The Committee appointed by the Synod of 1985 to study the functions and authority of deacons, particularly in relation to that of the elders (as a result of synod’s decision to allow women deacons “provided their work is distinguished from that of elders”) has now come out with its report. The result is somewhat predictable: there is a majority and minority (of one member) report, and the majority is pretty well designed so that in a matter of time all the offices will be open to women. That was predictable right from the start. Everyone could see that the deacon’s thing was the camel’s nose. Once you see the nose, the rest is not far behind. In our system of church government, where we have always stressed the equality of the offices, this was bound to happen.

Given the decision of synod to allow women deacons, the only honorable way out (if we are going to maintain the headship principle) is to follow the recommendation of the minority report. It would pretty well take the deacons out of the consistory altogether, and not allow them to be delegated lo major assemblies. We would then be following the pattern of some evangelical churches where deacons have no real authority—their function would be strictly service. That’s really the only avenue open to us, even though it violates the system we have been brought up with (cf. Arts. 30 & 31 of the Belgic Confession). The author of the minority report makes clear that he disagrees with synod’s decision to open the office of deacon to women, but given the decision, this is really the only alternative we have-provided we want to maintain the headship principle and have the work of (women?) deacons distinguished from that of elders.

The majority report comes with a rather complicated scheme by which it tries to do justice to synod’s stipulation that the work of (women?) deacons be distinguished from that of elders, while allowing them a place in the consistory and at classis meetings (for the time being it does not advocate sending deacons to synod). At classis elders and deacons would be together for opening devotions; then each would meet separately for a while to take care of items peculiar to each of their offices; after that they would come together again to deal with items of mutual interest.

Now tell me honestly: How many times is that going to work? About twice perhaps? Then the delegates will say: Let’s forget the hassle and meet together from start to finish. And once the churches “get used to” having women in the regular classical meetings, it matters little whether they are deacons or elders. Soon there will be women elders at classis (and synod).

Let’s be honest: this is the way it’s going to go. The handwriting is on the wall. The majority report already advocates the deletion of synod’s stipulation, “provided that their work be distinguished from that of elders.” Their argument is that since the “machinery” is now in place, we no longer need this stipulation. With the predictable result, of course, that soon the “machinery” will be dismantled also. It’s all rather laughable, if it weren’t so serious.

Everyone knows (and will admit it, if he’s honest) that the stipulation of synod, “provided that their work be distinguished from that of elders,” was only a tactical (political) move in order to get women into the office of deacon. Once that would be in place, we’d soon get rid of the stipulation. And that’s precisely what’s happening. It‘s all as clear as the nose on your face.

It still is not clear to me whether that stipulation was meant to apply to women deacons only. Ostensibly it was, for the work of deacons has always been distinguished from that of eldersotherwise why would they be called deacons? It’s all very confusing.

I hope for one thing: That consistories decide now (before it happens—and it will) that should women be delegated to class is as elders (even if they are seated as deacons), they (concerned consistories) register their negative vote and then refuse to attend that meeting. We must show that we mean business. And it’s the only way to put a stop to what is really political maneuvering in the church.

J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alberta