Wednesday, June 21, was a historic day for the Christian Reformed Church. That afternoon, before a full house of observers, a decision with many implications was made by the Synod of our denomination. It was decided by a majority, but not unanimously, “That consistories be allowed to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon, provided that their work is distinguished from elders.”

This decision was the fruit of many years of labor on the part of those within the Christian Reformed Church who have wanted us to be progressive by opening the offices of the Church to women. Over the past years much discussion has taken place and great hopes have been built up that one day the staid, old-fashioned Christian Reformed Church would come to a new day. With this synodical decision a new day has come. There is little doubt that the next step will be the opening of the office of elder to women.

It would be well for every member of the Christian Reformed Church to consider the three grounds for this monumental decision of the Synod of 1978. At best, they can only be considered very weak. Frankly, I see them as being so weak that to my mind this decision to open the office of deacon to women is in reality A GROUNDLESS DECISION.

   

The first ground reads:

a. There is some evidence in the Bible for opening the office of deacon to women. At least two passages in the New Testament (Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11) indicate that women may serve as deacons (deaconesses).

When we first hear this ground our hearts are set at ease because it tells us that the Bible approves of women being ordained as deacons. But the question we must ask is: does it really approve?

An earlier committee (the advisory committee of Synod, 1975) said, and Synod agreed, “that sufficient biblical grounds have not been advanced to warrant a departure from our present practice of excluding women from the ecclesiastical offices recognized in the Church Order” (Acts 1975, p. 78). Further, Synod indicated that up to that time no “compelling biblical grounds” had been given for the opening of church offices to women. Now, the latest report says that there are compelling biblical reasons. But, sad to say, in at least two ways this is a questionable statement.

First, the two texts referred to Romans 16: 1 and I Timothy 3:11-are not really dealt with in the report that was submitted to Synod. In less than three lines Romans 16: 1 is “explained” (Acts 1978, p. 511) and in some 35 lines the Timothy passage is discussed (pp. 511, 512). In neither case is thorough exegesis given. Nevertheless, these texts become “proofs” for women deacons.

Second, both of these texts are obscure and questionable in the minds of scholars. Conservative scholars like our own William Hendriksen and the late John Murray and Charles Hodge, both Presbyterians, do not see an official office of deacon in these texts. Rather, they see a position in the church which gives special help to the official deacons of the church. The Anglican H. P. Liddon, one-time professor of exegesis at Oxford University, saw it this way, too. James Denney of Scotland concurred by stating that to call Phoebe (Romans 16:1) a deaconess is using too technical a translation of the original word. Others, like the Lutheran Lenski and the Baptist A. T. Robertson, see these texts differently.

Even among the more liberal and Neo-Orthodox writers there is no uniform understanding of these texts. All you need to do is look at the references to these texts in the monumental Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard “Kittel and Gerhard Friedrick. One writer in this Dictionary, Hermann W. Beyer, wrote this about Romans 16:1. “It is, of course, an open question whether he (i.e., Paul, J. J.) is referring to a fixed office or simply to her (i.e., Phoebes, J.J.) services on behalf of the community. Similarly, there is no agreement whether I Tim. 3:11 refers to the wives of deacons or to deaconesses. It is indisputable, however, that an order of deaconesses  did quickly arise in the Church” (11:93). Other writers in the Dictionary are definite in stating that these women were deaconesses having similar duties to the men deacons.

Now, it can be argued that this group is indefinite since it states “that women may (italics mine, J. J.) serve as deacons.” But since Synod of 1975 spoke of “compelling biblical grounds” as necessary for allowing women in office, no indefinite ground will do. Synod is obliged to give compelling biblical proof. These texts do not prove without a doubt what Synod wants to prove. Further, no exegetical work has been done in an effort to clear away the doubt. Doubtful passages do not form a good foundation for a teaching. This is a basic principle in Biblical interpretation.

The second ground states:

b. The headship principle in which the woman (wife) is to be subject to the man (husband) is not violated as long as the office of deacon is expressed in terms of assistance and service.

It is true that the task of deacon is basically assistance and service. The word in the original Greek comes from a word that has the sense of “to wait at table” and is so used in Luke 17:8. Deacons were appointed to assist the elders according to the Book of Acts because there were necessary works of mercy which demanded so much of the elders‘ time that they were hindered from giving the spiritual oversight essential among God’s people. The authority of the deacon is thus derived from the elder.

It follows, then, that if the office of deacon is only assistance and service, the headship principle is not violated.

It has been suggested that, in keeping with this view of the diaconate and since women now may function as deacons, we could radically restructure our consistories or councils so that we would follow the Presbyterian approach. Presbyterian churches normally view the elder as the ruler. He alone sits on what we would call the consistory or council. Deacons never serve in a ruling capacity. They always and only have separate meetings so that they can be singularly engaged in the ministry of mercy.

But, you see, it isn’t all that simple. Paul, as he wrote to the church at Philippi, directed his letter “to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (1:1). Obviously, as he is writing to the congregation he is singling out some special people, indeed, special officers who are viewed as a unit, yet having two different tasks. Deacons are included with the ruling body of the congregation, the elders. Apparently, besides the work of mercy given to the deacons, there was a certain authority given, also. If an easy “out” for us would be to go in the direction of the Presbyterian system, then we would have to reconsider the commonly accepted understanding of Philippians 1:1. Else, how would we explain the combined authority implied here?

What is more: it isn‘t all that simple because our Church Order—the commonly agreed upon binding rule for practice in our churches—is not set up for the Presbyterian system. Our Church Order provides for the deacon to rule in certain ways. According to Article 35: “In every church there shall be a consistory composed of the office-bearers. The consistory is responsible for the general government of the church.” Article 35 goes on to distinguish between a general and a restricted consistory. But it still stands that the task of the consistory is “the general government of the church.” In his Church Order Commentary Martin Monsma explained this general government. To be sure, his explanation may be open to debate. Nevertheless, he included matters relating to office-bearers, ministers, discipline of office-bearers, worship, missions and evangelism. From this it is obvious that the consistory or council—elders and deacons—is involved in ruling.

If it is true that the office of deacon is wholly service, as we are told, and if, therefore, women deacons do not go contrary to the Biblical principle of the headship of man over women, deacons should not then function in the general consistory. They should be engaged in tasks which do not include any ruling. This, however, would call into question the Philippians 1 passage and go contrary to our Church Order. On the other hand, if deacons are to function on the general consistory in a ruling capacity of any form, women cannot function as deacons.

Women may function as helpers in the church, just as men do. Women always have. Many are named in both Testaments as being superlative workers in Christ’s Church. At least three congregations that I have heard of in the Christian Reformed Church have had deaconesses. These women were not rulers but workers doing what men could not do in the Kingdom. The distinctive character of these women deacons was that without ordination they labored faithfully for the cause of Christ.

In one Banner article, Dr. Gerald Van Groningen linked the pressure for women deacons to the modern feminist movement. He indicated that the pressure in our denomination is, indeed, culturally and sociologically based. I believe that he is correct. For that reason those who have campaigned for women deacons and have now been victorious, will not be content with a service concept of the diaconate. For the women must be part of the ruling body of the church which is engaged in “the general government of the church.” And for that reason the next step will be women elders.

The third ground given by Synod reads:

c. There is historical precedent fol’ this in the Rcfonned tradition (see Calvin‘s Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 9, and the Synod of Wezel, 1568).

The first example of historical precedent givcn is that of Calvin‘s words. The words referred to in the Institutes arc:

The care of the poor was entrusted to the deacons.

However, two kinds are mentioned in the letter to the Romans: “He that gives, let him do it with simplicity; . . . he that shows mercy with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:8, cf. Vg.), Since it is certain that Paul is speaking of the public office of the church, there must have been two distinct grades. Unless my judgment deceives me, in the first clause he designates the deacons who distribute the alms. But the second refers to those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and sick. Of this sort were the widows whom Paul mentions to Timothy (I Tim. 5:9–10). Women could fill no other public office than to devote themselves to the care of the poor. If we accept this (as it must be accepted), there will be two kinds of deacons: one to serve the church in administering the affairs of the poor; the other, in caring for the poor themselves” (Battles translation).

Calvin says that there are two kinds of deacons: one, a ruling deacon; the other, a working deacon. The latter may be a woman. But what Calvin writes is now used to support the idea that women may serve as deacons on the consistory—deacons who thus rule. It does not appear that Calvin quite says what he is made out to say in the ground. In fact, I have a hard time keeping from questioning the honesty of this ground!

The other precedent mentioned is the Synod of Wezel, 1568. At that synodical meeting in the Netherlands it was judged that women could be appointed as deaconesses, that is, as female assistants who would help care for the sick. From the historical development of this decision it is apparent that these women were to be appointed as assistants, but not ordained. In 1580, the Classis of Wezel decided to ask the Synod of Middelburg, meeting the next year, if it would be “advisable to re-instate the office of deaconess.” Apparently, over the dozen intervening years the practice had all but disappeared. Middelburg Synod answered in the negative. It was indicated that whatever could not be done with propriety by the men could be handled by their wives. There was no need to revive the office of deaconess. Most of the churches followed the decision. Notable among the exceptions was the church at Amsterdam. In Amsterdam women continued to be appointed as deaconesses until the French Revolution—some two hundred years later. One thing should be clear, however: the Reformed churches never ordained women as deacons. Yet, the Synod of Wezel is used as a ground by our Synod for this practice!

To build a structure on a poor foundation is the height of foolishness. I believe that this decision of 1978 is built on a weak—at best—foundation. This decision should not be allowed to stand!

Instead, let us return to a faithfulness to God’s Word. Only then will the Church of Jesus Christ, including this small part of it called the Christian Reformed Church—experience the Lord’s blessing.