in the writings of Paul (a good reason to look at both issues together). For example, compare the verses in each of the following sets:

· A. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Cor. 7:3-4)

· B. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor. 11:7)

In each of these sets, the verse labeled "A" coheres with more recent views of Paul as someone who felt positively....... egalitarianism. The verse labeled "B" reflects the traditional perspective, which sees Paul as ......... upholding a hierarchical relationship between men and women."))

Sexytoes, your answer here________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to me. Shortening my nickname to Sxepto is fine. In your quote, Eisenbaum is saying that 1 Cor. 11:7 is often used to support the traditional perspective, not what the "intended meaning" is (which is why the text additions have been wrong). I can't conclude what she thinks Paul is saying in the verse, because she doesn't answer that herself. She explains very clearly why she refers to those verses: "the point is that they are all authentically Pauline, even though they appear -- at least on the surface -- to express contradictory points of view." Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminders from AFD closer

Folks, it has been a month and some of the problematic issues identified in the AFD aren't yet fully solved. Please keep pushing to address those concerns.

In particular, keep working on resolving the issues regarding Wikipedia:No original research. As editors we should not be interpreting scripture ourselves; on this topic the Bible is a primary source, and the WP:PSTS section of the policy against original research reminds us that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." I know that there are lots of reliable published sources on the topic out there; this issue can be completely fixed.

It is also important for all editors to attempt to move the article closer to a neutral point of view by having it represent "fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." (Incidentally, this requirement shows that the claim that only non-Christian sources should be used is a direct contradiction to fundamental policy, such a limitation does not represent all signficant views, and that claim should be ignored - but don't ignore non-Christian sources about the topic either.) Some editors may find that trying to reflect the balance of the sources will require them to write for the enemy. This is tough to do, but I've seen it done on some articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and certainly this is no worse a conflict.

I do think there is one major flaw in the article structure right now that rises to the level of a NPOV violation; the "History" section doesn't address historical Christian views on women, which is the topic of the article. On the topic of the article, the article skips entirely from the scriptural period to contemporary debate. There are historical Christian views that are published in reliable sources, and these should be reflected. What the proper content of that history section is, I don't know.

You are making progress; keep going. GRBerry 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. It was very needed and appreciated. I agree with your suggestions. I'm working on the contemporary views since those are the ones today's men and women are dealing. The previous 2 millennia are on my to-do list. Help from other editors on the historical views would be welcomed. Afaprof01 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does need to be more neutral. Personally, I thought that certain sections of the article came across as strongly biased in a sense of almost accusation against the Christian faith. This is wikipedia, not a personal blog, because no matter how professionally you write it, a biased opinion is still a biased opinion. 129.107.81.12 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Outline

I have outlined the article and put in headings. A few of them are still empty. However, at present they are temporary place markers to help us get organized. It helps see the "big picture." Please add your comments regarding the outline before more time and effort is spent filling in all sections. I don't understand the "Catholic references" at the very end. Does anyone know why it is there, and why it is separate?

I have several ideas to address the objections to the Jesus and women section. Just haven't had time since I've been working on the early parts of the article, but I plan to get to it soon.

The very old sections (before my time) on scriptures used to support equal vs unequal views don't seem to meet Wiki standards. Also, there has already been an objection raised to the term "unequal." All of the literature today is in terms of Christian Egalitarian (to distinguish from secular egalitarianism which has been around for a very long time) and Complementarism which is a very recent term. There are very good lists of the scriptures used to support each of those positions, and excellent citations. I think the ones grouped under Equal and Unequal are {{OR}} and haven't been able to find supporting research using those terms. I propose those lists be deleted.

That is a fantastic idea !!! Remove all of the biblical references. Anyone who wanted to research the biblical text had a convenient list to reference but, seeing that they are far numerous in support of the complimentarian position they really should be removed. Anyhow, it is better to load the article with citations from which ever point of view has the most dedicated adherent. A fabulous strategy !!! Furthermore, One authoritative scripture can destroy a multitude of opposing citations and we certainly would not want the sword and the spirit to destroy all the time, emotion, and toil we have invested in the article. Bravo...Bravo...!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We still need additional skilled editors. Invite your friends! Thanks to all who are actively helping in some way. Afaprof01 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gratitude

I would personally like to extend my sincere gratitude to afaprof010 for providing us, the editors with an abundance of resources on this subject. I had previously relied on my exemplary reasoning skills (which I attribute to an intelligence quotient of 147)to formulate and articulate a sound rebuttal to evangelical feminism. It was of little use on wikipedia however whereas it could be construed as original research. Alas, I must relegate my contributions to nothing more than a common cut and paste artist.

I will concede though that whereas in the last few years I have been successful in aborting six or seven women of their desire to pastor a church I am sure that in the future I will be of greater success as I meet these challenges. Albeit, even in the last month we had a woman at church who wanted to teach a Beth Moore bible study to the female congregates. During a business meeting regarding the issue I was able to single handedly compel the church to a no vote. I take no pleasure in telling you that the aformentioned woman when attempting to examine me and my position found herself in an anquishing and humiliating defeat. For the rest of the business meeting she sat down and kept silent. I am not sure whether or not I could have vanquished this afront to biblical complimentarianism with out the training I had received engaging my sparing partner afaprof01. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 75.132.86.220, for your kind affirmation and explanation. It's much nicer working with you this 2nd time around. Eeading this brief history helps me to better understand the trauma you and we experienced when you first came aboard. I'm new enough to remember that it was not always either easy or smooth for me to adapt to Wikipedia's editing policies, though I have grown to appreciate most of them. I've had my wings clipped and my plow cleaned quite a few times, and it's never been fun. For me this is a whole new experience, unlike anything I've ever done in other publishing activities. Sometimes we learn from each other, and I'm thankful for the warmer, less stressful, relationship we have begun. I pray it will continue. Afaprof01 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Length of article, and suggested merge of material into another article

This is an important article, and it is on the right track. However, it is currently way too long, and its length impacts on its ability to convey information usefully.

I have suggested a merge of the biblical section into Women in the Bible. IMO this article should be about historical and modern Christian views about women, in other words, how Christians throughout history have understood the roles and identity of women. How the Bible presents women is another matter that can be addressed in the relevant article. A transfer of this material will bring the article's length under better control.

I agree with above discussion that more emphasis needs to be given to church history (i.e. the past 2000 years), although it is certainly important for the present debate to have adequate representation. Personally I have plenty of material that could be added, and I will try to contribute to the article as my time allows. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with moving that section over to Women in the Bible. It definitely is more appropriate over there. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with moving that biblical material to Women in the Bible. I've also been working at expanding this article in more appropriate ways. I've added a third viewpoint, Christian feminism to the mix because I felt the previous presentation of only 2 views (egalitarian and complementarian) was misleading. As far as I can tell there is a big difference between "Christian feminism" (represented by EEWC and many liberal churches) and "evangelical egalitarianism" (represented by CBE). My own denomination (Anglican church of Australia) contains many people whose views fit with EEWC (i.e. pro-choice, pro-homosexual, no significant differences between M and F besides anatomy), and many people whose views fit with CBE (i.e. pro-life, against homosexuality, M and F are equal but possess complementary characteristics). These 2 groups are often at considerable odds with each other and differ on many other theological views. Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph about womens' roles in NT

The following paragraph is original research as it stands, because it lacks verification from a secondary source. The only references given are from the bible, which is a primary source and may be interpreted in different ways by different people. The language in several places also reflects OR, synthesis and even speculative guesswork: for instance "no doubt due in part...", "it is not surprising then...", "women's roles would have included...", "perhaps even...". To be readmitted into the article, the paragraph needs (1) to be revised to remove the synthesis and speculation, (2) to have credible secondary sources cited as verification and (3) to have NPOV maintained by including the views of traditionalist scholars who deny that such biblical texts describe as prominent roles for women as egalitarians claim. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul's letters mention several women as providing leadership and other support to him and to the early church. He also offers some important glimpses into the inner workings of ancient Christian churches. These groups did not own church buildings but met in homes, no doubt due in part to the fact that Christianity was not legal in the Roman world of its day and in part because of the enormous expense to such fledgling societies. Such homes were a domain in which women played key roles. It is not surprising then to see women taking leadership roles in house churches. Paul tells of women who were the leaders of such house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in 1 Corinthians 16:19). This practice is confirmed by other texts that also mention women who headed churches in their homes, such as Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship. Paul, for example, greets a deacon named Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and assumes that women are praying and prophesying during worship (1 Corinthians 11). As prophets, women's roles would have included not only ecstatic public speech, but preaching, teaching, leading prayer, and perhaps even performing the Eucharist meal. A later first century work, called the Didache, assumes that this duty fell regularly to Christian prophets.

So, you want to be an administrator?

When a contributing editor makes multiple individual contributions to an article in good faith, a good follow up editor will evaluate each individaul contribution to ascertain the merits of each individual edit.. A follow up editor with a particular negative agenda toward the contributing editor will revert all the edits indiscriminately. As I see this occur I will make note of it here, and on the reverting editors talk page. The impetus of course is if that particular reverting editor is desirous of admin. authority at some future date it would be prudent to make those determining the candidates "agemda" apparent for consideration.

editors who have made indiscriminate mass reverts----

a) sxeptomaniac: Adding to scripture? There were no verses in the original autographs and the "thought" or "statement" of paul was incomplete. When you are going to quote the premise(s) of an authors syllogism it would lead to confusion not to include the conclusion.

b)Escape Orbit: "reverted one edit?" You reverted approximately 10 edits with one revision.

c) Tonicthebrown; did a mass revert but did not even consider that the word "secular" did not appear anywhere in macarthurs article. What's your agenda?

Good luck on your journey to Admin. Glory....!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This sort of accusation is uncivil and inappropriate. Sxeptomaniac and Escape Orbit reverted your edits because they were lacking in neutrality and verifiability. I agree with them. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Every and all edits? Why not talk about them on the discussion page or why not tag with citation needed? It is uncivil to revert 10 give or take edits with one key stroke. I disagree with you :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision of 10 edits is reasonable when 10 edits are made that defy standards of neutrality, accuracy and verifiability. For example

• • As gender roles have shifted in society and in many churches, some Christians have re-evaluated their historic positions. You keep deleting this despite the fact that it is an accurate and sourced statement.

Go read again what is a good, acceptable and reliable reference per wiki. "dashhouse.com" is a mom and pop web site. Now Go...! ROFL...!!!

• • You change One of the scripture passages to The only scripture passage. This is inaccurate, if you read any egalitarian book you'll see that they use many scripture passages to support their position.

Then give a citation that there are in fact many. "many" is point of view and a weasel word The only proof text that seems to reoccure is the galatians verse. And is refered to a number of times in the article, piece meal and out of context.

• • Albeit, the first witnesses to the risen christ and also to preach his resurrection were angelic beings refered to in the male gender. This is an unsourced and OR statement, which even complementarian theologians don't use.

I will give you this critique with regard to being unsourced if you will answer this one quesion. Was it, or was it not angel(s) refered to in the male gender that first preached the resurrection. In your opinion, answer the question yes or no. I am not looking necessarily for a correct answer but this will allow me and other editors to ascertain the sincereity of your puported neutrality. "hint"- Matthew 28:2-7

Your answer here_________________________

• • Some theologians believe that these biblical reports provide evidence of women apostles changed to Some feminist theologians believe that these biblical reports provide scant evidence of a woman apostle. That this is clearly a POV revision does not need to be proven.

The original rendering is pov and does need to be proven. :-)

a)Some is a weasel word. Which theologians? Are they theologians? Define theologian and give me their credentials. b)these biblical report(s). There is only one biblical text in dispute. The gender and office of Junia/Junias. Which if it did prove or indicate a female apostle would be scant in comparison to the totality new testament text. c) women apostles is plural the text in dispute refers to one woman.

I suggest you please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before making further revisions. I think the fact that multiple editors have reverted your changes show that they are not appropriate. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy and what you "think" is irrelevant. a) what makes a good reference or citation b) that majority rule does not dictate article content c) assume good faith d) the difference between vandalism and content dispute.

With regard to "multiple editors" reverting my changes. What it indicates is that they do not like the "tone" or pov of the edits. Particularly when there is a mass revision and that each edit is not judged on it's own merits. This fact neutralizes your point entirely. Furthermore it neutralizes the integrity of their puported neutrality.