Talk:Complementarianism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Unequal status

"Unequal status" is a loaded term to describe the Complementarian view and is unncessary to clarify the discussion. Posted by unknown.

"Differing, non-overlapping roles" is confusing, is window-dressing, and does not clarify the discussion. "Unequal status" is factual. Please sign your posts as requested above. Thank you. Afaprof01 04:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchy and Equalitarianism

Complementarianism is sometimes confused with patriarchy, when in fact it is likely closer to being a middle ground between patriarchy and equalitarianism. For example, while patriarchy will say that a woman must be obedient to her husband, complimentarianism will merely say that she must fruitfully collaborate with him. This is also different from equalitarianism which holds that there are little anthropological differences between men and women, if none at all. ADM (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Major clarification necessary

Per Bold, Revert, Discuss, I reverted changes which either had nothing to do with the topic, or which violated at least the spirit of what the source said. At that point I left it alone as I thought the action was obvious, whereas I should perhaps had discussed it per BRD, and I apologize for that.

Now my changes have been rereverted. I am not going to raise a stink about that, as I am sure this is based on a simple misunderstanding and can be easily resolved, but for the record the readdition was inappropriate.

Now for this content issue. Whenever the words dominant and submissive are used, especially where the contrast between genders is conjugated by "but", one can be almost guaranteed that that topic is not complementarianism. There might be some academically/theologically arcane niche where the usage may be prudent, but the trouble is those words in modern usage connote an asymmetrical sense of superiority/inferiority which is completely opposite to what this topic is about (it would be like disparaging through tone and writing style, e.g., the Cosine function for attaining a maximum at zero, implicitly criticizing the fact it doesn't pass through the origin instead like the Sine function. How absurd! Let's also recall what the co- prefix stands for in this case!) In fact, they are associated with patriarchalist views found at one end of the philosophical spectrum on which complementarianism acts as the fulcrum.

So could a quote from the Wright source be provided in which s/he attributes the descriptions to this philosophy? I do not have reason to think s/he may or may not hold such particular views him/herself, or has never discussed them, but I find it completely inscrutable that s/he would explicitly name complementarianism as the name of that philosophy. I could actually speculate that the source contrasts that philosophy with complementarianism, and it might be useful in another article, or reworded here to reflect that. However, I have speculated wrong before about sources I don't verify myself, so that's why I would like to see the material directly.

Without that in a reasonable time, I will reword or rewrite to assimilate better (perhaps as a contrast); the current wording leaves the reader quite muddled as to what complementarianism really is. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am adjusting the intro to fit with the Danvers Statement, which somehow only has a footnote, even though it is a commonly endorsed and cited statement of Complementarianist belief. The current intro cites from an SBC statement (the Southern Baptists are not alone in Complementarianism) and weasels the text into a POV tone that such a view is derogatory. Generally, this should be avoided in an introduction. I think basing the intro off the definition found in Danvers is the best method.

The word 'submission' is common amongst Complementarian viewpoints, as far as I have seen, purely because it is the common word as it has been translated. This is similar to the issue with 'love' as it has been translated, as the NT Greek has 4 words for love, yet there is no simple distinction in English. The additional connotations have been added by the English language themself, and are frequently called out as not intended when used in Complementarianism. Other terms are sometimes substituted ('followship', for example). 'Domination', on the other hand, is never condoned that I have seen. I agree that the article can be much improved in this sense.

A link to the Wright source is here. I need to read it more thoroughly, but I think it is an accurate representation of Complementarianism. Per above, the word 'submit' is used in reference to submission to God, and 'dominate' is used only once in reference to the size of a temple in Rome. The issue comes from unclarity of our citation of it, as it seems to be explicitly refuting Patriarchal arguments in favor of Complementarian. I had already remove the reference to 'male-dominated' in the intro, as this clearly had no cited justification for remaining. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, as I suspected there was a translation/context nuance, I'll have a look too. The Danvers statement seems to jive with my understanding pretty much (with the caveat that some of the theological details/references are a little over my head). I do believe care needs to be taken to avoid the consequential constructions such as "nevertheless...restricted" (from Danvers point 6) which are not part of the philosophy itself but are rather specific answers and applications to outside queries even if only implicit. As an trivial example, consider "Eggplants and carrots go good in stew. Eggplants are purple and carrots are orange; nevertheless carrots are restricted from being purple." Any construction which connotes a value asymmetry such as this should be avoided, after all that is the point. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a value statement, though. The nevertheless serves to differentiate equality in worth, grace, salvation, etc from difference in roles. This is central to Complementarianism, and exactly what differentiates it from Egalitarianism (different roles) and Partriachy (equality in worth). The asymmetry is not in value, but in roles alone. This is intended to mirror the Trinity, in which God the Father is of equal worth and respect as Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, yet each has a unique role.

All of that said, if the Danvers Statement is considered a work of Complementarian authors (which it is), we should write the article based on what it says, not what we wish it said. More broadly, on what Complementarianism is, not what we think or want it to be. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem

The Other religions section starts with the sentence, "Limitations of women's roles on the basis of religious beliefs are not unique to conservative Christianity or Western culture." But complementarianism isn't about limitation of women's roles any more than it's about limitation of men's roles. There's a general POV in this article that complementarianism is about limitations; while some specific examples might have that characteristic, the philosophy itself doesn't. Vultur (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Am having a little trouble following your logic. Seems to me that complementarianism is inherently limiting. The female's roles are considered subordinate to those of the male. There are no roles the male cannot perform or fulfill (except biologically only the male can "beget" and only the female can "bear"). But there are roles and positions explicitly closed to females in the complementarian model. At best it's a junior partner/senior partner arrangement. The male has veto authority and is "head" (however that gets defined).Afaprof01 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of different views being lumped under 'complementarianism' in this article. If this article intends to describe just what you're describing above, which is what the big quote from a Southern Baptist statement is describing, then sure. But the other half of the article seems to be using the term in the more normal way: simply, on the one hand, the belief that men and women have real physical and mental differences which make them best suited for different roles in the family and the church (and sometimes in society); and on the other hand, the belief that these different roles are of equal value and honor. If we mean to drag in all the subordinate-superior, hierarchical stuff to the definition of 'complementarianism', then the other needs a different article...

Also remember that most groups which advocate complementarianism go with a very early-Christian interpretation of authority, "he who will be first among you must be the servant of all", stuff. So the 'head' stuff is not as straightforward as it may look. Vultur (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done a lot of reading in to the CBMW blog for personal knowledge, and I would argue that John Piper and Albert Mohler would argue the "women are subordinate to men," comment. The first thing these guys stress is that women are of equal value to men; They repeat it over and over. In several articles they have made the point that while a wife is to be submissive to her husband ( Ephesians 5:22 ) they point out that this does not mean they have to submit to or obey all men. Complimentarianism is not about inferior/superior, it is simply different roles. Yes, that does mean it is limiting, but not inherently condescending, disrespectful, or prejudiced. 109.205.117.2 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Theological view

The views are cultural, not really theological. --Complementarianismism (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing that Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Danvers Statement be merged here, per WP:MERGE criteria 'text' & 'context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Hrafn's proposal. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Both articles are findamentally related to complementarianism, yet are stub length on their own. They can be merged back out if someone expands them to article length. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Disagree" - CBMW played a critical role in the Southern Baptist Convention condemning the NIV Bible in 2011. The NIV is the best selling Bible in the United States and CBMW helped move the largest evangelical denomination to condemn it. In my opinion, an organization with this kind of influence deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(i) You have yet to provide sources that actually verify this claim. (ii) Even if verifiable with third-party sources, involvement in a single controversy is not sufficient to warrant an independent article. The issue could be perfectly adequately dealt with with a couple of sentences in a CBMW section in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn. If the CBMW article is to stand on its own, it needs to be expanded into a suitable length NOW. Otherwise, I am in favor of merging now, and splitting it off if/when someone puts in the effort to make it a full article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry gentlemen, I've been busy and have not had time to work on all this as I would have liked. Here is a video of CBMW being referenced: fast forward to 24:52 to see the reference http://mediasuite.316networks.com/player.php?p=s9c3yg3a Go to Wednesday Afternoon, scroll down to "Business" which is forth from the very bottom, 24:52. I would also suggest that CBMW is growing in prominence. Their research has also influenced organizations like Focus on the Family. I will try to add a history of CBMW. Please offer other suggestions for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think of the latest changes. Thanks for your patients and please give me suggestions.--Toverton28 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Badly sourced and did little to establish independent notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly Agree - Both articles are related to the same thing. The alternative I might propose would be to submit the Danvers Statement article for deletion. Basileias (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been brought to my notice that User:Toverton28 has been WP:Canvassing editors likely to be friendly towards opposing a merger with the following partisan message: "The site that you helped build is being systematically deconstructed. Please see this site as well as Danvers Statement wiki page. I fear the edits are agenda driven. Please also see discussion on NIV." I would request that Toverton28 cease and desist this improper activity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, I am simply bringing your actions to people's attention. Look at the history of CBMW and the Danvers Statement. You have removed information bit by bit. Now you want to merge the site after systematically dismantling it. Why would you want less information on wiki? I suggest all your changes be undone and the hard work of other editors restored. Canvassing for a certain outcome is not good policy. This was not my goal. All I wanted was for those who worked so hard on this page to be aware of your work. It appears to me that you may wish to minimize CBMW on wiki. Just because CBMW is controversial does not mean they are unimportant. We will see what other editors think about this. I am willing to go with the majority.--Toverton28 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Toverton28: you were "simply bringing" a very "Biased" message, so per WP:Canvassing you were "Campaigning". And I would note that you only target those adding material, not making significant edits subtracting inappropriate material (such as Dougweller, who halved the size of the CBMW by removing material duplicated from the DS article). I have removed from Danvers Statement the verbatim quotation of the statement, and a rather dodgy section of ELs purporting (without substantiation) to be the 'Bibliography' on which the statement was based. And I have removed a number of poorly sourced and/or duplicative pieces of material from Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Let me rewrite your comment to reflect my own viewpoint: "The promotional articles that you helped build are being systematically brought into line with Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:PSTS & WP:NPOV). I fear your previous edits were agenda driven." Better rather to simply notify them of the merger discussion's existence without comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the record, I oppose the merge: and I do not see that there was a consensus for merging. -- 202.124.72.167 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see a clear consensus there either. At the very least, an uninvolved admin should have been called in to close the discussion. St Anselm (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AFA Prof01 - concurs

Bakkster Man - agree

Basileias (Me) - agree

Up until today opposition was "one." There is not a lot of people involved because these subjects are low traffic. If you open any book form encyclopedia, you will not find a Council on Biblical whatever or Danvers or any other such statements. Basileias (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP unmerged the article, which should not have been done during this discussion. The one editor who opposed said nothing after the discussion was closed, and hasn't edited since. I note that the IP address has rarely edited - 3 articles before getting involved with this issue and as they were very different in nature quite likely a different person, and a new editor suddenly coming into a discussion should certainly not make such changes. I've undone them. The proper thing to do is to expand the sections in the article that was the target of the merge to make them more substantial, then, at that article, discuss unmerging. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Having said this, it's always better when the closer is not the proposer (no need for the closer to be an Admin), but there was no objection until yesterday. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that there was a consensus to merge before the proposer closed the discussion. There certainly isn't a consensus now. In addition, the relevant projects should have been notified of the proposal.202.124.72.17 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

From the WP:MERGE article:

After a period of time when discussion has ceased, a rough consensus may or may not emerge, move forward with the merger. In discussions where enough time has passed (normally 1 week or more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous consent to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger.

The final discussion was 3 for the merge, 1 against despite rallying support for his cause through a process resembling canvassing. No comments were made for more than a month and the merge was effected. Again, if you disagree with the process, let's throw up a straw poll and see if there still exists consensus, instead of yourself (a single editor with no tracability beyond an anon IP) simply acting on your own. I can be convinced that the merge should not have been considered to have a 'rough consensus', but I want to have the discussion first instead of 'edit first and ask questions later'. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"If you open any book form encyclopedia, you will not find a Council on Biblical whatever or Danvers or any other such statements." Perhaps incredibly, this statement is not true. The Danvers Statement has its own article in the Encyclopedia of evangelicalism published by Baylor University Press. St Anselm (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the initial discussion because I was ambivalent. But now that I look up Danvers on Google Books, I see it's included in readers such as Evangelicalism and fundamentalism: a documentary reader and Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim readings on Genesis and gender. There's enough to suggest that it can stand by itself. Hence, I oppose the merge. St Anselm (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

An RfC then? I respect your opinions, but I think it should be done properly. From what you've said, it's only the Danvers merge you object to. So far the IP is a SPA, having edited only on this issue. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of keeping the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood article - again, lots of quality stuff on Google Books. I hadn't realised this until today - it was only seeing the anonymous editor's activity that made me look it up. But I note that a third IP account is adding references to the CBMW article. These articles both can be improved and are being improved. St Anselm (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle this however. I've posted to ANI - not about you, but about the way the IP is handling it. I wish you'd held fire however. I have no opinion on the merge, just on the way this is happening. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits were good, so I remerged them here. I might be convinced to agree that the article should be unmerged, but that discussion and consensus needs to happen first, rather than letting a cowboy anon IP trump a closed discussion. If you want to challenge the initial decision, do it FIRST. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

None of these comments cite a wikipedia principle by which these should exist as separate articles in their current form. I can tell you that in my experience, the above seems to constitute a consensus for a merge, namely a single editor disagreeing, and the other editors providing the context by which their opinion would be flipped. The discussion above spells out a clear way forward by which these would be appropriate as separate articles to all involved: they need to be expanded beyond stubs. Until then, they should simply be a section in the article that provides them with context, namely Complementarianism. If you have significant resources to add to these articles, please do so now, otherwise, they need to be put back in place until someone comes around with those resources, or we come up with a new consensus opinion. The result of the merger proposal being overturned without a new discussion is a particularly disturbing development. Van Isaac_WS 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, highly irregular that an anon IP comes in and reverts a merge without discussion. The initial declaration of consensus might be worth challenging, but it should most definitely be done via the Talk page BEFORE action is taken, like it is now. Definitely shouldn't be done by an anon, I believe accountability is important in this kind of discussion. This anon is expanding these articles, I'm going to remerge those edits here so they can be discussed with the larger audience, and if they pass scrutiny and make the article more than a stub (the CBMW article is approaching that level, particularly if the Danvers Statement gets merged there) we can split them right back out. 'Fix then unmerge' is the correct order, not 'unmerge then fix'. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to erase my additions and roll back to an old version. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not helpful to revert a merge without consensus. You are free to look at your old edits and make them here in the time being so they can be reviewed. Until we reach a new consensus or otherwise settle the merge dispute properly, we should NOT simply undo it. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I was perfectly free to rescue a redirect and turn it into a good article, which Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood now is. Throwing my edits away, which is what you did, is vandalism, and I've reverted it. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted your edits, they are in the edit history here: [1] I considered merging these misplaced edits to this article (where our most recent consensus said the article should be), either as a continuation of the merge consensus or until we reach an alternative consensus, but I was not comfortable with copy-pasting such a large group of edits that hadn't been reviewed by other editors. I honestly invite you to add that same content and set of sources to this article (where the above discussion says they should be) instead of just reverting and adding them there. Alternatively, push for concensus to undo the merge first, instead of acting unilaterally to do so. I will revert once more and leave the edits you made inside comment tags so you can bring the edits here if you like. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Alastair_Haines?

You may want to look at how the anon ip edits and the past edits of Alastair_Haines. The edit notes seem similar. Like the user Haines, the ip is from Australia. Basileias (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not Alastair Haines. Australia is a big place. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge consensus straw poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We have a clear consensus here that there was a consensus to merge, that the IP editor was wrong in unmerging without discussion, and that the merger should stand until the consensus changes. St Anselm (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to the disagreement above on the initial merges, I propose a straw poll on whether the original merger consensus should stand per WP:MERGE or if the merger did not have consensus. Vote Support if you believe the above consensus should stand and the merge stay until circumstances dictate a new vote or change, vote Oppose if you believe the above vote should not have been considered consensus and the merge be undone. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - Initial vote was 3-1 in favor of the merge (edit: 4-1 if you count editor who proposed the merge), despite the lone dissenter behaving in a manner similar to canvassing. The campaign for dissent brought no additional dissenters and over a month passed with no additional discussion. I believe this qualifies as a "rough consensus". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - Bakkster Man is correct.--Complementarianismism (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - Consensus was reached. It should not be overturned on a whim. Van Isaac_WS 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Either an unmerge discussion needs to take place, or the content needs to be expanded to the point that this article is no longer appropriate, due to the presence of overwhelming content in the fork, rather than a more strictly narrow interpretation of the article's subject matter. Van Isaac_WS 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - Original vote was 3-1 for the merge. There was plenty of time allowed for other views and concerns. If the merged topics rise to a level warranting their own article, I will support it. Basileias (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Support the view that there was consensus, oppose the merge on the basis of fresh evidence and new material. St Anselm (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus was to split. St Anselm (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, given that there was consensus to merge, and that there is consensus that there was consensus, now we can discuss whether or not we can have a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood article, in the light of the new material added. This was the version when the merge was first proposed (1961 bytes), while this is the version before it was re-merged (7874 bytes). Size isn't everything, but notability has been clearly demonstrated. I support the split. St Anselm (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Support split. The fully merged subsection is long enough for an individual article, and some of the material is off-topic for Complementarianism. -- 202.124.74.202 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose split. I oppose at this time because out of 21 sources in the new version 9 are from the CBMW and people on staff or in some way associated with them. That number probably rises if you were to examine closer the other sources. The Daily Mail is often not considered a good source due to their tabloid like journalism. Most of the sources cited have a vested interest in promoting a view. I doubt any of these sources pass as quality third party sources. What I am seeing is promotion and a Coatrack article. Notability has not been clearly demonstrated. Basileias (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. There are 29 sources in the new Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood section. That includes 12 books and several articles (in Christianity Today, The Journal of Biblical Equality, etc. as well as the Daily Mail). That's more than enough for notability under WP:NONPROFIT. An independent Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood article would be one of the best-referenced in Wikipedia. And most of those references are egalitarian critiques of the CBMW, so the promotion/coatrack suggestion doesn't fly. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand....And most of those references are egalitarian critiques. Wayne Grudem, John Piper and CBMW web site (4 ref.), etc. are not egalitarian critiques. Basileias (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my reaction to this is, "Isn't twelve enough?" I see works published by Indiana University Press, NYU Press, etc. Obviously, the organization is a controversial ones, and many of the people writing about it would find it hard to do so without promoting a view. St Anselm (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Conditionally Oppose~~ split. I think this is going far too fast. Independent editors need to check sources and fact-check these sections. The two editors proposing the split are also the ones who unilaterally overturned the merge, and are throwing all the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. This seems really forced and needs to take its time. Van Isaac_WS 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that no one is calling for this content to be removed. The question is only whether it is best found in a separate article, or whether its best placement is here. Some sort of justification about why it is inappropriate in this context would make this a lot easier, but right now it feels like partisans who want to point to a separate article on Wikipedia as some sort of political or ideological justification. That is worrying. Van Isaac_WS

Easy there, tiger. I edited the Danvers Statement article rather than reverting the IP editor's edits - that doesn't constitute overturning a merge. And, in fact, I did not touch the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (except for adding a wikilink). There are massive WP:AGF issues in your posts here. Please do not jump to conclusions about my political or idealogical motivations. St Anselm (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the necessity of independent editors" checking sources, what exactly do you mean? Independent of the organization? Editors who didn't participate in the merge discussion? Well, I fulfil both those criteria, and I am proposing that we split the article. What exactly are you looking for? And why wouldn't you want to do it yourself? St Anselm (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't I do it? Because I'm neither independent of the dispute, nor am I knowledgeable enough in the area of study to make good determinations on the reliability of sources. I know that a lot of references were thrown at this content, and that many of those references seem related either to the subject matter or to each other. That raises a red flag in my book. Before I can support a content fork, I would like to see someone take a good look at content that was added quickly and in the middle of a disagreement by you and the IP. It is the speed by which these changes are being sought that worries me. It's not like this content isn't on Wikipedia, so there is no question of WP:NPOV, and the presence of redirects means that the search terms are still sent to the exact same content. The question is whether THIS article is improved by its inclusion here, and whether the content would by improved by moving it to separate articles. Right now, without any reasoning for the content fork, I am left to the conclusion that this article provides context to the content, and the content provides specificity to the article.Van Isaac_WS 08:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, please take a quick look here, especially sentences 2&3. Van Isaac_WS

~~Conditionally Oppose~~ split. I think two days is too few to take an article that was merged, add content to the section, review and determine quality, and split back out. I have no doubt that if the editors looking to make these articles stand-alone continue to put this much effort into expanding their content, they will be splittable. However, I think 2 days is too little time to assess the quality of the content to be confident that it will stand and not be challenged once the article is split back out, particularly since we have been spending so much time arguing over a revert to the split. I'm worried that moving too fast will result in splitting the article, where the recent changes will be picked apart and slowly reverted, and we are left with an article similar to the one we voted to merge here in the first place. I want to give it a week or so, and if the section seems stable and the content passes scrutiny then I will change my vote. I would most likely favor including the Danvers Statement content in the CBMW article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of my concerns are gone, I'm much more confident that the amount of content on the organization is both unwieldy staying here and of sufficient length and quality to be its own article. There is still a good amount of cleanup and improvement that can be done, but nothing in my view that would prevent a split.

I Support the CBMW and Danvers content split into a single article under the CBMW title. I would like to see expansion of the descriptions of their positions (which would mostly be a mirror of the info in this Complementarianism article), as well as reduction of or explanation of why some of the seemingly unimportant information (newsletter and book publishing, funding level, etc) is important or why we should care. Compare to the Christians for Biblical Equality article, CBMW seems to be focused on individuals; publishing; and funding, while the CBE article is focused on what they believe and why. I would love to see this article reach the level of quality of the CBE article and no longer need to depend on inconsequential information to pad the word count. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will Support the CBMW and Danvers combined. Basileias (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I think the Danvers statement needs to actually be fleshed out, rather than just hinted at, but I think most of the content could go over to CBMW, where we can get that content more fruitful. I still have no idea what the Danvers statement actually is, so if our content isn't even meeting that kind of basic subject identification, I don't think it can sustain an independent article, yet. CBMW content seems pretty stable now, though.Van Isaac_WS^contribs 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is listed as complementarian based on a passing reference in a work on ethics by two Baptist/evangelical scholars. This book in no way speaks for Catholic doctrine. I think it should be removed unless someone can find a stronger claim. Male-only ordination is cited by the other book used as support, but based on the definition at the top of this page, complementarianism includes family life and marriage, so this is an insufficient source. And surely with the multitude of official church documents freely available online, if someone really believes the Catholic church advocates complementarianism, he or she could find that clearly stated in a more official teaching document. However, I am unsure if Wikipedia's policy will accept sources with such weak authority or not, so I will refrain from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.60.138 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

History

This article lacks a discussion of the (very short) history of complementarity language, and its roots in various pagan and secular philosophies. 103.224.129.32 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Buss and Schmitt, etc.

I have reverted a recent addition here, on the basis that it is of dubious relevance to the article, which is about a theological belief. The comparison the editor made to the geocentric model is a false analogy. The "complementarian" aspect of male-female relationships discussed here is not to much a statement of fact, as a description of the roles that men and women are called to assume - that is, the "ought" rather than the "is". So I fail to see how evolutionary biology and psychology are of relevance here. In any case, Buss and Schmitt are not discussing complementarianism in their article (available here), so to appeal to them constitutes original synthesis. St Anselm (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points of contention:

* Complementarian is "...a description of the roles that men and women are called to assume - that is, the "ought" rather than the "is".

Ok, I might defer to the theologians on this one. However, I would suggest that it is also a statement of "is" as well. To wit: The complementarianism of "ying/yang," Adam and Eve, the procreative roles of men and women, etc. That is, the theological assertion that the sexes were made by God to be complementary -- an "is" (not just an "ought") statement.

* "The comparison the editor made to the geocentric model is a false analogy."

Disagree. The geocentric model was a theological assertion. When it was empirically shown to be false by scientists, the theological position shifted. Same relevance here if science offers evidence contrary to complementarianism.

* "Buss and Schmitt are not discussing complementarianism in their article."

They offer theoretical and scientific evidence that directly counters complementarianism. If a theory says X not Y, and scientific evidence finds the opposite (even without referring by name the the first theory), such contrary evidence is not OR, and, it is both relevant and notable in a "Criticism" section. Memills (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, for something to be included in a criticism section, it needs to be specific to the subject, otherwise it's original synthesis. There way well be criticisms of complementarianism based on evolutionary biology - if it's published in good sources, then it's probably worthy of inclusion. I grant there is an aspect of the "is", but it's secondary - "mean and women are created different" is more about purpose and role. In any case, it's a big stretch to say that complementarianism has been proven false. The thing is, we're not allowed to offer our own evidence - it needs to be evidence specifically offered against complementarianism. St Anselm (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not OR if the criticism bears directly on predictions made by the theory. As noted in WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article..." (italics added). The empirical results noted by Buss and Schmitt are indeed "directly related to the topic of the article." Nowhere does it state that the citation must refer to the name of the topic itself (i.e., complementarianism), only that it is directly related to it.

I think we just disagree on this. Perhaps others can weigh in, or, we can ask for a 3rd party review. Memills (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. It is the wording you quote that is the main reason I object to the addition. The Buss and Schmitt article is not directly related to the topic of complementarianism, which is a theological concept. It's not just that they fail to mention the name, it's that they fail to address the theological concept. St Anselm (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One could also argue that the observations of Galileo were unrelated to geocentricism because it is a theological concept. In fact, that was the argument for a number of centuries. The point is that Buss and Schmitt's (and others') theory/data provide disconfirming evidence of the concept that the roles / behaviors of men and women are complementary and mutually beneficial, and this empirical evidence is directly relevant to the theory (theological or otherwise) of complementarianism. Memills (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Complementarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115202352/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Complementarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103040658/http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers to http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.endowonline.com/File/spComplementary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Globalize template

I have added the "Globalize" template because the article appears to focus on Christianity, with Judaism, Islam, and Baha'i Faith relegated to a few paragraphs. The paragraphs on Islam might need the most expansion, as Islam has only slightly fewer self-identified believers than Christianity and is a major force in the Middle East. Given the importance of the issue of women's rights and the role of women in the Middle East, the Islam section is especially notable. We must also note how complementarianism in Islam, Judaism, and Baha'i Faith differs from complementarianism in Christianity.

Other potential areas of expansion (obviously, the space that should be allotted to them is dependent on due weight and reliable sources) include:

How is complementarianism different between Catholics and Protestants?
How does complementarianism vary between regions?
Does the popularity of complementarianism vary between places? How does that relate to culture?
What are certain secular sociological opinions on complementarianism? What, according to secular sociologists, are the causes and impacts of complementarianism?
How does complementarianism relate to secular women's rights movements and abuse of women?
How do mainstream feminists see complementarianism?

--Leugen9001 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The article needs more sources and more secondary sources. It has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Blurb

The blurb of this article when one searches for "Complementarianism" on Google still reads "Complementarianism is an unbiblical theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam..." Presumably the biased use of the term "unbiblical" was formerly part of the article but has now been corrected. I assume that Google's text grab is just out-of-date and will resolve on its own? If not, maybe there is some kind of text preview that needs to be updated so that Google reflects the current article, not the previous biased version.

Jasonhenry42 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Jasonhenry42

It might be fixed now: when I search it comes up with "Complementarianism is a theological view..." St Anselm (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading line

There is a line Proponents of complementarianism generally see the Bible as the infallible word of God.[7] Being as many opponents of complementarianism also generally see the Bible as the infallible word of God, I can't see how this is helpful nor fair, unless it is changed to something like Both Opponents and proponents of complementarianism generally see the Bible as the infallible word of God. I therefore on balance this ought to be deleted as misleading. ChilternGiant (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)