Perhaps your congregation, like mine, has used in its adult education program the Bible Studies on I Corinthians published early this year in The Banner by the Christian Reformed Church’s Board of Publications. Perhaps you are presently using these materials or are considering using them in the near future. If so, it is with you in mind that I write with a particular sense of urgency regarding these I Corinthians lessons. Even if you will never use these materials, however, you should be aware that the teaching found in these materials contradicts Synod 1984’s declaration on headship.

As is well known, Synod 1984 declared that “the headship principle, which means that the man should exercise primary leadership and direction-setting in the home and in the church, is a biblical teaching recognized in both the Old and the New Testament” (1984 Acts of Synod, p. 623). Immediately after this declaration as it appears in the 1984 Acts of Synod is a list of delegate’s names who wished to record their negative votes. The very first name in this list is that of a Homer Samplonius. Who is the author of these lessons on I Corinthians—a book which contains two of the three New Testament passages which teach the direction-setting headship of the man in the church—you guessed it: Homer Samplonius.

The CRC Board of Publications in a letter written to myself has stated that “the editorial staff was unaware of Rev. Samplonius’ negative vote on ‘the headship issue.’” Be that as it may, Rev. Samplonius’ stance in opposition to Synod’s declaration is made abundantly clear in his lessons on I Corinthians, and there can be little excuse for the lack of editorial supervision which allowed such a stance free expression in a teaching office.

For instance, in lesson 11 we find the following treatment of I Corinthians 11:3:

In his argument that women should continue the practice of wearing veils, the apostle appeals first to the divine order (11:3). Recent studies cited by F. F. Bruce in his commentary of I Corinthians make a strong case for understanding the word head (v. 3) as ‘source’ or ‘origin.’ Not only is this supported from everything which follows in this particular section, but it also clears up an otherwise serious inconsistency with the Athanasian Creed, which does not really permit us to speak of God as being the ‘head’ of Christ, since the three persons of the Trinity are all co-equal. Yet it is quite proper to speak of ‘head’ as ‘source’ because God is the eternal source, or origin, of the Christ (‘begotten of the Father’).

This exegesis echoes that found in Minority Report #2 of the Committee on Headship in the Bible, which urged the opening of all church offices to women:

We of the minority read Paul’s threefold headship in I Corinthians 11:3 as alluding primarily to source, point of origin. This is the interpretation of such commentators as C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, and J. Murphy-O’Connor.

1984 Acts of Synod, p. 356

Even the Board of Publications has recognized that “in declaring ‘the headship principle’ a biblical teaching, synod based its decision in large part on the exegesis found in the Majority Report.” The Majority Report’s treatment of I Corinthians 11:3 is quite opposite to that of Samplonius:

Verse 3 deals with a triple headship: ‘the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.’ The question is, what does headship mean in the passage? Some hold that head here means source or origin. In the abstract this is possible, since source or origin is one of the meanings of head in the New Testament. But the question is: Does this meaning fit here? [The report here goes into a detailed analysis from which it concludes that this meaning does not fit when considering Christ as the head of every man and God as the head of Christ] . . . .

If we think of head in the sense of ‘ruling head,’ however, the words just discussed make perfectly good and perfectly biblical sense. Christ is indeed the head of all men in the sense of ruling over them; this holds even for non-Christians, since all men are under the rulership of Christ, whether they know it or not. God, or God the Father, is certainly the head of Christ in the sense of ‘ruling head,’ if we think of Christ as the Mediator whom the Father sent into the world. Christ, in fact, says many times that he has come into this world only to do the Father’s will, and only to do the works which the Father has given him to do.

     

Since the first and the last headship mentioned in verse 3 are headships of rule, we conclude that the headship spoken of in the middle part of the verse, ‘and the head of the woman is man’ is also a headship of rule, or a direction-setting headship.

1984 Acts of Synod, pp. 308, 309 What is even more amazing is that the Leader’s Guide for the I Corinthian lessons presents essentially the same viewpoint as Samplonius. For instance, on I Corinthians 11:3 the Leader’s Guide comments:

. . . the Greek word used for man here is aner which can mean either ‘man’ or ‘husband.’ So the question we face is this: What does Paul mean? Is every man the head of every woman? Or is the husband the head of his wife, but not necessarily the head of other women? John Calvin understands Paul to be speaking of husband and wife, about the order of marriage. He says, for example, ‘If the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection—involving contempt of her husband.’ I too think that is the best way to understand Paul.

Compare the above to what the Majority Report says on this matter: Does this section [I Corinthians 11:3–12] deal only with the relation of husbands and wives to each other? There are several reasons for believing that the passage has to do not only with husbands and wives but also with men and women generally, whether married or not: (1) The passage deals with conduct in the worship service, and such a service would involve those who were unmarried as well as those who were married. (2) The references to ‘every man who prays or prophesies’ (v. 4) and ‘every woman who prays or prophesies’ (v. 5) suggest that more than married men and women are intended. (3) Verses 7–9 give the creational basis for the headship of man; this creational basis, however, holds for the unmarried as well as the married. (4) In verses 13–14 Paul appeals to nature or ‘the nature of things’ (NIV) to prove his point; nature, however, has to do not just with husbands and wives but with men and women in general.

1984 Acts of Synod, pp. 309–310

These same patterns are repeated in the treatment of I Corinthians 14:33–38: From Bible Studies, Vol. 27, lesson 14:

Verses 33–35 continue to be a source of much confusion and dissension. Let us note that Paul has already permitted the women to prophesy and pray in church. Since we do not believe that Scripture contradicts Scripture, we believe that Paul is not discussing these activities. It appears that in the Corinthian services good order was disturbed by speaking in tongues, indiscriminate prophetic utterances, and also by inquisitive women asking (embarrassing?) questions (v. 35). The women who were asserting their newfound rights were urged to respect the good order of the church and to wait to ask questions of their husbands until they were at home.

From Bible Studies Leader’s Guide, Vol. 27, lesson 14; p. 45:

It may be useful at this point to read again the Lesson Notes on I Corinthians 11:3–5. Paul would not be contradicting now what he said then. Paul’s main emphasis is on maintaining good order in the meetings, so his advice (vv. 26-36) addresses whatever disruptions were taking place.

My own opinion is that Paul advises the church in Corinth to prohibit women from speaking in the service on the grounds that all the other churches did so, and that most women were not capable in those days of making a meaningful contribution to the discussion of the gospel. Those circumstances no longer describe churches in the twentieth century, so the advice no longer applies.

From Majority Report, Committee on Headship in the Bible, 1984 Acts of Synod, p. 313:

The injunction forbidding women from engaging in this kind of speaking in the church, therefore, is probably an implication of the headship concept. It suggests that Paul is here repeating the thought developed in I Corinthians 11:1–16: namely, that the headship of the man should be recognized in the worship services of the church.

All this is bad enough, but the Bible Studies materials on I Corinthians do not merely put forward questionable and one-sided interpretations of I Corinthians, but also use slanted, leading questions which seem designed to promote the cause of women in all church offices, and to attack the traditional interpretation of I Timothy 2:12, which is undoubtedly the clearest and strongest text in the New Testament prohibiting women from positions of authority in the church. I quote the following questions and answers from the Leader’s Guide:

Lesson 12, Discussion Question 5. Many denominations are involved in an ongoing study of office and ordination. Verse 28 [of I Cor. 12] mentions the appointment of apostles, prophets, and teachers, along with many others. Is it possible that our present difficulties with respect to office and ordination stem from the fact that we have been too restrictive? Have we elevated the two traditional offices of elder (including the minister) and deacon too much, separating them from the rest of the member’s functions? Why or why not?

. . . the church since New Testament times has been relatively free to develop whatever system of government seems to work best and to contribute most to spiritual growth.

And this is in line with Paul’s teaching about the gifts of the Spirit. Whenever –the church develops a rigid system of office, that system serves to some extent as a straightjacket for the Holy Spirit. It does not allow the gifts of the Holy Spirit to be freely exercised to their fullest extent.

In my opinion, the concept of ‘office’ in the church ought to mean virtually the same thing as ‘function.’ Each congregation has certain functions that need to be performed regularly. Persons are appointed to do this (here appointment means ‘ordination’). But as the Holy Spirit provides spiritual gifts which do not fit into the established order, each congregation should be free to expand its appointments as it sees fit. Their established structure should not keep them from using spiritual gifts that have obviously been given to certain members. We should not let our idea of structure based on tradition overrule what the Holy Spirit seeks to do among us by way of his gifts.

Leader’s Guide, pp. 40–41 Lesson 11, Discussion Question 2. It is generally recognized that women participated in the prayers of the congregation in the early church. But what is the gift of prophecy? Do we prophesy today? Is this distinct from Paul’s teaching elsewhere, when he forbids women to teach (I Timothy 2:12)? . . . Paul’s prohibition against ‘teaching’ would seem then to mean that he did not consider women in general to be sufficiently well-educated or trained to take on the official task of instructing newcomers in the faith, though perhaps there could be exceptions.

Personally, I do not think this prohibition should be taken as a hard and fast rule. It reflects the generally low position of women in that time and age. Women today are as well educated as men, so the reason for prohibiting their ‘teaching’ is no longer valid.

Leader’s Guide, p. 37 Again, the patterns noted previously persist here. Minority Report–2 presents an argument virtually identical to that quoted above. The Majority Report, on the other hand, has this to say about Timothy 2:12:

According to verse 12 a woman is not permitted ‘to teach or to have authority over a man.’ These words apply primarily to the worship service of the church. Though not all types of teaching are forbidden to women, what Paul here forbids is teaching which involves the exercise of authority over men—such instruction as was done by the official teachers of the church. Because Paul grounds this prohibition in the biblical data about creation and the fall (vv. 13–14), it is clear that this injunction was not only for the Ephesian church at that time but is binding for the church of all time.

1984 Acts of Synod, p. 329 I and another brother wrote staff members Mr. Gary H. Mulder (Executive Director), Dr. Harvey A. Smit (Education Department Director), and Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven (The Banner editor), as well as members of the executive committee of the Board of Publications Rev. Alvin L. Hoksbergen, Dr. Sidney Dykstra, Dr. Henry ten Hoar, and Mr. Gordon Quist. In our letter we detailed our complaints and communicated our strong feeling that some sort of public explanation of the matter was required in the very near future.

The Board responded in a letter in which they said this:

The majority report cannot be regarded as an authoritative, synodically approved document. Only the decisions of synod have that status . . . we do not find in either the Bible Studies or the Leader’s Guide material on I Corinthians 11 and 14 anything that we judge to be ‘at variance with recent synodical decisions,’ nor do we find any attempt to promote a view of headship that contradicts that position adopted by Synod. Rather we find here interpretations of Bible passages that fall within the range of interpretations found in Reformed circles and attempts to speak specifically to the text. Consequently, we see no necessity in printing a public explanation of this matter.

This, to my mind, is an unsatisfactory reply. Granted, the majority report is not an authoritative, synodically approved document. But the declaration of the 1984 Synod in part was that the headship principle (1) “means that the man should exercise primary leadership and direction-setting . . . in the church” and (2) “is a biblical teaching recognized in . . . the New Testament.” The Bible Studies on I Corinthians do not find this biblical teaching in I Corinthians 11, nor in I Corinthians 14, nor even in I Timothy 2. In a thorough survey of the pertinent passages in the Bible, the Majority Report found three, and only three passages in the New Testament which taught this headship of the man over the woman in the church. The three passages they found were I Corinthians 11:2–16, I Corinthians 14:33–38, and I Timothy 2:11–15. It simply will not do for the Board of Publications to maintain that their study materials do not conflict with synod’s declaration that the headship principle is a biblical teaching when those materials deny each and every scripture passage which does in fact teach the principle. The headship principle, Synod declares, is recognized in the New Testament. I certainly recognize it there. It is apparent that these materials do not.

Mr. Kloosterman is an analytical chemist and a church school teacher and consistory member living at 3610 Konkle, Kalamazoo, Ml 49001. He also contributed on article in our March, 1986 OUTLOOK.