After this article was already at the printer, word was received that the writer, Rev. John D. De long, had passed away suddenly at his home in Hudsonville, Michigan, at the age of 72, on Wednesday morning, August 20. Funeral services were held on Friday afternoon, August 22, at the Immanuel Christian Reformed Church in Hudsonville. Heartfelt sympathy is hereby extended to Mrs. De Jong and the other members of the family in their bereavement. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord . . . that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them” (Rev. 14:13).

One of the liveliest issues debated at the recent CRC Synod was the matter of “Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Present as a visitor, Rev. John D. De Jong, retired CRC Minister living in Hudsonville, Michigan, writes about the thirty-two negative votes recorded against Synod’s decision: “I never heard of 32 out of 62. I never witnessed anything like it. And I want to add, it gave me a sad and sickening feeling.”

With the above heading I have in mind the number of negative votes that were recorded in connection with the decision of our recent CRC Synod re the subject of “Women in Ecclesiastical Office.”

Synod decided among other things (and this evidently was the big bone of contention among the pro-and con-delegates) to “declare that the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical offices recognized in the Church Order be maintained unless compelling Biblical grounds are advanced for changing that practice.” When the votes were counted it was found that 84 delegates were in favor of this motion and 62 were against it. However, of these 62 no less than 32 registered their opposition to the decision by having their negative votes recorded in the minutes.

Perhaps it might not be amiss to state what such action really implies. It does not merely mean that one disagrees with a certain decision, and now acquiesces in the decision, submits to majority rule, falls in line with the majority; but it really implies that he does not at all agree with the decision, has very strong objections to it, really does not want to be responsible for it, and that he wants others to know about his “strong” stand.

Usually when I have the the opportunity I attend several Synodical sessions, and I also did this in June. You get somewhat the feeling of the pulse of the Church and you also meet a number of old friends. It was not by accident that I was present during the entire and interesting debate on the subject of “Women in Ecclesiastic Office.” And according to my view Dr. Edwin D. Roels did a splendid job defending the position of the Advisory Committee. He performed his task with knowledge, patience, and dignity. However, I never was a member of a Synodical meet· ing or attended such a meeting as a visitor where I witnessed that so many negative votes· were· registered against a particular decision. True, I can see that a certain delegate or a few delegates feel very strongly about a certain issue and express this strong conviction by requesting that this or their negative vote be registered. But I never heard of 32 out of 62. I never witnessed anything like it. And I want to add it gave me a sad and sickening feeling. I can‘t help but think that this was one of the lowest if not the lowest point reached at the Synodical meeting. “Why,” you ask? Because it revealed something which was rather shocking to me and to many others who were present. Permit me to mention a few things.

1. In the first place all these negative votes revealed that there is a real strong opposition to the above-quoted decision of Synod. Those who lost were hard losers. They could have said, they might have said: “Taking into consideration our lengthy discussions, our divided views on the matter, our past practices of centuries, it was after all a wise decision, we need more time.” But no, the brethren wanted action now. they wanted an expression that would declare that there is no objection, based upon Scripture, that women be office-bearers in the church.

Brethren, what is the great haste, why try to force the issue now while there is still so much division about this subject. Has the church mistreated the ladies so badly in the past that we must change this within the very near future? (One might well wonder how the church has done this well without ladies serving in the office, how did we ever get this far without them?) The majority of Synod was not ready to declare what the minority fought for but felt that up to now no “sufficient grounds” had been advanced to warrant a departure from our present practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office.

Synod, of course, was willing to appoint a Committee to study this matter more thoroughly, and such a Committee was appointed. Brethren, what was your haste, why object so strongly? A couple of negative votes registered? Well, that is not unusual and I have no objection, have even done it myself in the past, and nobody can object to this. But thirty-two negative votes registered? That gives the wrong impression, it certainly gave that to me. It gave me a sad, discouraging feeling. It looked like “political” pressure, worldly doings. It seemed to me this thing should not be done in the church of Christ. The registering of a negative vote at an ecclesiastical meeting, at which we ask for the light and guidance of the Spirit of God, means to me that I am so convinced ill my soul that the decision of the body is wrong that, before God, I want to declare that I don‘t agree with it at aiL It is a matter of conscience. I ask brethren, was the decision the Synod made so bad that your conscience had to cry out about it? What about a little patience? How about trying hard to keep the unity of the church?

2. In the second place the registering of these 32 negative votes also gave me the impression (sad to say) that some of the Synodical delegates wanted to have it clearly understood that they were against this particular Synodical decision. I could hardly believe my eyes and my ears that a number of delegates had their negative vote registered even though according to my observation and knowledge, they had not said one word pro-or con-on the floor of Synod during the long and interesting discussion, or should I say debate. But when the decision was made they certainly wanted to be counted among those who voted against this Synodical action. It seemed as though they wanted to get on the bandwagon, they wanted to be known, no doubt also for the benefit of the large audience present and for the church back home, as those who were really opposed to this particular decision. Indeed, it made me feel sad that such a thing happened at our Synodical meeting. 3. In the third place it is also this large number of registered negative votes which clearly indicates that as churches we are what Rev. Peter De Jong calls in THE OUTLOOK “A divided house.” I am afraid I have to agree with the brother when he writes: “The division on this issue and many others is caused by diverging views of the Bible’s authority.” The writer continues: “An increasing number among us, therefore, feel free to ‘interpret’ away whatever Biblical doctrines, or commandments they do not like as ‘time-conditioned, and would educate’ the church to follow their lead. In this way the difference between those who hold the direct and total authority of Scripture and those who do not must eventually produce disagreement” (THE OUTLOOK, July 1975, pp. 3, 4 ). No, t don‘t like it that way, 1 don‘t like to think that way, but the 32 negative votes are to me a straw in the wind and a bad omen for the future.

Rev. L. Mulder who himself was a delegate to Synod and reported in Calvinist Contact on the “Christian Reformed Synod, 1975,” also refers to the 32 who strongly objected to keeping the “status quo,” and the brother is concerned. Let me quote from his report in Calvinist Contact, July 7, July 14, page 12, the following sentences: “This affair may become a watershed in our denomination; the business of having women in office may be of sufficient weight to cause a split in the church, not just because women are given access to office, but a new principle of interpreting Scripture will then have been introduced and that may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The case of our ladies may prove to be the thin edge of the wedge which opens up a whole panorama of strife and dissension which has been somewhat dormant in recent years in our church.” Here is a further quote from the same article: “I am frankly alarmed and deeply disturbed. In the coming years the Seminary is going to be involved in the question concerning rules of: Biblical interpretation; judging by what was said by some professors during the high level debate, my fears can only be increased that our church is in for rough weather and stormy sailing.” Thus far Rev. L. Mulder.

I come to the close of my article. From the discussion at Synod and, not the least, from these 32 negative votes that were registered it became very plain to me that the subject of “Women in Office” will come up at Synod again. Not only that but I also believe that our church is in for rough weather and a stormy sailing.

Nobody knows what the outcome of all this will be but personally I think it will not take too many years before we as churches also wiJI have women in ecclesiastical offices. Perhaps a Synodical decision toward that effect will state that the matter is optional, that is is up to the local consistories. (This is always an easy way of introducing something new in the churches.) But, no doubt, the time will come and is not far away that our churches will have women in office. Personally I regret to see that day coming. Will the church become more spiritual, will we gain more members, become stronger in our Reformed convictions? I don‘t believe it, I don‘t look for this at all. Judging by the experience of others we, no doubt, will have a more female-constituted church and many men will withdraw into the background.

Finally, don‘t forget: those 32 negative votes registered at our last Synod on thc motion I quoted at the beginning of my article tell us very much about the direction in which our church is going, they tell us about the polarization among us, and they tell us about greater changes soon to come. And we certainly are responsible for the things we do in the church which Christ bought with his own precious blood. We are responsible for the Reformed heritage which the Lord entrusted to us. Will we at all times seek the welfare of His Church, the glory of God’s Name?

May the King of the Church guide us and lead us into all truth. And may we live in the assurance of faith that God will take care of His Church, that Christ will lose none of those given him by the Father.