Talk:Egalitarianism

From Theopedia

That definition of egalitarianism sounds complementarian. Isn't egalitarianism more popularly understood as sameness of potential roles? -Aaronshaf 13:27, 10 January 2006 (EST)

I think it sounds correct. Neither is superior to the other in any way (Egalitarian), even though the roles are different (i.e. Women bear children, men lead). Egalitarians (to my knowledge) allow for distinction in roles, yet claim that complimentarianism does not. Therefore, although a man may lead and a woman may bear children (distinct roles), both are co-equal in any sense of heiarchy. Sorry if I made this more confusing. JordanBarrett 13:42, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Ooops. I read it wrong the first time I guess. My bad. -Aaronshaf 13:53, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Well, I could be wrong, because what Gomarus wrote seems to be opposite of what I just said. I have heard Egalitarians try and distinguish men and women's roles, yet never to my own satisfaction. I think what Gomarus added cleared this up better. JordanBarrett 16:48, 10 January 2006 (EST)

I just wanted to say that the updates to this article are great, and make it much clearer. Larryjf

Removal of link 1-10-06

I removed the following:

• Tampering with the Trinity, by Bruce Ware - How contemporary evangelical feminism has been straying from the orthodox doctrine of God

For one, I don't find the caption at the end compelling enough to allow this to remain on this article. Perhaps it could flow over to the Feminism article, but this immediately states "egalitarianism is feminism". I personally do not agree with this statement, although I have heard it stated many times. Perhaps there can be more clarification to warrant its place on the article, but for now, I think it should not be there. JordanBarrett 18:31, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Furthermore, I think Bruce Ware takes this issue way too far. I personally have heard him speak on this issue in a more private meeting at Biola, and although I am complementarian, his description of egalitarianism as changing the doctrine of God is a little extreme. Thoughts? JordanBarrett 18:34, 10 January 2006 (EST)

As far as I know, egalitarians reject/modify the traditional Reformed view of the Son's subordination to the Father. Precedent for linking two such doctrines: Calvin's treatment on the hypostatic union and his rejection of transubstantiation. Not sure on the details yet. In the end, let's make the sure the writing guide governs the decision. -Aaronshaf 19:03, 10 January 2006 (EST)

As a sidenote, check out "Sixth - It is a violation of the incarnation" here. -Aaronshaf 19:05, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Didn't egalitarianism come culturally with feminism? -Aaronshaf 19:06, 10 January 2006 (EST)

From what I have noticed in the debate (and I admit this is a weak area for me, so anyone who has studied this in more depth please chime in), Egalitarians complain that complementarianism is a recent idea, whereas they claim their view originates with the earliest Christians. I'm not against allowing the Reformed view to come into play, but, I would be surprised to find a Reformed writer before 1980 who makes a comment like Ware does, mostly because Feminism is a more recent worldview that we're dealing with today. Either way, I see it this way: Egalitarians affirm the Trinity, however, they may view the Son's subordination differently, thus causing them to see heiarchy issues differently. I hope they are truly viewing God this way and letting their Egalitarianism spill out from that, rather then the other way around. In the end I believe that linking Egalitarianism with Feminism is a huge judgment call with which should come great sensitivity and solid arguments to support this claim. Theopedia has neither a solid article on Feminism nor on Egalitarianism. Until they become more developed I could see an article (or claim) such as Ware's repelling others who would possibly be future editors. JordanBarrett 19:19, 10 January 2006 (EST)

Book

If you are interested in women in the early church, I would recommend the book, When Women Were Priests by Karen J. Torjesen. I provided a link in the links section of the article. Most egalitarians would say that traditionally in the early church women were given positions of authority, sometimes over the entire church. This is in response to the idea presented by opponents: that women should not be in positions of authority within the church since they did not have them historically. Egalitarians to cite historical incidences and biblical examples to prove that concept of women in authority positions is not a recent idea and has not sprung exclusively from feminist movements. Most would maintain that the feminist movement brings the issue back into the spotlight to be re-examined. I do agree with JordanBarrett that Theopedia has extremely weak article on Egalitarianism. I find this disappointing, given the controversial nature of the subject matter. I also believe that the author of the first description for Egalitarianism is extremely uneducated on the matter. In addition, the description appears to be tainted with bias toward complemenarianism. I hope that these oversights will be corrected soon, sparing any confusion on the topic. I urge people to also remember that there are varying degrees of thought within this subject. It can vary from people believing that women should be able to hold any position that a man can in the church and vise versa, to people believing that women should be allowed leadership positions while still maintaining that some areas of leadership are better for one gender over another. I find it easiest to think of a scale with extreme egalitarianism on one end and extreme complementarianism on the other. I have provided more links in the links section for further study, if anyone is interested. -Terbie 15:19 01 May 2006 (PST)

Major Overhaul

I'm working on a major overhaul of this article. So far I have:

• Re-written the introductory section
• Added scriptures cited in support. I understand that the Theopedia guidelines recommend the NIV, ESV or NASB for Scripture citations, but the TNIV or NRSV are the best translations for preserving egalitarian arguments on these passages, so I've linked to the TNIV. Where the TNIV hasn't differed significantly from the NIV, I've maintained the NIV.
• Added a History section.

More changes forthcoming. JackMeyers 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I don't see a list of verses as particularly helpful in any article. However, setting that aside for the moment, I don't see any particular benefit to the TNIV or NIV, especially in a list of verses with no comment. Your method of citing verses is at odds with our use of RefTagger by Logos.com. The way we are set up on verse references, e.g. John 3:16, a mouse-over will pop up the verse in the ESV -- where one may read the verse without having to leave the page. This is preferred. We will leave your edits in the draft stage for the interim. One more thing. Your opening paragraph makes some bold statements with no source citation. It would be helpful to add such if possible. Thanks, Jim Ellis 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm happy to work with you on this. I wasn't the one who initiated the "scriptures cited in support" section. Do you think it would be better if I axe it altogether, or shorten the list? I just don't think the impression should be given that Galatians 3:28 is the only scripture egalitarians cite to support their position when it isn't. If we want a shorter list, I can probably limit it to Galatians 3:28, Joel 2:28-29, Judges 4:4 and Romans 16:7. Would that be fair? (And the only one of those 4 where I have a serious gripe with the ESV is Romans 16:7.)

I'm aware that Theopedia is set up to auto-cite the ESV. The problem is, the ESV (which is otherwise a fine translation) is terrible to use for understanding egalitarian arguments. The translators let their bias seep in to the extent that they didn't even bother footnoting alternative readings that could be used to bolster egalitarian claims. Translating Romans 16:7 to say Junia was "well known to the apostles" without even footnoting the traditional reading of "well known/outstanding among the apostles" is an example of this.

I'll add citations to my first paragraph when I get home. JackMeyers 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you can override the website default of the ESV by doing something like this (Romans 16:7, NASB). The software automatically sees the term "NASB" and changes the reference. You can do that for a number of other translations as well. :-) --Tom 20:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Okay, I went ahead and switched it to the shorter list, ESV on everything except Romans 16:7 (where I went TNIV). If you think I should axe the list altogether, Jim, let me know and I'll do that instead. JackMeyers 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The article should not emphasize proof texting anyway, but explain the theological positions/arguments. Thanx, Jim Ellis 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If a simple list of prooftexts isn't desirable, I'd personally still find it valuable to have the article address the key passages in question. My 2c. - Aaron Shafovaloff 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Added numerous favorable, neutral, and critical resources and external links to my draft. I have resources to add to the end of the complementarianism article as well when I'm done here.

Does Theopedia do articles on controversial passages? Fleshing out into articles on those passages may be possible eventually. JackMeyers 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes: example, 1 Corinthians 11. :-) --Tom 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)