Heresy in the Marriage Form?

A Heresy Charge

The July 18, 1983 Banner features a special article by Dr. Louis A. Vos, professor of religion and theology at Calvin College, charging that the Christian Reformed churches’ traditional marriage form (which is still permitted and widely used in the churches) teaches “heresy.” One is a little surprised at such a charge appearing in and from quarters where that term is almost never used in our time. (“Heresy-hunting” is usually a reproach reserved for “conservatives.”) What occasions this remarkable charge?

The occasion for it is found in the form’s introduction. in which we call to mind the institution, purpose, and obligations of the marriage state.

The holy bond of marriage was instituted by God Himself at the very dawn of history. Making man in His own likeness, He endowed him with many blessings and gave him dominion over all things. Moreover, God said; It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. Thereupon God created woman of man’s own substance and brought her unto the man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

Now it is observed that the summary in the marriage form quickly proceeds from Genesis 1 which in broad outline tells of the creation ending with that of man created in the image of God (vv. 26ff.) to Genesis 2:18 ff. which speaks of the creation of Eve and institution of marriage.

The paragraph flows from the creation of man in the likeness of God to the creation of woman as a help meet for man and finally to the institutional statement of marriage. This sequence, in which woman is mentioned for the first time in the middle of the paragraph, leaves the impression that she is not included in the opening statements of the paragraph.

This attempted harmonization of Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 likewise leaves the impression that woman was not included in the Genesis 1 statement about likeness (image of God) and dominion (italics mine).

. . . the heresy in this wedding form is that it does not give woman her biblical due. Its very opening and instructive paragraph belittles woman, excluding her from God’s image and from her call and responsibility to exercise dominion over the earth on God’s behalf.

Is this Heresy?

What is a “heresy”? Webster defines it as, in the first place, “religious opinion opposed to the authorized doctrinal standards of any particular church, and tending to promote schism.” The Biblical use of the word appears especially clearly in 2 Peter 1:19–2:2. After the classic statement about the inspiration of the Bible, “that no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation, for no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit,” in conflict with that, we read of “false teachers, who . . . bring in destructive heresies.” Lenski in his commentary on the passage observes that a “heresy” (from the Greek word meaning “to choose”) “means a view, an opinion, a doctrine that one chooses for oneself, thereby separating oneself from the whole body. . . .” The question we now face is whether the old marriage form, as the article alleges, teaches a view that contradicts the teaching of the Bible. Does the old form deny that woman as well as man (“male and female,” Gen. 1:27) was created in the image of God? Even the article does not claim that much . It only charges that by proceeding from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 it “leaves the impression that she is not included. In other words, in the charge of “heresy” the fact that the form does not explicitly state this is stretched into implying that it denies it! Has anyone in our circles ever claimed, on the basis of the wedding form, or otherwise, that women were not made “in the image of God”?

But is this failure of the old form to state explicitly that women as well as men were made in the “image of God,” if not amounting to a “heresy,” at least a weakness in it? That all depends on what the form is intended to do. Its aim was not to give a general survey of the doctrine of the “image of God,” but to briefly “call to mind the institution, purpose, and obligations of the marriage state.” That is much more fully developed in the details of Genesis 2 which speaks of Eve being created later and brought to Adam than in the summary statements of Genesis 1, and the form therefore proceeds at once from the first to the second chapter.

The writer admits that he had never thought of this sequence of the old form as a heresy until “male/female relationships in this current age—and the ongoing discussions of these relationships—have sensitized our reading of Scripture, helping us to see more clearly beyond the insights of the past to the Word of God for the present.” It is plain that what is at most a weakness imbalance or excessive abbreviation (usually not considered a fault in our time) has only become a “heresy” when viewed from the perspective of the current women’s liberation movement.

Today’s Real Heresy

We note that the article finds fault with the old form for its “attempt to harmonize the Genesis 1 creation account with that of Genesis 2.” Someone might ask “What’s wrong with that?” “Don’t we always have to understand any statement in the light of its context?” “Hasn’t it always been especially a principle of Reformed interpretation that we must use Scripture to interpret Scripture?” The writer does not explain his criticism. But we should observe that today the common-sense principle that we do not expect a man to contradict himself, and the Reformed principle that we do not approach the Bible expecting God to contradict Himself often have to give way to the “scholarly,” higher critical approach that seeks to find or create contradictions everywhere in the Bible. On that principle Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are taken to be two contradictory accounts. Pursuing it, one may take Genesis 1 which speaks of woman (as well as man) as created” in the image of God” “to have dominion,” as Divine revelation, but criticize or discard Genesis 2 (and with it Paul’s citation of that account in 1 Tim. 2:13, “For Adam was first formed then Eve”) as reflecting antiquated “cultural conditioning.”

After condemning the old marriage form as heresy the article recommends the new form adopted by the 1979 synod as reflecting the new and better insights of our time, (while deploring that the old one is still tolerated). That new form plainly does reflect prejudices of the current women’s liberation movement. As presented in 1977, alt hough it contained a loose allusion to Ephesians 5, it had carefully eliminated the offensive “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (v. 22; Acts 1971, p. 407–8). Although after criticism from the churches, this note of “subjection” was introduced in the form as revised in 1979 (Acts, p. 368) in the explanation, the new form continued to be so intimidated by the woman’s liberation movement that the vows to be made by bride and groom acknowledge no distinction whatever between the role of man and woman! Could any prejudice be more ridiculous (let alone heretical) than the one that currently would allow us to recognize no distinction between the sexes even in their marriage vows? Victorian prudishness was never carried to such lengths as this!

Some who follow the current feminist heresy (for it is a heresy when it opposes the Divinely created and revealed difference between the sexes) a bit more conSistently, such as our old mother churches in the Netherlands, now condone homosexual relationships as well as homosexual “marriages.” Others some in the National Council of Churches, still more consistently, are rewriting the Bible to delete from it all “sexist” language. In such a version even the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father,” would have to go. Some even more consistently, frankly detest the hopeless!; “chauvinistic” religion of Christianity.* C.S. Lewis in his essay on Priestesses in the Church” (God in the Dock, p. 238) aptly pointed out that m dealing with this drive to place women in office in the church we are not dealing with a question about their competence, but with a different kind of religion, one which exchanges divine revelation for the old paganism.

The charge being made is that our tractional wedding form teaches “heresy,” a self-chosen opinion held in opposition to God’s Word. The old form, whatever its weaknesses, does no such thing. While we may not be able to say or have to determine just how far the adherents of the current women’s liberation movement among us follow that movement, it becomes increasingly obvious that movement wherever it comes into conflict with God’s Word, reveals its hostility. No movement in today’s church world is demonstrating itself to be more obviously destructive to the unity and morale of our churches than this current feminist heresy. Are we going to have our opinions and practice determined by it or by God’s Word? PDJ

*In this connection, it is interesting to observe a little news item in the June, 1983 Dutch magazine Getrouw that German Theologian Dr. Dorothee Soffe, despite protest from within Germany because she denies the Diety of Christ, is being welcomed as a participant at the Vancouver World Council ofChurches assembly as “representative of the feminist theology.”

  Church Assemblies

At this time of the year many of our readers may be interested in a few developments in various denominations of our traditionally Reformed family of churches whose assemblies meet in summer.

Reformed Church in America

An especially conspicuous decision of the RCA’s June General Synod was a stronger stand against abortion then any this body had previously taken. The action was taken against a rather strong effort to avert it by delaying tactics.

A comparable move by conservatives against the denomination’s involvement in the World and National Councils of Churches was less successful. Those councils, as our readers know, have been getting a lot of adverse publicity because of their support and funding of communist guerrilla organizations. Eight of the denomination’s forty-four classes had submitted overtures asking that membership in one or both councils be dropped. These efforts were defeated by over two-to-one majorities. Dr. Arie Brouwer who has been general secretary of the denomination is becoming deputy general secretary of the World Council of Churches. The denomination is also to look into joining the National Association of Evangelicals, despite that body’s opposition to the other two councils.

A Philadelphia congregation, desiring to leave the denomination to join the new Presbyterian Church in America had its request denied.

Big Presbyterian Churches Merge

The (northern) United Presbyterian Church USA and the (southern) Presbyterian Church US officially merged in an atmosphere of celebration at their assembly meeting in Atlanta, after 122 years of separation first caused by the Civil War. The 890,000 member southern body is now absorbed by the 2.3 million member northern denomination to form a total of about 3.2 million members. Despite this imposing number, the Presbyterian Journal editor observed that “the new denomination is steadily losing members—the total now, after merger, is fewer members than the UPCUSA alone reported 15 years ago.” Although the assembly left incomplete many important decisions about the shape of the new organization, a clear indication of its (Liberal) temper was given by its early resounding support of abortion on demand and specifically of the U.S. Supreme Court’s actions in defending it.

Presbyterian Church in America

The decade-old Presbyterian Church in America continues to experience growing pains as it seeks to recover a consciously Reformed church organization. From bitter experience many of its people had come to know the evils of denominations becoming heirarchical bureaucracies and to feel keenly the need to forestall such developments. At its general assemblies there has been opportunity for each congregation to be directly represented. The growth of the denomination to 805 congregations has accordingly produced some very large, expensive and unwieldy assemblies. The 11th such assembly, at Norfolk, Virginia, considered but rejected a recommendation to change to a delegated or representative arrangement which would result in a smaller and more deliberative body. Reacting against the all too . common tendency of churches toward hierarchical clergy-control, the PCA has also sought to recognize and enlarge the role of elders (who were not ordained ministers). W. Jack Williamson, who was the first moderator of the PCA, observed that “We’ve watched the role of ruling elders continue to decline as our Assemblies have grown. In this Assembly there are fewer than 300 elders registered and more than 700 ministers.” Rev. George Knight, according to the Presbyterian Journal report, observed that a delegated assembly would be the only way to preserve equality between the ministers and elders. The PCA assembly renewed its invitation to the Orthodox Presbyterians to join it.

Orthodox Presbyterians

The Orthodox Presbyterians at their 50th General Assembly in Philadelphia faced among other matters a proposal from their Foreign Missions Committee to allow a joint missionary effort with the Christian Reformed Church in the Middle East. Rev. Victor Atallah, an OPC missionary, is already partially employed by the CRC’s Back-to-God Hour for radio follow-up work among Arabic-speaking people. Several commissioners opposed a more extensive joint mission venture, expressing their apprehensions about doctrinal laxity in various areas of the CRC. A decision on this controversial matter was avoided when word arrived that CRC missions representatives had cancelled the proposal.

Missouri Lutherans

Christian News reported that “Conservatives made almost a complete sweep of elections” at the Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod held in St. Louis early in July, electing almost every nominee listed in their election guide. “The convention reaffirmed a conservative stand in almost every area of doctrine.” Since the conflict in that denomination a few years ago in which the conservatives gained the upper hand, many of the most outspoken liberals have left it to form another denomination, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. That (liberal) organization is now about to become part of a larger New Lutheran Church formed by a merger of the liberal Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church expected to be completed by 1988.

World Council of Churches

Much attention is being focussed on the Sixth World Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Vancouver B.C. July 24 to August 10. Although some are claiming that this body is “becoming more conservative both religiously and politically,” Dr. M.M. Reynolds is quoted in the July 18 Christian News as calling attention to official evidence that “exactly the opposite is true” Despite the Council Assembly’s theme, “Jesus Christ, the Life of the World,” its book, The Feast of Life, prepared for the assembly (pp. 8, 9) states “From a Christian theological point of view it would be said that the Word of God is not confined to the church of Christ, but the Holy Spirit is active everywhere. The resonances of the Word are to be heard throughout the whole of creation, and across the wide spectrum of faith. In this growing encounter and mutual discovery between Christians and peoples of other faiths may be discerned again the first shoots of a springtime from God. If the future of the world lies in coming together, then women and men of faith should somehow lead the way. This is the context and the challenge of the Vancouver theme. It does not proclaim an exclusive Christ to the world, but states what Christians can offer in the human search for God’s presence and purposes for the world.”

In the program for the assembly various religions will be honored by featuring native Indian dances and presentations by a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Jew. Dr. Reynolds commented further that “Those who have carefully followed the World Council’s theological statements and positions since its inception in 1948 know that it has become more radical, not more conservative. It is true that conservative, evangelical language is often found in various documents and reports but this is only ‘window dressing’ to deceive the uninformed.” “Bible words like redemption, salvation and peace have been stolen from their spiritual settings and given secular, political connotations.” “Every indication is that the World Council of Churches-the entire ecumenical movement is preparing the way for the actualization of the harlot church of the anti-christ.”

As we take notice of these church developments around us, we may profitably bear in mind the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV, Of the Church, section V).

The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error ; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall always be a church on earth to worship God according to his will. PDJ