To one who has read other writings of his, it comes as no surprise that Dr. S. Woudstra, editor of De Wachter, recently made a pitch for opening all the offices in the church to women. He writes in a recent editorial that for years already he has considered it to be unbiblical to close any one of the offices to women. Open all the offices to women and don’t talk about it anymore, is his advice. It is interesting to take a look at his argumentation.

According to Woudstra, the position of those who are opposed to women in office is based upon “a few texts” and a “vague headship principle.” This way of handling Scripture inclines toward a “fundamentalistic” view of the Bible rather than a Reformed one. And there is a big difference between trying to base one’s position on a few isolated texts in the Bible and real “biblical thinking.” The former position is also known as “biblicism.” According to Woudstra, seminary professors have often been accused of defending women in office, but, says Woudstra, this only speaks well of them, for it shows that our seminary in this regard still moves along Reformed lines. Woudstra concludes by making a reference to the Minority II report presented to last year’s synod by Sarah Cook and Willis De Boer. This, says he, was a good attempt to understand the Scriptural givens in their historical setting. He also considers the opposition to the decision of last year’s synod as coming very close to a wave of anti-feminism.

Well, there you have it. If it wasn’t for the fact that Woudstra has a position of influence and that his view is shared by several more of our leaders, one would be inclined to dismiss the matter. But at least a few comments are in order.

1. The charge of “fundamentalism” is a handy epithet for those holding to a strict view of the Bible, but an epithet is also recognized as a last resort of a weak or defeated cause. What is more, as Prof. Marten Woudstra has pointed out on more than one occasion, there are times in the modern debate about the Bible when Reformed people should be glad to wear the “fundamentalist” badge as a bade of honor. For it is often synonymous with a high view of Scripture. 2. How does one go about determining the overall sense of Scripture (including its historical sense) without giving due attention the text of Scripture? It is easy to drive a wedge between “text” and “sense,” but it is really a false dilemma, somewhat akin to a neo-orthodox view of Scripture. 3. Is it really so that the historical stand of the church re women in office, was based on “a few isolated texts?” Is it not much rather the case that it was based squarely on the creation order itself, which order is not abrogated by redemption, but rather restored by it? Paul refers very clearly to the creation and fall of man and to what “the law” says. That is something else than “isolated texts.” As the Rev. P.M. Jonker stated in the first “minority report” in 1973: “It seems to me that the only reasonable explanation for this exclusion is the command to submissiveness based on the order God made and prescribed in creation and which order he upheld after the fall into sin.” 4. The editor of The Banner once made the commendable statement that “one should not try to make these texts say the opposite of what they seem to be saying to the ordinary reader.” Woudstra’s interpretation does exactly that. And so does the Minority II Report submitted to last year’s synod, a report that Woudstra finds so commendable. In actual fact. that Report stinks! It denies the perspicuity of the Scriptures, and for all practical purposes takes the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary reader and makes it a book for which we need the ‘“theological high-priests” in order to understand it. If we must believe this Report, then the Bible is a very opaque and obscure book which can be interpreted in a variety of ways, none of which we’re sure about.

Woudstra would do well in this connection to digest the booklet by Prof. H. Vander Goot, Interpreting the Bible in Theology and the Church. Here Vander Goot stresses the priority and sovereignty of the text of Scripture, warns against the “eclipse of the literal sense,” and says that the understanding of the Bible by the Christian community is prior to and primary for the scientific study of the Bible by theologians. Vander Goot wishes to wrest Scripture free from the stranglehold of modem professionalism, and calls for an “obedient, reverent use of the Bible.” That is something that has been miss ing in many of the study committee reports of the last several years. We must take to heart what Prof. Runia writes in Nov. ‘84 Calvin Theological Journal about the hermeneutics of the Reformers: “Since in the opinion of most scholars the real truth lies behind the texts, the Bible again becomes an obscure book, the understanding of which becomes dependent upon the ‘high priests’ of modern scholarship. This means that the lay reader is again relegated to a position of dependence on the expert.” Oh that we would take that to heart in the CRC today!

5. Woudstra thinks he detects “anti–feminism” in the protests against the decision of last year’s synod. I wish he had made similar warnings against what Piersma rightly calls “the radical, revolutionary spirit of the modem feminist movement” which has also greatly infected the CRC!

6. It is strange that Woudstra appears to see nothing wrong with the trend toward using the lot when electing elders and deacons, for here is a clear base where “isolated texts” are used to promote it, while the clear redemptive-historical sense of the Bible is against it. It would mean a return to the “shadows” of the Old Testament. Why not be consistent?

In conclusion, I believe we are on dangerous ground when we adopt a view of Scripture such as promulgated by Woudstra. I must confess that with editorial leadership like that, it may not be a bad thing that De Wachter is being phased out.

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada