Recently I heard a minister who favored the ordination of women to ecclesiastical office make an impassioned plea that we keep an “open mind” in this matter “so that the Spirit might move.” It was a phrase that reflected an extraordinary lack of theological acumen. It implies that the canon is not closed , that the Spirit is divorced from the Word, and that it can only move in “open minds.” If one has an “open mind” one will favor women in ecclesiastical office, and, conversely, if one has a “closed mind” one will be against women in office and may in fact be opposing the work of the Spirit!
The Christian Mind is Not “Open” But Obedient.
The Bible never speaks of “open minds” or closed minds. When the gospel goes forth it does not go forth as a plea to keep an “open,” or uncommitted mind about certain truths or teachings. Rather, it calls us to have a changed and different mind. The Apostle Paul notes this in Philippians 2 “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . who was obedient unto death.” Also the church at Corinth is challenged to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (II Cor. 10:5). The mind ofChrist is neither an open or closed mind, but an obedient mind. It is almost superfluous to say that this obedient mind is to be revealed in every area of our existence—in work, in play, in education, in our families, and in our ecclesiastical life. To be Reformed is to acknowledge the truth of the adage that either Christ “is Lord of all, or he is not Lord at all.”
One need not be a prophet to realize that the recent synodical decisions which resulted in the revision of Church Order Article 3 permitting the ordination of women as deacons are merely preliminary. The larger question with which the denomination will most certainly deal in the not too distant future is that of ordinating women to all of the offices in the church. Already the groundwork has been laid. While acknowledging a “headship principle” of the husband in a marriage, the Synod determined to see no connection between the structure of a marriage (established in the creation and affected by the fall) and the structure of the church. Thus it defeated a motion to “declare that the headship of the man in the church implies that women should not be admitted to the office of minister, elder, or evangelist.” It would be extremely naive for anyone to think for a moment that the synodical decision of 1984 has settled the matter of women in office.
It ought to be axiomatic for those in the Reformed tradition that the mind of Christ cannot be discerned apart from the Scriptures. The women’s liberation movement is not divinely inspired, nor does the church exist and structure itself for the sake of the world. It is the world that exists for the sake of the church. The basic question that the church must face is not whether it is chauvinistic or archaic in its perspective, but whether it is humbly obedient to the Word of God.
What Does God’s Word Say?
The Scriptures speak of the role of women in the church in three significant passages. In I Corinthians 11 this subject is addressed before the apostle deals with instructions for public worship, particularly the administration of the Lord’s supper. In I Corinthians 14 it is addressed after a discussion of the use of spiritual gifts. In I Timothy 2 it is considered before the Apostle Paul deals with the qualifications for office bearers. Even the use of spiritual gifts by a woman in the church is to be subordinate to a certain role and a certain demeanor. These are the classic passages in the scripture. Other texts may be cited regarding Deborah, or Hulda, or the daughters of Phillip the Evangelist, or Pheobe, but the primary passages which specifically address this issue are the ones above.
We find in these passages some fairly clear directives as to the administration of the church. In the opening verses of I Timothy 3 we find the qualifications listed for bishops (or overseers) and deacons. These qualifications are prefaced, as was noted, by seven verses dealing with the role of women (I Tim. 2:8–16). They are not to teach or have authority over men, “for Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (I Tim. 2:12–14). In this passage addressed to Timothy at Ephesus, the apostle reiterates almost exactly the same message that he had sent to the church at Corinth—women are to “keep silent” in the church. This was not only to apply to the churches of Corinth and Ephesus but was a rule to be generally applied, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence” (I Cor. 14:33 & 34).
It should also be noted that when the Apostle Paul gives us instruction regarding the roles of men and particularly women in the church, he appeals not only to the CreationFall account, but also to four other authoritative sources. The first is tradition (I Cor. 11:2 “I commend you because you . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”) The second is nature (I Cor. 11:14 & 15 “Does not nature itself teach you?”). The third is the law (I Cor. 14:34 “women should be subordinate—even as the law says”) and finally he appeals to his God–ordained authority as an inspired writer of Scripture (I Cor. 14:37 “what I am writing you is a command of the Lord”).
It is not my intent to do a detailed exegetical study. These passages have been well mined. However, a few observations are in order. 1) A woman’s role in the church is clearly tied to the Creation–Fall account in the Scriptures; 2) By appealing to these various sources the Apostle is adamant that the Church take his instructions with utmost seriousness, as the very Word of God Himself; and 3) the role of women is to be one of godly submissiveness (as is also the role of men, but) subordinate to the role of men in the church. Whatever exegetical games one may wish to play, these conclusions are clear and inescapable. When the Synod refused to declare “that the headship of the man implies that women not be admitted to the office of elder, minister, or evangelist,” it was refusing to affirm the obvious conclusion of what scripture affirms. (It takes no great biblical scholar to recognize the utter incongruity of a women standing before a congregation preaching on I Cor. 14:35 & 36.)
Who Is Disobedient?
What are the consequences of traveling on this exegetical road which the Synod has chosen? Some months ago Prof. N. Wolterstorff made the observation in the May , 1984 Reformed Journal that in his opinion the practice of excluding women from ordination to the offices in the church was “disobedient.” I disagree with that observation, but believe that he has incisively cut to the heart of the matter. Is the church obedient or disobedient? Does it reflect the Word of God and the mind of Christ or not? If Wolterstorff is correct, the remedy for disobedience is repentance and change. Then there ought to be public acknowledgment and confession of the sin of disobedience in this matter. Then the church should immediately insist that women be ordained to all its offices. Nowhere does the scripture make obedience optional.
The Synod of 1984 tried, in fact, to do that, to make obedience optional: A number of ministers and elders registered their negative votes when Article 3 of the Church Order was revised. Some stated as a matter of record that this decision was contrary to the Scriptures. What was the synodical response to them and to others who hold similar views? Ministers of the Word were “given” the freedom of conscience not to participate in the ordination of women deacons. Perhaps the Synod was under the illusion that this was a “pastoral” decision. It was not. It was a political decision. If it were indeed a “pastoral decision” the synod as “pastor” should have cited the Word of God to correct those who accused it of disobeying that Word. Disobedient office holders are entitled to the loving correction and discipline of the church. For the synod to patronize a sizable portion of the clergy of its denomination by “granting them freedom of conscience” is to dodge its duty. To oppose Synod on the basis of Scripture is not something that is to be taken lightly, particularly by ministers of the Word. But to refuse to lovingly work with, admonish or discipline these protestants is wrong. It reveals an attitude of either arrogance or cowardice. Neither has a place in the church.
Church Disobedience to God’s Word
Article 32 of the Belgic Confession rejects all human inventions and laws “which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel conscience in any matter whatever.” By allowing ministers to abstain as a matter of conscience from participating in the ordination of a woman, Synod is tacitly admitting that this is a “law” of man introduced into the worship of God which has no support in the scriptures.
We have heard and are going to hear in the future many cries for peace and harmony. We would do well to heed our own confessions. The Belgic (Art. 32) goes on to admit in the church, “only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God. For this purpose, excommunication or church discipline is requisite, with all that pertains to it, according to the Word of God.”
In the church one can fall into Pharisaical legalism—a dead orthodoxy. The Pharisees knew the Scriptures, but they did not know the power of God. On the other hand, one may sincerely seek to be led by the Spirit and forget that the work of the Spirit cannot be separated from the Scriptures. This, it seems to me, is the danger that the CRC now faces. There is an increasingly cavalier attitude towards the Bible. If we continue to stumble along this ecclesiastical road, eventually we can no longer reflect the mind of Christ. A church divorced from the Scriptures loses its authenticity as a viable witness of that obedient mind to a disobedient world. It loses its reason for existing. It also loses its authority to lovingly admonish and discipline erring members. It has nothing to say to the world and it has nothing to say to itself. It becomes irrelevant and useless (Matt. 5:13). Major ecclesiastical decisions which the church is afraid to prescribe by the authority of the Scriptures should not be made. Such decisions will reap a bitter harvest. God calls us by His grace to be neither “open-minded” or “closed-minded” but humbly obedient to His Word.
Richard J. Blauw is the pastor of the Christian Reformed Church at Zutphen, Michigan (address: Hudsonville).