“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .” (Acts 15:28). With these words the apostles and elders who gathered at Jerusalem for the first general assembly or synod of the Christian church characterized the decisions they had reached. What the conferees at Jerusalem were saying was that the decisions they had made were pleasing to God.

These words used by the apostles and elders (we’ll call them the Jerusalem formula) have often been used at assemblies and synods of the church of Christ. Although we must be careful in the use of these words lest we appeal to the Holy Spirit in support of a questionable decision, this Jerusalem formula should always be kept in view as a goal as we do the business of Christ’s church. Surely church assemblies do not gather for the purpose of pleasing the galleries or some pressure group in the church. Quite in the spirit of the Jerusalem formula the synods of the Christian Reformed Church commonly begin their annual session, with a prayer that contains this petition: “We beseech Thee, therefore, faithful God and Father, that, in accordance with Thy promise, Thou wilt abide in the midst of the present assembly through Thy Holy Spirit, and that He may lead us into all the truth.” Light is cast on just what this request means by another petition of the prayer, namely, “Grant that Thy Word may be our only rule and standard . . .” (See “Opening Prayer For Ecclesiastical Assemblies,” Psalter Hymnal liturgical section).

In 1978 synod arrived at a decision that opened the office of deacon to women. It seems to me there was some reference made to the presence of the Holy Spirit at the time this decision was reached. It is not for me to presume to judge how the Holy Spirit may or may not have been present in the process of arriving at that decision. But one also has to ask whether the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the unprecedented number of communications taking exception to that decision that came to Synod 1979, communications coming for the most part from official assemblies of the Christian Reformed Church. Was the Holy Spirit pleased with the 1978 decision and was He also pleased with those actions of consistories and classes that challenged the 1978 synodical decision?

Synod 1981 will face the issue of women in office again. May the delegates to Synod humbly keep the Jerusalem formula in view as they deal with an issue that has stirred the church. In the spirit of the Jerusalem formula this article asks the question, What will Synod 1981 say—to God? That after all is the question of highest concern. This means that when all has been said and done each delegate to synod is answerable to God himself as he wrestles with a matter that has been before our church for more than a decade.

In asking the question as to what Synod 1981 will say to God, I shall seek to honor the above call for care in entering upon this sensitive domain. I should like to specify certain areas of concern that I trust will also be the concerns of the delegates to Synod 1981.

Obeying God’s Word

At the very center of this debate on women in office is the Bible. Do we submit to its teaching? This is what the issue boils down to in all communions in which the question of women in office has been raised. In previous articles I have sought to point out that those favoring opening the special offices to women have not come forward with a strong biblical case in support of their position. The Synod of 1975 properly called for “compelling biblical evidence” if the practice of the church since its founding is to be changed. No such convincing biblical evidence has been adduced.

That there is very strong opposition in the Christian Reformed Church to the opening of the special offices to women is obvious. And it seems incontrovertible that the largest share of the opposition (on the part of women as well as men) stems from the belief that the Bible does not support the position that calls for change in the church’s practice. Assuming that this assessment is correct, and noting the fact that those favoring women in office have not brought forward convincing evidence for their stand, what will the result be if, in spite of these considerations, Synod 1981 upholds the decision of 1978 to open the office of deacon to women as that office is presently maintained in the Christian Reformed Church? Will our denomination’s allegiance to the Word of God be enhanced? Let our church exercise great care lest it go down the road taken by other communions which make important decisions in matters of doctrine or life without real regard to the biblical evidence on the subject, as the Gereformeerds Kerken in Nederland did recently on the issue of homosexuality. And let Synod 1981 give no encouragement to the notion that the Bible is a time–bound book (as Kuitert and others teach) which is restricted in its relevance to today’s problems because of the cultural limitations of the age in which it was written. Let Synod 1981 say plainly what it asked in its opening prayer, namely, that its decisions are based on the Bible as its “only rule and standard.”

Was God’s Son Time-Bound?

Among Christ’s close friends and followers when He was on earth were a number of devoted women. Our Savior enjoyed a beautiful and open relationship with these women. It is often observed that Jesus did much to liberate women from age-old traditions and taboos. In spite of all that, it is noteworthy that Jesus did not select one woman to serve in a position of authority and leadership in the church. There was not one woman among the twelve. There was not one woman among the apostles who established and exercised governing authority in the New Testament church. And the apostles, following the teaching and example of their Master, also did not appoint or choose a woman to exercise authority in the church.

In thus choosing the leadership of the church from among men only, were Christ and his apostles blindly following the cultural and social practices and prejudices of their day? Was God’s own Son, “the way, and the truth, and the life,” a willing servant of His time, bound by the cultural conditions that prevailed then? That is not the way the Christ of the Bible comes through to us. He forthrightly set His correct teaching over against that which had been said of old and which was the accepted dogma of His day. Let Synod 1981 say nothing on the issue of women in office that would put cultural blinders on the very Son of God. We confess God’s Son to be the Head of the church, today and throughout the centuries. That living Head is the Christ we meet in the Scriptures, the Christ who held women in high esteem, counted them among His dear friends and devoted followers, and who did not deem it proper to appoint even one of them to a position of headship in the church. The Head of the church today is that same Christ, and not one reconstructed according to some people‘s notions as to how He would adjust His attitudes and principles to meet modern conditions. To subject Christ to such reconstruction is to say to God that the church has no real Head, and the church will follow its own inclinations according to its latest cultural or sociological or psychological insights.

The Living Covenant

The Christian Reformed Church has been richly endowed with an understanding of the Covenant of Grace that has been a source of great blessing to the church. This core teaching of Scripture has been more than a dogmatic fixture in the church’s theological library. It has also been more than the channel in which personal salvation is found. The teaching of the covenant has enabled the members of the church not only to see the rich character of their living relationship to God in Christ, but also to realize and honor the obligations which this covenant relationship places upon them with respect to their God-given children. God’s covenant is with believers and their offspring.

What are these obligations? They add up to a great responsibility for the total nurture of the children to the end that they may come to experience the very real presence of God in the totality of their lives. Does this total nurture or education of the child begin when the child enters kindergarten in the Christian School? Of course not. That total nurture begins just as soon as the child is born. Perhaps we should say that this total nurture is already at work in subtle ways as the child develops in the mother’s womb. Total nurture or education of a child is much more than putting intellectual items on the expanding shelves of a growing child’s mind. There are terribly important factors bearing on the growing child’s capacity to cope effectively with life in God’s world that are at work in the forming of a person from the very beginning. Of utmost importance in such development of responsible and effective personhood under God is a firm and permeating sense of emotional security. And that is developed as the child from the time of conception is deeply loved and after birth is lovingly disciplined, all in obedience to God and in the context of His abiding love in Christ.

   

Both parents have an important role in such total nurture of covenant children. At the same time it should be evident that the mother has an especially crucial role here. She is closest to the new life that has come from her very body and she enjoys a communion with the child that is one of the high wonders of human existence. It is in this communion, cradled in a mother’s love which is fed by a devoted husband’s Christ–like love, that a solid foundation is laid for that inner stability and strength that are at the heart of Christian nurture. When a woman willingly devotes herself to the making of a home in which these special responsibilities toward the growing children are effectively carried out by thoughtful, loving attention to the myriad details involved, and when she also seeks to make a home in which the entire family can find daily renewal of strength and love and zest for life, then she has a calling beside which all other careers for women are of secondary importance. Her special place in the day–today actualities of covenant living calls for a large measure of resourcefulness, intelligence, faith and love—yes, the very best her whole being can give.

At this point we must exercise care so as to make sure that our lines of thought do not become entangled. What is said in the last three paragraphs can hardly by itself stand as a convincing biblical argument against having women serve in the special offices of the church. After all, there are women whose obligations at home are minimal for one reason or another. Also, there are women who seem capable of giving due attention to their home responsibilities even as they enter upon a job or other activities outside t he home. At the same time I would point out that it is one thing for a woman of her own choice to opt to assume responsibilities outside the home; it is another thing for the church officially to place such responsibilities upon a woman.

But there is a solid biblical principle which, when combined with respect for woman’s place in God‘s living covenant, makes for a strong case against opening the offices of the church to women. That biblical principle is headship, as succinctly stated in I Corinthians 11:3, “. . . the head of the woman is man . . .” In our denomination occupying any one of the ordained offices means the exercise of headship in the government of the church. And the exercise of heads up in the church by women raises urgent questions concerning headship in their homes. Therefore let Synod 1981 say plainly to God that our church continues to honor these prominent elements in the stream of covenant life that He has graciously ordained.

“I Love Thy Church, O God!”

God loves t he church. It is the apple of His eye. He gave His own Son to die a horrible death for it. From the praise of Zion in the Psalms to the representations of the victorious church in Revelation we see the church as also the object of the believer’s love and devotion. The church is the family of God, of which we are members by His amazing and matchless grace. Surely no member of the church, keenly aware of God’s gracious love in Christ, can fail to hold the body of Christ in deepest affection and respect. Surely no member of synod, busy with the affairs of the church at a point where he touches the lives of many of God’s people, can fail to realize sharply that what he does affects significantly the well–being of that which God and His people dearly love. In dealing with that which will most likely be the leading item on its agenda let Synod 1981 say to God, “We deeply love your church, O God.”

Here are some suggestions on how Synod 1981 can say to God that it loves His church.

1. Let every facet of synod‘s operation reflect determination on the part of the delegates that the prayer for the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit shall beget a mind of sincerity and integrity under “our only rule and standard.”

2. The mind of sincerity and integrity under the Word and Spirit must involve the realization that every previous synod of the church has sought to do the Lord’s business in the same manner. Therefore what the church has decided in the past must be dealt with most respectfully. The church cannot, therefore, change a significant element in its government, an element that is as old as the denomination, without having compelling biblical grounds for making such a change. 3. The good order of the church must be honored and maintained at all times. The good order of the church is for the preservation and well–being of the church as a whole and for the protection of the individual members of the church. Punctual regard for the stipulations of the Church Order and for the rules of proper procedure is called for. The will of the church may not be thwarted or side–tracked by shrewd procedural maneuvering or by rulings which fail to satisfy the clear intent of the Church Order. Delegates to synod should always pray that strong love and respect for the church shall overcome any momentary pressure to win a point by any means other than open, straightforward discussion and procedure. 4. The peace of the church should hold high priority among us. Let it be disturbed only for reasons that have clear and urgent biblical warrant. Our church has experienced unrest on the issues of women in office, an unrest that is not without some strong currents. This unrest is not unrelated to a broader wave of social disturbance caused by the agitation of the radical feminist movement against the traditional role of women. When winds of controversy and their attendant unrest blow upon us, peace can be found only in humble obedience to the Word of the sovereign God who rules all things. A main thrust of these articles has been that no strong biblical case has been put forward by those who favor opening the ordained offices in the church to women. On the other hand it is apparent that a large majority in the church are opposed to women in office, opposed because they firmly believe the Bible is clearly on their side. Under these circumstances what course of action should love for the church and its peace dictate? It seems to me the answer is clear.

An hour of decision for the Christian Reformed Church is due at Synod 1981. In these articles I have sought to point out what synod by its decision in the matter of women in office will be saying to society in general, to women, to the church, and to God, the great Head of the church in Christ. Let the church be much in prayer t hat synod may so decide that blessings will be forthcoming for our troubled society, for women and for the church. Above all may earnest prayers be lifted up that synod may demonstrate by its decision t hat t he Christian Reformed Church most genuinely loves and honors our great God—His Word, His Son, His covenant and His church.

Edward Heerema is a retired Christian Reformed pastor living at 619 S.E. 32nd St., Cape Coral, Florida 33904.