One of the major issues, if not THE major issue at the 1984 C.R. Synod, was that of Women in Ecclesiastical Office. After more than a dozen years that this issue has been before the church and after a number of study committee reports, we were to deal with the matter again. This issue provoked more procedural hassles and roll-call votes than any other. It also drew the largest audiences to the Fine Arts Center and the most numerous speeches from the floor of Synod.

Why is this a major issue? Because at the heart of it is the question , “How do we interpret Scripture?”

Prejudicing Committees

It has always been a matter of serious concern that the officers of the previous Synod wield a great deal of influence on the next assembly in that they appoint the advisory committees ofthe succeeding Synod. This year was no different as we learned ofthe membership of the advisory committee dealing with this matter. To any knowledgeable person the recommendations ofthe majority ofthe advisory committee came as no surprise.

To assist the delegates in the deliberations of the matter the officers of Synod provided each delegate with a page and a half of procedural instruction.

No 2/3 Vote!

One of the first matters Synod had to deal with was the overture from Classis Grand Rapids South which was that Synod exercise its option to require a two-third majority vote to accept recommendations which would allow women to serve as deacons. Among the grounds for this overture were that the continued unity of the church in truth and peace required such a majority decision and that a decision on this divisive issue involving change in Creed and Church Order should not be imposed upon the church by a small majority. The advisory committee recommended that Synod turn down this overture. NOTE the ground for that recommendation: “Although Synod could exercise such an option in an unusual circumstance, we believe that this issue , like many other sensitive issues, should be decided by the normal majority vote.” “. . . like many other sensitive issues”—Is that borne out by the years that the church has wrestled with the matter, the hours and hours spent on it also by this Synod, and the ramifications of this for the church?? This was NOT an “unusual circumstance”?? Upon a question whether this overture involved ALL the recommendations before Synod on this matter, the ruling was that it did. It was pointed out that this ruling was NOT the intent of the clear and explicit language of the overture, but that ruling stood, and this matter was voted down 84 to 72. The question remains, WHY was this (slanted) interpretation given? After more discussion the overture was defeated by 100 to 57. That meant that 81 of the 160 delegates could open the offices to women. This, in spite of the fact that some 100 churches had communicated to Synod in one form or another urging Synod NOT to open the offices to women! (Because of the Rules of Synod the delegates did not see these communications; however, each delegate did receive a copy of a communication from one church favoring opening all the offices to women!)

Biblical Headship Teaching Adopted

Synod proceeded then to adopt a number of recommendations. Synod decided “that the headship role of husbands in marriage involves a direction-setting role which is to be exercised (first) in loving their wives in a self-sacrificing way, and (second) in loving their wives in an enabling way, after the pattern of Christ’s headship over the church.” Does the headship of Christ over the church not involve authority?

Synod also declared “that the ‘headship principle,’ which means that the man should exercise primary leadership and direction-setting in the home and in the church, is a biblical teaching recognized in both the Old and New Testament.” This was a recommendation of the Minority Advisory Committee and was adopted by an 81 to 76 vote. This brought tears and sobs from a number of women in the audience who now thought that “their cause was lost.”

The Next Day’s Reversal

The following day was another matter. The report of the study committee claimed that headship means that “man should exercise primary leadership and direction-setting in the home, church, and in society in general.” The reporter of the study committee, Dr. A. Hoekema, and the chairman, Rev. John A. De Kruyter, informed Synod that they withdrew their support of the conclusion of their own study committee. Synod decided “that there is insufficient scripture evidence to warrant the conclusion that the headship principle holding man’s rulership/primary leadership and direction-setting over woman is a creation norm extending over the whole of human life.”

The recommendation that Synod declare “that the headship of the man in the church implies that women should not be admitted to the offices of minister, elder, or evangelist” was defeated by an 82 to 77 vote. NOTE again the closeness of the vote on this matter! Synod also defeated the recommendation “that churches be encouraged to recognize, develop, and use spiritual gifts found in female members by allowing women to assist the ordained elders in their ministry.”

Limitations

Then Synod decided “that the decision as to whether women should be ordained as deacons in any specific congregation be left to the judgment of the local consistory.” A motion was made from the floor of Synod that “Synod declare that pastors are not expected to participate in the ordination of women if that is against their consciences.” This motion was adopted by a 87 to 70 vote. NOTE the substantial number of delegates who voted against this motion, seventy, that is eleven short of the majority! That there were delegates who interpreted this as foreboding of ill, is surely understandable.

Then Synod declared “that in consistories where the distinction between the general and the restricted consistory is not made, women deacons may not function as elders.” NOTE again, the large number of delegates who voted against this recommendation.

An Unbiblical Change of the Church Order

Then came the recommendation that “Synod allow consistories to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon.” The grounds presented for this recommendation are significant, significant in their lack of biblical and confession considerations. What is mentioned is that “previous study committees found no biblical reasons to keep the office of deacon closed to qualified women.” Forgotten (conveniently?) was the decision of Synod 1975 that “the practice of excluding women from the ecclesiastical offices be maintained unless compelling biblical proofs are advanced for changing this practice.” The second ground mentions that the Synod of 1978 did open the office of deacon to qualified women. The third ground was “Women functioning in the office of deacon has biblical (Romans 16:1) and historical precedent” (Synod of Wezel, 1568). It should be noted that Romans 16:1 in no way provides conclusive biblical evidence for this decision; nor was the Convent of Wezel a synod. And why ignore all the other biblical teaching on the office of deacon?

Synod adopted this recommendation by an 82 to 75 vote. NOTE-by ONE more vote than the simple majority, ONLY one more, was this decision made!

Then came the matter of ratifying the Church Order change. It was clearly ,the wish of the majority of the Advisory Committee NOT to give the churches an opportunity to object to this change before final ratification. Immediate ratification was recommended, but the provision of 1978 “that the work of women as deacons be distinguished from that of the elders” was omitted from the decision which had been passed. Extensive discussion ensued, and the matter was returned to the advisory committee. After much procedural hassling later on, the 1978 revision of Article 3 of the Church Order, with the supplement, was ratified.

“The Bible in the Trash Can”

One matter in all of the speeches and discussions stood out—the lack of biblical and creedal considerations on the part of those who advocated women in office. That it was the clear intent of the Majority Advisory Committee, in line with the Minority II of the Study Committee, to open all the offices in the church to women, be it eventually, was clearly evident.

Finally the long discussion was over. As it was concluded and the delegates were about to recess for dinner, a study committee minority’s representative, a Calvin College professor, read a “hymn” that spoke of the Divine Being as being unknown so that we don’t know whether to address that Being as he, she, or it. Blasphemy! Synod was stunned. And yet there was a smattering of applause. As a delegate was heard to comment “That is the logical conclusion of putting the Bible in the trashcan.” At the beginning of the next session of Synod the professor came to apologize, intimating that the delegates “did not really understand.” The delegates DID understand, and the professor no doubt did too.

Harry J. Kwantes, a delegate to the 1984 synod, is the pastor of the Godwin Heights Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, MJ.