It is amazing how many people in the CRC believe that we can change our stance on the role of women without suffering ill effects elsewhere. Amazing because the arguments advanced for opening the door to women in office are virtually identical to those employed to promote more liberal views on other topics such as, for example, homosexuality. This phenomenon showed itself clearly at a number of events which I have recently attended.
The Banner Editor’s View
On October 12 I heard Rev. A. Kuyvenhoven, editor of The Banner, speak in the Burnaby , B.C., CRC on “Bible and Culture.” The main thrust of K’S talk was defense of women in office. Interestingly enough, however, his prime argument was based not so much on Scriptural insights as on the changes that have taken place in our society. According to K, the restricted role of women in the church, as taught in Scripture, is no longer applicable in our modern culture. There are two reasons why the church should change its position o n this matter. First, because the Spirit of God can express itself also through our society. Although K did not specify how we can identify these divine utterings, he did feel that in this particular case there could be little doubt. Secondly, K argued that we should not let relatively minor things stand in the way of the presentation of the Gospel. If our traditional stance on the role of women hinders members of our modern society from coming to church, then we should change. On the other hand, in the question period that followed, K affirmed that he strongly opposed homosexuality and that he had criticized the Dutch Reformed churches (GKN) on this matter. This was followed by hearty applause.
More Liberal Dutch Precedents
My thoughts went back to an earlier meeting (Sept. 28 in the Langley, B.B., CRC) where the response had been rather different—where there had been no applause but only a general feeling of disgust. There I had heard Professors Bakker and Schippers of the GKN defend their church ‘s liberal stance on homosexuality. It seems clear that most CRC supporters of women in office are still vigorously adverse to homosexuality.
Yet it struck me that there was a remarkable similarity between the arguments employed by Kuyvenhoven for women in office and those of the brothers Bakker and Schippers for more tolerant views regarding homosexuality. For they, too, informed us of the difficulty of Bible interpretation, the need to listen to society, and the folly of letting secondary issues hamper the spreading of the Word. Shouldn’t this argument work equally well in both cases?
And why stop there? Once we grant the validity of K’s approach to Scripture it takes little ingenuity to extend it to other ethical questions such as, for example, abortion, divorce, and pre-marital sex. Moreover, if we are to listen to the world on ethical matters, why not also on historical things? Could not the same argument be used to defend the adoption of more liberal views also regarding the creation account in Genesis, miracles, the Resurrection, etc.?
I questioned K. personally on this afterwards. Could his approach not be applied equally well to homosexuality? And did it not lead to a totally subjective reading of Scripture? K. denied the latter, but was unable to give any clear criteria as to where to draw the line. As to homosexuality, all he could offer was a “gut feeling” that it was against God’s will.
Such fuzzy thinking is not found in our Reformed confessions, where we are urged to test the spirits (particularly, it would seem, those arising from our sinful, atheistic modern society) and to reject all that is contrary to God’s word (cf. Belgic Confession, Art. VII).
Standard Liberal Procedure
It is of interest to note that K. had spent the first portion of his speech defending himself against the accusation that he was a liberal. He declared that he was not a liberal and that theologians such as Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann, who denied the reality of essential historical events, should be called “liberal.” This is somewhat ironic, for Bultmann also considered himself to be combatting liberalism. Furthermore, the motivation behind Bultmann’s demythologization of the New Testament was exactly the same as K’s—to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks for modern man so that he may accept the essentials of the Christian faith. Bultmann merely applies more consistently the same methodology that K invokes capriciously.
But let’s not be too harsh on K. Many others share his views on women in office, but few of these supporters are as forthright in revealing the influence of the secular world on their thinking. Some even insist that they were guided only by exegetical considerations.
I have been somewhat unfair to Professors Bakker and Schipper, for they presented also some exegetical support for their view on homosexuality. It is instructive to examine these. They cited Gal. 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female”) as being in their favor. As to those texts (e.g. Rom. 1:27) that appear to speak rather forcefully against homosexuality, the professors explained that Paul was here reacting to the then–current practice of masters forcing homosexual acts on their slaves. The situation today (i.e. voluntary homosexuality between equals) is, of course, quite different.
Does this explanation sound rather contrived? Yet the hermeneutical tactics used here are identical to those often employed by advocates for women in office; they make the same appeal to texts which, when read in their full context, really do not speak on the issue (Gal. 3:28 is abused in similar fashion by the feminists); they resort to the same invention of little “behind the scenes” stories to explain away unfavorable Scripture passages (cf. Minority Report II on Headship, Acts of Synod ‘84, p. 365).
Evading the Bible Destroys Morals
Few Biblical precepts are as well grounded as those regarding the subordinate role of women. (I Tim. 2:11–15, for example, refers to both the original creation order and that after the Fall, and is thus clearly still in force). If we can dismiss these texts as “culturally conditioned” then we can do the same with virtually any other Biblical command. The hermeneutics used to justify women in office will, if consistently applied, result in the complete loss of Scriptural authority.
If we can swallow women in office while still choking on homosexuality, it is not because Scripture speaks any more clearly on the latter, but only because the CRC has—by the grace of God—not yet been undermined by secular thought to the same extent as the GKN.
Sadly enough, K’s position has become very popular in the CRC. And the Synod of ‘84 has in fact opened the door for women in office. You, dear reader, should be very much concerned about these developments. It is now just a matter of time before our hermeneutical chickens will be coming home to roost.
John Byl is associate Professor of Mathematics at Trinity Western College at Langley, British Columbia, Canada.