User:WordBender22/sandbox

Women in Christianity Edit

Gilbert Bilezikian writes that "the poison of hierarchy generated by the fall (of mankind) had permeated relationships to such an extent that those very disciples Jesus was training in the ways of servanthood insisted on substituting hierarchy for servanthood. They kept competing among themselves for the highest status and for positions of preeminence. Bilezikian continues: "To settle the issue once for all times, Jesus sharply delineated the basic difference between social organization in the secular world and in the Christian community". He concludes that "Consequently, there is no mandate and no allowance in the New Testament for one adult believer to hold authority over another adult believer. Instead, the overall rule calls for mutual submission among all believers out of reverence for Christ".

• I think that this should be re-written. Whomever did this beforehand was relying far too much on quotes, which isn't ideal because it can actually make the article weaker - especially as they kind of wrote things a little oddly. I found the book in question here at Google Books, where you can preview this particular section. Would you like help with the re-writing process? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The basic gist of what Bilezikian was writing is this:

When mankind lived in the Garden of Eden, they were equal to one another. The fall that Bilezikian refers to is when Adam and Eve were cast out due to the eating of the forbidden fruit. As Eve brought the fruit to Adam, God said that her husband (Adam) would "rule over her" - which has since been used by some to justify a hierarchy that places men above women. This can be seen as the start of other hierarchies that place one person above another, such as a priest being seen as more important than a follower, a Cardinal higher in the hierarchy than an average priest, and so on, which endured for so long that Jesus's followers automatically began competing to see who would hold the highest honors among them.

This didn't mesh with what Jesus was going for with his teachings, so he specifically went out of his way to show that no one person is better than the next person. He ate with people that were far lower in the hierarchy and even people seen as "unclean", something that someone with a higher status would not do because it would make them "dirty" and "base" by association. These behaviors can also be seen in parts of the Bible such as the story about the fallen woman (ie, "he who has not sinned may throw the first stone") and the story about the Good Samaritan.

As a result Bilezikian states that there's nothing in the New Testament (said by Jesus) that would justify a hierarchy or give one person authority over another - in other words, husbands and wives should be equal partners and neither has authority over the other. By this extension it also means that men and women are equal to one another.

(Sorry - I studied religion in college, so I can get a bit nerdy. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC) )

Actually that's very helpful, Shalor (Wiki Ed). So should I try to draft a new paragraph? That's a little intimidating because I'm so new to Wikipedia. I can certainly fix the quotation now. However, I'd prefer to work more long term on fixing the whole paragraph, so that I can learn the nuances of Wikipedia writing. WordBender22 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think that working on improving the paragraph long term is a fine suggestion. I'd recommend working on any changes or drafts here, as this would give you a lot of time to test out things and learn Wikipedia more. I can absolutely help you with this process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Christianity Draft

Gilbert Bilezikian writes that "the poison of hierarchy generated by the fall (of mankind) had permeated relationships to such an extent that those very disciples Jesus was training in the ways of servanthood insisted on substituting hierarchy for servanthood. They kept competing among themselves for the highest status and for positions of preeminence." Bilezikian continues: "To settle the issue once for all times, Jesus sharply delineated the basic difference between social organization in the secular world and in the Christian community". He concludes that "Consequently, there is no mandate and no allowance in the New Testament for one adult believer to hold authority over another adult believer. Instead, the overall rule calls for mutual submission among all believers out of reverence for Christ".Eph. 5:21

Quotation under Biblical hermeneutics

The quotation in the 4th paragraph under Biblical hermeneutics seems incorrectly punctuated. Ideally, I would get my hands on the source and correct the quotation, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't stepping on any toes. It seems to need an close quote, but I am unsure of where the cited author's work ends and the editor's words begin. If that cannot be determined, a paraphrase would suffice to eliminate the single open quote in the passage. WordBender22 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Grey's Anatomy Season 1 Cast.jpg Grey's Anatomy

Articles under consideration

Christian egalitarianism

Women in the Bible

Women in Christianity

Reference

Basinger, D. (1988). Gender roles, Scripture, and science: some clarifications. Christian scholar's review, 17(3), 241-253.

Adding a citation

Hello! In the Biblical authority and inerrancy section there is a citation needed for the claim, "In general, all evangelicals involved in the gender debate claim to adhere to the authority of the Bible." I have found a source that legitimizes this claim and would like to add a citation.

Egalitarians Defend Their Views

While researching, I found a point that Egalitarians frequently make when they have to justify their position, The article I would be referencing is by David Basinger, and is titled "Gender roles, Scripture, and science: some clarification". Here is the citation for it:

Basinger, D. (1988). Gender roles, Scripture, and science: some clarification. Christian Scholar’s Review, 17(3), 241–253.

Article Contribution

David Basinger, a doctor of philosophy, says that Egalitarians point out, "Few Christians [...] take all biblical mandates literally." Basinger goes on to cite John 13:14 and James 5:14 as commandments prescribed by the Bible which are seldom followed by Christians. Basinger says that this logic indicates that traditional views "cannot be argued [...] solely because Paul and Peter exhorted the woman of their day to submit in the home and be silent in the church".

Annotated Bibliography for work on Christian egalitarianism

Ruether, R. R. (1983). Sexism and God-Talk. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Rosemary R. Ruether, a noted theologian and scholar, authored the book Sexism and God-Talk to explore in-depth the relationship between God, men, women, and Christianity in its entirety (history, anthropology, Christology, theology, etc.). Ruether compiled research dating back to the 1600's to create a robust discussion of the gendered nature of Christianity. Through her critique of classic Christian theology, Ruether breaks down a centuries old idea to reconstruct a feminist theological ideal. Ruether connects ideas across time and disciplines to establish a view of theology that was groundbreaking in its time. Through her evaluation of ideas like gendered divinity, preexisting social construction, and intercultural norms, readers can expect to gain an understanding of the deep roots of sexism across religion and how gender equity can fit into Christianity. Most relevant to my topic is Ruether's breakdown of Egalitarian Theology into 3 distinct views. The Women in Christianity article does not discuss Eschatological Feminism, Liberal Feminism, or Romantic Feminism as they are related to the egalitarian view of women in the church. This would be an excellent topic for my substantial contribution to the article. For my position paper, this source will offer a feminist lens through which scripture can be interpreted with as much validity as other interpretations.

Isherwood, L. (1999). Introducing Feminist Christologies. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.

In Introducing Feminist Christologies, Lisa Isherwood, a feminist theologian, examines the relationship between Jesus, the central figure in Christianity, and women. Isherwood synthesizes a range of feminist Christologies to determine if feminism has a place in Christology. By evaluating secondary sources and the Bible, Isherwood tackles questions like "Is an androcentric deity necessary?", "Is Christianity making culture exclusive or vice versa?", and "Can a male savior save women?". In her explorations of these inquiries, Isherwood forms a picture of a Christ figure who subverted the patriarchal customs of his time and helped to create a more inclusive atmosphere for people of all walks of life. This book is helpful in the development of my body of information in that it introduces an inquiry that is not explored in any other work I have come across: Did the culture during the formation of Christianity create the gender divide experienced today? This question has broadened my own scope of inquiry within the research process, providing another lens through which to make observations about women in Christianity. This book will be an excellent tool for building my argument for equality of men and women in Christianity because it dispels misogynistic conceptions of the Bible.

Carmody, D. L. (1995). Christian Feminist Theology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Christian Feminist Theology, a book by Denise L. Carmody, a doctor of religious studies and theological scholar, contributes to the discourse on feminist theology by critiquing classical theology and synthesizing it with a feminist view in order to dispel the idea that Christianity must continue to be male-centric. In the text, Carmody references primary and secondary sources in theology to develop her ideas around an inclusive Christian ideal. She explores history's influence on the patriarchy in religion and how history and culture are the roots of sexism in Christianity, not the Bible itself. Carmody claims that sexism, among other forms of discrimination, are counterintuitive Christianity's moral foundation. Her argument is critical to my body of research because it shows that the Bible is often wildly misinterpreted, particularly in its gender specific prescriptions. I will be able to use the views in this work to show the distortion of Biblically assigned gender roles. This work puts scripture into historical context that takes weight off of gender specific arguments, which is necessary for my argument paper.

Zucker, D. J. & Reiss, M. (2015). Subverting Sexuality: Manly Women; Womanly Men in Judges 4–5. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 45(1), 32-37. doi: 10.1177/0146107914564823

In this journal article, "Subverting Sexuality: Manly Women; Womanly Men in Judges 4-5", David Zucker and Moshe Reiss (Rabbis and Biblical commentators) dissect a passage of scripture with reference to other theologians' syntheses of the same passage. The scriptures in question, Judges 4-5, chronicle the stories of Deborah and Jael in both narrative and prose. This story flips the supposed Biblical view of masculinity and femininity on its head- depicting the women as prophets, judges, leaders, warriors, victors, and many other traits that were specifically male. The roles were entirely subverted in that the men were depicted as submissive, vulnerable, and weak- traits that are typically considered female. Zucker and Reiss discuss that subversion as it relates to Christians' conception of Biblical gender roles. They lead readers to question stereotypes derived from scripture. This work adds to the idea that society has developed gender roles, rather than Christianity doing so; it is contrary to every argument made about Biblical gender roles and will be quite useful in supporting my argument for Biblical gender equality.

Ruether, R. R. (2014). Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives. Buddhist-Christian Studies, (34), 83-94

Rosemary Radford Ruether, a ground-breaker of feminist theology, wrote the article "Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives" to counter patriarchal views of Biblical scripture, and to show that individual interpretation of scripture has been used to define views of women, rather than the scripture itself. Ruether condenses her previous work the in Buddhist-Christian feminist dialogue and synthesizes it with other voices in the conversation. In the article, Ruether begins by analyzing the misogynistic views of women supposedly derived from the Bible; subsequently, she refutes these by providing alternative interpretations of passages frequently referenced to subordinate women. By providing liberating and empowering interpretations of scripture, Ruether dispels the idea that the Bible itself is misogynistic, and instead adduces that the Bible has been misrepresented by people propagating a misogynistic point of view. This work elaborates significantly on egalitarian anthropologies, the subject of my contribution, which will be useful in broadening my evidence base. As far as use in my position paper, the entire basis of my argument is reinterpreting scriptures that support a misogynistic view of the Bible, so this article will be invaluable.

Gallagher, S. K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic Traditionalism And Pragmatic Egalitarianism: Evangelicals, Families, and Gender. Gender and Society, 13(2), 211–233.

Sally K. Gallagher, a Fulbright Scholar and doctor of sociology, and Christian Smith, also a doctor of sociology, wrote the article, "Symbolic Traditionalism And Pragmatic Egalitarianism: Evangelicals, Families, and Gender", to document a survey conducted among 265 participants across 23 states that assessed views of male headship in the Christian home. Gallagher and Smith convey their research by first describing the themes incorporated in questions and responses. They continue by outlining their methodology, and then they present selected statements that are intended to represent the variety of responses. They finish by summarizing and discussing the implications of the data collected. The survey concluded that a mere 5% of participants expressed true egalitarian beliefs, meanwhile only 2% expressed true traditionalist views. More than 90% combined egalitarian and traditionalist views, but implicated that male headship in Christian households is ideal. This article is a useful source in its application of concepts to real scenarios; it provides quantitative data and will be ideal for giving examples of views across the spectrum of egalitarianism. This article illustrates the views today's men and women pertaining to Christianity, which provides examples of the average church-goers point of view that I can utilize when arguing in my position paper.

Basinger, D. (1988). Gender roles, Scripture, and science: some clarification. Christian Scholar’s Review, 17(3), 241–253.

A doctor of philosophy, David Basinger, wrote "Gender roles, Scripture, and science: some clarification" to explore how Christians prescribe gender roles based on their interpretations of the Bible. He also cites and reinterprets commonly misappropriated scripture passages to provide an alternative point of view to readers. Basinger compares and contrasts traditionalist and egalitarian points of view in order to encompass both ends of the spectrum. Through his analysis, Basinger hopes to create greater consensus among Christians about the versatility of Biblical gender roles. Basinger's text sheds light on relationships between Christians and how they change depending on the views of women gleaned from their Biblical interpretations. This article is necessary for my contribution because it provides examples of egalitarian thought that will support the anthropologies I will be discussing. This article's discussion of interpretations will be useful in my position paper, wherein interpretations are heavily weighted.

Osiek, C. (1997). The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives. Theological Studies, 53(4), 956–968. doi: 10.4102/hts.v53i4.1753

Carolyn Osiek, a Biblical scholar, authored the article "The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives" to challenge claims of male authority. In the article, Osiek offers critiques of patriarchal views of Biblical authority and reconstructs scripture passages in order to convey an egalitarian view of authority. She begins by presenting a claim and its typical justification. she then "accepts" the claim and critiques it from that perspective. Afterward, Osiek "rejects" the claim and offers a feminist alternative. For each alternative she provides justification and criticism. In doing so, Osiek is able to represent both sides of the same coin. The article provides a broad array of views that allow the readers to understand the shift that Biblical interpretations have had as society has evolved. This article's forward perspective provides a new view from which to analyze my topic and the direction in which it is headed, which will help to fully develop my contribution and my position paper.

Christian egalitarianism

Egalitarian Anthropologies

Titled in accordance with Rosemary Radford Ruether's work in Christian theology, Egalitarian anthropologies explore varying views of gender equality in Christianity. These include eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism. According to Ruether, the commonality among these anthropologies is the belief that gender equality was the original intention of God and that it was somehow skewed by humanity. Ruether goes on to point out that the belief in the ideal of gender equality "leaves room for considerable variation in relating this equality to woman's present subjugated state in history under patriarchy." In the preceding statement, Ruether qualifies the need for further exploration into the following anthropologies.

Eschatological Feminism

Ruether connects eschatological feminism to mysticism and asceticism by way of its roots in transcendentalism. Her assertion is that the original human, Adam, was androgynous and that "the fall" was the initial creation of gender. She reaffirms this point in a later article, "Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives", referencing Galatians 3:28 , saying that through baptism androgyny is restored. Sexuality, the main division between genders, is said to be the root of female subordination. Relationships that are typically rooted in sexuality (marriage and motherhood) place women in roles that are subordinate in accordance with society's patriarchal norms. The path to equality is believed to be found when women transcend these roles- traditionally through celibacy (as seen in the life of Paul). Transcending worldly norms, which the Bible instructs Christians to do, brings men and women to the state of androgyny that eliminates gender subordination; thus, Christianity is intended to manifest gender equality. Ruether says that transcendence is the core of eschatological feminism; women reach equality with men by separating from the world, rather than changing it.

Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism rejects the notion that creation established the patriarchy; Ruether asserts that gender equality originally existed, but was distorted by historical injustices against women. This branch of egalitarianism dictates that gender equality must be restored rather than introduced. This restoration will be accomplished by economic, political, social, and systemic reformation. Ruether includes the church in her discussion of social reform, displaying its participation in gender subordination. Ruether continues saying, "The Church as a bearer of redeemed humanity ought especially to represent this equality of men and women in its institutional life. But it does so as a paradigm of what all social institutions should become, not as a representative of an eschatological humanity outside of and beyond history." Here she distinguishes liberal from eschatological feminism stating that liberal feminism calls for liberation within society, rather than removal from it.

Romantic Feminism

Ruether states that in romantic feminism the distinction between genders is found primarily in "spiritual" traits. Ruether references a sixteenth century humanist, Cornelius Agrippa, saying that women have an "affinity with divine Wisdom that gives them moral and spiritual superiority." Women are perceived to be innately altruistic, sensitive, and pure- traits that are considered morally superior compared to "male traits." Ruether continues saying that men and women are both inherently capable of goodness, but because of the patriarchy placing men into positions of power, more negative character traits are manifested (pride, aggression, dominance, etc.). Since women are not allowed into positions of power, Ruether supposes that they retain humanity's natural goodness. Romantic feminism contains varying ideologies in itself which are as follows.

Conservative Romanticism

According to Ruether, conservative romanticism suggests that women remain in the home in order to maintain their goodness. Ruether says, "If a woman leaves the home to take up a traditional male occupation, she will straightaway lose this good femininity and become a she-male, a monstrous virago, or will become debased to carnal femaleness, fallen woman." In one survey conducted in 1999 a researcher concluded based on participants' responses, "Even though husbands were not always the sole providers, for the majority of men they remained symbolically so, such that women's employment was nearly always described as secondary, even expendable, in light of wives' responsibility to rear and nurture children." Conservative romanticism opposes gender equality in the work force in order to better preserve traditional roles in the home. Women's innate goodness makes her the ideal candidate to raise children and to support the husband. In turn, this spousal support allows the husband to perform better in the workforce; this trickle effect of women sending good husbands and sons into the world is how conservative romantics suppose women make an impact.

Reformist Romanticism

Reformist romanticism aligns with conservative romanticism except in the reformist belief that the inherent goodness of women cannot be lost by equality in society. Ruether says that this ideology prescribes women to morally reform men and male-centric institutions, but to do so they require education, voting rights, and political power. Reformist romanticism believes that the innate goodness of women is needed in leadership positions to improve the nature of the world. It is also believed that the nature of women is incompatible with war and that under female leadership, the world would be at peace.

Radical Romanticism

Radical feminism rejects the entirety of male culture and debates whether males can be redeemed at all. Ruether says that radical feminists desire a utopian society completely independent from males in which women's inherent goodness is unimpeded by male inferiority.

Contribution Summary for Christian egalitarianism

This contribution references works by Rosemary Radford Ruether, a feminist theologian, and Ronald E. Heine, a doctor of Biblical and Christian studies. Its purpose is to explore egalitarian anthropologies; in doing so, the article gains connections between present egalitarian beliefs and the ideas that they are derived from. Readers will gain an understanding of the ideas that shaped egalitarianism over the years. The content of the contribution is under three subheadings: eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism- Ruether's divisions of the egalitarian anthropologies. Eschatological feminism describes a view of women as equal to men in a transcendent state that Christians reach through salvation. Liberal feminism describes a view of gender equality needing to be restored through social reformation. Romantic feminism has 3 branches, conservative, reformist, and radical romanticism. Each of these claim that women are innately morally superior to men, but differ in that their prescriptions for women are different. To see more of my research on the topic, feel free to visit the draft in my sandbox and ask any questions or make suggestions. WordBender22 (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ruether, Rosemary Radford (1986). Sexism and God-Talk. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. pp. 99–109. ISBN 0-8070-1205-X.

Ruether, Rose Radford (2014). "Sexism and Misogyny in the Christian Tradition: Liberating Alternatives". Buddhist-Christian Studies. 34: 83–94.

"Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3:28 - New International Version". Bible Gateway. Retrieved 2017-10-17.

"Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 7 - New International Version". Bible Gateway. Retrieved 2017-10-17.

"Bible Gateway passage: Romans 12:2 - English Standard Version". Bible Gateway. Retrieved 2017-10-15.

Heine, Ronald E. (1989). The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. p. 130.

Gallagher, Sally K.; Smith, Christian (1999). "Symbolic Traditionalism and Pragmatic Egalitarianism: Contemporary Evangelicals, Families, and Gender". Gender and Society. 13 (2): 211–233. doi:10.2307/190389.