Edward Heerema, retired Christian Reformed pastor living at 619 S.E. 32nd St., Cape Coral, Florida 33904, gives us the second of four articles dealing with the subject which promises to be a major issue at the denomination’s June synod, whether special church offices are to be opened to women.

Our church began its recent reflection on the subject of women in ecclesiastical office with a synodical decision that had a hint of prejudice in it. In 1970 synod, on the recommendation of our church’s delegates to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, decided to appoint a committee “to examine in the light of Scripture the general Reformed practice of excluding women from the various ordained offices in the church.” The word excluding carries the suggestion that women are being barred from something to which they may very well have a right.

This is unfortunate. Our obedience to the Word of God is complicated by the injection of some notion of human right. For a Christian all rights are understood and pursued in obedience to the principles set forth in God’s Word. This means that we humbly seek to know the teaching of Scripture before we promote or pursue something we may feel is a human right.

The Bible Only?

This leads me to suggest that 1981 is not too late for synod to ask the following question once more: Is the drive to open the offices of the church to women fed solely by a desire to live in humble obedience to God’s Word, or is this drive also fed by the current agitation for women’s rights? The church is usually more affected by current pressures in society than the members are prepared to admit. Were the young people of our churches affected by the youth rebellion of the sixties? Are our churches affected by the ease and frequency of divorce today? Are we influenced by the materialism and pleasure–mindedness of our times? To ask these questions is to answer them. Let Synod 1981 say to itself as well as to the church’s membership: we shall be guided in our question in this matter, not by strong societal pressures, not by the insistent demands of any group, not by the counsel of some elitist set in the church, but solely by what God’s Word teaches in this matter. The Lord’s repeated admonition to the churches is always very much in point: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” The Spirit speaks in and through the Word.

Positive Regard for the Place of Women

There is another facet of this hint of prejudice in the word “excluding” that deserves comment. It is very likely that the frame of mind in which we consider the issue of women in office is a negative one. Delegates to synod may have the uneasy feeling that if they vote against having women in office they are saying or doing something unkind to women. The feeling may be that to vote for keeping the present practice of the church means to exclude women, to bar them from something they might be able to do well, and to make women out to be inferior to men. Such feelings don’t sit well with the basic respect that most men in the church very probably have for women.

Should not such negative feelings be dismissed? Can’t we instruct ourselves under God‘s Word to think and act out of a deep respect for woman, for her place in life as ordained by God? And should not that deep respect prompt us to decide that her role in life is so rich, so complex and so variegated that s he should not be burdened with those added cares that come with the exercise of headship. It seems clear to this writer that such positive thinking on woman’s role is entirely in harmony with the continuation of the present practice of having men only serve in the ordained offices in the church. And from things I read and hear I gather that a considerable number of women agree. That most women in the church do not feel they are unfairly dealt with in the practice of having only men in office would seem to be borne out by the fact that even though the committee reporting to synod in 1975 specifically asked in a public announcement for responses from women, only nine responses were sent in by women out of a total of 165 received. And only six of these nine were in favor of opening the offices to women.

The Teaching of Scripture

The Bible only, it is emphasized, should be our guide in this matter of women in office. Hasn’t our church operated under this rule in considering this matter? Three committees have reported on the teaching of Scripture on this question. True, and I would not presume to sit in judgment on that work.

Still certain observations seem in order. In the first place we remind ourselves that none of the reports of these committees escaped pointed criticism at the hands of synod‘s advisory committees. In the second place I would ask whether we are to conclude that only the members of these committees of synod are competent to understand the Scriptures in this matter? Are we to dismiss as largely irrelevant the 146 responses (out of a total of 165) received by the 1975 committee which were opposed to women in office, the vast majority of these reponses coming from office–bearers in the church of Christ? And what about the flood of overtures and appeals received by the Synod of 1979? Are these many documents from classes and consistories, prepared, no doubt, with thoughtful regard for the teaching of God’s Word, to be dismissed as reflecting lack of real understanding of the Scriptures?

Then there is a third similar comment I would like to make. When I speak about this question of women in office with members of the church, members who I know are serious and faithful readers of the Bible, I find that almost without exception they understand the Word to teach that the ordained offices are for men only. These church members‘ are usually quite aware of some of the questions that surround some of the statements of the apostle Paul that bear on the matter of women in office. They base their ‘opinions, not on a few isolated texts, but on the thrust of the Bible as a whole on woman, her creation and her place in family and church.

Well, what does the Bible teach on this question of women in office? This series of articles is not the place for a detailed consideration of the considerable biblical evidence bearing on the subject of women in office. This has been done by others in several different places. Just a few items are here chosen for consideration. The first of these is Galatians 3:28, where we read, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” These words have figured prominently in our church’s discussion of the issue. Many of those favoring opening the offices to women feel that this passage is a primary text for their case. I have just one question to ask regarding the use of this great text. Clearly the text teaches that all believers in Christ are without distinction members of the family of God and all share equally in the rich benefits of salvation wrought by Christ for his people. In the universal priesthood of believers there is no social or personal discrimination. Does the text at the same time teach the universal availability of all offices in the church to all believers? That is another matter. A parallel can be seen in the case of the presidency of the United States. All citizens of the nation share equally in the protections, rights, freedoms and opportunities guaranteed under the laws of the land. They are all American citizens without distinction. But that does not mean that all can be president. A citizen who is not native–born cannot be president, nor can one who is less than thirty–five years old. The burden of proof lies on those who would extend the meaning of Galatians 3:28 to include the teaching that the special offices in the church are open to all believers without distinction.

Proverbs 31

Another item having to do with biblical evidence in the matter of women in office is the lack of reference to the song of praise of woman found in Proverbs 31:10–31. If I am not mistaken all three reports to synod (1973, 1975, 1978) omit any reference to this remarkable passage of Scripture. This is surprising. Perhaps there are exegetical questions here that I don’t perceive. The passage is poetry, but poetry in the Bible is not without instructional content, as Exodus fifteen and the book of Psalms amply demonstrate. The passage does not describe a living person, but is rather an ideal representation of woman. As Gispen says, “Undoubtedly an ideal is depicted here; this is how every sterling wife in Israel ought to be.”

The reader of this piece would do well to peruse the Proverbs passage once more. We notice first of all that the ideal woman is a wife and mother. This is quite in keeping with the Bible’s teaching on woman from the early chapters of Genesis on. Then we note the exhilarating freedom of life the woman enjoys. She surely is not a housebound plant, nor is she a slave of kitchen and nursery, of dirty diapers and dirty dishes. She is engaged in an amazing variety of activities, just like so many of her modern sisters. She takes care of the numberless needs of her family, she is involved in business affairs, and she even closes a real estate deal. She is adored by her husband and deeply admired by her children. To them she is a queen. Above all she “fears the Lord.” But with all of her involvement in many outlets for her talents and energies, one thing she does not do. She does not sit in the gate of the city where her husband is with the elders who rule the affairs of the city and church. She does not exercise headship.

Rather than ignore this striking passage of Scripture, I would like to use this full picture of woman as a model, with this added thought: at no point does the Bible really depart from this representation of woman and her role. Woman finds the richest fulfillment of her life in devoting herself to the well–being of her husband as her beloved and loving partner, and the well–being of the lives that came forth from her very body. This is the usual, appropriate and satisfying way of life for woman. This way of life properly includes woman’s gracious outreach to the poor and the troubled outside of her immediate family, as is indicated in verse twenty of Proverbs thirty–one. Nor does this standard set forth here in the book of wisdom rule out those extraordinary instances in which woman may find her life’s fulfillment in rendering services of blessing to humanity other than a husband and children.

This Matter of Headship

The biblical principle of headship will have to figure in any decision that Synod 1981 may make. The teaching of the Bible on this matter is inescapable—from Genesis 1 and 2 to Proverbs 31, to I Corinthians 11 and 14, to Ephesians 5, to Colossians 3, to I Timothy 2 and I Peter 3. Any decision of synod that does not do justice to this principle goes contrary to the plain teaching of God’s Word.

Does adherence to this principle carry some implication that women are inferior and men are superior, that somehow women are second–class citizens in the Kingdom of God? Such sentiments have surfaced rather frequently in the discussions on the issue at hand. Such language is most commonly used by some of those who through special pleading seek to win support for the cause of women in office. Does the woman of Proverbs 31 seem to be a person who might be thought of as inferior, or who might think of herself as inferior? Can we think of one who is truly loved as Christ loved his church (Eph. 5:25) as being inferior or second–class? Headship does not mean that the one at the head is superior. The human scene offers many illustrations. A business concern can have many people working for it who are not executives but whose expertise and ability and experience make them far more valuable to the firm than those at the head. Is the president of a country superior to those who are not in that office? A wife may be quite superior to her husband, as in the case of Nahal and Abigail. Children are not called on to obey their parents because their parents are better than the children. Citizens of a nation are not called on to honor their rulers because their rulers are superior. These obligations and relationships are such because God has ordained them for the proper ordering of life. Without such wise and gracious ordering of life by God himself human existence would be an utter chaos, and the pursuit of God’s original mandate to man and woman would be impossible.

One additional point needs to be considered under this matter of headship. What about women who serve as queens of nations or governors of states or mayors of cities? Certainly such women are practicing headship. Indeed they are. Does not that fact invalidate the argument respecting headship in the question of women in church office? I think not. God’s Word is the book of the covenant. It speaks to God’s people as related to him, bound to him in the covenant of grace. That covenant relationship comes to actuality in and through the family and the church. It is for the proper ordering of these two covenant structures that God has ordained the principle and practice of headship. His Word does not speak to the ordering of the state. God has ordained government for man’s good, we are told (Rom. 13), but the ordering of the details of the structure of government are not part of God’s Word. Therefore the question of headship m government 1s outside the purview of the church’s concern, other than the general point that all proper governmental authority should be accorded our submission.

Women ‘s Gifts In The Church

The committee that reported to synod in 1975 drew the following three conclusions from the many responses they had received:

1. The overwhelming majority in the Christian Reformed Church is not yet of a mind to open the existing ecclesiastical offices to women. 2. There is support for instituting the office of deaconess, although this office is not clearly defined. 3. There is considerable concern that the church make all possible use of women in the work of the church outside of the existing offices. (1975 Acts of Synod, p. 572).

I happen to find myself pretty much in agreement with these three points in the description of the mind of the church regarding women in office. Synod 1975 felt the thrust of the last point and set up a committee on the use of the talents and abilities of women in the church. In 1977 this committee became a standing “Service Committee for the Use of Members’ Gifts.”

More can and should be done to make use of the special and rich endowments that women have. Several of the churches already have groups of deaconesses, or service guilds. In other churches Ladies’ Aids or similar groups have set up committees to render many services among the members of the church. Should such groups operate under the official direction of the ordained deacons of the church? Such questions go beyond the range of this essay. But there is a multitude of services that women are qualified to render in the church family. They can help the sick, the elderly, the infirm, the hungry in countless ways that are auxiliary to the work of the deacons. Many times there are needs which the deacons simply do not have time to take care of. Let Synod 1981 encourage the churches to say to the churches, “We need you to help us render these services in the name of the Lord.”