“Watershed” has been defined as a “critical decisive point; a turning point.” If that definition is true, then we may have before us at the Christian Reformed Synod of 1981 a “watershed.” After eight years of tossing the ball called “Women in ecclesiastical office” into opposing courts, the CR denomination must at last settle the issue as it pertains to women in the office of deacon. If the ratio of the study committee’s recommendations is any indication of the mind of Synod, women will hold office in the CRC. Of the eight study committee members, only one, the Rev. Henry Vander Kam, is submitting a recommendation that the office not be opened to women—not because of any inferior qualities women possess or superior qualities which they lack, not because of any chauvinistic prejudice—but simply because the Scriptures, yes God Himself, closes the door.
Cultural Argument
It would be impossible to amass all of the arguments that have been advanced in the past ten years in favor of allowing women into ecclesiastical office. For a while the argument centered around the cultural situation in Paul‘s day. The pro-women-in-office forces maintained that Paul was only accommodating his views to the low position of women in that day and his words were never meant to be binding for all time. But the conservatives (for lack of a better term) chafed at this, pointing out that Paul grounded his remarks in the creation order and in the headship of Christ and that these were principal concepts and not cultural traditions. So in more recent discussions, the pro-women–in-office forces have addressed themselves more directly to the words of Scripture.
Hermeneutical Gymnastics
By sometimes unbelievable hermeneutical gymnastics, the pro-women–in–office supporters structure their interpretations of Scripture into two channels: 1) They try to show that Paul was addressing himself to specific problems in the early church and that his words are therefore not binding on us today. 2) (This is the most devious.) They reinterpret key concepts of Scripture such as heads hip and submission passages as they apply to marriage and service in the church. They will, for example, try to prove that women have equal rights in marriage and in the church because “in Christ there is no . . . male or female.”
Submission – I Corinthians 14:34–36
Having established the fact that men and women have equal rights in Christ, they go on to interpret I Cor.14:34–36 to mean that women in the Corinthian church knew they were now equal to their husbands and they did not know how to handle their new freedom, and so they were speaking in a disruptive way in the church. Paul now says in effect, (Until they know how to handle their freedom) “Let women keep silent in the churches.”
I Timothy 2:11 and 12
Since I Timothy 2:11 and 12 occur in a context of warning against “false teaching,” the pro–forces say that these women were not well–informed and therefore they had to “learn in quietness and submission.” The point is that when they become better informed, they may speak in an official capacity with the same authority as men.
I Peter 3:1
The pro-supporters would also have us look at I Peter 3:1 in the light of I Peter 2:13 which says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” Since marriage is an ordinance of man (?) and submission was a part of that ordinance at that time, Paul says in 3:1, “Likewise you wives be in subjection to your own husbands.” But, of course, if man’s institution of marriage no longer includes wifely submission (as it does not in our day) then Paul’s injunction no longer holds. The same principle applies to the interpretation of Ephesians 5:22–24.
Headship
In Colossians 1:18 we read that Christ “is the head of the body, the church.” In I Cor. 11:3 we read that “the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is t he man.” Ephesians 5:23 emphasizes the same truth when it says, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.” Obviously those who advocate women in a position of authority in the church are going to have to deal with the problem of headship. If the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church, authority and rulership obviously resides in the man and not the woman.
The pro-supporters would have us believe that the word “head” in the original language did not mean authority, but meant “source of life” so that Christ as head of the church only means He is the “source of life” to the church as also man is the “source of life” to woman, Eve having been taken from man. The pro-supporters would have us believe that the Bible is not laying down any kind of chain-of-command in these passages. It is not vesting any authority or ruling power in the male sex.
Other Arguments
The pro–supporters remind us that women prophesied in the Bible, although they cannot demonstrate any official proclamation by women in the church.
One supporter of women in ecclesiastical office writes in the Pro Rege publication that women in the church today are so much more educated than they were in the days of the early church and consequently they are entitled to positions of decision-making and authority in the church even to the point of occupying the highest office. We are certainly thankful for the growing number of educated women in the church who now have greater responsibility to serve. However, it does not follow that their educational status entitles them to office–holding in the church. It is significant that very few of Jesus’ disciples or the apostles of the early church were “learned” men. It was in fact the “learned” of Jesus‘ day who hated Him and crucified Him. It is significant too that of all the qualifications laid down for office-holders in the New Testament church, only one had to do with education and that is the qualification “apt to teach.” Spiritual sensitivity, personal piety, male family headship and an exemplary family constituted the qualifications for office-bearers.
Response
Obviously the central issue in this whole debate is not women but Scripture itself. Do the Scriptures really say what we, the church, have been led by the Spirit to believe them to say for centuries: that, although men and women are equal in Christ (equal recipients of salvation) they nevertheless have different God-given roles in marriage and in the church; that these roles are rooted in God’s creation-order and exemplified in the relationship of Christ as head; that the husband is to provide for and protect his wife and the wife is to “help” her husband; that fathers are held accountable for their families and they are to rule the church and women are to serve; that in ruling and in serving, there is to be a bond of love uniting man and woman so that each finds his and her highest joy in fulfilling those God-given roles? Are the injunctions of the Bible writers such as Paul and Peter binding for all time or are they culturally conditioned and limited?
The answer which our CR Synod of 1981 gives to these questions will have weighty implications for the future of the church.
Recently the Grand Rapids Press, in an article dealing with alternative theological education, said that if the CR Synod admitted women to office, the denomination would be sharply divided because of the negative reaction of the conservatives. Do you notice that the blame for dividing the church is placed on the faithful who stand in the Reformation tradition? Does not the blame for dividing the church really lie on the shoulders of those who propose to forsake the confessional integrity of our denomination? If there is a division of ranks in our denomination, let us at least put the blame in the proper place.
Other denominations are also plagued with division over this issue. The United Presbyterian Church USA bas stipulated that every congregation must elect at least one woman elder. In congregations which refuse to do so, the presbytery (classis) will come in and hold an election. Agreement with the concept of women in office is now required of all candidates in that denomination.
Let us in the CRC never naively think that this could not happen to us. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” One side will triumph and dominate until all others yield or disappear. The Synod of 1981 in dealing with this issue will be a catalyst for good or ill in the future of the CRC.
What we must do is pray—pray that the Lord may make His will clear to us and give us the strength and courage to walk in it.
Laurie Vanden Heuvel, editor of this department, is the wife of Rev. Thomas Vanden Heuvel of 207 Kansas Ave. N. W., Orange City, Iowa 51041. Contributors to this department of The Outlook are invited to write her.