The magazine Christian Renewal recently contained an insert of a speech re: Women in Office given by the Rev. Raymond Sikkema to an elders’ Conference. In an appendix. he gives a review/critique of a Report given by a committee on the matter of women in ecclesiastical office in the United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. This Report is both enlightening and disturbing at the same time, and it should give some food for thought to the Christian Reformed Church (which is also why Sikkema included it in his paper). Sikkema shows how the usually “tolerant” UPCUSA suddenly became intolerant when the rules of the game had once been changed. The UPC’s long-standing Book of Order (which contains the Form of Government) had always been opposed to women in ecclesiastical office. Candidates for the ministry were expected to express their adherence to this document, and not to undermine it.
That vow, however, was violated repeatedly over the last number of years with the tacit approval of many in the church, especially the leaders. As a result, the document was revised. The latest revision of the Form of Government allows female ordination. Now candidates for the ministry must promise their unconditional adherence to the current form of government so that those who do not promise such adherence will not be ordained! The Study Committee says that “candidates who hold that women should not be allowed to be elders and ministers in the church . . . cannot be recommended for ordination.” Candidates who object strongly to female ordination are considered “hostile,” and “to allow such candidates to be ordained would be to contribute to the disruption and deformation of the church.” There you have it: the axe has fallen; dissenters, beware! Says Sikkema: “So the teaching/practice of the church replaces the Scripture as the norm for doctrine and life. Here a new legalism has been enthroned . . . . And it enslaves with a vengeance.”
What is conveniently overlooked, of course, is the fact (as stated by Sikkema) “that if the line of reasoning here advocated (hold your opinion privately but do not advocate it from the pulpit) had prevailed in the UPC in the years 1920–55, women would never have been ordained to office in that church.” Precisely. What is sauce for the goose is supposed to be sauce for the gander too, but not in this case. Originally it was all right to violate the rules of government, but now that the rules have been changed, that leniency is taken away.
A similar thing happened in the Presbyterian Church of Canada. A friend and colleague of mine in that church has recently left that communion over this issue. For quite some time he was thinking of becoming a minister in the Christian Reformed Church, but he was afraid he would have to face the same battle here as he did there. And he said he did not relish that.
All of which simply means: To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Fact is, one can already see the handwriting on the wall in the CRC. At present we already have consistories who have deaconnesses and even “auxiliary” elders, in clear violation of the Church Order and the directives of pastsy nods. But they get away with it. Even the last synod said we should deal with such cases in love rather than be “judgmental.”
How long will such a “non–judgmental” attitude prevail, however? Till the rules are changed? Or does it make a difference as to who breaks the rules? Time will tell, but the prospect is not encouraging. Ungodly politicking in the church is a curse. Has always been and will always be.