The conservatives in the Christian Reformed Church lost a major battle at the Synod of 1984. It remains to be seen whether they have lost the war. Even though a sizable majority of the membership of the church is opposed to having women occupy the special church offices (also the office of deacon), synod nevertheless took a significant first step toward opening the offices to women. And unless this movement is halted promptly, the church will soon have women elders and ministers. The fact must be carefully noted that Synod 1984 recognized the reality of the biblical principle of headship . And yet synod refused to assert that this principle, declared to be operative in family and church, means that women cannot hold the offices of minister, elder or evangelist. This refusal on the part of the synod is a clear signal as to what lies ahead.

What is to be done? Do we sit in our comer to weep or pout, feeling sorry for ourselves and wringing our hands over the plight of the church? By no means. We must act—act firmly, effectively and as unitedly as possible. At the same time we must act responsibly, wisely and in love for our Lord and His people. But act we must.

What can we do? Below I present a program of action which articulates many of our concerns which I believe is responsible, and can, with God’s blessing, bring renewed health and vitality to our troubled church. I divide this agenda into two parts, namely, one, for immediate action, and two, for long–range action (though not necessarily delayed).

Agenda for Immediate Action

1. Individuals, consistories, and Classes should protest the action of the Synod of 1984 on three counts:

a. The decision to open one of the church’s special offices to women and in so doing failing to do what Synod 1975 called for, namely advancing “compelling biblical grounds” for changing the church’s longstanding practice of excluding women from the ecclesiastical offices recognized in the Church Order. In this connection it should be noted that the recommendation by the majority of the study committee to open the office of deacon to women was not really in harmony with the argumentation of the majority in the body of the committee’s report, a curious disparity noted by many.

b. The decision to ratify the change in article 3 of the Church Order so as to allow women to serve in the office of deacon.

c. The failure of Synod 1984 to declare that the biblical principle of headship , acknowledged by Synod, bars women from holding the offices of elder and minister and evangelist.

2. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking for clarification of the decision of 1984 to open the office of deacon to women, with special attention given to the qualifying clause, “provided that their work is distinguished from that of elders.” Many sticky and troublesome problems must inevitably be encountered on this score, especially in the councils of smaller churches. For instance, shall male deacons sitting on the council continue to be permitted to speak and vote on matters fitting the category of elders’ work, while female deacons sitting on the same council shall not speak and vote on such matters? And what will happen when the category of “elders’ work” is not sharply definable in a particular instance? The occurrence of highly unpleasant and divisive hassles seems inescapable, with the result that before long the synod will be asked to drop the qualifying clause. 3. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking for a careful study (with recommendations) of the recommendation of the minority report brought to Synod 1984 by Thea Van Halsema. This recommendation, brought by a discerning woman, is very much in harmony with the role Scripture throughout gives to women and is also very much in harmony with the argumentation of the majority of the study committee reporting to Synod 1984.    

4. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking for a declaration that the biblical principle of headship, acknowledged by Synod 1984 as operative in family and church, means that the role of women in family and church excludes their holding the offices of elder, minister and evangelist. I believe that this principle also means that women should not serve as deacons in the Christian Reformed concept and practice of that office. But if the restricted role of women deacons as set forth in the decision of 1984 can be adequately clarified and maintained, then limiting such overtures and communications to elders, ministers and evangelists will suffice at this point.

5. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking for a thorough examination of the editorial policies of The Banner and of the performance of the present editor. The Banner is an official organ of the denomination and is not the voice of some group in the church or of its editor. Editorial policy and practice under the present editor have contributed significantly to dissension and polarization in the church. 6. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking that Report 44 on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority, acted on by Synod 1972, be placed in the archives of the denomination with the understanding that this document shall no longer have a place in the church as a viable instrument of instruction or guidance. More than a decade after this document was acted on by Synod it is still being debated as to its precise meaning and intent. This document with its lack of clarity and its ambiguity has not brought consensus among us as to the nature and extent of biblical authority, but has rather brought dispute, disharmony and confusion. A popular rewrite of this report for the purpose of “reaching also the general membership of the churches” as called for by Synod 1972 has never appeared. It would seem obvious that the report’s lack of clarity and its ambiguity made the writing of a popular version too formidable a task. 7. Overtures and communications should be sent to Synod 1985 asking for a re-evaluation of Report 44 on Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination. This report first appeared at the Synod of 1972 but was returned to the study committee. The report was acted on in 1973 with significant changes made in the wording of some of the recommended “guidelines for understanding the nature of ecclesiastical office and ordination.” Synod 1973 also adopted a set of corrective “observations as a framework within which ‘the guidelines . . . are to be understood.” This very flawed report with its dubious history at two synods reduced office under our Lord Jesus Christ to a mere “function” and reduced ordination to mere “appointment.” This report has been and is being used in the church (see The Banner, June 18, 1984, pp. 16–17) in ways that fail to reflect the dissatisfaction which marked the church’s handling of this material in 1972 and 1973. This report must be re-evaluated. I do not suggest that it be repudiated, because its emphasis on church office as service is salutary and always pertinent. This report, like the other Report 44, has also failed to bring clarity and consensus on critical elements in the church’s life, but rather confusion.

A comment is called for at this point regarding the relationship among some of the above proposals. There would seem to be a measure of contradiction among some of them. For example, if Synod 1985 should heed the protests called for under item 1, then there is little point in moving to item 2, which asks for clarification of the 1984 decision. I doubt that Synod 1985 will rescind the action of 1984. At the same time these protests should be sent as a matter of principle and to let the synod know what is the mind of the church. I hope all of the above matters will be brought to synod soon.

Long-Range Agenda

1. An Advisory Council For The Concerned in the Christian Reformed Church should be set up so that guidance and direction may be given to the conservatives in the CRC. The conservatives in the CRC are often left wondering just what went wrong. How could a church that is opposed by a large majority to opening any ofthe special offices to women (see The Banner of Jan. 23, 1984, pp. 8–10) do what it did at the Synod of 1984? The Reformed Fellowship might well take the lead in the setting up of such an Advisory Council. 2. Public meetings should be held throughout Canada and the United States alerting the members of the churches to the state of affairs in our beloved Church and what can be done about it. One item that could be discussed at such meetings is the kind of churches that ordain women and what happens to such churches’ loyalty to Scripture and to their statements of faith. The record of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is a case in point as well as the sad deterioration of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland. (Some conservative Presbyterian Churches in this country have had women serving as deacons for many years, but in such denominations the deacons do not sit on the ruling body of the church.) 3. The conservatives in the CRC must find ways and means to make clear to the theologians in the denomination that they must assume a much more resolute and unmistakably confessional role in addressing the problems that confront the church in today’s confused theological and spiritual climate. There has been widespread and longstanding disappointment at the lack of firm and clearly directed leadership by the church’s theologians in the doctrinal controversies that have visited the CRC over recent decades. I refer to the infallibility debates of the fifties, the debates on the love of God in the sixties, the questions raised by Verhey, the Libolt affair, and the issue of women in office as fairly obvious illustrations of the point. And the role the theologians played in the production of the two highly unsatisfactory Reports 44 has left much to be desired. In this connection the members of the faculty of the new MidAmerica Reformed Seminary must be encouraged in every way to make their positive contribution to the discussion of issues that confront the church.

Conclusion

Some people may feel that they detect a hint of schism in the above material. Let no one dismiss these suggestions by waving that red flag . At this point I could well raise the question that Elijah brought up to Ahab, the question as to who are the real troublemakers in Israel. The intent ofthese proposals is in no way schismatic. Their intent is to try to get the Christian Reformed Church to take a hard, clear-eyed look at herself to see where she is going. I happen to regard the solid conservative core of the membership of the CRC as one of the finest and most devoted bodies of Reformed people in the world. It grieves me to see such people grow increasingly frustrated and feeling more and more like strangers in the church they have loved and served. It grieves me to hear an elder say, “It’s too late.” It grieves me to hear an elder say when I raised a question about the action of his Classis on a certain matter, “I can’t stand any more ulcers. I am happy to serve Christ’s Kingdom in other ways now.” It grieves me to hear of churches that are ready to give up and to leave the denomination. It is my hope and prayer that these devoted Christians will not think of separation but will rather think of joining with others in an earnest and coordinated effort to reform the church. Yes, let us join hands to reform the church, to reform the church in that sound manner in which a truly Reformed church must always seek its continuing reformation so that it may be the true church of Jesus Christ that it professes to be.

Many humble members of the church may feel that they are of the same mind as that set forth in this article, but they feel helpless. “What can I do?” they ask in perplexity and frustration. Let no member of the church feel that he can make no contribution. Each member must bear in mind that he means just as much to his Lord and Savior as the best-equipped thinker in the church. Furthermore, each member can talk, talk first of all to God . Let him be much in prayer for the church and its faithful witness. And he can also talk to his fellow-members. He can also talk to the elders and pastor of his church. Even if the member suspects his pastor is not receptive, the member’s witness must be heard. Perhaps a group in a church can choose a spokesman to express its concern to the elders of the church. Such members must not give up too easily. Faint hearts don’t win struggles in the church. We would do well to reread Luke 11:10. Let us not think of quitting, but rather let us think of persevering.

Then there are those who might like to forward an overture or communication to synod but fee l they are incapable of formulating such a document. The feeling is understandable but does not have to prevent action. Help in formulating such a document can be gained from several people in the church. A sympathetic pastor in your church or a neighboring church may give help. Or the expenditure of the price of a postage stamp or phone call to someone in the denomination you have come to trust may give you the help that is needed . Let no one have to say somewhere down the road, “I am sorry that I did not do my part.”

May the great Head of the church have mercy on us, bless us and guide us.

Edward E. Heerema is a retired Christian Reformed minister at Cape Coral, Florida.