As far as the matter under discussion is concerned, we’re going to need something a whole lot better, a good deal more substantial, and considerably more convincing than the report under consideration before the church is going to be ready to change something it has believed to be biblical for over 1900 years.

The CRC 1973 Synod has decided to refer the study committee report on “Women in Ecclesiastical Office” to the churches for study and reaction. It is indeed well that we take a careful look at this report first of all. It may open our eyes to some pitfalls that, as I see it, we must avoid at all costs in further consideration of this and other issues facing the church.

Prejudice of the committee – The report has received considerable praise from some quarters, but I must honestly admit that I don’t share those sentiments. From my reading of the report I simply cannot shake the impression that the committee from the outset was trying to prove their point: women must be admitted to office. The entire report is geared to proving that assumption, and more often than not the scriptural data are pressed into that mold. Synod’s advisory committee apparently sensed this too, for they state that “the report at certain points seems to be inclined to conclude too much too soon. For example, where the report has just begun to deal with the data of Genesis 1 and 2 it states that ‘one could conclude that the church is short-changing herself in her exclusion of women from office’” (p. 8<l Acts of Synod ).

This “prejudice” of the committee is, I believe, partly to blame for what I consider to be, at times, a forced interpretation of Scripture, and for exegesis which is not only strained but even cavalier in its treatment.

A new hermeneutic – However, I don’t believe that this fully accounts for the type of exegesis and! or interpretation of Scripture which abounds in this report. I believe something more basic is at stake: a whole new way of looking at Scripture, a new “hermeneutic” if you will.

Already in 1968 Dr. P. Y. De Jong, writing on this topic in Torch and Trumpet, stated that the disagreements on this and other topics “touch some of the fundamentals of the Reformed understanding of the Scriptures,” and he did not hesitate to speak in this connection of “the erosion of Biblical normativity as always understood in the Reformed churches” (cf. Jan. ’68 issue). It was particularly the appeal to the “temporal conditioning” of Paul’s writings that occasioned this latter remark by De Jong.

Professor Van Riessen of The Netherlands has issued a similar warning, particularly in connection with the new theology:

This theology places itself before the Bible to teach believers how they ought to grasp the meaning of the Bible in a different way than they are used to, differently than they understand it from the self-testimony of the Bible itself; to make it clear to them what in the Bible is the real issue which ought to be the content of their faith, and what does not belong to that; to let them understand, often in a different way than they read it. (from his book, Mondigheid en de Machten, trans. mine)

I am convinced that De Jong was right: a difference in biblical interpretation lies at the root of our disagreements on this issue. Dr. G. Huls, in his book, De Vrouw in de Kerk, is honest enough to admit that Paul’s injunctions on the matter are clear enough: Paul did not allow for women office-bearers. The question, however, is, says Huls, are Paul’s utterances in this regard still binding for us today? And then his answer is in the negative. One could wish that the committee had been similarly honest, rather than trying to “reinterpret” Paul or “explain away” what he says.

The committee’s exegesis – Let me illustrate my dissatisfaction with the committee’s exegesis. On page 550 of the 1973 Acts the committee states: “On the other hand, instead of accepting the social and practical consequences of this basic equality of man and wife, Paul tells them to be content with their present position of social inferiority and to submit to their husbands in everything.” In parentheses they then refer to various Bible passages (e.g., Eph. 5:22–24). So what the committee is saying is this: Paul is telling these women: Actually you are free to accept the full consequences of your basic equality with your husbands, but because of the “prevailing social conditions” it is better for now that you be content with your “present position of social inferiority” and hence you ought to “submit to your husbands in everything.”

Now first of all, it’s not a matter of “equality” or “inferiority.” More on that later. Far more crucial, however, is the question: What happens to the biblical injunction, “Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22)? It’s negated of course. Since today the “social conditions” have changed, women may now practice the full consequences of their equality with men, and so need no longer submit to their husbands. They will no longer be “charged with bringing disorder” today.

Turn to pp. 573 and 574 (Acts of Synod 1973). We read: “To Sarah Abraham is not only her ‘head,’ but even her ‘lord’ and she ‘obeyed’ him.

This is customary behavior. This is the way in which the partriarchal family functioned; it required self-denial from the woman . . . . Peter refers to Sarah showing how she conformed to the practices of her time and thus possessed a spirit of humility and modesty which still is a precious adornment for those who are ‘now her children.’”

Now, is that what Peter is actually saying? Is he merely saying: Sarah conformed to the practices of her day, and so you ought to do likewise (which today would mean that women ought to exercise their “rights,” rather than be submissive)? Look at the context in which this is written. Peter tells his readers to maintain good conduct among the gentiles, to the glory of God. How is this to be done? Thus: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong . . . Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing” (I Peter 2:13, 14, 18). Then in 3:1: “Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands . . . .” Pray tell, is Peter also saying in vss. 3 and 18, Do this because it accords with the customs of your time? Or are all these injunctions, 3:1 included, permanent, divine commands valid for every age—be subject for the Lord’s sake? To ask the question is to answer it. I frankly don’t say such exegesis! To state that Peter is writing this (in 3:1) with reference to the distortion of the creation order as noted in Genesis 3:16 is, I believe, also unwarranted. Peter is not writing about the distortion of the creation order but about its redemption in Christ. He writes to those who “have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3), and he concludes chapter 1 by saying: “That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1:25). No hint at all about the distortion of creation.

You will have noticed that the committee makes quite a paint of the fact that these women, and Christians in general, must not upset the order of society. For that reason they were to be submissive. But I always thought Christians were supposed to set the world upside down (Acts 17:6). The Rev. Tamminga has a chapter entitled “Upsetting the World” in the book Thy Way is My Way, often given to young people who make profession of their faith.

In conclusion, I regard the “summary” statement found on p. 552 as entirely invalid: “‘Submissiveness’ in the New Testament is the attitude by which a Christian recognizes the prevailing order as one wanted by God and personally asserts that order by fitting himself into it.” If we have to resort to this type of exegesis to prove a point, we may as well leave the Bible closed. For then each man can make it say what is right in his own eyes.

Pointless “evidence” – A few further exegetical points: The remark of Augustine found on p. 522stating why Eve was taken specifically from Adam’s rib -proves nothing. And to try to prove that the expression “her seed” in Genesis 3:15 (p. 523) “gives to the woman a position unusually equal to that of the man” is to attempt to prove too much. Similarly, the reference to Luke 8:1–4 (“. . . and also some women . . .” is pointless).

Finally, the quotation from the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands (p. 567) to the effect that one who thinks that Paul’s injunctions regarding submissiveness are still valid today must also require “that women should only appear veiled in public,” and that “he must protest, too, against the equal rights of men and women in state and society” is not worthy of serious consideration. In fear the committee was a bit over zealous in seeking “evidence” to bolster their case.

Equality versus office – Another matter which deserves mention is the committee’s failure to distinguish clearly between equality and office or calling. On page 551 we read: “There certainly is no ground for concluding from these texts that women are inferior to men. The concept of submissiveness in the New Testament does not at all contain an idea of inferiority.”

My question is: So what? Who ever said it did? When the Bible commands children to obey their parents, it does not mean to say that they are therefore inferior. Of course not. Nor is an employee inferior to his employer because he has to submit to him. They simply have different “callings,” different functions, but they are all equal before God. Again on page 557 the report states: “In Corinthians 7 there is no trace whatsoever of discrimination against women in this respect.” Again I say: Of course not! That’s not the point! This whole matter has nothing to do with “discrimination,” and Editor Haverkamp was right when he chided the committee for using a word which has overtones of “Women’s Lib.”

Another weakness in the report is the tendency to view Christ’s work as though it established a complete new order in society, rather than seeing it as a restoration of the existing order—the order God established at creation. Christ did not come to abolish the law, to overthrow God’s creation ordinances, but to re-create them, to have them answer to their original purpose. This is too much overlooked in the report.

Dangerous method of interpretation – One more important point: I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by the Rev. Rein Leestma in THE OUTLOOK of June, 73 regarding the dubious and dangerous method used in interpreting Paul. According to this method it is necessary to have expert knowledge of the cultural patterns of that day, and of the influence which the Rabbinic and Gnostic teaching had on Paul’s writings before one can really understand what he is saying. And even the “experts” aren’t sure: “Some statements of Paul concerning the status of women in the Christian church may have to be understood against this background” (p. 553); “Paul was probably moved to give these directions against abuses in the various local churches” (p. 565); “On the other hand, it seems likely that the advice of Paul and Peter attempted to repel influences of a beginning Gnosticism that combined old pagan and new Christian elements” (p. 570).

Is it any wonder that the committee has to conclude the section on Paul’s letters by saying that “the consistent pattern of cooperation between men and women within the framework of their God-given relationship, does not seem to warrant the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office” (p. 570 )? (Italics mine, J.T.) With Leestma I say: The Lord deliver us from this type of “expertise” and from this method of “exegesis”! That way we have subtly but effectively taken the Bible away from the ordinary man by making its understanding dependent upon the knowledge of the “experts.” This is a type of theology, says Van Riessen, which:

in relation to the Bible, sets itself up as an autonomous science . . . It tells us that what stands written does not mean what we take it to mean when we read it; neither does it want to teach us to understand better what it says, but it wants to make clear to us that God meant something different than that which he allowed to be put down in a book. (from De Bijbel, Gods Woord, trans. mine)

What we need – To conclude, we should always be willing to take another look at established customs and practices, and renewed evaluation is to be welcomed from time to time. But let it be an honest and responsible look, and by all means, let it be a scriptural one.

As far as the matter under discussion is concerned , we’re going to need something a whole lot better, a good deal more substantial, and considerably more convincing than the report under consideration before the church is going to be ready to change something which it has believed to be biblical for over 1900 years.

Jelle Tuininga is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Smithers, British Columbia.