The Christian Reformed Church has been dealing with the subject of women in ecclesiastical office for eleven years. This year, the synod is being presented with a fifth and we may hope, last study committee report regarding the subject.

The report consists of three sections: Majority report and recommendations, Minority Report I and its recommendations, and Minority II and its reconunendations.

Signers of the Majority Report are: John A. De Kruyter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Wayne Kobes and Gordon H. Pols.

Signer of Minority Report I is Mrs. Dick (Thea B.) Van Halsema.

Signers of Minority Report II are Sarah Cook and Willis P. De Boer.

MAJORITY REPORT

Societal Landscape

The majority report correctly reminds us that the issue which vexes the church regarding women in church office does not come to us in a social, cultural and intellectual vacuum. They point out that the period of Enlightenment, the spirit of the French Revolution that proclaimed “liberty, equality, fraternity” bore the fruit of a “new structuration of traditional male and female roles.”

In the Industrial Revolution factories removed many women from their homes and since that time huge numbers of women have entered every facet of the labor force.

Universal education has not only required a mandatory minimum education for women, but has motivated many women to achieve high levels of academic excellence.

A rugged spirit of individualism also pervades our country today and wipes out many of the distinctions which once prevailed. The individual has replaced the family as the smallest unit of society.

The criteria for awarding status, role, task, and position have become training, ability, skills, gifts, speed and efficiency. These criteria are functional, pragmatic, and economic.

The majority report correctly concludes that individualism dissolves the binding quality of all human relationships. It runs counter to the Biblical stress on covenant and the New Testament teaching on the Christian community as the body of Christ. Individualism’s “potent and pernicious affirmation of the autonomy of the individual” destroys authority. Christians too have “bought into” this modem world and life view and this affects the way they see authority, roles, and office.

Exegetical studies:

In its analysis of the Old Testament Scriptures the majority report affirms:

1. That man was created a bi-unity, male and female. Man and woman together are God’s image.

2 . That “the Bible attaches significance and authority to firstness.” Creation order is God first, then man first and woman second. Woman was created to be a “suitable help” for man. She has a dual origin. She owes her existence to God, but also to man from whom she was taken.

3.That the relationship of Adam to woman as helper is foundational not only to the marriage relationship and the church, but to the man/woman relationship in general, including economics and political life.

4.That in the fall, woman set aside God and Adam and took the serpent as her leader.

5. That, although there was a pre-fall male position of priority, authority, and leadership with respect to woman, a curse on woman was that “he (her husband) shall rule over you,” meaning that that rule will “tend to be a sinful or oppressive kind of rule.”

7 . That in the redemptive process , the sinful distortion of this rule is to be taken away but the leadership role itself is to be retained, purified and sanctified by grace.

8. That the appointed and anointed leaders of the Old Testament were men: Noah, patriarchs, Moses, judges, military leaders, kings and prophets.

Headship Concept

Affirming that the word “head” is used as a metaphor, the study committee saw its task as determining in what sense the word “head” was being used in each passage.

They examined two words used for head: the Hebrew word “rosh” and the Greek word “kephale.” They found that although in general, the meaning of head as “source” is present in most passages, it is usually not dominant, and it is never used to the exclusion of the ruling and authority idea.

Christ’s headship is always for the benefit of the church, but it is ruling nevertheless.

The committee also examined the word for submission hypotasso-menoi, meaning to rank under or to put into subjection. It concluded that wives are directed to submit themselves to their husbands as to the Lord-that is, as part of their obedience to the Lord.

The committee further concluded that since Christ’s headship is a headship of rule, the husband’s headship is also a headship of rule. It must be a loving, self-sacrificing and enabling headship, Christ as Head of Man and Man as Head of Woman.

   

I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9

The majority report points out that the Minority Report ll wants to view “head” in this passage only as source to the exclusion of any ruling or authority concept. But the majority report rejects the “source” interpretation for the following reasons:

1. This passage would refer to a spiritual headship or “sourceship” and Christ is obviously not the spiritual source of every male that lives or has ever lived. 2. Nor is it proper to speak of the Father as the source (head) of Christ. That would give the impression that Christ was a created being.

The idea in this passage of head is that it is ruling-Father over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman. The report bolsters its arguments by pointing out that Paul grounded this chain of command in the creation order: “for man did not come from woman but woman from man, neither was man created for woman but woman for man” (vs. 8–9).

I Corinthians 14:33b–35

In this command for women to keep silent in the church, the committee observes:

committee observes:

1. This is a church context.

2.It is a limited silence since Paul does allow women to say something in I Cor. 11 (However I Cor. 11 is not necessarily a church setting-LVH). 3. Paul considers this prohibition to be so strong because it roots in the Law. 4. Paul considers it to be a rule for all the congregations of his day and not just the Corinthian church.

I Timothy 2:11–15

This is the only passage that deals specifically with woman teaching in church.

The majority report observes:

1.That this is in a church context (3:14 and 15).

2. That the kind of teaching not open to women is teaching done in a church service, the kind of teaching that would exercise authority over men, the official teaching of the church.

The report points out that today, teaching is often a transfer of information and skills from the teacher to the learner.

But in that day and today in official church teaching (proclamation), the teacher (preacher, elder) is not giving his own views or imparting information.

1. He has a relationship of authority over his learners (office). 2. He expects his learners to accept and comply with his teaching as a way of life because it is the Word of God. 3. He represents the body of believers, so that his kind of teaching is a governing type of teaching.

For these reasons the official proclamation of the Word in worship service is closed to women. The committee observes that other kinds of teaching are open to women.

I Peter 3:1–7

In the passage the report observes:

1. The husband is here understood to be the head of the family and the head of the wife. 2. The believing wife should be subject even to an unbelieving husband.

3.The husband’s headship should be loving.

4. Even though husband and wife occupy different roles in marriage they are “joint heirs of grace.”

Galatians 3:28

The report observes that although men and women are one in Christ, this does not take away the role differences between them which have been established in creation. Nor does it take away New Testament instructions on the relationship between men and women.

Paul’s Use of Women in Work

The report lists Paul’s use of the following words to describe women who worked with him:

1. diakonos – servant, Phoebe

2. prostatis – helper (feminine form), Phoebe

3. Kopiao – toil , Mary

4. synergos – fellow worker, Euodia and Syntycbe

The report observes that these words, although used to describe office-bearers and their work as well as these women, are in no way restrictive descriptions of official work or workers. The report further observes that there is no evidence that any of these ladies served, helped, or toiled as officers of the church.

Gifts and Offices

We have been hearing much lately about all the gifted women the church has and how they must be used in the official ministry of the church. The report speaks to this issue. It points out that every gift does not lead to office. “For church office the issue lies in whether and in what ways women are to be subject to men . . . To that issue the phenomenon of spiritual gifts does not speak.”

Headship and Society

The majority report maintains that the headship-submission roles for men/women not only apply to home and church but to society as well. Their judgment is based on the structure of the Old Testament theocracy and the silence of the New Testament on female roles in education, business, and politics. The report faults the church for not giving clear Biblical directives in these matters. It faults the Christian community for following “the prevailing winds of social and structural change.” On practical application of their belief, however, we are left hanging.

Preparatory to Disappointing Recommendations

It is at this point that the majority report breaks down. It is to what follows that Mrs. Van Halsema takes exception in her Minority Report I. One reads with surprise and distress that having said everything that has been recorded thus far, the committee now sees no reason why women cannot be deacons in the consistory. The report observes that women in New Testament times seem to have performed some of the same kinds of tasks as deacons do today. Furthermore the qualities listed for deacons’ wives in I Timothy 3:11 are really qualifications for deaconesses. The report rationalizes its change of the word “wives” to “deaconess” by saying that if these were really qualifications fo r wives of deacons there should also have been a list for wives of elders. Because there are no qualifications listed for wives of elders, the word “wives” of deacons must mean “deaconesses.” We would like to ask this question: if the word means “deaconesses” and not “wives of deacons,” why does verse 12 admonish deacons to have only one wife and omit to admonish deaconesses to have only one husband? We point this out only to show what inadequate ground the report has to justify opening the office of deacon in the consistory to women.

It is painfully puzzling how the committee could say what they have said in the report and conclude that women may serve as deacons in the consistory. It does not add up.

Minority Report I

Mrs. Van Halsema while agreeing with the body of the majority report, takes sharp exception to its conclusions and recommendations. She speaks best for herself in explaining her reasons for rejecting women in all church offices.

1. In applying this teaching of headship, I do not find clear teaching or example in Scripture which allows women to hold any of the ordained offices of the church . . . I do not see how we can say more from the New Testament than that men served as ordained officebearers and women helped significantly in all the ministries of the church. This is consistent with the creational norm of headship and the Genesis passages . . . . One argument advanced for admitting women to the ordained office of deacon is that women in the New Testament did the kinds of work carried out by deacons today. But we should note that these kinds of work did not result in ordination for women in the New Testament church of which they were a part.”

“Deacons have become increasingly involved in the governing of the church where the principle of male headship is reflected. This authority of deacons is an added reason . . . why we cannot argue for women deacons today on the basis of the kinds of helping work women did in the New Testament church.”

2. “The second reason (for not recommending women to ordained office) arises from the Christian Reformed Church Order by which the life of the church is regulated.”

“The Church Order of 1965, now in practice for eighteen years, reflects a twentieth-century theological explanation of church offices which emphasizes the inherent unity of the three offices and which gives deacons full place in the consistory with ministers and elders. One result has been that the work of elders and deacons is not clearly distinguished in the articles of the Church Order . . . It is difficult to see how this provise, that the work of deacons be distinguished from that of elders, can be carried out effectively. Our current Church Order does not delineate the offices of elder and deacon in consistent fashion. Articles 24 and 25 of the Church Order separate the general work of elders from that of deacons. But Article 35 blurs the distinction by stating that in every church “a consistory composed of the office–bearers” (including both elders and deacons) “is responsible for the general government of the church.” This term, consistory, is used more than sixty times in the rest of the Church Order. It is to the consistory, without further delineation, that the following work of the church is assigned (the numbers refer to articles in the Church Order):

nominations for and installation of office bearers (4), nominating and calling a pastor (12), releasing a pastor (16, 17), supporting ministers (15), authority of consistory (27, 34), general government of the church (35a), evangelism and missions (73, 74), worship services (52, 53) sacraments: baptism (55, 56), Lord’s Supper (59, 60), profession of faith (59a), catechetical instruction (64), transfer of membership (66), instruction and admonition to marry in the Lord (60), encouraging Christian education (71), promoting and supervising societies and youth organizations (72), admonition and discipline (78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87.; and in 80 “the church” is responsible), suspension of a minister (90), suspension of an officebearer (91). The supervision of a pastor is assigned to “his calling church” (13).

“Which of these tasks are inherently the work of elders? The Church Order gives us no guidance . . . . Where these tasks are done by elders and deacons together, it is impossible to distinguish the work of deacons from the work of elders.”

“On the basis of this Church Order I do not see how it is possible to ordain women as deacons and members of the consistory ‘provided that their work is distinguished from that of elders. Is it feasible to ask each consistory to sort out the blurred distinctions of all the ‘consistory’ work listed in the Church Order, under the general guidance that ‘such matters as worship, discipline, education and evangelism belong to the domain of the elders’ (Majority Report Recommendation 8)? . . . . We have made a strong case for the ruling headship of elders and ministers, but we have not protected it when we recommend that women deacons serve in the consistory, since the present Church Order does not clearly distinguish between the work of elders and deacons, and since the current trend is to do more and more governing of the church by the elders and deacons together.”

3. “The last reason addresses the need for us as a denomination to develop a recognized, structured way to welcome women as helpers in all the ministries of the church.”

Minority Report II

This was the most difficult of the reports to unravel, causing a frustration akin to the kind one feels when trying to untangle and rewind a ball of yarn with which a kitten has been playing. For this committee of two (Sarah Cook and Willis P. De Boer), there are three kinds of headship posited in the New Testament.

1. Source headship – refers strictly to origin of physical life.

2. Organic headship – involves a supplying of continual life and nourishment from one being to another being.

3. Ruling headship – in which on being rules, exercises authority over another. This committee (or section of the large committee) admits to only one instance in which this kind of headship is exercised and that is in Ephesians 1:22 “and gave Him (Christ) to be head over all things to the church.” The word “over” speaks unmistakably of rulership, the committee admits. But this is the only place according to them, that “head” means ruling authority.

New Testament “Head” Passages

Ephesians 5:22–23

“Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church and He is the Savior of the body.”

Concerning this passage, the committee observes:

1. That the point of the passage is that Christians are to be subject to each other (vs. 21). Paul just picks wives as an example of mutual subjection. No ruling on the part of the husband is taught here. We are impelled to ask at this point that, if the committee is correct, are we to understand that when verse 24 speaks of the church as being subject to Christ, there is also a mutual subjection here—that Christ must in some way subject Himself to the church? To be consistent, the committee would have to concede that there must also be a mutual subjection between Christ and His church.

2. That Christ’s headship in this passage is organic only. It is a headship of feeding and nurturing the church no ruling implied. Similarly, the husband’s headship is also organic and no ruling is implied. The organic headship of a man over his wife does not exert over the wife any form of ruling. His headship simply means that husband (as organic head) makes himself “available” to his wife (the body) so she “can draw life” from him.

If the committee’s explanation is true, then in verse 24 when it speaks of the “church submitting to Christ” we are to understand that the church is not submitting to any kind of authority of Christ. The church is simply drawing life from Him.

It is clear that the committee’s explanation is inadequate and erroneous. Although there is certainly an organic life-giving and life-receiving relationship between Christ and His church (body) and between husband and wife, the element of ruling and authority is dominant in the text. The manner in which the ruling is to come to expression in marriage is dealt with very tenderly in the verses that follow.

The committee uses their interpretation of this passage to show that any tasks or offices in the church which are open to men/husbands are also open to women/wives.

I Corinthians 11:3

“But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

The committee considers “headship” in this passage to be strictly a source headship. God is the source (origin) of Christ—nothing more; Christ is the source (origin) of man—nothing more; man is the source (the rib-provider) of woman—nothing more.

The majority report in its explanation of this passage rightly objects to this. They say:

1. That if Christ came from a source—then Christ appears to be a created being, which is not true. 2. That if every male comes from Christ as source then the implication is that every male draws life spiritual and physical—from Christ which is obviously not true. The minority committee responds by saying that the majority committee is confusing source headship with organic headship. The two are not the same in the minority’s theological system.

In addition to the majority committee’s objections we could add that the minority overlooks a phrase in verse 12 where Paul points out that although woman came from man, ever since that first creative act, man has come from woman. What becomes of the “male–source” argument then?

Other New Testament Passages

I Corinthians 14:33b–35

The minority committee sees this passage simply as a call to orderly worship. The minority report does not see Paul’s appeal to the “law” of God or the “command of the Lord” as very weighty. The majority report does.

I Timothy 2:11–15

The committee explains the restriction put on women in this passage as culturally conditioned. There were problems in the Christian community at Ephesus and Paul places restrictions on women in order to win “a favorable impression from the broader community so that Christians may live in peace and the mission of the church may be fostered.” According to the committee these restrictions were time-bound and were placed on their whole lives and not just on the church service. In I Timothy 3:14–15 where Paul says he is writing these instructions for the “church of the living God” so they may know how to behave, this committee says Paul is not here talking about an institutional church situation—but rather about the “new Israel” in general. The committee then proceeds to reconstruct the cultural situation of that day to show that Paul’s injunctions were time-conditioned.

Women Associated With Paul’s Work

The minority discusses the same words as the majority committee: diakonos, prostatis, kopiao, synergos. Whereas the majority committee finds no official authority or rule aspects of these words applied to the New Testament women, the minority committee attaches great significance to these words to the point of making them determinative for women to occupy all church offices.

Conclusion

Recently the Des Moines Register carried a news item entitled “Revelation allows church to ordain women priests.” Wallace B. Smith, prophet–president of the 230,000 member Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) recently received a direct revelation from God authorizing the ordination of women to the priesthood. The conference approved Smith’s revelation as “the mind and will of God.”

We smile and dismiss this as a gross manipulation of God’s self-revelation. And yet, is it different from the kinds of manipulation of God’s self-revelation in His Word that we find in parts of this and other study committee reports, articles, and booklets in the CRC? To create a theology and manipulate Scripture to fit it, to set predetermined goals (such as women in church office) and manipulate Scripture to justify it is not only cavalier, but sinful. As a church and as a Synod we must take very seriously the warnings issued by God Himself in Revelation 22:18 and 19 where God pledges to remove from His Book of Life those who tamper with His Word. Corporately God guarantees the “removal of the candlestick” of any church found to be unfaithful to His Word.

May God grant that those whose responsibility it is to settle this issue this year in the CRC, may not succumb to the pressures of peers and political maneuvers, but yield to the clear testimony of God’s Word.

Mrs. L. Vanden Heuvel is the wife of Thomas Vanden Heuvel, pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Orange City, Iowa.