Should Calvin Seminary be training women to serve in the office of minister of the Word? The Synod of 1985 has stated that the biblical headship principle implies that only male members of the church shall be admitted to the office of minister and elder. If only males shall be admitted to the offices then it would seem to follow logically that only males should be trained for the offices. Why train women for an office which the Bible says they should not hold? Yet that is just what Calvin Seminary is doing.
Let it be said at the outset that there is no Biblical teaching, including the headship principle, that forbids women from receiving theological training. Women’s gifts for use in the church are many and varied and those gifts need to be sharpened and refined through training and education. It is very good that Calvin Seminary has been for many years open to women seeking to prepare themselves academically for service in Christ’s church.
However, there is a vast difference between providing theological training to women and preparing women to occupy the office of minister. At Calvin Seminary there are four degree programs presently available. They are the Master of Divinity program, the Master of Ministry program, the Master of Church Education program, and the Master of Theological Studies program. The first two are described in the catalog as designed for preparing students for the ordained ministry; the first being the ordinary program and the second an alternative for mature Native Americans. The latter two programs are not preparation for ordination but rather provide theological education as a support for various vocational objectives including leadership in the church’s educational ministry.
Most of the students at the Seminary are enrolled in the Master of Divinity (M. Div.) program which is described in the 1985–86 Seminary Catalog as “designed primarily for persons wishing to prepare themselves for the ordained ministry.” Given that stated purpose it seems highly inconsistent of the Seminary to admit women to the program. If women should not hold that office, why use our denominational resources to train them for it. Yet Calvin Seminary has in past years graduated three women from theM. Div. program and this past year had four others enrolled in it. Since Calvin Seminary has other programs available for providing theological education which are open to women, why admit women to the program designed for ordination?
The Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary (BOT) is not unaware of the need to justify women in theM. Div. program. In the BOT minutes dated February 4, 1985, p. 26, the following rationale is given.
a. As an educational institution Calvin Theological Seminary has a mission which is broader then (sic) preparing men for Christian Reformed ministry.
b. Even though the M. Div. degree program is “primarily for persons wishing to prepare themselves for the ordained ministry,” admission and/or graduation from the program does not require that the student will be or intends to be ordained.
In response to the first reason given it may be said that a broader mission is fine (provided synod defines and mandates that broader mission). However that in no way implies or necessitates that women therefore should be trained for the ordained ministry. The other degree programs of the seminary provide ample opportunity for the seminary to have a legitimate broader mission. By limiting the M. Div. program to males the seminary would not be limiting its proper broader mission.
In response to the second reason it may well be asked, “Why not?” Certainly ordination should not be required of all M. Div. graduates since not all of them will prove to be fit for ordination. But is it asking too much to require of all those applying for entrance to the program a declaration of their intent to enter the ordained ministry? Good stewardship of the professors’ time and the denomination’s funds, which heavily underwrite the cost of the M. Div. program, requires that those sponsored in the program give a declaration of intent to fulfill the purpose of the program. What classical student fund would pay for a young man to study for the ministry if that young man had no intention of becoming a minister or was obviously not qualified? But yet the denomination has for several years subsidized the education of a number of female M. Div. students who should not enter the ordained ministry of our church or any other church according to the decision of synod. At least two of the three women who have in the past graduated from the M. Div. program are now ordained ministers in other denominations. If the Board sees as part of its broader mission the training of women ministers for other denominations then their mission has become too broad and is without synodical mandate.
One additional argument which the BOT puts forth in support of its policy to admit women to theM. Div. program is that it does not “solicit, promote, or provide opportunities for exhorting by its women M. Div. students.” However it does promote “public teaching and speaking in places such as rest homes, chapels, retreats, and other such non-official worship settings,” (BOT minutes). This is hardly an impressive argument. The distinction between official worship and non-official worship is not a biblical distinction. It sounds more like pharasaical double talk. (It seems similar to the Pharisees’ distinction between swearing by the temple as opposed to swearing by the gold of the temple; the later being an official or binding oath while, in their view, the former was not. Jesus condemned such attempts to evade responsibility, Matt. 23:16ff.) When Paul says that women should remain silent with respect to teaching and preaching did he mean to make an exception for worship services at military chapels or at rest homes? Does only “official worship” count in God’s sight? No, all worship counts and should be guided by Scripture. The Synods of 1984 and 1985, in stating and applying the biblical headship principle, made no distinction between official and non-official church functions.
Since the BOT’s policy is clearly in violation of the church’s long standing policy of not having women ministers and contrary to the clear implications of the headship principle as explained by recent synods, it is time for the BOT to revise their policy and exclude women from theM. Div. program. If the BOT is not forthcoming with such a change, then it is time for overtures to synod and all other proper means to bring about a policy consistent with Scripture and synodical decisions.
Ralph A. Pontier is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church at Orange City, Iowa.