History is studded with the harmful effects of self-interested pressure groups made effective by unthinking, indifferent and apathetic crowds. These groups often have no norm or absolute standard and are directed only by sell-interest.

On April 11, 1978, we were treated to a demonstration by a pressure group within the church. The Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church had asked Dr. Andrew Bandstra, chairman of Synod‘s committee on Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office to summarize and comment on the work of the committee whose mandate was:

“to undertake a study of the hermeneutical principles which are involved in the proper interpretation of relevant Scripture passages, to apply these principles in an exegetical study to relevant passages, and to present Synod with the results of their study.”

It should be borne in mind that three committees have studied this particular matter in the last eight years. Each committee used the same Bible, ostensibly the same texts; however, in no case can one consistently follow the hermeneutical principles used. It should also be mentioned that in 1957 Synod accepted the report of another study committee with respect to women in ecclesiastical office which found their ordination unscriptural. The reader who finds the volume of literature and the numerous study reports which have bombarded the church a bit ludicrous can hardly be blamed for feeling confused and unable to comprehend the modern mind.

Anticipating Victory

The meeting of April 11 was, in my mind, a clear demonstration of that modern mentality. Calvin Seminary Auditorium was filled to capacity with a partisan crowd; a carnival atmosphere and jocular spirit pervaded the meeting. It would not have seemed strange or surprising if during the intermission or at the conclusion we would have sung “We Shall Overcome.” The immediate goal of the Women’s Committee, ordination of women to ecclesiastical office, was in sight. The meeting so informed the partisans and gave reason for celebration. There were no new Biblical directives discovered, but rather, an over-riding theme of liberty, equality and fraternity was present.

Why this celebrating spirit? Those representing the cause of Women in Ecclesiastical Office announced a hermeneutical breakthrough. What was this breakthrough? Chiefly the discovery that Scriptural givens are ambiguous with respect to women’s eligibility for the office of elder and minister. In fact, the committee dogmatically declares:

No Biblical passages speak directly to the question of women in ecclesiastical office as presently understood (Agenda ‘78, p. 374, 3a).

Mrs. Joan Flikkema, chairwoman for the CWCRC and Dr. Bandstra both pointed to this breakthrough in their opening remarks. The chairwoman said that the commitment to women’s ordination was because of Spirit direction. Bandstra slated that:

the level of understanding of Scripture of the CWCRC (this Committee for Women) is quite different from the general level of understanding in the CRC in that they conceive of the ordination of women into office as the “Spirit directed outcome of the teachings of Scripture.”

It would seem that the Spirit works in tandem with the 20th century mentality in the CRC to give them a higher level of understanding Scripture. Much of what was said by Dr. Bandstra that evening pointed to Scripture‘s lack of clarity.

The Problem: Understanding the Bible

The committee chairman stated that it was not all that difficult for the committee to attain unanimity on hermeneutical principles; the problems arose when applying them to Scripture. To many of us this was a foregoing conclusion. What many refuse to see is that the real difficulty in the church is in the view of Scripture and its authority. As long as the church is not unified on its view of Scripture, it will attain unanimity on nothing else.

That our concept of biblical authority is at issue is immediately apparent to one reading the majority report and its recommendations (Agenda 1978. p. 374 and 375). The committee is sure of nothing because it is not sure of Scripture’s authority. These recommendations are loaded with elusive words and phrases such as “difficulty impression, perplexing facts, historical situation, involves an element. may also involve, may also teach, imprecision, not clear,” etc. According to the report, it is clear that the Bible does not give the needed direction.

Because the committee differed in understanding Scripture, Synod is being presented with a majority and minority conclusion to its report. The initial question dividing the committee was; Is headship in Genesis 2 to be confined to the husband–wife relationship or does it include man over woman? Understanding the authority of Scripture in its historical sense. this becomes a false dilemma in the light of [ Corinthians 11 and 14 which clearly teaches the headship of man and I Timothy 2 which teaches this headship as a creation ordinance.

The majority report asking that Synod approve the ordination of women to the office of deacon is based on the following four premises:

Scriptural givens are ambiguous with respect to the office of elder and minister;

The Bible declares the equal worth of woman and man;

There is some Biblical evidence that women served in the capacity of deaconess in the New Testament church (Romans 16:1; I Tim. 3;11, 12) and;

There are no compelling arguments against it.

To say, as does the majority report, that there are no compelling arguments against opening the office of deacon to women is pure sophistry. There is no recorded instance of a woman being ordained; there is question as to the nature of the office of deacon; and there is no reason to speculate that the mention of Pheobe (Romans 16;1, 2) even remotely intends a divinely ordained office. And how the committee in this connection could cite I Timothy 3:11 and 12 escapes me!

The minority report maintains that the Bible gives some evidence to allow women to function in the church in the same way as deacons and asks Synod to open the office of deacon to women provided a clear distinction is made between the office of deacon and that of elder and minister.

The last request of the majority report asks that “in view of the Bible’s lack of clarity on this issue the church be asked to continue to reflect upon the office of elder and minister as it pertains to women.” I cannot suppress two observations: (1) How is it possible to make such a recommendation in view of the alleged Scriptural ambiguity and (2) If Scripture is unclear now, how will it help us to reflect on Scriptural givens, unless we are seeking wisdom from something other than the Bible? Which, of course, we must be expected to do.

The Committee Chairman‘s Apology

Professor Bandstra closed his presentation by expressing two regrets. First, painfulness because the report fell short of recommending that the office of elder and minister be opened up to women. This. especially in view of the fact that Mrs. Rienstra has been at the Seminary for six years and feels deeply her calling to preach; that in view of her obvious gifts we wish to take seriously her sense of calling; and that the church is not ready to open the ministry to her. Secondly. the report and recommendations must seem piecemeal and insufficient to the women in the light of the Women Committee’s statement of purpose which is:

our belief that the ordination of women to ecclesiastical office is the spirit-directed outcome of the teachings of Scripture. Therefore, the equal participation of both men and women in the life of the church is our ultimate objective.

Dr. Bandstra expressed no pain that Scripture was unclear; he presented the calling to office as a matter of feeling, i.e., spirit-directed, and seemed not to be so much concerned with the Scripture’s teaching as with the “spirit–directed outcome of the teachings of Scripture.” Actions are not here directed by revelation –but by one’s conception of “Spirit direction.” This is subjectivism. If Scripture is unclear. what but feeling can direct us? This is the modern man‘s predicament.

The speaker‘s apologetic attitude concerning the report was justified. In response to questions, Dr. Bandstra acknowledged that little, if any, headway had been made in exegeting the various Scriptural passages; that he was unsure of the committee’s distinction between the office of deacon and that of elder and pastor; he thought that the committee had perhaps provided some guidelines not present before; and could only answer “Yes and no” to the question, “Are you proud you signed the report?” His comments made it rather clear that the concrete givens of Scripture are insufficient, not so much because the principles of exegesis are ignored, but because Scripture does not have the answer.

Reaction of the Women

Jinny De Jong and Marchiene Rienstra, two leaders in the Committee for Women in the CRC, responded to Dr. Bandstra‘s presentation. Their basic reaction was that the recommendations of the majority report did not go far enough. However, both Mrs. De Jong and Rienstra found a positive contribution in the fact that the report recommended that women be ordained to the office of deacon. Both found consolation in the fact that the majority report requests Synod to expurgate from the record, “that it is necessary to adduce compelling Biblical grounds” for changing, “the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office.” (See Acts of Synod 1975, p. 78, 01, Acts 1978, p. 376.) And further, in this connection, each woman expressed the opinion that the church needs something beside Scripture to guide her. Jinny De Jong pointed out what Bandstra had earlier noted, that the committee of Synod (1978) consisted of all males, all ministers in the CRC and all holding Ph.D’s in theology. It seemed the audience took his statement as a pun; however, Jinny pointed out that the committee, being all male, was limited as to experience and should have another viewpoint and that passages quoted in the report from the Old Testament which restrict the position of women were possibly precursors of modern sexism. Seminarian Rienstra commenting on the same paint, said the section of the report on hermeneutical principles was useful but too narrow. “One cannot,” she said, “theologize Scripture without regard to the situation in which people live.” She then stated that because sociological and historical factors were being ignored, women in office is an issue at present and that sexism might have something to do with how the Bible has been interpreted, thus ignoring people’s lives. Further, general revelation is a revelation, and science, history and experience, particularly of the recent past, must be given their due consideration. Mrs. Rienstra illustrated the point that life’s situation must be taken into account when theologizing by saying that counselors in general do Hot define headship as generally conceived, i.e., in the sense of boss or solely in relationship to what the Bible says. Her conclusion was that rather than only exegeting traditional texts, such general principles expressed in the Bible as—loving your neighbor—using to the full the gifts of the Spirit given to all members—and, maybe most important of all—using the examples of the way Jesus dealt with women—should be used to decide the issue of women in office. Jimmy De Jong further emphasized the need of extra-Scriptural revelation by referring to the report where it says, “This makes it difficult to formulate rules on the basis of Paul’s teaching taken only from a few of his explicit statements,” and saying that she wished the church would take more into account than a few statements from Paul.

How Easily We Parrot the World

Both women were unclear and vitriolic when speaking of headship, ruling, authority and submission. Both observed that four out of seven committee conclusions mention one or another of these concepts without defining the terms (Agenda 1978, p. 373). In response to the statement of the majority report, “On the one hand, Genesis implicitly gives to the man a degree of authority over the woman, at least in marriage, and Genesis 3 affirms that the husband ‘will rule over’ the wife” (Agenda 1978, p. 376, item 2), Mrs. De Jong says that the committee affirms what has happened, but not what ought to be. She stated that this appears to be a power word. Further, in response to the quote “the one sets forth the female’s equal worth with the male” (Agenda ,8, p. 374, 2) Mrs. De Jong said she wished it were true that women were equal with men as stated in the report. She believes that she does not share in the full privileges of church fellowship. Her response to the statement “When the church seeks to restrict the conduct of a group of believers (women) it should do so on the basis of unambiguously clear biblical evidence” was, “the church docs not seek to restrict but restricts.”

Both female participants felt that the church should continue to reflect upon the office of elder and minister as it relates to women as recommended in the report and that the church should see it as her responsibility to use “all the gifts of the Spirit given to all of its members.” They felt that the church is not doing this.

Mrs. Rienstra recommended Synod‘s adoption of the majority report for three reasons: (1) the report represents a major step toward full ordination of women in the office of elder and minister and pointed out that a large number of Reformed scholars hola the position that the office of deacon is essentially the same as the other two, (2) while the majority of churches are not ready to have women in the offices, some are –by adopting the recommendations of the majority, the churches would be able to see that it works to have women in office and thus they would gradually accept them (you see ,it is only a matter of tactic and education); and (3) she underlined what Mrs. De Jong had previously said, that if there was no clear Biblical evidence, then male restriction of the office should be removed.

Marty Rienstra was asked what her attitude would be if ordination of women meant splitting the denomination. She expressed the opinion that the issue requires great wisdom, but by waiting say ten years, it may be too late; and while some may leave if such ordination takes place, some have already left or are leaving because women are not placed in office. Essentially, the answer was: The knife cuts both ways, take your choice.

Two suggestions were given by the ladies as to what could be done: (1) Overture your consistory and possibly classis to support the recommendations of the majority report, and seek to clear away the obstacle Synod 1975 created by saying “that it is necessary to adduce ‘compelling biblical grounds’ for changing ‘the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical offices’” (Acts 1975, p. 78, Dl and Agenda ’78, p. 376) and (2) Continue education in the church and also in life in general on how men and women ought to relate to each other in the light of spiritual understanding. She noted a great deal of sexism and stereotypes in male and female relationships which are accepted as absolutes.

Some Impressions and Observations

The Committee on Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office was designated as a blue ribbon or prestigious committee because of its personnel. On listening to its chairman‘s speech I was embarrassed. If the vacuous report represents the height of Christian Reformed Scholarship we have reason to be concerned. The chairman was inept in trying to appear conservative while promoting a liberal cause. The meeting clearly demonstrated what happens when people seek to place the Bible on trial and stand in judgment over it. On the one hand we heard that Scripture was unclear; while on the other hand when it suited ones purpose, we were told it was easily understood. Paul could not be understood when he spoke of the relation of men and women, yet he was accepted as speaking clearly on using the gifts of the spirit. Scripture was charged with being culturally conditioned, while I Timothy 2, which speaks of the man-woman relationship as a God established creation ordinance was not mentioned. Christ used the same creation consideration to point out that marriage was not to be looked upon as a culturally conditioned institution in Matthew 19. Was he also, perhaps, culturally conditioned?

One is led to wonder if the Seminary has not been playing games with the church? For six years Marchiene Rienstra has been a student in the Seminary; never has she hidden her intent of seeking ordination; yet apparently the faculty left the propriety of her aim an open question.

While the ladies justifiably criticized the weakness of the report, there was no real substance in the argument which they presented. They demanded that we give women what they want. The church was asked to look beyond the Bible to general revelation for the proper solution to this problem. Is it too much for the church to ask by what norm the conclusions from general revelation are to be judged? Looking concretely at the women‘s movement in the church, do we find it using any other norms than those set by the godless women‘s lib movement? It was said that Mrs. Rienstra’s motivation for seeking ordination was the desire to preach the gospel. I regret to say that I personally saw very little concern for the gospel or the Scriptures in evidence on April 11.

I cannot understand how the activists can be so blind as not to see that the end of the women’s movement is the opposite of that for which they hope. What I observe is that the liberation program of the women is creating sexism and bondage. To prefer an elusive freedom and equality set by secular society in preference to God’s ordinance can be described in Malcolm Muggeridge‘s words, as “absolutely laughable” (Christianity Today, April 21, 1978, p. 11).

In one point I was in total agreement with the ladies. I believe that they are right in holding as contemptible the religious neutralism of silent consistories and the double-talk of the committee. If it be true that a majority of churches do not want women in office, a statement I do not find convincing, why is it that we hear nothing from these consistories. I am not convinced that there will be much disturbance if women are ordained—there may be a little complaint at first and then, silent acceptance.

I do also suggest that women ask their consistories to be heard on the issue, whether they are for it or against it. The Lord is no more pleased with religious neutralism than with ordination of women.

After spending approximately two hours reciting the weakness of Scripture, the unacceptableness of a culturally conditioned apostle, how there was some indication of room for ordination of women as deacons, etc., etc., the meeting was closed by asking God‘s help.

For what should we ask Him?

Should we perhaps have asked Him to abdicate to make place for our best scholars and women, beside a host of others filled with the gifts of the Spirit who have found His Word and the authors of the Bible lacking for our day? It was made plain that step by step we would achieve our end, regardless of what Scripture said. I personally thought that, in the face of the announced division in the church, the growing indifference, the moral problems, the desperate state of the church in the world, the awful forces aligned against the gospel and the state of the world itself, it would be better to pray in the spirit of Daniel, “Lord, we are helpless” (Daniel 9:18, 19, 14).

I am shocked by what Synod is asked to take note of, acknowledge, declare and decide about Scripture, quite apart from what it decides about ordaining women deacons. I am willing to speculate that, should Synod approve ordination of women deacons, Mrs. Rienstra will then announce that she is preaching in a Christian Reformed Church pulpit on the basis of what she has openly said.

Whatever decision Synod makes on this present issue, we may be assured that the church of Christ will not be advanced by the means evident in the majority report and evident at the April 11. 1978 meeting.