Talk:World Alliance of Reformed Churches

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Jfhutson in topic Merge discussion

[Untitled] edit

The concluding paragraph in the section on History is clearly biased and does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy (as follows):

The WARC highlights on its website, as a primary focus for the Alliance, a ten point program, which includes standard liberation theology positions such as the following three radical program points:

1. Deepening the church’s understanding of partnership and addressing gender injustices in church and society [aka same sex partnerships and feminism] ...

4. Building education/awareness to ensure that the impact of the economy on women and young persons is considered in covenanting for justice [aka comparable worth, and non-capitalist economic systems] ...

5. Facilitating holistic theological reflections regarding justice in the economy and the earth [aka socialism & extreme environmentalism] ...''

It is debatable whether these three WARC program points are in any way "radical."

There is no evidence that the word "partnership" in point 1 in WARC's program points refers in any way to same-sex marriage. In addition, addressing gender injustices (such as human rights violations against women and girls) is hardly an endorsement of feminism. Feminism is a Western political movement with a complex agenda that goes beyond simply opposing gender-based injustice.

There is no evidence that point 4 refers to or advocates for non-capitalist economic systems.

There is no evidence that point 5 advocates for socialism or extreme environmentalism.

Therefore, this section should be deemed biased and non-neutral until such time that it is edited to reflect a neutral point of view.

Merge discussion edit

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.
merge --JFH (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System has been a stub for some time now, and the information found there could be incorporated into this article. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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.