On Friday evening, April 24 and Saturday, April 25, a “Partnership in the Gospel Conference” was held at Geribee’s in Grandville, Michigan and Calvin College Gezon Auditorium respectively. The Committee for Women in the CRC organized the conference. Sponsoring churches included: Church of the Servant CRC, Eastern Avenue CRC, First CRC, Grace CRC, Madison CRC, Neland Avenue CRC (Grand Rapids) and River Terrace CRC (Lansing).
PARTNERSHIP IN THE GOSPEL
The keynote speaker for the Friday evening banquet was Dr. Richard Mouw, a professor for seventeen years at Calvin College and currently teaching Christian philosophy and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Dr. Mouw introduced his speech by pointing out the fact that in Genesis 1 and Revelation 22, saints are placed in ruling positions. Genesis 1 gives to man (and woman) the task of having dominion over the earth. In Revelation 22:5, saints (men and women) reign with Christ. In both instances, God gives to both men and women, a task which mfrrors His task as divine Ruler. Holding office is part of that ruling task according to Dr. Mouw. Therefore he concludes that women were created to rule and to hold office.
Dr. Mouw observed that the CRC through the years has taught its daughters about God’s sovereignty and their duty to “rule” in God’s name, but he also observed that when it comes to ruling positions in home, church and society, the CRC makes its daughters “eternally subordinate” to male headship. In a quotation from Abraham Kuyper that one human being may not “lord it over” another, Dr. Mouw chooses not to comment on Kuyper’s stipulation in the same quote, that no person may impose upon another “except as God Himself has authorized it.”
According to Dr. Mouw, “talent and character are the basis for authority in the Christian community.” For the Christian community to take the royal priesthood away from one half of its members, is to say that one half of its members are not fully human, not full imagers of God-and “no theological niceties can get the Reformed community off the hook on that point” says Dr. Mouw.
Dr. Mouw described the movement toward women in ecclesiastical offices in the CRC as a “journey.” He admitted it has been a long and hard journey. He made some recommendations for the future. His first recommendation was to research notable women of the CRC in the past and popularize their stories to educate the CRC constituency.
His second recommendation was to draw on past theological resources. He referred to the current discussions on the masculinity and/or femininity of God. He said our Calvinistic theology has given us a male impression of God. We have ignored a lot in the Bible about God’s “mothering.”
Dr. Mouw’s third recommendation was to draw on and be inspired by lessons of the past as we think of our ecclesiastical strategy. He pointed out that as a Reformed community we have a history of being “ornery” (stubborn -parentheses mine, LVH). He cited De Kock and Class is Hackensack in 1922 as examples. He said we have a history of complaining about the rules, pushing the rules, calling for reform of the rules, stretching the rules, breaking the rules. We must learn to imitate these actions.
He closed by confessing his personal grief over the insensitivity of the CRC to its hurting women. He said we prepare our CRC daughter for ministry and then we close the door on her. In a closing emotional appeal, he stated that “the CRC will never be a healthy church again until it calls back to itself the daughters of Zion who were forced to leave Marchiene, come back; Neva, come back.”
HEADSHIP – AN OVERVIEW
On Saturday morning, four panelists discussed the subject of headship: Dr. Louis Vos from Calvin College, Beth Bandstra, Jan De Waal (sister of Neva Evenhouse) and Rev. Marvin Hoogland.
In his presentation, Dr. Louis Vos pointed out that the constituents of the CRC live in two worlds, those who are for women in office and those who are opposed to women in office. He admitted that advocates of women in office were not the average in the pew. He traced the dismal history of synodical reports and decisions. He observed that the Bible does not teach headship; it teaches that Christ is head, husband is head. Adding “ship” to “head” gives headship an official status the Bible never intended. He said that the CRC has erected signs for women in front of its pulpits and on its consistory room doors which say, “Do not enter” and “Wrong way.”
Dr. Vos accused conservatives of referring to Christ’s and husband’s headship as head “over” when the Bible really says “head of.” He maintained there was a major difference in the implications of the use of “over” versus “of” but when he was asked to enlarge on this in the question session, he did not offer any substantial answer.
Dr. Vos accused conservatives of capitulating to a demonic device to hold people (women in the CRC) in check.
HEADSHIP IN SOCIETY
Beth Bandstra as a member of the panel could not see why some opponents of women in office in the church are not opposed to women in leadership roles in the community. She sees no difference. The CRC must repent for barring women from office. Servanthood is the theme of Scripture, not headship. Bandstra assured the group present that truth and justice were on their side. Women’s talents are being wasted. The day will come when their daughters will enjoy the opportunities for church office because God is on their side.
HEADSHIP IN THE CHURCH
Jan De Waal feels that the concentration of discussion on the issue has been theological and more attention should be given to the feelings and experiences of people. She thinks that some men feel threatened by women in the consistory. Some women oppose women in office because their lives are lived in the private sphere. They shy away from the accountability required of office-bearers. She emphasized that experience influences and changes how people think about issues. So if people begin to experience women leadership in worship and ruling aspects of the church, they will change their minds on women in office.
Dr. Hoogland spoke about “Headship in Marriage” and his remarks did not deal with women in church office.
JOURNEYS
The afternoon session opened with a running discourse on the “journeys” of three people who moved in their thinking from opposition to endorsement of women in church offices.
Rev. Donald Pols signed the majority report opposing women in office which came to Synod 1984. When that Synod restricted the headship principle to home and church, Pols began to rethink the whole issue. He could not escape the conviction that the Old Testament teaches a “patriarchal system.” Male headship was a Biblical Given. But as Pols pondered the whole Sabbath Day question, he thought he could see a relationship between it and the women in office issue. Pols reasons that the Sabbath is fulfilled in the New Testament and is therefore abolished. Everyday becomes a Sabbath. Therefore, when Christ came, sex distinctions vanished (Gal. 3) and therefore the patriarchal system which excluded women from office can also be abolished. That is Pols “journey.”
OBSERVATIONS
1) About 130 people attended the conference, few men and few college or seminary students. About 60 people attended the communion service at which Neva Evenhouse preached and served communion. Several CRC ministers and college professors were among the participants.
2) There was almost no discussion of Scripture through the day. Rev. Len Vander Zee (brother of Neva Evenhouse) led a workshop in I Tim. 2 but the exegesis was a mutilation of the obvious meaning of the passage.
3) There was a lot of talk throughout the conference about how much the promoters of women in office are “hurting.” Quite honestly, I am weary of hearing this theme. They are not the only ones hurting in the CRC. Many of us have grown up in the CRC, have embraced its doctrines and positions not only because of tradition, but because we have examined the Scriptures carefully and found them to be true. We find that new views are being imposed on us which we feel are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and this hurts. We are called demonic and told to repent and this hurts. We cry too—and for better reasons.
4) Another recurring theme throughout the day was the number of talented, educated women in their ranks who are convinced of their position and need to be used. Again—I am weary of this theme. Believe it or not, there are very intelligent, talented women with fertile minds and advanced degrees who do not agree with women in church office.
5) Two items of strategy surfaced which we do well to heed. One is the attempt to furnish constituents of the CRC with positive “experiences” in female leadership in worship and official decision-making and the church will change its mind. This is an off-shoot of behavioral psychology and it is effective. Another item of strategy is Dr. Mouw’s exhortation to imitate the rule –benders, the rule-breakers; again—a very effective strategy. “OK—most of the churches are doing it (when really only a few are) so we better change the rules to accommodate them.” Does this sound familiar? Children and teen-agers use this strategy all the time and it works.
6) What impressed me the most was the depth of the chasm and the width of the gulf that divides us. Each side of the issue approaches the Scripture with a different hermeneutical stance (and the same thing is true in the creationevolution debate) and never the two shall meet. May God grant strength and courage to go forward in the truth of His Word.