The efforts to put women in church offices have been causing increasing trouble within our churches as they also have in other denominations. What should decide this matter for any church should not be what most people around us may think, but what God’s Word says about it. The Christian Reformed Synod of 1975 appointed a study committee to deal with what the Bible says about this matter. This committee (“re Hermeneutical Principles on Women in Ecclesiastical Office”) is now to report to the 1978 Synod. Dr. Gerard Van Groningen, professor at the Reformed Theological Seminary at Jackson, Miss., and a member of the committee, points to the lack of agreement in this committee on how the Bible must be understood in dealing with this question. In the interest of having this matter as widely studied and discussed as possible in the brief time before the synod meets, we welcome his article. It is suggested that church officers who will have received their agendas for the Synod by the time this issue is printed compare the agenda report with Dr. Van Groningen’s comments on it.
It is my intent in this article to present some items concerning the Synodical Committee’s Report On the Study of Hermeneutical Principles, particularly as these apply to biblical passages which speak to the question of whether women should be ordained to ecclesiastical offices or not.
There will be two parts: 1) a brief review of my involvement in the work of the committee and 2) some comments about the report itself.
I.
WORKING IN THE COMMITTEE
I served on the committee (referred to hereafter as H.P.W.E.O.); and found it a very difficult experience. And that especially for three reasons. First, it took much time and effort; (it was a real concern also that thousands of dollars of church money were spent). Secondly, in the committee there was no common approach to the basic problem before us. Thirdly, in September of 1977, six months before the report was to be prepared, I came down with an intestinal upset, was hospitalized for a short period and continued under doctor’s care for approximately six months. Hence, I had to be absent from a number of committee meetings, and therefore was not able to contribute as fully to the work as I had planned. I did keep abreast of the committee’s work and submitted, in writing, some of my insights, evaluations and recommendations.
Shortly before the committee concluded its work and submitted its report for publication, I communicated two specific conclusions I had come to: 1) That much as I felt a minority report was necessary, because of problems I had with the majority report, I had neither the health, strength, time and therefore the desire to produce it in the few weeks that remained before the time the report was to be submitted for publication; 2) That, having seen the initial draft of the recommendations Drs. P. Bremer and S. Kistemaker made, I was prepared to sign my name under them. However, I wished to have it understood that signing the “minority recommendations” was not to be construed in such a manner that the problems I had with the report had been resolved.
When the committee discussed my conclusions, it was decided that I had two options: 1. Write a minority report if I wished to sign recommendations, or 2. Agree to have a note inserted which referred to my illness and problems with the report. As stated above, to write a minority report, and that within a very brief period of time, was really not a viable option for me.
II.
THE SYNOD REPORT
There are, as I see it, at least four problem areas with the report. I intend to refer to these and give examples, rather than to discuss these problem areas at length. Should it be deemed good that a fuller statement be made, there is a possibility that this could be done.
The four problem areas are closely related and interrelated. One might wish to argue with me that I have not presented these in the proper order. However, as I see it, I wish to refer to them in the following order.
1. Important Omissions
Important material has been omitted: there is no review nor evaluation of the cultural situation in which we live today, which influences us in the formulation of our questions, which motivates us to approach the Scriptures as a problem-solving book, or as a source of confirmation for opinions that have arisen in the modern cultural situation. A study of this material should have been included and placed in close proximity to the hermeneutical section, because it is vitally related to hermeneutics. It was agreed that the matter of application is a very important aspect of hermeneutics. In fact, a category for that was specified and included. How, then, could it be justified to separate a discussion of the contemporary hermeneutical situation from the section on hermeneutical principles. The argument against inclusion could bc that it didn‘t really fit under the last heading “Contemporary Situation” Part II. I maintain that it could have been included there if a proper transitional statement was formulated.
2. Strudure of the Report
The structure of the report is a matter of concern and that for three reasons. The principles in Part III have not been arranged and formulated properly and, are presented in a formal way; so much so that the actual thrust of them is difficult to express in a meaningful manner for the specific Bible study, which was requested of the committee.
The second reason for my concern with the structure is the two-line development. I was not able to attend the meeting (in 1976) due to my wife‘s physical situation, when it was decided to adopt the two-line approach. This two-line approach causes much ambivalence or, to use a phrase that has been used in other instances, a flip/flop method: flip line says this, Bop line says that. Flip line has reasons given for its line. It does not develop the reasons why the flop line is unacceptable. The flop line position is stated. There is not sufficient argumentation presented why flop line is taken and little if any argumentation is present as to why the flip line is not followed. This two-line approach with its lack of exegetical arguments pro and con, makes it well nigh impossible to come up with definite grounds for the two sets of recommendations. And this leads me, then, to the third reason for my problem with structure.
The recommendations, neither those of the minority nor of the majority, Bow clearly and directly from the report. To sign the report as it is means each one of us would be saying, in effect, that we grant the position of flop line as well as of the flip line. I repeat, there is no clear line then between the report as such and the recommendations. In addition, the recommendations of the minority include grounds which have hardly been mentioned, much less carefully evaluated with either/or considerations. And this, I contend, is due to the undesirable structure of our report.
3. Bible Exegesis
The next major area of my concern with this report is the exegetical aspect. I will cite three specific instances under this heading. First 1 refer to the matter of the selection of passages for exegesis. Some very important passages that deal with our whole subject have been omitted: e.g., Isaiah 3:8–26; Amos 4:1–3 re women in society; Ephesians 5:21-33 where the headship principle of mutual yet different submission are clearly enunciated and applied and where the church and family/marriage/home relationship aTe set forth; and the passages in the Pastoral Epistle which deal with qualifications for the office of elder and deacon.
My second problem in the exegetical area is that there is no complete or balanced argumentation. I’ve referred to that under structure. I will illustrate. Genesis 1–3 is not properly exegeted in view of the subject material that is before liS. The concepts of male! female and how these relate to the image of God are not sufficiently exegetcd. Neither is the concept of male headship (generic headship as well as headship in the marriage relationship) which comes to expression both implicitly and explicitly in chapters 2 and 3. Nor is the continuity of headship properly argued in chapter 3, in which Adam‘s work is continued, Eve’s wifehood is continued, and in that same context, Adam‘s headship is continued.
A third reference under this exegetical concern is the improper use of exegetical methods. One glaring example can be found in comparing the effort to deal with Genesis 2 and Galatians 3. In Genesis 2:18–24 the last verse is said to state the theme of the passage in the light of which the entire passage is then to be evaluated. When one turns to the work d0l1e on Galatians 3, that same approach is not taken. Verse 29 is the last statement of Galatians 3. It is a climactic statement. “And if you belong to Christ, then you are children of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.” That indeed is a summing up statement. It repeats what has been said explicitly throughout chapter 3 and even referred to in the previous chapter. The theme is, “Faith, promise, incorporation in the body of baptism, membership in the church.” It is not as the Judaizers would say, “works, law, circumcision, and thus membership/ incorporation in Abraham’s body, the church.” Thus the thrust of the passage is the establishing of a relationship between the head of the church and Abraham’s true sons, and this has some meaning for interpersonal relationships. Verse 28 is an explicatory statement, or an illustrative statement, to give expression to this principle of “By faith the promises are made real to all those who are baptized.’”By raising this point, I do not want to imply that every passage has to be dealt with in exactly the same manner. In fact, Genesis 2 is structured differently from Galatians 3. I suggest that the method that was applied to Genesis 2, where it is not properly applied (the last verse expresses one implication of what has been said about man‘s generic headship), is a method that should very definitely be applied to Galatians 3.
Other areas of exegetical concern could be pointed out. For brevity’s sake, I will limit myself to the three that I have mentioned.
4. Applying Principles of Interpretation
The fourth area of concern is in the application of hermeneutical principles. It seemed quite obvious that Synod‘s mandate was: state the hermeneutical principles, indicate which hermeneutical principles are to function and how they are to function. This the report fails to do in various important instances, and in this respect I find that the committee is most remiss in its report. This may also be the cause of the other areas of concern. One may ask: where and how then were the hermeneutical principles to be applied? Suggestions are: when a passage is dealt with, it would be most appropriate to point out as, e.g., in Genesis 2, of what use the context is. It is a very important factor to help us decide what is implicit and what is explicit. So, also, in regard to Galatians 3. If the principle of context (immediate context and the broader context) were clearly stated and spelled out in an explicatory manner the readers of the report would be able to understand what we were saying and from what direction we were coming.
Another manner of applying hermeneutical principles would be to trace through the entire Scripture a number of themes or principles which were important for the study. E.g., the principle of headship, enunciated in Genesis 1–3, could be shown to be present within the progressive revelation of God which was given within the historical process, and it could be shown how this headship principle was applied throughout the course of history. This headship principle is seen throughout Scripture by the feminists and they therefore speak of the cultural context as “patriarchal.” The feminists see it and try to remove it. Why does the report ignore it? Why does the report not indicate that the headship principle is not a product of cultural evolution but that it has been divinely placed and upheld?
A second principle or theme is prophecy. Material on this was presented to show how the concept of prophecy refers to various activities. Here, the principle of continuity, modification, and discontinuity within the historical context, could be clearly enunciated.
A third principle that could have been carried through with an illustrative demonstration of how hermeneutical principles function would be in regard to delegated authority. This study should have included the matters of office, anointing, and ordination, and these in distinction from the concept of service. These concepts, important as they were in the times of the Old Testament, should be shown as continuing, modified or discontinued, into the New Testament.
Conclusions
In conclusion, it is my studied opinion that the report of the committee on H.P.W.E.O. has not properly carried out the mandate of Synod; that the report has some areas which cause much and deep concern and that it cannot serve as a foundation for a change in the life and functions of the church. I do wish to repeat, however, that on the basis of the study made (the report does not reflect all of it!), the minority recommendations are to be judged correct and therefore should be adopted.