In this third article Rev. Edward Heerema, retired Christian Reformed pastor living at 619 E. 32nd St., Cape Coral, Florida 33904, further explores what promises to be a major issue at the June Christian Reformed Church Synod, the opening of the office of deacon to women.

Will Synod 1981 set the mind of the Christian Reformed Church at rest over the issue of opening the office of deacon to women by speaking clearly from the Word? Will Synod 1981 tell the church that the report of the Committee on Hermeneutical Principles (1978) made a good case for its recommendation to open the office of deacon to women? How will Synod 1981 use the 1973 “Guidelines for Understanding the Nature of Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination?” Will Synod recognize that they are only guidelines emerging from a report that has a number of noteworthy deficiencies? Will Synod 1981 adopt a position that is at variance with what appears to be the clear mind of the church?

These are some of the questions we shall be dealing with in this article as we continue to reflect on the issue that has given the Christian Reformed Church “A Decade of Unrest,” the title of Paul M. Ingeneri’s commendable booklet on the subject. That description is no doubt correct. The church has been stirred by this issue. Synod 1978 arrived at a decision that the office of deacon should be opened to women. That decision surely did not contribute to a lessening of unrest, as the unprecedented flood of overtures and protests forwarded to Synod 1979 amply demonstrated.

Synod 1979 responded to this torrent of overtures and protests by appointing a new committee whose . task was defined as follows: “To review without prejudice the 1978 report on ‘Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office’ and the decision of the Synod of 1978 regarding the ordination of women as deacons . . . .” That committee is scheduled to report to the Synod of 1981. What will be the result of that committee’s efforts and synod’s decisions relating to these efforts? Will the unrest in the churches subside? Every member of the church must hope that such easing of the unrest will result. This article is written in that hope.

“Scriptura Sola”

If that hope is to be realized the decision of Synod 1981 must meet one requirement above all. What Synod 1981 says must clearly and unambiguously reflect the teaching of God’s Word. That is the only basis on which our church can find unity and peace on this issue. But someone may ask in some perplexity, “Isn’t that what our church has been doing all along, trying to find out just what the Bible teaches on the subject?” That is true. And three studies by different committees together with the church’s responses to these studies indicate that we are not of one mind as to what the Bible teaches. Thus the issue is too complicated for resolution simply by the utterance of a slogan like “Scriptura sola” (Scripture alone).

Yes, the matter as it now stands in our church is complicated. For this reason clear, earnest and honest thought is called for, especially on the part of the delegates to Synod 1981. In striving to arrive at a decision that is biblically correct and in harmony with our confessions and the Church Order we may find some help in focusing our attention on the requirement laid down by Synod 1975 that “compelling biblical grounds” be advanced if the church is to , change its present practice of having only men serve as office–bearers. Was synod correct in making such a demand? Thirty–one delegates to Synod 1975 requested that their negative votes be recorded on that action of synod. That is a large number of recorded negative votes. It must be noted that not all of those recording their negative votes did so for the same reason. As a participant in the discussion at Synod 1975 I was aware of considerable objection to the call for “compelling biblical grounds” for the reason that such a call was redundant and so unnecessary. Every such action of synod must be on compelling biblical grounds. And, of course, if grounds are truly biblical, they are compelling. Though there is some point to this criticism, the plain fact is that the church has declared that biblical grounds which are adequate and convincing must be advanced if the church is to make this radical shift in its longstanding practice. In this connection it is worthy of note that only eight delegates asked that their negative votes be recorded on the action of Synod 1975 which declared that “sufficient biblical grounds have not been advanced” to warrant such a change.

But the fact is also noteworthy that a majority of the committee on Hermeneutical Principles appointed in 1975 and reporting in 1978 did not think that this demand for “compelling biblical grounds” was valid. Their argumentation is interesting. This demand, they said, “appears to be out of harmony with the Reformed understanding of settling questions of church polity. This rule, for example, is not insisted upon in the case of our structure of church government (consistory, classis, synod) or in prescribing the observance of special days on the church calendar” (Acts of Synod 1978, p. 531).

Is this argumentation convincing? Are these comparisons proper? These comparisons would be proper if in the matter of women in office we had a simple proposal which did not involve challenge to the church’s well-established practice and which did not involve sharp disagreement as to the teaching of Scripture on the issue. But our church has no such proposal before it. Rather, the proposal before the church today is to take an action (open the office of deacon to women) which clearly says that for all the almost one hundred twenty-five years of its existence the church has been mistaken on the important matter of the participation of a large segment of its membership in the government of the church. Those who oppose this proposal do so because it is their firm belief that the proposal violates the teaching of God’s Word on the place and role of women in general, and on the presence of women in positions of authority in the government of the church in particular. Surely in these circumstances the church is correct in asking for convincing or “compelling” biblical grounds before such a change can be made. To do otherwise would be irresponsible in a church which confesses that it has only one sure rule to govern its faith and its practice.

Did the objection to “compelling biblical grounds” by the majority of the committee on Hermeneutical Principles suggest that these brethren were tacitly acknowledging that they had no strong biblical case for their recommendation to open the office of deacon to women? That this question is legitimate finds support in the assertion of the entire committee that “no biblical passage speaks directly to the question of women in ecclesiastical office as presently under stood” (Acts of Synod 1978, p. 529). Did it not occur to the members of the committee that the reason “no biblical passage speaks directly to the question” is that the very thought of women in office was totally foreign to the authors of Scripture? Yet, in spite of the assertion that “no biblical passage speaks directly to the question,” both the majority and the minority of the committee appeal to “biblical . . . precedent” (majority) or “some evidence in the Bible” (minority) in support of their somewhat different recommendations to open the office of deacon to women. The evidence appealed to is Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11. The frailty of this “evidence” becomes apparent when one consults newer versions of the Bible in their rendering of these texts, or when one reads Reformed commentators of repute such as Hendriksen and Bouma (Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament.) If there were other clear and incontestable evidence in the Bible in favor of opening the special offices to women, then Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11 could well serve as supporting evidence. But as grounds for changing the church’s practice in this important regard such texts do not qualify as “adequate biblical evidence,” a description used by the majority of the committee on Hermeneutical Principles.

Let us take just a moment to see what the majority of the committee on Hermeneutical Principles did at this point. They objected to the demand by Synod 1975 for “compelling biblical grounds,” as we have seen. Then they came to Synod 1978 with the recommendation that the Synod declare that “there is adequate biblical evidence for opening the office of deacon to women” (italics by E.H.). That adequate evidence they found in “the Bible’s affirmation of the equal worth of women and men” and in Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11. This adequate evidence is such, they argued, that “there are no compelling arguments against” their recommendation to open the office of deacon to women (italics by E.H.). Thus the majority of the committee sought to pass the burden of proof to those who would maintain the present practice of the church, a strategy quite out of accord with the action of Synod 1975.

   

The 1973 Guidelines

Part of the mandate under which the new committee appointed in 1979 has been working is that it “study and define the office of deacon in the light of Scripture, the Confessions, its historical development, especially within the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, and the 1973 ‘Guidelines for Understanding the Nature of Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination’.” Just what will the committee and Synod 1981 do with this last-named aspect of the mandate? Will these Guidelines be helpful to the church as it seeks to settle the issue of women in office?

Such questions call for an earlier question, namely, of what real value are these Guidelines in dealing with the issue of women in office? That question cannot be answered without an evaluation of these Guidelines. I hope the following comments are helpful in such an evaluation.

1. The accent on the servant character of those holding office is most welcome. Each office in the church is a ministry that must be carried out in humble obedience to the Head of the church for the blessing of God’s people. 2. This accent on office as ministry or service is not presented in a balanced fashion in the report from which the Guidelines are drawn. The Synod of 1972, which first received this report, was not satisfied with it, and returned it to the study committee with the instruction that they answer some pointed questions bearing on the subject of authority in the offices of the church. One ground for the raising of these questions was that “the relationship between ‘service’ and ‘authority’ has not been sufficiently dealt with in the report” (Acts of Synod 1972, p. 95). 3. The study committee reported again in 1973, but that Synod was also dissatisfied. That Synod went to the extraordinary length of adopting six “observations as a framework within which the ‘guidelines for understanding the nature of ecclesiastical office and ordination’ are to be understood.” The second observation adopted shows the uneasiness of Synod with the study committee’s work when it declares that “nowhere in the New Testament is there a conflict between authority and service, or between ruling and love” (Acts of Synod 1973, p . 62). 4. The word that best describes this report is the word tendentious. Webster defines the term as follows: “marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view.” This tendentious character is demonstrable at several points. Whenever a particular Bible passage is open to an understanding that fits a more stable and structured concept of church government, or the passage is open to a more loose and fluid notion geared to the general ideas of function and service, the latter exegesis is always chosen as the teaching of the text. For illustrations of the point see t he report’s handling of the following passages: I Thess. 5:12, 13; Heb. 13:17 and I P eter 5:1–4. Even the “dominion” with which the Creator endowed man at the beginning (Gen. 1:26–28) is forced into the function-servant mold which is t he dominating motif of the report (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 692). The drift of the report is further demonstrated by the repeated use of the loaded word authoritarian* to describe the more common understanding of the elder‘s office in terms of rulers hip and authority (see pp. 701ff.). This question presses itself upon me: Was the report on “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination” influenced by the anti-establishment and anti–authority spirit that was so prevalent in t he years when this document was produced (1969–73)? The failure of the report to examine the office of elder in the New Testament church in the light of the frequent references to elders in t he Old Testament is passing strange. This prominence of elders in the life of the Jewish people flows into the New Testament era. Here also there are many references to elders who with priests and scribes ruled over the civil and religious life of the Jews. The Sanhedrin, t he supreme ruling council of the Jews, was made up of elders. The office of elder among the Jews was one of authority and honor. When the converted Jew, Paul, appointed elders as overseers of the churches he established, he was simply taking over this prominent feature of the management of the synagogue for the service of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why did not the committee mandated to study church office explore this fertile area of study in church government? The importance of the office of elder in the New Testament church makes that question particularly pertinent. To be sure, such exploration would most likely have produced findings which would not harmonize very well with the concepts of fluidity and function as they are developed in the report. But such findings would have contributed to the production of a more balanced study and more useful Guidelines.

6. A final comment has to do with the word functiori, a term featured in the report and Guidelines to describe office in the church. Really that term says ver y little unless one define a particular function further by answering questions such as these: Who designated the function, or did it just grow like Topsy? By what authorization is the function car ried out? By what process did certain “particular ministries” or functions become offices in t he church and other functions did not become offices? Do the offices‘ in the church somehow relate to the very character and work of God and Jesus Christ as Head of the church, or are they human discoveries in a developing church with new emerging needs and possibilities? On the one hand the Guidelines state that the offices or ministries “function with Christ’s power and authority, a power and authority rooted in obedience to his Word . . .” (Guideline 5). On the other hand the Guidelines give the distinct impression that the offices in the church developed in some random fashion as members of the church came to exhibit certain useful gifts (Guidelines 4, 6, 12). Why does not the church recognize many more offices “in the interest of good order and efficiency in the church, to enable the church to carry out Christ’s work in the world most effectively” (Guideline 4). Why does not t he church have “offices” such as transportation, janitorial services, nursery care, ministry of music, food preparation and service, ushering, fellowship, etc.?

With the above reflect ions on the 1973 Guidelines before us, we again ask how the study committee and Synod 1981 will use them. If the Guidelines are simply followed as they were adopted by Synod 1973, we can expect Synod 1981 to say to t he church that the function of deacon can be performed by any responsible member, male or female, since the element of authority is of no great importance in the offices of the church. Incidentally we note that the report which gave birth to the Guidelines speaks on this matter as follows: “From Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11 it appears likely that there were female deacons as well as male deacons” (p. 660). However, if all concerned exercise their responsible judgment under God’s Word and Spirit, we can hope for a deliverance from the committee and Synod that does not follow the dubious guidance of the Guidelines.

Synod Against the Mind of the Church?

We have seen that no strong biblical evidence has been put forward for opening the office of deacon to women. The “compelling biblical grounds” appropriately called for by Synod 1975 simply have not been produced. In the light of that fact what will Synod 1981 decide? In this connection we must keep in mind certain pertinent data respecting the mind of the matter of women in office. The committee that reported on this matter to the Synod of 1975 declared as follows on the basis of many communications received from the churches or individuals or groups in the churches: “The overwhelming majority in the Christian Reformed Church is not yet of a mind to open the existing ecclesiastical offices to women” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 572). The same point would seem to be borne out by the torrent of protest that poured in to Synod 1979 against the action of Synod 1978 in opening the office of deacon to women. It seems indisputable that this “overwhelming majority” opposed to opening the offices feel as they do because it is their conviction that the Word of God plainly limits the offices to men. And because this is the main reason why so many feel this way, their feelings are deep and sincere. In view of that fact, will Synod 1981 dare to say to the churches that the office of deacon should be opened to women? We bear in mind, at this particular point, that no convincing evidence from God’s Word has been adduced in favor of opening the offices to women.

This is a delicate question and must be faced with wisdom and proper concern. Ominous rumblings are being heard in the church on this issue. Let the brethren gathered in Grand Rapids in June 1981 walk prudently here. Let us thank God for a church membership that wants to live and think in humble obedience to God’s Word. Let synod arrive at decisions that make unmistakably clear to the church precisely how its decisions reflect the plain teaching of the Scriptures. To date no such plain teaching has been adduced in support of changing the church’s practice in limiting the offices of the church to men. Let Synod 1981 so speak to the church.

*Webster defines authoritarian as follows: “of relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority;” or, “of relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.”