To understand the occasion for this article by Henk Nymeyer of St. Thomas, Ontario, please note the following background information:
1. The CRC study committee (with the exception of Rev. Peter M. Jonker) recommended that the 1973 CRC Synod should adopt the following: “The practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office cannot be defended on biblical grounds.”
2. However, the 1973 Synod decided instead:
a. To refer the entire report of the study committee to the churches for study and reactions (See Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 514–594).
b. To appoint a new study committee: Rev. John D. Hellinga, Rev. Henry Petersen, Rev. Dirk H. Aardsma, Dr. J. Vander Laan, Mrs. M. Alons. Reactions and communications are to be sent no later than July 1974 to the Secretary: Rev. Henry Petersen, 611 E. First St., Pella, Iowa 50219.
After reading Report 39 (Acts of Synod 1973) it is evident that Rev. Jelle Tuininga was correct in his statement in the October issue of THE OUTLOOK that, from the beginning, the committee tries to show that women must be admitted to church offices.
The mandate given to the committee, “to examine in the light of Scripture the general Reformed practise of excluding women from the various offices of the church,” has a negative ring to it. It seems to imply that our Reformed forefathers and all churches of the Reformation practised discrimination by admitting men only, and the committee has apparently decided to set the record straight.
Near the very beginning, without basis, other than that male and female were created equal, they state on page 520, “one could conclude that the church is shortchanging herself in her exclusion of women from office.”
God says in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Not so, says the committee, because Paul writes in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither male nor fem.ale for you are all one in Christ. The committee apparently does not distinguish between our relationship to God, and the marital relationship of men and women. In Exodus 23:17, 34:23 and Deuteronomy 16:16 God’s command reads: “Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord.” “True,” says the committee, “but that does not exclude women from being present.” The committee states and implies that women are not inferior and comes to the defense of the position of women. When our forefathers drew up the Confessions and Church Order and our practice of excluding women from office that did not imply that women are inferior, just different. And that was in accord with the teachings of the Bible.
In their summary of the position of women in the Old Testament, the committee refers to pagan practices and heathen notions and seems to equate these with the laws the Lord gave to Israel. See page 532 where the committee quotes Clarence Vos: “The question is did the Lord intend to say anything about the status of women or is it to be regarded simply as conforming the cult (the law) to the notions already existent in Israel?” What a way of explaining the laws given by a Holy God. As if God would say: “Well, I can’t change much here, I may as well make the law read the way they want it.” Absurd.
Turning to the part of the report dealing with the status of women in the New Testament, the committee finds it necessary to instruct us as to the social situations and cultural conditions existing at that time. Interesting, but I doubt if the authors of the Gospels, Paul, Peter and others, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were conditioned by local situations (see II Peter 1:20, 21).
In I Corinthians 14:33, 34 Paul writes: “As in ALL the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches.” As in ALL churches of the saints, located in different parts of the world as it was known at that time. To different parts of the world, where social situations and cultural conditions were different, Paul applies the same rule.
Not one rule for Corinth (Greece) and another for Rome (Italy), where situations and conditions were probably as different as day and night. “No,” says Paul, “as in ALL churches.”
Compare Ephesians 5:22–33 where Paul tells the wives in the congregation to be submissive to their husbands and I Peter 3:1 where Peter says: “Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Were both Paul and Peter subject to the same social situations and cultural conditions? I hardly think so.
The apostle James writes in his letter: “. . . from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (1:17). The committee writes on page 552: “With this order they will be content unless God in His providence changes the order.” If God would in effect change the order (and then also. it follows, other orders) we would end up with a whole lot of confused Christians. It would also, and please pardon the expression, seem unfair of God to require one thing of Christians at one time and another thing of Christians of another time. However, using the basis that God may change His order, the committee now feels free to question whether the injunctions of Paul, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have the same power of prescribed observance today as they had in the days when they were written.
If this type of explanation can be used here, then it can also be applied to any and all passages of the Bible. If a text does not suit us or does not fit our particular situation we explain it away by applying the principle that it does not have the same power of prescribed observance. It’s conditioned by social situations and cultural conditions existing at the time of the authors. If I would say that the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” changes with the times and is conditioned by social situations, and that this permits me to steal, you would surely call me a fool for twisting God’s Word.
The moral situation of today is deplorable. Does the committee think that God will change the order because social situations and cultural conditions are different? I hardly think so.
One more aspect of the report is that it consistently states that the Bible “. . . does not say, . . . does not imply. . but that does not mean . . . ” etc. Trying to prove a point on the basis of things that are not in the Bible is a very negative approach. The Bible is specific when it refers to men, but is uniquely silent on the point of women in office. Instead the report should have emphasized that which the Bible does say, for example:
The women should keep silence (1 Cor. 14:34).
Let a woman learn in silence, with all submissiveness.
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over man (I Tim. 2: 11ff.).
A bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:2ff.).
And appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife (Tit. 1:5,6).
In my opinion it seems right to accept what the Bible teaches specifically, namely that only men shall be admitted to o/lice, and not deduce conclusions from things which ure not in the Bible.
1. The CRC study committee (with the exception of Rev. Peter M. Jonker) recommended that the 1973 CRC Synod should adopt the following: “The practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office cannot be defended on biblical grounds.”
2. However, the 1973 Synod decided instead:
a. To refer the entire report of the study committee to the churches for study and reactions (See Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 514–594).
b. To appoint a new study committee: Rev. John D. Hellinga, Rev. Henry Petersen, Rev. Dirk H. Aardsma, Dr. J. Vander Laan, Mrs. M. Alons. Reactions and communications are to be sent no later than July 1974 to the Secretary: Rev. Henry Petersen, 611 E. First St., Pella, Iowa 50219.
After reading Report 39 (Acts of Synod 1973) it is evident that Rev. Jelle Tuininga was correct in his statement in the October issue of THE OUTLOOK that, from the beginning, the committee tries to show that women must be admitted to church offices.
The mandate given to the committee, “to examine in the light of Scripture the general Reformed practise of excluding women from the various offices of the church,” has a negative ring to it. It seems to imply that our Reformed forefathers and all churches of the Reformation practised discrimination by admitting men only, and the committee has apparently decided to set the record straight.
Near the very beginning, without basis, other than that male and female were created equal, they state on page 520, “one could conclude that the church is shortchanging herself in her exclusion of women from office.”
God says in Genesis 3:16: “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Not so, says the committee, because Paul writes in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither male nor fem.ale for you are all one in Christ. The committee apparently does not distinguish between our relationship to God, and the marital relationship of men and women. In Exodus 23:17, 34:23 and Deuteronomy 16:16 God’s command reads: “Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord.” “True,” says the committee, “but that does not exclude women from being present.” The committee states and implies that women are not inferior and comes to the defense of the position of women. When our forefathers drew up the Confessions and Church Order and our practice of excluding women from office that did not imply that women are inferior, just different. And that was in accord with the teachings of the Bible.
In their summary of the position of women in the Old Testament, the committee refers to pagan practices and heathen notions and seems to equate these with the laws the Lord gave to Israel. See page 532 where the committee quotes Clarence Vos: “The question is did the Lord intend to say anything about the status of women or is it to be regarded simply as conforming the cult (the law) to the notions already existent in Israel?” What a way of explaining the laws given by a Holy God. As if God would say: “Well, I can’t change much here, I may as well make the law read the way they want it.” Absurd.
Turning to the part of the report dealing with the status of women in the New Testament, the committee finds it necessary to instruct us as to the social situations and cultural conditions existing at that time. Interesting, but I doubt if the authors of the Gospels, Paul, Peter and others, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were conditioned by local situations (see II Peter 1:20, 21).
In I Corinthians 14:33, 34 Paul writes: “As in ALL the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches.” As in ALL churches of the saints, located in different parts of the world as it was known at that time. To different parts of the world, where social situations and cultural conditions were different, Paul applies the same rule.
Not one rule for Corinth (Greece) and another for Rome (Italy), where situations and conditions were probably as different as day and night. “No,” says Paul, “as in ALL churches.”
Compare Ephesians 5:22–33 where Paul tells the wives in the congregation to be submissive to their husbands and I Peter 3:1 where Peter says: “Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Were both Paul and Peter subject to the same social situations and cultural conditions? I hardly think so.
The apostle James writes in his letter: “. . . from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (1:17). The committee writes on page 552: “With this order they will be content unless God in His providence changes the order.” If God would in effect change the order (and then also. it follows, other orders) we would end up with a whole lot of confused Christians. It would also, and please pardon the expression, seem unfair of God to require one thing of Christians at one time and another thing of Christians of another time. However, using the basis that God may change His order, the committee now feels free to question whether the injunctions of Paul, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have the same power of prescribed observance today as they had in the days when they were written.
If this type of explanation can be used here, then it can also be applied to any and all passages of the Bible. If a text does not suit us or does not fit our particular situation we explain it away by applying the principle that it does not have the same power of prescribed observance. It’s conditioned by social situations and cultural conditions existing at the time of the authors. If I would say that the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” changes with the times and is conditioned by social situations, and that this permits me to steal, you would surely call me a fool for twisting God’s Word.
The moral situation of today is deplorable. Does the committee think that God will change the order because social situations and cultural conditions are different? I hardly think so.
One more aspect of the report is that it consistently states that the Bible “. . . does not say, . . . does not imply. . but that does not mean . . . ” etc. Trying to prove a point on the basis of things that are not in the Bible is a very negative approach. The Bible is specific when it refers to men, but is uniquely silent on the point of women in office. Instead the report should have emphasized that which the Bible does say, for example:
The women should keep silence (1 Cor. 14:34).
Let a woman learn in silence, with all submissiveness.
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over man (I Tim. 2: 11ff.).
A bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:2ff.).
And appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife (Tit. 1:5,6).
In my opinion it seems right to accept what the Bible teaches specifically, namely that only men shall be admitted to o/lice, and not deduce conclusions from things which ure not in the Bible.