It has never happened in the one hundred twenty-seven years of Christian Reformed Church history. Never before has our denomination been targeted by a single–issue pressure group. Never before has a group of such highly-organized and sorely-dissatisfied church members worked so hard to change one of the most time-honored practices within Reformed circles.

Of what do I speak? The Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church (CW-CRC). This self-appointed committee describes itself as “an independent group of persons concerned with the role of women in the church.” It holds that “the ordination of women to ecclesiastical office is the Spirit-directed outcome of the teachings of Scripture.” Its ultimate objective? “The equal participation of both women and men in the life of the church.” For them “equal participation” means that women must be ordained to all ecclesiastical offices. Unless that happens the CW-CRC will not be satisfied.

Although I am convinced that many supporters of this committee have good intentions, I am not at all convinced that it deserves such support. Consider the following:

First, the title of the committee is completely inappropriate. A Committee for Women? Where does that designation leave the rest of us? Against women? May it never be! Its title purposely misleads one to think that all persons outside its membership rolls despise one of God’s finest creations. The title is irritating. Do not thoughtful Christians react to the description, “Moral Majority,” as if those who occasionally disagree with Jerry Falwell are neither moral nor in the majority? How much more should we react to the title, “Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church.” Joan Flikkema, chairperson of the CW-CRC, is no more for women than I am. The Committee would probably dispute that claim, which only serves to illustrate the problem.

Second, as mentioned earlier, the very presence of such a group within the CRC is unprecedented in our denomination’s history. Although the CW-CRC likes to think it is generally promoting the use of women’s gifts in the church, it is actually spending the majority of its time and energy in defending the right of women to hold ecclesiastical office. The ultimate objective is to clear the way for the ordination of women. In my opinion that makes the CW-CRC a single issue lobby group. To be sure, groups like the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship or the Reformed Fellowship were organized around certain perspectives, but neither of these groups were founded as a single-issue lobby group. The CW-CRC is different. Its ultimate goal is to change the understanding of and the rules for ordination.

Third, the political nature of the CW-CRC as a lobby group is evident as one examines its methods in working for change. Up to this point in our history, all ecclesiastical issues have been resolved more or less through the designated ecclesiastical channels: study committees of the consistory, classis, and synod; recommendations of advisory committees—sometimes resulting in majority and minority opinions; motions, discussions, votes; overtures, gravamina, and protests. Such agreed upon procedures have withstood the test of time in Reformed churches.

The CW-CRC is not content with these standard ecclesiastical channels. I fear it has learned its lessons from the National Rifle Association or from the United Auto Workers. These groups know all about politics and lobbying campaigns. What is their procedure in changing popular opinion? They simply form political action committees, raise the necessary funds by recruiting a generous membership, create grass roots support via direct mailings, and secure the endorsement of respected public figures. And so on. You have seen them at work.

Having read through past newsletters put out by the CWCRC, I have discovered many similarities between their procedures and those of political lobby groups. The CW–CRC already is a non-profit, tax–deductible organization. At one time it talked about generating a mailing list of every female member in the CRC. It raises funds through membership dues and private contributions. It has planted satellite committees in such diverse places as Kalamazoo, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; and Riverside, California. It publishes the voting records of synodical delegates on issues involving women in ecclesiastical offices. It urges its constituency to engage in letter–writing campaigns to key denominational leaders. It enlists (and often receives) the endorsement of well-known pastors and seminary professors. It has targeted churches who consistently refuse to include CW-CRC announcements in their Sunday bulletins. The list could go on. The similarities between it and other political lobby groups are legion.

I find these tactics deplorable. I urge all those who care about ecclesiastical decency and good order to resist the political pressure applied by the CW-CRC.

Again, I must re-affirm my belief that many fine people support the CW-CRC. But even those with good intentions have no business importing lobbying techniques into the arena of ecclesiastical deliberation.

Note: Rondal Lankheet is a student at Calvin Theological Seminary. He agreed to submit this article only at tire request of the editor. An earlier version of his article appeared in The Kerux, the newsletter of the student body at Calvin Seminary.