I want to preface my remarks about the decisions of Synod 1984 in regard to the women’s issue with two observations:
The first observation is that the issue is not liberal versus conservative and the second is not against women and the use of their gifts and talents. The real issue is, What Does the Bible Say? What has been the Biblical interpretation of scripture by our forefathers for the past 127 years?
Let me also say that the Headship Committee, on which I served, made up of eight ministers and seven elders, was very open and cordial. We respected one another’s opinion even though we totally disagreed on the headship principle and the role of women in the church. I am still very much concerned why eight ministers and four elders signed the majority report, especially in light of the fact that the final vote to allow women to be deacons, in a limited role, passed by such a close vote: 82 yes–75 no.
Now, let’s take another look at what Synod decided on this whole issue. First, Synod adopted the minority report recommendation which said, “that Synod declare 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.” Adopted: 81 yes–76 no.
The very next day Synod adopted a recommendation of the majority report which said,“That Synod declare there is insufficient scriptural evidence to warrant the conclusion that a headship principle holding man’s rulership/primary leadership and direction setting over woman is a creation norm extending over the whole of human life.” Adopted by voice vote.
It is very clear to me that we now have two decisions by Synod, on record, that are contradictory as to the scriptural teaching in regard to the headship principle.
Synod also adopted the following majority report recommendations:
1)Allow consistories to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon.
2) The work of women as deacons is to be distinguished from that of elders.
3) The decision as to whether women should be ordained as deacons in any specific congregation be left to the judgment of the local consistory.
4) That pastors are not expected to participate in the ordination of women if it is against their consciences.
With the adoption of these recommendations, I can see some real problems which could develop within a particular church and/or classis. Time and space do not permit me to discuss all of the potential problems that exist.
I do want to comment on how I feel Synod treated women and the office ofdeacon. We could now have a double standard for the office of deacon, where the consistory meets as a general consistory, wh ich includes all members. In th is situation the male deacons would be able to help make general governing decisions of the church, but the female deacons would be excluded.
Synod also refused to recognize that women do possess many gifts and talents which can be used in the church. I refer you to the Minority Report I, which clearly states how women could and should function in the church according to scripture and church order. Perhaps the decisions Synod d id and d id not make in regard to women in the church, are just a beginning and are intended to lead to further actions in future years.
What must we do if we disagree with the decisions of Synod of ‘84? There have been a number of options proposed, such as, “split” the denomination, withhold denominational quotas, etc. I believe this is a matter of much prayer and we need God’s guidance in this revolutionary change in His church. I believe that those of us who are truly convinced as to what the Bible teaches in regard to the headship principle and how it relates to women in office, must unite our efforts and appeal to Synod of ‘85 to reconsider the actions taken by Synod of ‘84. This must be the first step and if that fails, then unitedly we may want to take some other course of action.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the issue is not for or against women in the church, but the real issue is, “What does the Lord say?” Continue in prayer that the Lord’s will may be done and that we may all be led by the Holy Spirit to do the will of God in this crucial and emotional problem.
Harold VanMaanen , who lives at RR 115, Oskaloosa, Iowa, is a state representative for Mahaska county and portions of Veokuk and Wapello counties.