Shirking Men Incite Officious Women

Arthur Besteman

Recently I visited with two young men who are completing their first year of service as officebearers in the Christian Reformed Church. The one is serving as a member of the consistory of a large, suburban church, the other holds office in an average size rural congregation. Both expressed surprise at the difficulty experienced in their churches in securing a sufficient number of men who were willing to be considered for service in the consistory. One of the men who was involved in our conversation said, “I never knew so many men in our church were afflicted with ‘busyness.’” The other readily agreed that the same malady was present in his congregation.

As I was reflecting upon my visit with these young consistory members I learned about the experience of one of the largest congregations in our denomination. The consistory of this particular church had sent out eight letters informing men of the congregation that they were being placed on nomination for the office of elder. All eight recipients of these letters declined the nomination for one reason or other.

It seems that many other churches are having the same or similar experiences as they seek to make nominations to present to their congregations. This situation should not only cause surprise but concern.

I can recall when the issue of women in office arose in a closely related denomination with which we have ecclesiastical fellowship. Those who favored permitting women to serve in the offices of the church argued both in writing and on the floor of the ecclesiastical assemblies dealing with the issue that the churches in a certain geographical area of the denomination needed women to serve in the offices of the church because there were not enough men available or willing to be placed on nomination.

Now we seem to be confronted with a similar situation. Are men unwilling to serve because the glory of the office has been tarnished or dimmed? Are so many claiming “busyness” as an excuse because of a confusion of priorities and an excessive absorption with “laying up treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy”?

It is possible that some men who have asked to be excused from service in the consistory but who are vigorously opposed to women in office will read this brief viewpoint. Have you ever considered that by your unwillingness to be nominated for service in the consistory you may be playing into the hands of those who are working so zealously for the opening of offices in the Christian Reformed Church to women? By your refusal to serve you may be providing basis for the argument that women are needed to serve in the offices because men are not available. Do you want to be responsible for that?

The denomination to which reference was made earlier has now opened all three offices in the church to women . Such is the inevitable result and will be the situation in our denomination also if any of the offices are once opened to women. If the teaching of Scripture can be declared to the “local, cultural and therefore temporal” in regard to any one of the offices, why not to all three?

There are those within the church today who are seeking to explain away the clear teaching of Scripture and to ignore the guidance which the Holy Spirit has given to the church throughout the past centuries in order that they may achieve their goal of seeing the offices in the church opened to women. We who take seriously the Word and are committed to the preservation of our Reformed heritage ought not to contribute to their campaign in any way. If a notification of placement on nomination for office comes to you this year look upon it as a call from God. If you must ask to be excused make sure that your reason for declining has first received approbation from the Lord.

Men, remember, “It is a trustworthy statement; if any man aspires to the office of overseer (elder) it is a fine work he desires to do” (I Tim. 3:1).

Seminarians on Women in Office

Our readers will be interested in reports that a number of seminary students have been expressing opposition to the rather pervasive pressure toward ordaining women to church offices. One. of them, R. Lankheet, consented to provide an article for our February Outlook. A number of others have been writing in a similar vein in the student publication Kerux. One of them, Tom Reilly from Portland, Oregon, has written repeatedly about this matter.

In one of his articles he cited the text that is usually advanced by those who advocate removing all sex qualifications for holding office, Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Of this he observes that if “Paul meant. ..as pro-office people say he did, that women are hereafter not just equal with respect to salvation standing to men , but that they are equal with respect to roles as well , we would expect to see applications of this . . . principle drawn in his subsequent writings.” The fact is that “Paul doesn’t seem to draw out the same kind of applications from the principles he establishes that many of the pro-office people draw” from them. In other words these people are trying to make Paul’s stated principle say things that are different from and even contradict the conclusions Paul drew.

In another article he faced the argument that “the church is going to look . . . ridiculous in the rest of society if it remains the only institution that is ‘male dominated.’ People who are used to seeing women in executive positions, in university classrooms, and in legislative bodies, are going to be put off by any institution such as the church which is still shackling its women to the pew and nursery cribs. In a liberated society, the church will find itself in the awkward position of proclaiming a liberating gospel to a liberated world from an unliberated pulpit.”

His response is, “first, if this is to be the rationale for allowing women to teach authoritatively, why should not this same rationale be applied to the home?” “In the home, too, men should then refrain from exercising headship because of its potentially offensive nature. The same people who are . . . so put off by the church as a ‘male dominated’ institution are going to be equally put off by male domination in the home.” Accordingly, “either we will be convinced of the legitimacy of this rationale and so get rid of male domination in both the church and the home, or we will remain unconvinced . . . and stand fast in our present position, maintaining males as authoritative teachers in the church and heads of the home.” He defends the latter alternative, arguing, “why are we assuming that it’s a bad thing for society to be put off with the structure of the church? . . . Our culture is put off by many other things . . . . For example, we don’t allow our children the right to make up their own minds regarding religion, but we bring them up in the fear of the Lord. Should we also change things such as these?”

Another student, Bill Green, expressed his disappointment with the January 24 meeting of the Committee for Women of the Christian Reformed Church. He saw those who disagree with their position categorized as “racists, sexists and prejudiced.” The meeting was “geared toward how prejudiced behavior and attitudes could be shaped to conform to their desires, not how a proper understanding of Scripture could be furthered.” He raised the question, prompted by observing the meeting, whether “this group will shape the church regardless of what conscientious Bible readers feel?” “We seem,” says the committee, “to be so shaped by our experiences, that any clear word from God is not too readily available. I’m sure they haven’t thought out the implications of what a consistent application of such an elevation of experience would do to the gospel, but I can not sway with the specter of the open arms of contentless modern theology.” He asks whether experience “is a clearer word than Scripture? What happened to the old doctrines called ‘the sufficiency of Scripture’ and ‘the perspicuity of Scripture?’” He found himself interested and amused at being classed “with the aged, the uneducated, and those coming from uneducated parents.” Actually, the statistics recently taken of our church were interesting, showing that the more education one has the more open he/she is to women in church office. The problem is, a situation does not prove a principle . . . . In my exposure to both college educated and uneducated I have not found a very significantly greater ability to exegete the Bible . . . by college students than non-college students. We are living in a church which is rapidly losing an ability to read the Bible . . . . both college educated and uneducated alike are susceptible to the forthcoming behavior modification techniques and this is disheartening.” PDJ

 

Feminist Politicking

J. Tuininga

The self-styled Committee for Women in the CRC is expanding its base of operations. It has now entered Canada too, and, comparatively speaking, it is likely to find more support here than south of the border.

A bulletin announcement states that the group was to meet in order to “discuss” the role of women in the church. That is misleading. They have already decided what that role is: that of the special offices in the church. The only thing there is to “discuss” is how they can achieve their goal.

The Synod of 1975 decided that unless compelling biblical grounds were advanced for admitting women to the special offices in the church, the present practice of the church would be maintained. Those compelling biblical grounds are still very much wanting today. That becomes evident when one reads the arguments used by the above-named group of women. In a report describing a meeting of some of these women in Calgary, one reads: “Lillian Grissen, an associate editor of The Banner, quoted Galatians 3:28.” Another speaker said that “Christian feminism is a restoration of Jesus’ teaching.” What is more, “Paul considered some women his equals within the church, having referred to Priscilla and Aquila as ‘my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.’”

What we have here is simply a rehash of the old, worn out “standbys,” none of which holds a drop of water. Paul’s clear statements in I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 are ignored; they are too hard to handle. Better to raise a few red flags like “equality” which will stir up some emotions among those who are not discerning.

It is to be hoped that many church members will see through this camouflage. Galatians 3:28 has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as a quick glance at the context will make clear. And “feminism” (of all types) is no more biblical than is male chauvinism. Finally, of course men and women are equal before God, but that has nothing to do with the modern notion of egalitarianism. Equality does not mean sameness oft ask or identity or roles. When will these women ever learn these elementary lessons?

 

Peter De Jong

When we, a few years ago objected to the Dr. Allan Verhey’s critical treatment of the Bible, the synod minimized the matter as only concerning a few details although he insisted that he applied his method also to the resurrection (Acts 1979, p. 656). We also pointed out that his doctoral thesis, on The Use of Scripture in Moral Discourse although acknowledging the Bible as authoritative maintained that it could not be applied to present-day moral problems without the use of additional “warrants” among which were congeniality to the modern mind and, most importantly, one’s own experience.* The synods saw fit to ignore this as irrelevant.

Dr. Verhey’s doctoral thesis was done for Yale University under Professor David H. Kelsey and generally follows Kelsey’s dealing with these matters in his book The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology. Whereas Verhey deals with two theologians, Kelsey deals with six of them ranging from the famous conservative , B.B. Warfield, to the extreme liberal, Paul Tillich , to discover how each uses the Bible as “authority.” Not surprisingly, he finds little similarity between them and concludes that the basic “warrant” deciding how and when one should use the Bible in a particular problem is one’s own “inspired imagination.” At one point in his discussion (p. 173) Kelsey mentions a “danger” involved in the “culturally conditioned character of Christian theology” that the theological beliefs “may turn out to be merely restatements of what is already imagined in the culture quite apart from Christianity’s central reality.” In other words, one might believe the same thing without the Bible or Christianity! This is not a major conclusion, but only a passing observation of Kelsey.

If we tum to the book of H. Kuitert, the notoriously liberal Dutch Reformed theologian, The Necessity ofFaith, we find him writing that “Christianity has no specific norms and values of its own” but that it, like other religions, approves and adopts those of the surrounding society (pp. 91, 92). When one considers what has been happening in our old mother churches, one may have to acknowledge that Kuitert’s observation seems to be a fairly accurate description of the current state of affairs in those churches, churches which now welcome those who engage in homosexual practices , refuse to criticize those who engage in extramarital sex relations, and even tolerate the continued teaching and preaching of heresies such as those which Kuitert holds and promotes. The Dec. 7, 1983 RES News Exchange called attention to a recent Dutch book by Rothuizen entitled Een Bezige Bij (A Busy Bee), subtitled, De Gereformeerde Zede Bestaat Niet Meer (Reformed Morality No Longer Exists). The report states that the book “details many of the profound changes from what used to be the Calvinist life style. According to Rothuizen, these changes are so radical that one can hardly speak any more of a specifically Reformed life style. The viewpoints and do’s and don’ts of yesterday have given way to altogether different convictions and types of behavior today.”

This state of affairs characterizes people and churches that are betraying the gospel of Christ, which our Lord describes as “salt” that has “lost its savor,” and is therefore “good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13). The genuine church is always enjoined by the Word of its Lord to ‘“be not conformed to this world; but be . . . transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2). Believing obedience to the Lord’s Word is Christian morality; the modern critical treatment of His Word destroys it. PDJ

*Note that this is not to charge Dr. Verhey with holding all of the views of Kuitert; His writings have reflected some of the restraints of Christian traditions, but the principle he develops in his thesis, making experience and the modern mind the “warrants” which determine whether or not anything in the Bible is to be applied to today’s problems parallels that of Kuitert who said, “Surely we do not ascribe credibility to the biblical proclamation simply because the Bible says it, but rather because we have listened to the content of that proclamation (and) because we have experienced it as the Word of God. Something is not firmly fixed simply because it says so in the Bible, and therefore it does not come to be at loose screws if you say: that we can no longer go along with. I’d like to use the synod of the Gerefofmeerde Kerken which admitted the woman (ecclesiastical) office as an example. No matter how you twist or tum, in the New Testament admitting women to office is not only unthinkable, it is expressly rejected in a number of epistles. When a synod nevertheless does admit the woman to office, does it put the Gospel in an insecure position? I wouldn’t know why. Unless one anchors such a faith in a certain view of the Bible” (Outlook, Dec. 1975, p. 20). It becomes increasingly obvious that the critical treatment of the Bible, by removing it as our standard of morality eventually brings the total destruction of Christian morals.

 

Has the Lord’s Command Changed?

Ring Star

In The Banner of January 23, 1984, an article appeared entitled “Relationships in Christ” by Alvin Hoksbergen, the subject matter of which is largely based upon Ephesians 5:21–6:9, and concerns itself primarily with family headship. As I understand it there are two basic flaws in the author’s argumentation.

I. The conclusion the author reaches largely depends on his understanding of the position of vs. 21. He believes that it belongs to what follows and constitutes an introduction to it, thereby determining its true meaning. Consequently the verse does not belong to the foregoing. The author arrives at this conclusion in two ways. First, he says the verse is an interpersonal thought, and the foregoing is not. But this is hardly correct. In previous verses Paul points out several sins in interpersonal relationships, such as anger, theft, indecent speech, sexual immorality and he exhorts to kindness, and compassion, and to be imitators of God in the exercise of love.

All the above apply to interpersonal relationships. When Paul warns against grieving the Holy Spirit, drunkenness, debauchery, and giving place to the Devil—these also are often committed in interpersonal relationships. Accordingly, the verse we are considering, which reads: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” could constitute a suitable ending to all the exhortations that have gone before. This verse is a general precept for moral conduct pertaining to all Christians alike, and demands that every Christian hold all fellow Christians in the high esteem of which the redemptive work of Christ has made them worthy. To do this means an attitude of submissiveness to the Christian character that has been produced in the life of every Christian by the faithful observance of the exhortations that have gone before.

The author also makes a point of what he judges is a grave mistake in the way the New International Version has handled Ephesians 5:21. He calls it a “skittish” piece of work when the translators put the verse into an independent paragraph with no connection with what goes before or after it. (By the way, Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary gives this definition of the word “skittish;” 1. Easily frightened, as a horse; hence shy; timid. 2. Capricious; uncertain; unreliable. 3. Tricky; (deceitful.) Considering that over one hundred scholars in the art of Bible translation labored to do a thorough job of translating the Scriptures, we can hardly imagine such an organization stooping to do skittish work, even giving the word skittish its most charitable definition.

Over the section Ephesians 4:17–5:21 the translators have placed the title: living as Children of light. (This section contains the exhortation referred to in the beginning of this article.) It is divided into nine paragraphs of which v. 21 (the verse in question) is the last. That verse is understood to stand in the context of what goes before. Far from being irresponsible the translators have given it careful consideration.

Considering the context, I believe the author loses the support verse 21 furnished him as a basis for his reasoning.

II. There is a second basic flaw in his argument. According to the author when Paul says: “Wives, submit to your husbands,” that must be done as showing obedience to the Lord, but is not a lasting requirement. The author writes “Why does he (Paul) speak that way? Because submission was the only recourse for women . . . in that day. Society demanded it.” What Paul says is valid only as long as society demands this. Should the days come that society demands a different order of relationship between husband and wife, Paul’s precept no longer holds.

Today, the author continues, there is a shift in society in the direction of giving more authority to women, affecting also the marriage bond. This shift should be seriously faced as possibly ushering in an exciting new era already envisioned by verse 21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (See exposition above), thus putting into effect a beautiful new relationship between husband and wife.

Notice that all this depends on what society dictates. At best, Scripture enters in by making a precept of what society demands. In the final analyses society does not depend on what Scripture says but Scripture depends on what society demands.

But what does Scripture say? Read Ephesians 5:22–24: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” The author says about this Scripture: “Paul speaks that way because . . . society demanded it.” And he goes on to say that in reality the mandate has no Divine command accompanying it as in the case of the order to children to obey their parents.

As to the first, Paul is not under compulsion of a social demand, but has been given a pattern by his Master which is the relationship between the church and Christ who bought her at the price of everything the cross stands for. And that relationship is as unchangeable as the price that was paid for it. Consequently the husband/wife relationship is as unchangeable as the pattern it must follow.

Secondly, this precept of Paul pertaining to the marriage bond is as much a Divine demand as that commanding children to obey their parents.

 

G. Aiken Taylor, 1920–1984

On March 6, at the age of 64, only 5 months after assuming the presidency of Biblical Theological Seminary, Dr. G. Aiken Taylor who was for 24 year s the editor of The Presbyterian Journal died from an apparent heart attack. In the March 21 Journal, the current interim editor Joel Belz reflects on his significant career. (Born and reared in Brazil by missionary parents, theologically trained at Columbia Theological Seminary, and with a PH.D. degree from Duke University.) Dr. Taylor became the Journal editor in 1959. Unlike his predecessors, Dr. Nelson Bell (father-in-law to Billy Graham) and Dr. Dendy, who had sought the purifying of the Southern Presbyterian Church rather than secession, Dr. Taylor, supported by a growing majority of the Journal board, came to see and explain week by week, why a new church was necessary and what its character should be. He thus had an influential part in the 1973 founding and growth of the Presbyterian Church in America, and also, with a vision wider than his own denomination, an indispensible role in the beginning of the National Presbyterian and Reformed Fellowship and in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. Thus the Lord has abruptly taken from our Reformed and Presbyterian family one of our most influential leaders. Let’s thank the Lord for what he was used to accomplish.

The January/February Southern Baptist Journal notes that the ordination of women is now one of the biggest problems facing the Southern Baptist Convention. It is causing serious division among these conservative Baptists. (March 19, 1984 Christian News).