Towards the end of December, I received a note with an accompanying article from Rev. Tony De Jager who writes for De Wachter. The note informed me that the article which accompanied the note is to appear in a future issue of De Wachter (that article meanwhile appeared in the December 18, 1984 issue).
You can imagine my curiosity at the content of the enclosed article. Why would Rev. De Jager send me an article he had written for De Wachter as a matter of editorial ethics? My curiosity was immediately satisfied when I read the article entitled, “Wereldse Methoden” (Worldly Methods).
In his article, Rev. De Jager engages in the uncharitable activity of leveling serious accusations against fellow members in the Christian Reformed Church who placed a full page ad in Christian Renewal and Calvinist Contact expressing concern about synod’s decision to ordain women to the office of deacon.*
For reasons which are never made clear, Rev. De Jager concludes that the people responsible for placing these ads have adopted worldly methods and are guilty of playing the numbers game. According to him they are people grasping for power and influence through intimidation.
Why would a minister in the CRC make such serious accusations publicly without offering reasons for arriving at his highly speculative conclusions? Did Rev. De Jager take up contact with the people responsible for placing these ads to inquire into their motives for doing so?
Rev. De Jager sent a copy of his article in De Wachter to Christian Renewal because his article not only accuses the sponsors of the ad of playing the numbers game and seeking power, he also questions the wisdom of Christian Renewal and Calvinist Contact for publish ing the ad. He feels Christian Renewal and Calvinist Contact should have exercised more wisdom and, like the editor of The Banner, refused to place the ad.
It is interesting to note that the editor of The Banner does not have similar compunctions when placing full–page ads extolling the virtues of Robert Schuller’s books or when he publishes a generally positive review of Tom Harpur’s Heaven and Hell which excels in denying every tenet of the Christian faith. Wisdom you say?
I can assure Rev. De Jager that before the ad was placed in Christian Renewal, the reasons and motives for placing the ad were carefully considered. And it may interest Rev. De Jager to know that, contrary to his speculations, the main reason for placing the ad was because it is an expression of deep concern about the present direction within the CRC.
For all intents and purposes the pages of our denominational paper, The Banner, are closed to all those who wish to express a point of view on the issue of women in office which does not agree with the point of view held by the present editor. As a matter of fact, the editor of The Banner has become such an ideologue on the issue of women in office that on those rare occasions when he does place an article which goes contrary to his own point of view, he is incapable of exercising normal editorial restraint. He can’t resist arguing his own point of view in the very issue of The Banner in which such an article appears. (See the article by Peter W. Brouwer in the Nov. 24, 1984 issue of The Banner and note how the editor prejudices Brouwer’s point of view before one gets a chance to read it.)
There is more than wisdom at work here.
Rev. De Jager suggests elsewhere in his article that one well-written overture to synod can be as effective as 200. People shouldn’t engage in “massive protest actions,” that is, place an ad in Christian Renewal and Calvinist Contact urging the silent majority to speak up. But Rev. De Jager doesn’t suggest what concerned people may do. Apparently they should continue to allow a small, vocal minority to drastically change the direction of the CRC.
Rev. De Jager expresses surprise at an ad which is placed by people who wish to express their genuine concern in Christian Renewal and in Calvinist Contact, But is Rev. De Jager then totally unaware of what developments are taking place within the CRC? Is he unaware that the pages of The Banner have been closed for years now to anyone who wishes to express a point of view on women in office that does not agree with the view of the editor? Is Rev. De Jager unaware of the fact that for more than a decade we have had an outspoken feminist movement in our midst called the Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church which has wide influence, especially in the Grand Rapids area and which advertises its programs and actions in the pages of The Banner? (Where now is all that discerning wisdom?) Is Rev. De Jager unaware that some of these concerned women in CW CRC are interested in nothing short of revolutionizing the structure of the Christian Reformed Church and that they engage repeatedly in the use of inflammatory language to attain their ends? One such instance is found in the July/August newsletter in which they refer to consistories as that “clubby, male preserve of the CRC.”
Is Rev. De Jager unaware that Carl Tuyl uses the pages of Link to give free reign to advocating his novel ideas about women in office and that the president of this year’s synod, Dr. Roger Van Harn, openly militates for women deacons and women elders and women ministers in articles he writes as well as in speeches he gives in Grand Rapids? Is Rev. De Jager unaware of the fact that in Calvin Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids female seminary students already participate in the worship service and that Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids has appointed adjunct elders with the express purpose of eventually forcing synod to accept these female elders to our churches everywhere?
It strikes me as terribly incongruous that at a time when all these developments, which go contrary to our church order, are taking place within the CRC, Rev. De Jager has reserved his criticism for the placement of an ad in Christian Renewal.
Rev. De Jager is also of the opinion that the discussion about women in ecclesiastical office is becoming a monotonous affair. We agree. Especially in view of the fact that after 14 years of study reports, not a single convincing, biblical argument has been presented why the practice of 1900 years standing should be changed. As long as Christians confess that the teachings in Corinthians and Timothy, and related passages, are not “time–bound” and “culturally conditioned,” the question of women in ecclesiastical office is superfluous.
Let those who are needlessly disturbing the peace within our denomination by militating for mindless change accept the plain teachings of Scripture. It will bring to an end much of the present polarization.
John Hultink
*The OUTLOOK ran this ad on the back ofits December, 1984 issue. This editorial reaction is reprinted by permission from Christian Renewal.