The 1984 CR Synod responded to a persistent feminist drive to open church offices to women with an attempt at compromise whereby churches were permitted to admit women to the office of deacon provided that when women serve as deacons their work “as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders.” Predictably, this political compromise satisfied few or none and created more problems than it solved, because in our churches’ practice there has been and is increasing confusion of these offices. Therefore in 1985 another committee was appointed to “clarify for the church the authority and functions of elders and deacons.” This committee is now submitting two reports to the churches.

The Majority: Evasion and More Confusion

A majority of seven begins by noting that “Elders represent Christ in the supervision and disciplining of the church; deacons represent Christ in the work of mercy; the council (all office-bearers) represent Christ in the general government of the church, primarily through coordination and administration” (p.2). It recalls that the 1965 Church Order formalized a widespread practice in the middle of this century of including deacons along with elders in the general government of the church. This, what had been a permitted exception, was now made a rule. This decision “tended to blend the offices” and to “erase their distinctions.” The present committee (of which seminary president, James A. DeJong is chairman and church polity professor, Richard R. De Ridder is secretary) was appointed to clear up the confusion between elders and deacons, and consider the delegation of deacons to the assemblies of the church.

Summarizing its study of the office of elder, the committee lists elders’ functions as “oversight of the doctrine and life of the congregation and fellow office–bearers, the exercise of admonition and discipline, the pastoral care of the congregation, and the participation in and support of both evangelism and defense of the faith” (p.6), asking the synod to adopt this summary.

Its study finds the role of deacons less clearly defined. It claims to observe already early in Reformed church history some indications that “governing and pastoral functions were never overlooked as legitimate functions of the deacons” and that they might assist the elders when asked to do so (p .8), and sees that especially since 1965 the deacons’ work has come to include “some tasks formerly done only by elders” (p.9). Although the basic work of deacons is to show Christ’s mercy to those who are in need, the committee “judges that these shared responsibilities . . . do not violate the spiritual oversight and supervision assigned to elders alone” (p.10).

It ought to be noticed at this point that the many objections to the ordination of women as deacons because they then participate in the elder’s function of church government, which the synod said must be prevented and which occasioned the appointment of this committee, are neatly sidestepped—and the women’s share in: church government—the whole objective of the feminist movement—is tacitly conceded, without the committee even intimating to the synod or to the church what it is really doing! Could this crucial decision have been slipped by more adroitly? (Only in the final proposed changes to the church order to implement the decisions (p.19) do we notice a recommendation “That the Supplement to Article 3, which states, ‘The work of women as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders [Acts of Synod 1984 , p.655),’ be deleted.”)

On the flimsy basis that in Reformed church polity the diaconal work was never limited exclusively to the local fellowship of believers (Gal. 6:10), the committee recommends that the synod adopt the enormous change of defining the deacon’s office “to represent and administer the mercy of Christ TO ALL MANKIND . . .”! (pp.10, 15; “for all persons, at home and abroad,” p.17; emphasis mine). Citing the confusion of roles, the repeated agitation to have deacons delegated to broader church assemblies, the pragmatic arguments that the Canadian Council of our churches has introduced the practice, and that Classis Muskegon has attempted to do this irregularly, and that world relief work of deacons has expanded enormously, the committee argues for the—delegation of deacons to the broader church assemblies as “both necessary and advisable.” Yet, instead of asking the synod to forthrightly approve this principle, it only recommends that the synod experiment with the practice of delegating deacons to classes to see how it works (pp. 13)!

The Minority: Biblical and Confessional Correction

A minority report is presented by Rev. Nelson D. Kloosterman and endorsed (in its recommendation against deacon delegation to assemblies) by Mr. Henry Lane.

The author prefaces (and concludes) his discussion by stating his “conviction that the 1984 decision permitting women’s ordination to ecclesiastical office is contrary to Scripture.” He notes that inclusion of deacons with elders in “the general government of the church,” allowed as an “exception” in small churches before 1965, in that year was made a “rule.” The committee had split on its interpretation of the 1984 synod “stipulation that the work of women ‘as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders.’” The committee majority argued that this restriction did not properly apply to women deacons’ share in the general government of the church as part of the consistory, but only to their particularly diaconal work. The minority shows that this majority “interpretation” makes the synod decision (which occasioned the appointment of this committee and its mandate) virtually meaningless, since deacons’ work as deacons is already distinguished from that of elders (p.2)! The point at issue is whether the women deacons may share in governing the church as though they we’re elders! This crucial point the committee majority did not want to discuss, but simply to concede.

The minority report holds that the Bible does not approve of women deacons (How can women deacons meet the 1 Tim. 3:12 qualification of being “the husband of one wife?”) If, however, the women deacons’ work as deacons is to be distinguished from the governing office of elders, it suggests that this be done by removing all deacons from the governing consistories. (This follows the pattern of even conservative Presbyterians who have long had deaconesses, but did not have them or the deacons in governing sessions.)

Regarding the expansion of diaconal work, the question is raised “whether Scripture prescribes that deacons administer Christian mercy beyond the household of faith.” This is not a question of whether believers should help unbelievers, but “whether this belongs to the official duties of the church.” (The often quoted Gal. 6:10 about “doing good to all” is not addressed to this question, but to believers’ practice among their neighbors, which does not require a special church office.) “In summary, the office of deacons” is to coordinate “the resources within the congregation, including (but not limited to) the exercise of Christian mercy, . . . according to the example of Christ” (p.9). Special attention is called to Belgic Confession Article 30, which, outlining a government “according to the spiritual order that our Lord has taught us in his word,” assigns the work of preserving true religion, maintaining true doctrine, and correcting and restraining evil men (persons) among the offices which constitute the council (p.9).

In dealing with the question of delegating deacons to broader assemblies, the minority report shows that the synod of 1965 introduced into our church order “a concept quite foreign to historic Reformed church polity” (Article 27-a). The novel concept that BROADER ASSEMBLIES EXERCISE CHRIST’S AUTHORITY ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH “is contradicted by both the history and the expositions of Reformed polity . . .” Van Dellen and Monsma in the 1972 Revised Church Order Commentary pointed out that “The local congregation is a complete manifestation of the body of Christ, a unit in itself, and is not to be looked upon as a sub-division of a large superchurch ruling with superior power” (p.112). The Dutch authority, Dr. H. Bouwman is quoted to the same effect as he explains that ”All ecclesiastical authority given by Christ to his church resides in the local church” and that the authority of larger assemblies to make decisions is not in the office-bearers themselves but in their being authorized to act by and for their delegating churches. “In other words, the federation and its broader assemblies serve the congregation, rather than vice versa” (p.13). Because churches, not offices, are represented at broader assemblies, the “dignity and honor” of office is not involved in the question of delegating deacons to them (p. 15). The report points out that “representing the local church at broader assemblies is properly performed by those assigned the duties of supervision and rule” that is, the elders, not the deacons (p.16). It observes that “the principal focus of the diaconate’s labors should remain the local congregation”—which does not require their delegation to broader assemblies (p .17).

The author restates his conviction that, although the 1984 decision can be implemented along these lines, its permission of women’s ordination to church office is contrary to Scripture (p.18). The report proposed some appropriate church order changes to distinguish between the consistory of minister and elders, and the deacons and recommends that the synod “maintain the current practice of not delegating deacons to broader assemblies,” since such government is not part of their assigned “assistance and service.”

We Have to Choose

Confronted with these two reports, the church really must decide between opposite courses. The committee was ordered to clarify the confusion that arose when an earlier synod decided to approve ordaining women as deacons, provided that their work “as deacons . . . be distinguished from that of elders.” This confusion arose because deacons, as members of consistories, are more and more doing what is properly elders’ work as they share in the rule of the churches. The committee majority tried to evade that issue, “judging” that there was really no conflict and finally recommending that the synod drop the church order provision that it was supposed to face. Its report instead of clarifying anything, simply recommends that the church proceed further into whatever direction it has been going. Although it approves only women’s share in church government as deacons, the acceptance of its recommendations will be a sure ground for later argument that the church has thereby accepted the principle of women’s rule in all offices. The committee recommendation is made as unobtrusively as possible, as it tries, in its words, “to advance and encourage the peace and unity of the Church.” Its proposed unlimited expansion of the diaconate also forecasts further confusion in the churches’ course. And its proposed timid experiment with deacon delegation to classes betrays more political compromise than Biblical direction.

What must we say of the minority’s proposals? In an almost complete contrast, it tries to outline a return to Biblical and confessional definitions of and distinctions between the church offices. Yet, it’s suggestion that the work of deacons be more sharply differentiated and separated from the work of elders by removing the deacons from the governing consistories does not seem to have a compelling Biblical ground. While the Bible evidently distinguishes between the work of elders and deacons, it also seems to group them together in church leadership – see 1 Tim. 3 and Phil. 1:1 for examples. Kloosterman’s own objection to the action of the synod in creating women deacons is more Biblically compelling. Removing all deacons from the governing consistory, while it would remove women deacons from sharing in the forbidden government of the churches (1 Tim. 2:12). would not satisfy the feminists who demand power and it would not satisfy those who seek a return to Biblical and confessional faithfulness in our church order and practice.

These two reports again face the denomination, its churches, and their members with a decision whether we will drift into further confusion, contradictions and conflicts in faith and practice or whether we will seek return to being Biblically and confessionally Reformed churches.

Dr. J.I. Packer in his magnificent little 1965 booklet, God Speaks to Man (later expanded in God Has Spoken), describes the condition of the “mass of churches” (p.11). “At no time, perhaps, since the Reformation have Protestant Christians as a body been so unsure, tentative and confused as to what they should believe and do. Certainty about the great issues of Christian faith and conduct is lacking all along the line. The outside observer sees us as staggering on from gimmick to gimmick and stunt to stunt like so many drunks in a fog, not knowing at all where we are or which way we should be going. Preaching is hazy; heads are muddled; hearts fret; doubts drain our strength; uncertainty paralyses action.” These synod reports highlight the way this kind of confusion is multiplying in our church order and practice as we move toward the “mainstream” churches in what Packer describes as their “critical” abuse of the Bible. We, like many others, need to pray for and seek reformation by a return to the Bible, in church order and practice as well as faith. In this case we have to choose between a course of further confusion and frustration, and one of returning to the guidance of the Bible and the creeds.

PDJ