A previous issue of the Outlook gave a general account of the proceedings and decisions of this Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. In my judgment, as a delegate to this assembly, the one decision which more than any other displays where we are and where we are going as a denomination is the one in which Synod opened the door to women in ecclesiastical office.

A Revolutionary Decision

To be sure, there were a number of decisions taken , relating to this issue. Besides, Synod restricted its decisions to allowing only the ordination of women as deacons. To put to rest the reservations of a few troubled souls, Synod even agreed to add the qualification that their work is to be distinguished from that of the elders. This has always been true of the deacons, for otherwise there would have been no need for both offices. However, the fact remains that women are now to be a part of the council and government of the Church as Article XXX of the Belgic Confession clearly stipulates. The Grand Rapids Press report of June 20, 1984 was essentially correct when it stated that Synod approved a motion “which indicates it may be permissible for the Church to eventually ordain women as ministers and elders as well as deacons.” The Wachter editor recently informed us of the way we could sell this to the good people of the Christian Reformed Church . He admitted that we are not quite ready for women as ministers and elders. So let’s have women deacons first. In that way the Church will get used to it. The fact that seventy delegates voted against the amendment which allows ministers not to participate “in the ordination of women if it is against their conscience” illustrates how far the advocates of this unbiblical practice will go to force their radical feminist views on the Church. The most telling factor in the debate was that never once did any advocate of this new position offer anything that resembled compelling Biblical evidence. All we heard were inane, emotional arguments which proved nothing. Imagine office bearers in the Church trying to convince someone with speeches in which the punch lines were something like this:

“from where I stand or sit . . .”

“if you served like I do where the rubber hits the road . . .” 

“what if your granddaughter someday informs you she feels called to the ministry?”

“there was a time when I was cynical about the church and now I am getting that way again.”

“This reminds me of the story of an elephant and a mouse crossing a bridge . . .”

Listening to this kind of supporting evidence to change the historic position of the Church, tempted me to respond with “So what? My granddaughter someday may well inform me of something far more radical than that she feels called to the ministry, but what will that prove?”

But looking back, reflecting on what happened, leads me to affirm that there are several important conclusions we cannot escape. To these, our faithful people in the Christian Reformed Church must be alerted. Against these we must unitedly protest.

1. Seduced by a Lobby

The first is this: our people were cleverly seduced by the persistent lobbying and propaganda of a small band of extremists who made it their business to change our denomination in a radical way. For that they even succeeded in getting the help of our denominational weekly. Imagine our people paying quota money to support a magazine of the church which openly advocates views contrary to what they and their denomination have always believed and confessed! In the end, there were enough confused people who had been brainwashed to think that the Bible no longer gives clear evidence to support a position which the Church had unitedly and firmly held for nearly two thousand years.

2. The Bible’s Authority Rejected

A second conclusion which must be drawn is that the old Reformation principle of sola scriptura no longer holds for many of our leaders. Our people have been seduced into thinking that the Bible really does not mean what it says. Besides, the Bible is not sufficiently clear so that all believers can read it and understand its message. For that “lay members” as before the Reformation, now need the clergy , the theologians, the experts. Calvin and others may have insisted that science, culture, etc. are to be understood and read through the spectacles of Scripture . But now we are being told that we must understand our Bible by reading it in the light of the culture, the secular feminist movement and the sociology of our time.

3. A Divided Church

The third conclusion that cannot be avoided by this decision of Synod is that we have become a “house divided.” Our unity of faith is gone. At least three Classes had overtured Synod specifically asking Synod to reaffirm the decision of 1975, and that no change be made in this practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office unless compelling Biblical evidence was presented. More than one hundred consistories did the unusual thing of sending late communications to Synod appealing to Synod not to change our historical position. These consistories informed Synod that they were convinced such a change would be contrary to the Word of God. In addition Synod was informed that these consistories rejected any method of Biblical interpretation which would allow it.

A Crisis of Conscience

If this is indeed contrary to the Word of God, what are we to do now? For Synod to have allowed consistories the freedom not to ordain women as deacons solves nothing. In the past that kind of freedom was workable with women’s suffrage. But with our practice of quota support, how does a decision not to ordain women as deacons in a specific congregation absolve a consistory from giving support to that which this consistory is convinced is contrary to the Word of God?

For 127 years, our denomination has enjoyed a remarkable kind of unity and loyalty. For all those years we were a people united in our faith, united in our practice, united in our commitment to and in our understanding of Scripture. But now we are confronted with a dilemma: we have two very different ways of interpreting Scripture. One of these is new in our circles. Not only that, it is a radical departure from our historic Reformed method of reading and understanding the Bible. As a result many of us have a big problem, a problem of conscience: how can we and how may we support that which we believe in our hearts is contrary to the Word of God? Specifically that is to ask: how can we, as Christian stewards, support the publication of magazines and literature which may advocate that which is contrary to the Word of God? How can we support missions which may implement that which is contrary to the Word of God? How can we support seminary professors who may teach that which is contrary to the Word of God?

Note: Richard J. Venema is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Chino, California.