Introductory Observations

1. Under pressure from the current feminist movement to wipe out all recognition of differences between men and women from our society, what should our reaction be? While some advocate (a) joining the movement as “progress,” and others (b) oppose it as contrary to Reformed tradition , (c) the Christian response needs to be to ask “What does the Bible, God’s Word, say?” 2. The appeal to the Bible, instead of immediately resolving the question, raises the problem of interpretation (hermeneutics). The Bible is cited for opposing answers. Dr. R.C. Sproul (speaking at the Chicago International Council on Biblical Inerrancy meeting) appealed to the Lord‘s response to His temptation as a lesson in interpretation. Tempted by the devil, the Lord answered him, “It is written . . . .” The devil retorted with his own appeal to the Bible, “for it is written . . . .” Is the Bible so ambiguous that we must look elsewhere for guidance? Not at all. Jesus answered and silenced the devil’s deceptive appeals to Scripture by further citations of the Bible. We must learn from Him, as the Reformers did, not only to cite selected texts to make our points, but to submit to the whole Bible. Attempting a broad but brief summary of the Bible teaching we observe:

I. Bible Teaching About Human Equality

Genesis 1:27 teaches us that “God created man in His own image . . . male and female . . .” and that fallen, they received a common promise of deliverance (3:15). The Bible calls attention to the important roles that women as well as men took in its history. Recall Sarah, Rebekah , Miriam, Deborah, Hanna, Huldah and Esther, for examples. The New Testament calls attention to the prominence of women from Jesus’ birth on, around Him, to their presence at the cross and at the tomb on Easter morning where one of them received His first appearance. Believing men and women received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and we note the prominence of women as well as men in the church and its activity, of Lydia, Damaris, Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche and Phebe, for examples. In their being called to a response to the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ, the apostle said, (Gal. 3:26, 28) “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bound nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

   

II. Bible Teaching About Diversity of Vocations and Roles

Does the Bible teaching about human equality as created in the image of God, alike fallen into sin and called to salvation through faith in Christ, mean that there is for the Christian no longer any difference between male and female, but that all are assigned the same vocations and roles? The uniform teaching of the Bible is “No.” Did God call a woman to take the role of Noah? Did he call Sarah, Rebekah and Jacob’s wives to take the same roles as the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Did He call a woman to lead His people out of Egyptian slavery as He did a reluctant Moses? The answer in each case is plainly “No.” “Miriam the prophetess” (Ex. 15), Moses’ older sister, showed that the women were not mere silent partners, but when she sought to usurp Moses’ role (Num. 12) she and those she led were divinely rebuked. Aaron and his sons were assigned the unique office of priesthood, not because of their ability. but by divine appointment, and a successful King Ussiah (2 Chron. 26) who tried to usurp the priest’s office, was similarly but permanently struck down. God appointed no woman to that office (Heb. 5:4). In the same way He appointed no woman to be king. Athaliah, the ursuper, is hardly an exception. Among the prophets whom the Lord on occasion called, a few women‘s names appear, but none of them took the leading roles of those whose writings are books of the Bible. That cannot be explained as the mere results of male dominated society. The only “prophetic” products of their society were false prophets. God did not ordain women to the regular offices that prepared for the coming Christ.

This does not change with the New Testament. Jesus was a Man. However important the role of Mary, His mother, was, she was no “co–mediatrix.” Christ did not call six women and six men to be apostles, although He was free from the prejudices of the time. Although the Holy Spirit was given to men and women alike to prepare them to bring His gospel to the world, did that mean that each bad to assume the same role and do it in the same way? The Bible teaches that it did not. Although the Bible gives no formal church order, the Lord promised (John 14–16) and gave inspired direction for the churches’ life and service, especially in the directions to Timothy and Titus. Timothy given the trust of the gospel, must “commit it to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2 :2) . Special inspired directions are given those who qualify for these important “teaching” and “ruling” offices (I Tim. 3:1–5; Titus 1).

Decisive Texts

In I Tim. 2:8 ff. Paul gave instruction to men and then to women as to proper behavior, and added, “Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man but to be in quietness” (vv. 11, 12). The reason for the instruction is significant. Like the Lord who in Matt. 19:4 ff, pulled a discussion of divorce out of cultural relativities to recall the original divine intention and declaration, His apostle recalled, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression” (vv. 13, 14). Then he called attention to the area of life which the Lord assigned to women, not identity with men, but a total monopoly, one which no law or custom can change, “childbearing.” Then he listed the requirements of a man who seeks the office of bishop, mentioning that he be “the husband of one wife . . . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.”

I Cor. 14:32–38 also deals most plainly with this matter, as it treats disorders in the church. Women’s conduct also need correction: “As in all the churches of the saints (not only Corinth) let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law . . . for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Then , as anticipating and answering objection to this instruction, Paul adds , “What? Was it from you that the Word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” And he adds, in case there is still objection, as the NIV translates, “If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” The grounds, “the law”, “the commandment of the Lord,” leave no question about God’s Word for those who through the churches’ history would obey that.

Appeal to Modern Scientific Discoveries

It is often suggested that the traditional Biblical distinctions between the sexes can no longer be applied because modern scientific discoveries have shown that they are simply not valid. Rev. Leonard Verduin, writing in The Banner of August 3, 1981, in an article entitled, “Does Not Nature Itself Teach?” pointed out that, as a matter of fact, modern scientific investigation, especially in the field of microbiology studying the structure and functioning of living cells, has shown how absolutely different the two kinds of cells are. To talk about them being identical or interchangeable is utter nonsense. ”The respective roles are as far from interchangeable as it is possible for them to be.” He observed that ”ours is the first generation in the history of humankind that seems to be embarrassed by human beings coming in two genders. I asked myself why this should be so. The thought came to me that perhaps it is modern humanity’s evolution-controlled faith that makes it disposed to what has been called ‘unisex’.” “Since it is God who invented and worked out our bimodal way of existing, it comes as no surprise that He wants us to keep that distinction in mind, always and everywhere.” “. . . God who invented sexual differentiation (saying ‘good’ as He beheld this the work of His hands) does not want us to apologize for it, does not want us to seek to hide it, and does not permit us to confuse our sexuality . . . ‘to jumble in such a way that one no longer knows which is which.’”

Misrepresenting Difference as Inferiority

Mrs. Laurie Vanden Heuvel in the May 1983 Outlook called attention to the way in which our feminists in their current propaganda systematically misrepresent recognizing the differences and different roles of the sexes as an exploitation of women as inferiors. She observed that the “Christian church for centuries has understood Genesis 2:18 and 20 to teach that the woman’s role is to be that of ‘helper’ to the man.” This idea is unacceptable to the current women’s liberationists. Accordingly, a Christian Reformed synod report in 1983 suggested that “The best translation of ‘helper fit for him’ is likely ‘partner’ . . . if woman was created as a helper of man, is she not then by that very token an inferior, a lower human being?”

In answer, Mrs. Vanden Heuvel pointed out that (1) “the word ‘helper’ does not mean inferior, and (2) a substitution of the word partner for the word helper does injustice to the intent of Genesis 2 and subsequent related passages of Scripture.

“In modem parlance, ‘partners’ are understood to be equal in every respect. Two partners in a business are understood to have equal investments of money, effort, and time with equal shares in the dividends.”

“On the other hand, a president of a corporation or the President of the United States has helpers. Now these helpers can be of various kinds. One ‘helper’ can be a cleaning lady at the White House. Another ‘helper can be a cabinet member who researches ideas, criticizes programs, prepares legal packages for the president to send to Congress and advises the president on crucial matters . Obviously, the cabinet member is an indispensable ‘helper‘ to the president without which the president could not function . . . . . it is entirely possible that the cabinet member, the ‘helper,’ may be a better speaker than the president, may have a higher G. P. A . . . . , may have more charisma in his personality . . . . If that is the case may the cabinet member then announce to the president and to the public that he is now a partner in that presidency? No way! No matter what superior qualities he may possess, the cabinet member is not the president. The president holds an executive office unique to him and him alone. He cannot function in that office without the help (support, brains, insights, communication skills, etc.) of his cabinet member. But when the final decisions are to be made, they are made by HIM.”

Imagine the chaos that would result if each cabinet member tried to act as president. Just as this current feminist attack on the authority of office if applied to government would destroy its structure and orderly functioning, pressure for it in our churches threatens them with that kind of disruption. One does not have to look very far to see evidence of its producing similar havoc in families.

Note: This material was presented to an adult group April 10, 1983 at the Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids. It may be of interest to our readers that this church has continued to elect women as deacons despite contrary synod decisions and also has several women serving as “adjunct elders.”