Carmen Fowler LaBerge is the President of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Executive Editor of its digital publication. She has been a speaker at The Truth for a New Generation national apologetics conference and serves as chairperson of Common Ground Christian Network as well as a member of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals. She will be preaching on June 26th at the EPC’s 35th General Assembly in Orlando, FL. Carmen is a colleague and fellow writer for A Christian Manifesto and was gracious enough to allow me to interview her in regards to her thoughts on complementarian and egalitarian perspectives on female leadership in the church. This is part two of the discussion that first appeared HERE last week.
- How have your own views on the complementarian/egalitarian conversation developed over time?
It comes down to figuring out how, as a Christian woman, I live as a demonstration of the Gospel, full of grace and truth, with beauty and strength, in full submission to Christ. And now, as a married woman, in joyful submission to my husband. In a culture where the strident pro-choice feminist advocates make theologically conservative people instantly suspicious of strong women, it is a continual challenge.
Marriage is the reality where all of this literally comes home. My husband’s answers to these questions would be interesting to hear. We are mutually submitted to Jesus Christ and yes, I am submitted to Jim. We have talked about the need for folks to understand how that works – when two people who are wild about Jesus commit their marriage to be a redemptive witness to the world where God’s design is so misunderstood.
But back to your question: I didn’t even know until I arrived at seminary that this was a debate. I grew up in a home with a professional mom and in a Presbyterian church with women in leadership. I came into ministry through Young Life which is egalitarian in its approach. I was discipled by men and women who affirmed my gifts and encouraged me to pursue ordination. At seminary I was exposed to those with complementarian convictions. Because I take God seriously and take the study of His Word seriously, I took their concerns seriously. I still do.
8 Comments. Leave new
If Carmen wanted to be an ordained minister of an EPC church in Nashville she would be denied because the Presbytery of Central South does not allow women to be Teaching Elders. I’m sure that the members of the presbytery would cite that the Bible “clearly” states that women should not have authority over men. The two arguments regarding women and same-sex marriage parallel each other more than some are willing to admit.
In the EPC, churches with women pastors may align with another presbytery. As such, if the PNC of an EPC congregation in Nashville were to seek to call Carmen to its pulpit ministry (for which it would be tremendously blessed), it would need to apply for transfer to an EPC presbytery that does ordain women. (Currently only Central South and Mid-America are the only presbyteries in the EPC that do not ordain or install women into the pastorate.)
No, the Biblical argument for the ordination of women and the spurious, purportedly Biblical argument for same-sex marriage are nothing alike. For an example of the former, please see my blog post on the subject.
Great article by Kenneth Bailey that provides a biblical perspective for women in ministry. One must be careful not to frame the argument for women’s leadership through experience (example: “I knew a great female pastor once…”) otherwise we are utilizing the same hermeneutic as progressives to justify unrepentant homosexual pastors.
Link to Bailey article: http://www.theologymatters.com/JanFeb001.PDF
The difficulty is our opinions must be based upon Scripture, sola scriptura, and all that entails- inerrancy, infallibility and sufficiency.
Not on the imaginations of mankind (includes men and women).
The Scriptures explicitly and implicitly qualify men to church office (minister, elder and deacon), e.g. the pattern of Creation in Genesis, I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Egalitarianism is a philosophy of this world, not of Scripture. The term complimentarianism is one assigned by the egalitarian proponents.
As sinners, no one wants to obey God. Husbands do not want to love and serve their wives. Wives do not want to respect and submit to their husbands. Children do not want to obey their parents. Employees do not want to submit to their employers, nor employers treat fairly their employees. Nor citizens obey the magistrate. Nothing is new about that, only new terms for rationalizationing sin such as “egalitarianism.”
But Scripture determines male headship and leadership in the church as reflective of the Created order. The PCUSA used to believe this. As it slid, incrementally into apostasy, this doctrine was rejected. First with deacons, then ruling elders, then Pastors, then commissioners at General Assembly.
No coincidence.
The slide into apostasy of the Presbyterian mainline denomination is reflected by (the made up descriptor) egalitarianism.
That’s not to say it was the primary cause of apostasy, but merely a symptom of it. A very major symptom of it indeed.
The PCUSA, ECO, EPC, etc. will never find their way home to biblical, reformed presbyterianism until they reject by firm and fair conviction of Scripture, the man made notion, “egalitarianism.”
Ken Bailey’s article as referenced by Wes Barry gives some very cogent answers to the questions your post brought up.
My questions to you are also from Scripture. How can you refute Paul commending the female leaders of the various churches for their faithfulness in teaching the Word?
I have a word for it, Scott: sexism. In this day and age to discriminate against women in leadership positions is sexism plain and simple. Most scholars now believe that all Paul’s purported anti-women clobber phrases were added much later by patriarchic scriveners. This attempted move backward to male hegemony under the cloak of biblical inerrancy is a sad effort by old white men and their progeny to cling to the power they once had.
Agreed.
Interesting. I’d like to see the survey results that show “most scholars” believe that, if you can provide a source. Also, what other verses, passages, chapters, etc., do you believe were inserted against God’s will, so that the Scriptures are not really his Word, and are instead writings contaminated by heresies? And what’s your theory as to why God allowed those heretics to corrupt his Word?