IV. The Nature of Office In the Reformed Tradition
That Reformed churches have stressed the unity and equality of offices is reflected in its Church Orders. Article 1 of the CRC Church Order reads that “the offices of the minister of the Word, elder, deacon, and evangelist . . . differ from each other only in mandate and task, not in dignity and honor.” 75 Moreover, “no office-bearer shall lord it over another office bearer. ” 76 The churches of the Reformation wanted no part of the hierarchical clergy system of the Roman Catholic church and the history of the diaconate in the Reformed churches reflects this struggle to maintain unity and equality of office. Even though a diversity of functions was recognized, the fact that deacons were considered part of the general consistory reflects the struggle for unity.
A high view of the diaconate together with a concern for the unity of offices led to a theology which saw Christ’s offices of prophet, priest and king reflected in the offices whereby Christ ruled His church. Prof. Heyns wrote: “The Reformed churches have distinguished themselves favorably in this respect, since they were the only ones that have restored this office [diaconate] in its original biblical sense. But even in these Churches the diaconate office has not been valued as it should be, nor have they brought it to its rightful development.”77 The thinking was that the three offices of minister, elder and deacon “root in the triple office of Christ Himself, Who is our prophet, priest and king.”78 This view was championed by Van Dellen and Monsma who became responsible for embedding it as an accepted principle of Reformed church polity.79
This principle was further refined by the Dutch theologian, Dr. K. Dijk, who pleaded for unity of offices because office bearers are servants ofChrist, caring for His sheep in His name. Or. Dijk argues for a Church Order which should conform to the Belgic Confession which shows the unity of the offices. He believes that the Confession (Articles 30-32) is normative for Reformed church polity in that it puts the unity of office in the council of the church as a governing body.80 He claims that it is impossible to separate the work of deacons from the pastoral and ruling functions of elders and ministers of the Word, because this unity of function has its roots in the apostolic office. The diaconate as a separate office arose as an extension of Christ’s work performed through the apostolic office. “Deacons are servants of Christ who in His Name and upon His command exercise care . . . through the service of the church.”81 “Aduality has arisen,” which in his opinion, “has not been solved in any diaconal manual,” 82 and which has constantly caused problems in the ecclesiastical life of Reformed churches.
Applying Dijk’s theory, he would no doubt view the synodical decision of 1984 to ordain women deacons, provided their work “be distinguished from that of elders” as such an example of duality of office. Also the repeated rejection of CRC synods to have deacons delegated to major assemblies83 would fall into this category. It is significant that in the discussion to have deacons delegated to major assemblies, the following grounds have been proposed: “(1) biblical recognition of the authority of all ecclesiastical office , (2) the importance of the priestly aspect of the church’s ministry, (3) the large number of matters at major assemblies that concern deacons, and (4) the recognized principle of the equality and unity of office.”84 As has been pointed out by a study report on the offices, the work of office bearers overlap, so that ministers and elders have part in promoting the work of mercy, and deacons engage in pastoral, teaching and governing functions. 85
More recent studies on the offices have focused on the service character of the offices, so that one study committee concluded: “The special ministries are primarily characterized by service, rather than by status, dominance or privilege.”86 Good order dictates the function of special ministries. For there is “no essential distinction but only a functional one between ministers, elders, deacons, and all other members of the church . . . . All are commissioned to serve.”87 The advisory committee tried to maintain a balance between authority and service, and among other recommendations proposed the statement which was adopted: “Nowhere in the New Testament is there a conflict between authority and service, or between ruling and love. Christian authority involves service in the name of the authoritative Christ.”88
A 1972 study committee was of the opinion that the Reformers “regarded special office as being ‘functional’ or ‘instrumental’ in character,”89 that Calvin‘s “functionalism allowed him to be somewhat pragmatic and flexible, sensitive to the immediate situation, to the exigencies of the times.”90 The report states that the offices of prophet, priest and king of the Old Testament have found their fulfillment in Christ and does “not offer us a normative pattern for ecclesiastical office and ordination in the church today.”91 Moreover, the New Testament gives examples of a variety of functionaries in the church: disciples , the seventy, apostles, the seven, prophets, evangelists, teachers, elders and bishops, and deacons (cf. Rom. 12:6–8; I Cor. 12:4–19; I Cor. 12:28–30; Eph. 4:11). It is stated that New Testament materials “contain guiding principles significant for the church of every age. But they do not present a definitive church organizational structure to which the church must remain bound for all time.”92
As Goodykoontz points out, however, the New Testament passages which deal with the various ministries performed by Christians, “refer either to offices (titles) or functions (tasks), or more likely to the two in a unity that cannot be divided.”93 Furthermore, Scripture gives definite qualifications for special offices which are similar and overlap.94 It is true, Calvin did allow for the “exigencies of the times” and was flexible, as is evident from the fact that he included Doctors of Theology as a fourth office and recognized two kinds of deacons—one as office bearer and one as assistant. But he was concerned with the norms and principles of Scripture and he did recognize specific offices. Says Calvin: “But even though the term ‘diakonia’ itself has a wider application, Scripture specifically designates as deacon those whom the church has appointed to distribute alms and take care of the poor, and serve as stewards of the common chest of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office are described by Luke in The Acts (Acts 6:3).”95 When one consults Reformed commentators on church polity one will invariably find that they point to Acts 6 for the origin of the diaconal office.96
V. Hermeneutics Used In Synodical Reports
The 1973 report on “Women in Ecclesiastical Office” examines “in the light of Scripture the general Reformed practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office, . . . a practice generally accepted as biblical.”99 The report speaks of the difficulty of their task in overcoming “ages of accepted interpretations and exegesis.”100 They ask “to what extent has the Reformed practice of excluding women from office been determined by social conditions and traditions by the status that society has assigned to women?”101 Key passages which have always been regarded as normative in determining the place of women in the Old and New Testament, such as Genesis 1–3, Galatians 3:28, I Corinthians 7, 11:22–16, 14:33b–36 and I Timothy 2:8–15 are examined. It is concluded that these passages must be explained in terms of Paul’s socio-cultural view of his times . It is stated that Paul was not a social-revolutionary and therefore he stressed that the equality of men and women in Christ as a position of “new freedom contrary to the existing social conditions could in effect be a hindrance to missionary work; charges of objectional conduct could be levied at the new church.”102 Therefore, “we maintain that many of Paul’s specific regulations are not intended to be timeless applications of certain lasting and foundational principles.”103
The conclusion is that “the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office cannot conclusively be defended on biblical grounds.”104 Admittedly, this Report was recognized as a one–sided approach and incomplete, and another study committee was appointed to examine the method of interpreting biblical data, equality, creation order, headship and roles and functions of women in the church.
The 19 75 study report, “Women in Ecclesiastical Office,” by way of a questionnaire, found that more church councils favored the traditional way of interpreting the relevant Scripture passages, but there is some support for instituting the office of deaconess, and considerable support for “using women in the work of the church outside the existing offices.”105 Their examination of the headship principle in Scripture caused them to conclude that “Biblical teaching is not opposed in principle to the ordination of women to any office that men hold in the church.”106 The reason is that “headship is expressed at the time of creation but dominion or rule is not expressed until the curse is pronounced as a result of sin (Genesis 3:16). In the New Testament headship is once again emphasized but from the perspective of the wife being submissive to her husband as set forth in the example of Christ’s love and headship of the church.”107 The 1984 majority study report on “Headship in the Bible” came to a similar conclusion (Acts of Synod 1984, pp. 282–336).
The 1978 report, “Hermeneutical Principles Governing Women in Ecclesiastical Office,” consisting of Old and New Testament scholars, tries to come to grips with the problem of hermeneutics involved in the women in office issue. It says much which has generally been accepted in Reformed circles , such as “the Bible’s message need not be mediated to the ordinary believer by means of some officially authorized body of interpreters. The Bible’s message, according to the Reformers, can be grasped by all who prayerfully seek to understand it.”108 It is noted that the interpreter’s task is not finished until he has discovered the meaning of the passage for today. “The Bible is God’s complete and final revelation to man and in its light all disputes ought to be settled.”109 The Report goes on to say that “nevertheless, the question may be considered whether a given word the canon speaks on the subject, is possibly open to the future for further development in connection with the coming of God’s kingdom.”110 Joel’s prophecy (2:28, 29; cf. Acts 2:17–21) is seen as an example that “there may be fulfillments of these words reaching beyond the New Testament period itself into the history of the Christian church.”111 Not only must the historical and cultural situation of the Bible be considered, but also the “present historical cultural situation must be understood to make sound contemporary applications.”112
The same relevant Bible passages of the previous report are examined and it is concluded that because Paul’s statement concerning the woman’s role in the church are made within the context of specific historical situations, it “raises the question whether Paul’s teaching on this matter is complete.” The conclusions are more carefully formulated than that of the 1973 report and it is stated that the principle of headship “involves an element of authority, . . . men and women have equality of worth since both are imagebearers of God.”113 Nevertheless, some new hermeneutical questions were raised in regard to the relevant Scripture passage regarding women in office.
The 1981 report, “Synodical Studies on Women in Office and Decisions Pertaining to the Office of Deacon,” reviewed the 1978 report and added some new viewpoints on the Scriptural grounds for the office of deacon. It downplays the importance of Acts 6 in establishing the office of deacon. It lists all the discrepancies that exist between deacons as we know them today and declares that “the link between Acts 6 and the office of deacon as we know it is, to say the least, based on very superficial ‘ground’.”114 The same is said about I Timothy 3. “Our conclusion is that [it] does not bring us very close at all to a definition of the office and tasks of the deacon.”115
It is evident that there are new elements of hermeneutics involved in the conclusions reached by the various study reports. The most specific Scripture passage pertaining to women’s position, I Timothy 2:11, where Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (NIV translation) is questioned. No unanimity could be reached by the 1978 study committee as to whether “Paul’s”116 So injunction is binding for all times and places, synod 1984 concluded that “no study committee (1973, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984) found biblical reasons to keep the office of deacon closed to qualified women.”117 This means that “no biblical message speaks directly to the question of women in ecclesiastical office as presently understood . . . [and] there is a question whether Paul’s teaching on this matter is complete.”118
After reading the reams of study reports dealing with women in office, the ordinary Bible student who supposedly is able to interpret Scripture for him or herself, is left bewildered. What then do the relevant Bible passages pertaining to women’s position mean for today?
VI. Changing the Church Order
In its mandate to define how to implement “the decision of Synod 1984” the study committee faces a difficult task. This task involves defining “the work of elders and deacons in such fashion that the local churches will be assisted in carrying out the decision of Synod 1984, that ‘the work of women as deacons . . . be distinguished from that of elders’ (Church Order Supplement, Art. 3).”119 Reference is made to Report 32, Acts of Synod 1984, which gave some suggestions. The options consisted of the following:
(1) Women as deacons and as members of the consistory.
(2) Women as deacons but not as members of the consistory.
(3) Women in an ordained office of their own but not as members of the consistory.
(4) Woman not in ordained office but commissioned to assist in the work of all the offices.120
In the light of the fifteen-year-old history of women deacons, questions as to the nature of office and Biblical hermeneutics will arise again. Church Order changes will have to be made, depending on which of the above positions are adopted. Although it may be so that “a vital part of the Reformed heritage is found in the principle that the polity of the church must always respond to the times in which the church serves its generation,”121 too many and too rapid changes usually tend to confusion and conflict. It is significant that whereas “between the years 1912 and 1965 only two significant changes were made in the Church Order, from 1965 to 1978 twenty-three articles have been revised!”122
The history of Reformed churches shows that church polity has often led to deep conflicts and even schism, witness the Secession movement in which the CRC had its roots. Although the conflict regarding church polity focused on the role of the government in church affairs, church polity nevertheless played a big part in the Secession movement. Doctrine and church polity were intimately related. “To the leaders of the Secession (Afscheiding) these two matters were inextricably intertwined and could not be separated. When efforts to restore the church to loyalty to its heritage were rebuffed at every turn, secession and re-formation of the church appeared to be the only viable alternative.”123 Complaints with respect to departure from the Church Order of Dort were among the grounds cited by those who seceded in 1857 from the Reformed Church in America to form the CRC. 124 Other schisms which centered in the application of church polity occurred in 1924 in the CRC and in 1944 in the Netherlands.
Another factor will be the Belgic Confession which specifies a particular kind of church government. Although the synod of 1985 adopted “persons” rather than “men” as the best translation to describe office bearer,125 it still has to deal with the fact that it states “such persons” are “chosen according to the rule that Paul gave to Timothy.”126 The fact is that at the time the Church Order was adopted (1618–19) this was interpreted to mean that men were to occupy the office of deacons as part of the church council. By changing the Church Order to permit women to function as deacons, the historic understanding of the Confession of the Church is affected. Since Reformed churches are confessional churches, which require the signing of the Form of Subscription for all office bearers, this may cause further problems and pain.127
VII. Conclusion
It is clear that the way the women deacon issue will be implemented will determine the direction of hermeneutics in the CRC. It can be decided by making some adaptations and modifications in the functions of the diaconate which will be in harmony with traditionally accepted norms and principles of Scripture, so that women deacons will assist male deacons or function as deaconesses as they previously did in the history of the Reformed churches. This would erode the unity and equality of office as understood by many in the Reformed tradition. Or, if it is judged that the historic unity of offices needs to be preserved, women deacons may be given full status in the general consistory. If this latter way is chosen there is no reason why women could not also occupy the other offices. By allowing women deacons to function on the same basis as male deacons now do in the general consistory, women will be given ruling and governing functions, which would void the headship principle which now excludes them from the offices of minister and elder.
Evidently both sides cannot be satisfied. If the first way is chosen, those who seek “full opportunity and equality for women” will not be satisfied, even if women deacons are given equal status with male deacons in the general consistory, for presently deacons do not fully participate at all levels of the major assemblies of the church. If the last way is chosen, it will mean increased pain because of the departure from the historic Reformed interpretation of office in Scripture.
The decision which Synod will make in regard to the implementation of women deacons will decide the future of Reformed hermeneutics in the CRC. The real issue which is at stake is whether the Spirit is opening new ways of understanding the Scriptures, or whether these changes arise primarily from the spirit of the age. One thing is clear, the women in office issue shows that church polity and hermeneutics are inextricably intertwined.
75. William P. Brink and Richard R. De Ridder,Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government (Grand Rapids,Michigan: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1980), p. 7.
76. Ibid, Article 95, p. 26.
77. Prof. Wm. Heyns, Handbook for Elders and Deacons (234 Pearl Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1928), p. 77. 78. De fang, The Ministry of Mercy Today, p. 161. 79. Monsma, The New Revised Church Order Commentary, pp. 23–25. 80. Prof. Dr. K. Dijk, De Eenhaid Der Ambten (Balijelaan 79b , Utrecht: Uitgave Centrool Bureau van de Dioconieen der Geref. Kerken, 1949), p. 25.81. Ibid., p. 21; transl. F.P.
82. Dijk, De Eenheid Der Ambten, p. 24.
83. Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 584–90 gives on overview.
84. Acts of Synod 1966, p. 22.
85 . Acts of Synod 1978, pp. 549–50.
86. Acts of Synod 1973, p. 713.
87. Ibid., p. 715.
88. Ibid., p. 62.
89. Acts of Synod 1972, p. 465.
90. Ibid., p. 467.
91. Ibid., p. 436.
92. Ibid., p. 456.
93. Harry G. Goodykoontz, The Minister in the Reformed Tradition (Richmond, Virginia, 1963), p. 29. 94. A comparison of I Tim. 3:8–12 which lists qualifications for deacons, with I Tim. 3:2–7 and Titus 1:6–9 which list qualifications for elders, shows that there are at least five qualifications which ore similar. 95. Calvin’s Institutes, Vol. 2, IV, iii, 9, p. 1061. 96. This is also recognized by Goodykoontz who says in The Minister in the Reformed Tradition that “Acts 6:1–6 is held by most Reformed scholars to be an account of the origin of the diaconate” (p. 39). 97. Acts of Synod 1978, p. 525. 98. Ibid., p. 540. 99. Acts of Synod 1973, p. 514. 100. Ibid., p. 515. 101. Ibid., p. 517. 102. Ibid., p. 542.103. Ibid., p. 554.
104. Ibid., p. 587.
105. Acts of Synod 1975, p. 572. 106. Ibid., p. 593. 107. Ibid., p. 590.108. Acts of Synod 1978
109. Ibid., p. 488.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid., p. 508.
112. Ibid., p. 502.
113. Ibid., p. 530.
114. Acts of Synod 1981, p. 499. 115. Ibid., p. 498. 116. Acts of Synod 1981, p. 527.117. Acts of Synod 1984, p . 627.
118. Acts of Synod 1978, p. 529.
119. Acts of Synod 1985, p. 781.
120. Acts of Synod 1984, p. 331.
121. Brink and De Ridder, Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government, p. 2.122. Ibid., p. 3.
123. Richard R. De Ridder, A Survey of the Sources of Reformed Church Polity and the Form of Government of the Christian Reformed Church in America, (Calvin Theological Seminary, 1983), pp. 89, 90.
124 . Brink and De Ridder, Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government, p. 2.
125. Acts of Synod 1985, p. 78.
126. Ibid.
127. C.O . Art. 5; cf. Supplement, Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government, pp. 45–47.
Mrs. Pronk, the wife of the pastor of Grand Rapids’ Free Reformed Church is a student at Calvin Theological Seminary.