In our last article we saw that what some see as “progress” in the CRC, others label as alarming “regress.” We noted that a basic incompatibility on the doctrine of the authority of Scripture was responsible for disturbing decisions and positions taken by the CRC in recent days.
The focus of controversy at this year’s Synod centered on women, and since we arc women, it is appropriate that we should observe and reflect carefully upon the deliberations of the Synod of 1978. It was both a privilege and a heartache for me to be an observer at this Synod to which my husband was a delegate. I will attempt to share with you an accurate recall of statements and actions done in these sessions.
Although both sides of the issue of women in ecclesiastical office (1) (women deacons and (2) a women applicant for candidacy in the ministry) publicly declared a desire to be true to the Word of God, there was a sharp difference on just what the Word is and says. Although both sides claimed the Spirit’s guidance, one side steadfastly maintained that the Spirit speaks through His Word. They quoted many passages which spoke directly to the issue of women in ecclesiastical office and also offered comments of renowned Reformed scholars on these passages from commentaries. To my disappointment, the other side rather consistently ignored all references to Scripture, pleading rather on existential grounds such as the “gifts” of many women and the need for their services in the church, When they did refer to the Scripture passages in question, they pointed out that Reformed commentators saw these passages through the bias of the life-style of their own day and interpreted the Scriptures accordingly. Therefore, their comments recorded in their commentaries were no longer valid for today.
The proponents of women in ecclesiastical office pleaded for “permission” to ordain women. They pointed out that they were not urging all CRC churches to ordain their women. They only wanted the permission for themselves and for all who desire to do it. But they forget that we in the CRC are a confessional church, bound together by a Church Order which declares that all decisions of Synod shall be considered “settled and binding.” This means that women have Synodical authorization to demand nomination for and ordination to office regardless of whether or not the local consistory approves or disapproves. Once we let go the “binding” and “settled” character of the decisions of Synod (which many of us are going to have to do in the foreseeable future), we will become congregational (each church a law to itself).
After a lengthy discussion of these matters, a weary Synod took the vote on the issue of women deacons. The voice vote was too close to call so delegations were polled –four votes per classis. When all votes were counted, the President of Synod declared that the motion for women as deacons had passed—by one vote. From all over the gallery, people stood up, clapped and shouted, ecstatic over their apparent victory. But at the same time, a delegate from Classis California South rose to challenge the count of the chair. An electric silence came over the whole assembly and the President instructed the First Clerk to repeat his tally for each classis to confirm the count. A mistake was uncovered in the recording of the vote from Classis Columbia. First Clerk had written three “yes” and one “no” when actually the vote from that classis was two “yes” and two “no.” The President announced that now the motion was defeated.
As many of us were breathing a sigh of thankfulness, preparing to leave the gallery, a most unexpected thing happened. The President of Synod announced that he would now entertain a motion that had been deferred to adopt the recommendation of the minority report. This was a recommendation that we ordain women as deacons provided their work differed from that of elders and minister. Opponents immediately jumped to their feet, reminding the President that this motion was basically the same as the motion which had just been defeated and was illegally before Synod since Dr. Bremer, the representative of the Synodical minority committee had stood up at the very outset of the afternoon’s discussion and stated very plainly that the minority report committee yielded to the advisory committee’s recommendation to ordain women to the office of deacon. This meant that the minority study committee report was no longer an option for Synod. But the President of Synod insisted it was legal and a voice vote from the body sustained him. During the discussion which followed, Synod was reminded that in our churches and also in our Church Order (Article 25) and the Belgic Confession (Article 30) the deacons are given authority (in addition to their work of mercy) along with elder and minister and therefore it would be difficult if not impossible to ordain women to a deacon’s office which would carry no authority of ruling aspects in the CRC.
Nonetheless, women were given the right to be ordained to the office of deacon, the Church Order (Article 3) was changed contrary to its own rule which states in Article 47 that “No substantial alterations shall be effected by Synod in these matters (namely the creeds, the Church Order, the liturgical forms, the Psalter Hymnal, and the principles and elements of the Order of Worship) unless the churches have had prior opportunity to consider the advisability of the proposed changes” (italics mine–LVH). There was no such opportunity for our CRC churches to reflect upon and express themselves on such a major change of policy. Hopefully many churches will protest the illegality of this year’s Synodical decision and overture Synod to rescind this decision on the grounds that 1) it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and 2) it was a decision taken contrary to Article 47 of the Church Order.
Synod of 1978 was also called upon to deal with another issue about which the CRC congregations had not been warned or advised—an overture from the Church of the Servant asking Synod to exam ine and declare for candidacy for the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament in the CRC, a woman, Mrs. Marchiene Rienstra.
Discussion on this overture revealed some rather startling viewpoints. Synod was told for example, that Scripture must never be interpreted apart from a real, live case. Thus the availability of Marchiene Rienstra and her gifts must color our interpretation of Scripture passages which refer to women in ecclesiastical office.
Synod was repeatedly advised that we need “fresh movings of the Spirit among us” but no mention was made of the fact that the Spirit speaks through the Word of God and not apart from or contrary to it.
Synod was urged and even pressed by delegates and professors of Mrs. Rienstra to allow her to speak to the Synod, thus demonstrating to and convincing Synod of her special gifts. Other delegates countered by saying that her gifts had been amply endorsed by the Seminary faculty and the Board of Trustees and there was no need to prove the word of these bodies on this matter. Further, no other candidate was being allowed the privilege of the floor of Synod. Basic to the whole matter of course, is the fact that at the present time the CRC officially maintains that the Scriptures teach that the ministry of Word and Sacraments in the church is reserved for males only and the Church Order binds us to this position. To allow Mrs. Rienstra to speak is simply to flirt with something which the Scriptures and the Church Order clearly forbid.
The motion to allow Mrs. Hienstra to speak lost by a vote of 69 to 77.
Although the case for woman candidacy for the ministry of Word and Sacraments lost at this year’s Synod, there were remarks made and attitudes displayed on the floor of Synod by outstanding leaders, including Seminary faculty advisers, that cast long dark shadows over the future.
There was a pervasive apologetic attitude toward Mrs. Rienstra as if the denomination was failing to grant something it owed to her.
There was expression of hope that the church would change its traditional interpretation of Scripture and subsequently change the Church Order so that Mrs. Rienstra and other qualified women might receive candidacy in the CRC.
The question, “What is progress?” is being answered two ways in the CRC For those who adhere to “Position A” on Scripture, progress means an ongoing application of the principles of Scripture to the issues of the day. For those who adhere to “Position B,” progress means an ongoing adaptation and reinterpretation of Scripture to fit the needs and gifts of the present day. These two positions cannot and will not ever mesh into one. It appears we are on a collision course in the CRC. May we all be fervant in prayer that truth may be established and unity on that truth achieved.