I don’t know Nick Overduin. I understand that he is a student of theology at Calvin Seminary. I understand also that he might not be “a regular student” (a Christian Reformed male member aspiring to serve in the ministry of the Christian Reformed Church).

Whatever and whoever Mr. Overduin is, he does write editorials for KERUX, the student paper of the Seminary. Recently he editorialized in connection with something that relates to OUTLOOK and its publisher, Reformed Fellowship.

The editorial is incredibly shocking, even for some of us who have seen more than we care to remember in the past years. But it has one virtue and that is candor or frankness. Overduin tells us exactly where he stands on the issue of the admissibility of women to ecclesiastical office. Everyone in the Christian Reformed Church is not quite as fearless and open as he is in the Nov. 10, 1980 issue (p. 11).

Before you read this editorial as reproduced here let me urge to give it careful consideration. In my candid opinion failure to understand the editor of KERUX will prevent us from understanding what is really at stake in this entire controversy.

I realize, of course, that not everyone in favor of admitting women to one or more of the holy offices (minister, elder, deacon, Art. 2, Church Order) will agree with this student editorial. Perhaps very few will admit that much.

But principles move under their own impulse and momentum, and so I think that it will be wise for us to realize just how a person who dares to think radically (not the same as careless, reckless or extreme) sees the issue. I think that the logic of Overduin’s position is obvious. Let me add right here lest I be misunderstood, I think also that he is dead wrong!

With gratitude, how ever, for the lucidity of his presentation, I’d like you to read his contribution, which follows now:

EDITORIAL

In his booklet “A Decade of Unrest: The Issue of Women In Office in the CRC,”—distributed to all Calvin Seminarians—Paul Ingeneri argues that the Bible is against the idea of “women in office.”

More importantly, however, he argues that what is at stake in the debate is not just the issue of women in office, but the deeper issue of Scripture’s authority.

My personal response to Ingeneri is that, although I disagree with his stance on women in office, I agree that the question of scriptural authority is the deeper issue. In fact, I don’t think the church in general, including the CRC, will make much progress on the “women question” until it faces head-on the “scripture question.”

Let me ask it this way: If the biblical evidence could be conclusively shown to be either pro or contra women in office, would you consider such evidence to be authoritative or merely an interesting exegetical observation?

My own position goes like this: If it is decisively established that Paul (for example) is in favor of women in office, I would consider such a study to be an interesting investigation of Pauline thought. If the opposite was deemed proven—again, I would view it as a specialist’s thought-provocative examination of some features of ancient thought.

I have frankly to admit that my own hopes for women in office are based more on Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex and Betty Friedan‘s The Feminine Mystique than they are based on the Bible. I feel downright hypocritical when I start dragging the Bible into the fray. I have to overstrain myself to find biblical evidence in support of my position. Not that such evidence does not exist; perhaps it does. But that no longer interests me. I reason that the Church has also had to contradict some very explicit biblical givens when it finally became anti-slavery, even though one can call the Bible to one’s aid when taking this anti-slavery position. One could argue that the spirit of the Bible favors women in office, even if the letter does not. But that leads to a lot of sophistication, rightly resented by the position Ingeneri represents.

Why not, then, be honest? Ingeneri has been honest to people like me; I know exactly where he stands. He does not piddle–paddle and disguise the central question, which is, as he rightly observes, the authority of Scripture. So I will also let him know where I stand, which is as follows: Whether his exegesis is right or wrong, . . . I believe that the issue of women in office is a social, economic, political, psychological issue, not an exegetical one.

An exegesis favoring my position means as little to me as one that goes contra.

Nick Overduin

As a courtesy to Editor Overduin THE OUTLOOK reprints his article with the deletion of a couple of expressions which he regretted, and we print also the exchange of opinion which followed in the December 12 KER UX in which he defines his position even more clearly, and further substantiates Rev. J. Piersma’s comment.

Editor

John H. Piersma is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Sioux Center, Iowa.

Editorial Response

A few weeks ago our editor drew into question the authority of Scripture with respect to Paul Ingeneri’s booklet on women in office. At first I was angered by the editorial, but knowing Nick somewhat, I later realized he could not have meant what the article conveyed. The onus is on him to clarify his statement.

My problem is that if he is calling into question the authority of Scripture regarding our culture, then the CRC’s future is in jeopardy should it be influenced by such leadership. It seems to me that according to the article, he opts for social science progression and American cultural movements above the power of the Word.

True, the culture does change, and we must recognize the sitz-im-leben of the Biblical authors, but that does not detract from the fact that there are Biblical norms for every area of life. These we must detect and apply. Thus the discussion of the women’s role in the church today must carry on.

Now an example used was that the Bible reflects also on the master/slave relationship, but that it does not approve in itself of slavery. Given a culture in which slavery exists, the Bible speaks out. How the analogy applies to women is beyond me. Is Nick saying that women no longer exist in our culture?

Given a culture in which women exist, the Bible speaks out, giving certain norms as to their relationship with God and fellow man. Our duty is to continue to discover this norm.

Let Biblical authority continue to rule our thoughts. Let us not be overly influenced by certain secular movements making humanistic progress. But in all things let us seek together, as is so crucial to the Reformed faith, the norms as revealed to us in God’s Holy Word.

Henry De Vries

A reply to Henry De Vries

Thank-you, Henry for giving me this chance to clarify my editorial. The tone of your article is quite kind, something I don’t think I deserved after writing in such a harsh style myself.

I would like to begin by clarifying my slavery analogy. I took it like this: The Bible says, “Slaves, obey your masters.” It seemed to me that the church necessarily contradicted that statement. There was and is no way to exegete it out of existence. This does not mean, however, that the Church has no Biblical basis for taking an anti-slavery approach. The Church could, and rightly did, appeal to texts like, “In Christ there is neither bond nor free.” Nevertheless, I thought, that earlier text still stands there. To some degree the Church is therefore “contradicting the Bible.” That, at least, is what I was thinking.

I took the slaver y issue as analogous for the following reason: The Bible says, “women should keep silence in the churches.” I see no exegetical way to get around that. I just don’t see how we can have women in office and not be contradicting the above Bible statement. (In fact, I think we still have to justify having female Sunday School teachers.) This does not mean, however, that the Church would be entirely anti–Biblical in ordaining women. The Church can appeal to texts like that in Joel: “Your sons and daughters shall prophesy.” Nevertheless, even if it does appeal to texts like that, it would still seem to be that the Bible is, in some sense, being contradicted. The plain language of Scripture, so far as I can see, simply does not allow for women in office.

Having elaborated on my analogy, I would now like to clarify the question why I wrote the things I did. My one, sole purpose was to engender honesty. I made it clear, first of all, that I was in favor of women in office. (As an aside, I would like to say here that the unity of the church is, however, for me, much more important than whether someone with a dress on ever makes it to the pulpit and that I fully submit to Synod. We should always move as unanimously as possible.) Secondly, still for the sake of honesty, I admitted that I feel hypocritical when I start basing my pro-“women in office” ideas on the Bible. When I do that I feel like I am “pretending” to be exegetical. Thirdly, I indicated that I appreciate the honesty of Paul lngeneri.

I can elaborate on this third point. I respect people who are against women in office and who base their position on the Bible. I also respect people who are in favor of women in office and who do not base their position on the Bible. But I am beginning (and only beginning) to lose my respect for people who, while favoring women in office, only seem to be basing their position on the Bible, people who actually have ulterior motives and who foist a whole lot of complicated exegesis on to the simple believer till eventually the simple believer starts wondering what is going on, because, after all, the plain text still says that women should not speak up in church. What exegesis can possibly get around that? If we are basing our position on the Bible, why is the question of women in office even an issue among us?

My concern, to put it in other words, is the communicative process. It seems to me that tempers flare in this issue primarily because we are not being honest in the communicative process.

I can give an example of what I mean by “honesty in the communicative process” as follows: Suppose person A says he is against women in office and quotes I Cor. 14:34 – “The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.” Person B then responds (usually, in my experience, without admitting that he is in favor of women in office) by saying something like this: “Many scholars agree that this verse was quite likely not written by Paul. The language of ‘as even the law says’ is very non-Pauline . . . etc.” Now Person B, in my opinion, is being very, very unfair in the communicative process (regardless of whether he is right or wrong, which I frankly don’t know). Person B is coming at Person A with a whole set of assumptions and indeed, with a different view of Scripture concerning which he is not being honest, up-front, clear. Therefore tempers flare. Person A rightly suspects that something fishy is going on, and if he is anything like me he resents it.

With this example I do not mean to imply that everyone who uses Biblical arguments in favor of women in office is therefore being deceitful. Perhaps everybody is quite sincere in this (some would point to the Appendix of Olthuis‘ book on Troth as an example of a sincere attempt to find a Biblical basis for women in office). I am only saying that I, myself, I feel hypocritical when doing so; I think the Bible is against women in office.

Let me conclude by saying that I believe that the Bible is totally authoritative and completely reliable for the salvation of humanity. I am sorry for leaving my editorial so open-ended and I apologize for my dogmatic manner. I am not sure how authoritative the Bible is on various cultural issues, but I wish always to submit to the Church’s judgment on such matters, also in its interpretation of the Biblical data.

Nick Overduin

Let me repeat what OUTLOOK has been saying all along: the great issue here and elsewhere in the Christian Reformed Church is the nature and integrity of its view of Scripture as the infallible inspired Word of God.

J.H.P.

Editor’s Comment:

Regarding the Bible’s teaching about slavery it ought to be observed that the Bible did not command it. The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7:20–24 suggested that if a slave could gain his freedom he avail himself of that opportunity. What he stressed is the fact that an appreciation of ones divine calling (“vocation”) minimizes instead of exaggerating the importance of differences in social and economic status. That lesson, instead of being dismissed as culturally outdated, is as desperately needed now as it was then. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 6:1ff. he had to warn Christian slaves not to misuse their freedom and equality as Christians as an excuse for dodging their responsibility in the social order and destroying the fabric of society. That teaching too is badly needed in our time when some Christians misapply Christian teaching to defend and promote anarchy and lawlessness.

Furthermore, it ought to be observed that “always to submit to the Church’s judgment” and maintain the unity of the church are not principles that may take precedence over being faithful and obedient to the Bible. To maintain that they are is to return to Roman Catholicism and to lose the Biblical principle recognized and restated in the Reformation that the Word of God, not the Church, is our infallible guide. Church decisions are valid only as long as they conform to the Word of God (“settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God” is the language of our Church Order.) The unity of the church, for which the Lord prayed, was to be found only in “sanctifying” obedience to His Word (John 17, esp. v. 17). A church which no longer bases its faith and practice on the Bible has no valid authority to say anything. When we no longer get our guidance from God’s Word we sooner or later just fall into line and conform to our increasingly pagan society.

P.D.J.