Scripture: I Cor. 14:34–40; I Tim. 2:8–15

Recap & Introduction

In the March Outlook I observed that men and women are equal before God. Despite that equality, they have different roles to play or tasks to perform, and God has ordained that in the home and in the church the woman is to be submissive to the man. These two are not contradictory; equality and submissiveness do not cancel each other. In Ephesians 5 and 6, we notice that in the same context in which wives are told to be subject to their husbands, children are told to obey their parents. If the latter is still valid today, is not the former also?

It is plain that the key consideration in our dealing with this issue is whether or not we submit to the authority of the Scriptures.

The notorious liberal Professor H. Kuitert in the Netherlands took the women-in-office issue as his starting point. He said: If synod can contradict Paul (who clearly did not allow for women in office), then I can do the same with Moses in Genesis. Moses may have believed that Adam and Eve were real historical people, but why should I believe that? Since synod had opened the gate for him, he concluded that he could use that open gate to drive his own truck through (Mulder). The one contradiction of the Scriptures leads to others.

I Corinthians 14:

Turning to especially relevant passages, we see that in I Corinthians 14 Paul is speaking about the church as it gathers for worship (v. 16): “how can any one in the position of an outsider say the ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?”; (v. 19): “nevertheless, in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind . . .”; (v. 23): “if therefore the whole church assembles . . . ”

In the church, says Paul, women should keep silence. And that is not intended only for Corinth as a kind of special “problem child,” but (v. 33) “all the churches of the saints.” What is more, says Paul, you “should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.” And on what does he base this? “As even the law says.” That is almost certainly a reference to the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2, and perhaps to Genesis 3:16. In any case, it is not time-conditioned but characteristic of the way things were from the beginning. “However offensive it may be to those who reject the biblical position of women, this is Paul’s clear and unequivocal position” (Nelson, Believe & Behave).

I Timothy 2:

In his letter to Timothy, Paul is also clearly talking about the church as it comes together for public worship (cf. 3:15): “How one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God . . .” (Cf. also 4:6, 13).

I submit that vs. 12–14 of Chapter 3 are clear and unmistakable: A woman may not have the office of teacher in the church. There she is to be silent and submissive. Again, Paul does not base this on some local custom, but on the creation and fall of man: Adam was first formed; the woman was made for him, not the other way around. And the woman was deceived when she reversed the roles and took the lead.

Timothy is not to allow women to speak with authority in the church, because they must not give leadership in the church. For this there are two reasons. The first is a creation ordinance, and in the nature of the case that cannot be time-bound. The second shows how female leadership led to disaster in Paradise, and a possible repetition of that must be avoided. The great catastrophe took place under female guidance; the events of the fall of man are like a beacon, warning voyageurs of the future to stay clear of that channel (Mulder, Reformed Journal).

Anyone who takes the Bible seriously and at face value will have to admit this. Paul’s instruction here is based on the creation and fall of man. In no way can this be time or culturally—conditioned. It reveals an abiding, unchanging principle. The Rev. P. Jonker pointed this out in the first minority report to the Synod of 1973. He said recently that no one has ever yet answered him on that point. All simply ignore it. And the reason is not hard to find: The evidence is too plain and cannot be gainsaid.

What is more, no one doubts that the instructions about men praying with proper attitude of heart and women dressing in ways becoming for Christian women are still valid principles for today. Why then do some say that the instruction in verses 12–14 is no longer valid, instructions which explicitly mention the creation order? The answer is, Because they don’t like what it says.

Other Biblical Evidence:

Other biblical evidence corroborates what is taught in these two passages. Not one of Jesus’ apostles was a woman. And Jesus didn’t accommodate the thinking of His time, for at other times He didn’t hesitate to violate prevailing social mores and customs. (Think, for example, of His meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well.) There must have been good reason for choosing twelve men. They were the foundation of the New Testament church (Eph. 2:20), just as the twelve patriarchs were the foundation of the Old Testament church.

Take note too of the following texts: Acts 6:3: “Therefore, brethren , pick out from among you seven men of good repute;” I Tim. 3:2: “Now a bishop must be . . . the husband of one wife;” v. 12: “Let deacons be the husband of one wife;” Titus 1:6: “If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife.” As Jonker says, “In the epistle to Timothy it is beyond doubt that the apostle thinks only of men as candidates for eldership. On this score there is no doubt among the exegetes” (p. 590, ‘73 Acts). To escape from this teaching, we would have to say we don’t agree with Paul or to say that it was meant only for that day and contradict the Biblical and Reformed teaching of the Bible’s inspiration.

One cannot (as has been tried) put these teachings in a par with “foot-washing” or “the holy kiss.” Everyone understands very well that in those cases the principles remain (that of being willing to be the least and servant of others, and that of hospitality) though the precise modes of expression may change. In other words, there is an abiding norm, but a changing form. This is also the case with the “veil” in I Corinthians 11. The principle is submission; the form in which that submission was expressed at that time was for women to wear a veil. The principle of submission remains; the precise application of that principle has changed. It should be noted too that the apostle in this connection speaks of what is “proper” and of “nature itself.” Von Meyenfeldt understands the latter phrase as conveying “the common sense of decency that is prevalent at a certain time.” One commentator says women must “wear a veil in public to symbolize submission to her husband , and to protect her honor and dignity before other men.” Not wearing a veil, says Morris, “was the mark of a woman of loose morals.” In any case, one must exegete Scripture properly and not confuse the norm with the form. The principle of a woman’s submissiveness and not being allowed to hold office in the church is based on a creation ordinance: the way it was from the beginning.

In this connection, we must see clearly one point: REDEMPTION IS THE RESTORATION OF CREATION. We must never forget that very important principle. Submission did not come after the fall (only the misuse of it did), but before. And redemption restores that principle; it does not abrogate it.

Are there exceptions to the rule of women not being allowed in ruling positions in the church? Perhaps. But the rule is clear, and if there are exceptions, they only prove the rule. The rule of monogamous marriage also had many exceptions. But from the beginning it was not so. Let’s stick with the rule and not try to find or create exceptions, making “the wish the father of the thought.”

   

Deaconesses?

Is there a legitimate place for deaconesses? Only if their work is clearly distinguished from the ruling office of the elders. But then we are first emptying the diaconal office of much of its meaning among us. Article 30 of the Belgic Confession says ·that elders and deacons, together with the pastor, make up the (governing) council of the church. Which means the deacons have a measure of authority too. I believe a good case can be made for calling our deacons “assistant elders.” And let’s not forget that the apostle Paul also clearly limited the diaconal office to men: “the husband of one wife.”

Rev . Deenick from Australia wrote:

Admittedly, the crusade for women-in-church-office generally begins with the modest enough (though sometimes tongue-in-cheek) request that women be admitted to the “office of deacon.” There appears to be some evidence that the N.T. Church knew about women in the function of deaconesses. But it never stops there. It has never stopped there and it never will. It could not, since the arguments in favour of women in the one office can be used in favour of women in the other offices with very little alteration. The recently published report presented to the Christian Reformed Church in America confirms that point (Trowel & Sword).

Let it be clearly said once again: This has nothing to do with gifts. Many women are as gifted as men, perhaps more so; they have as many talents. However , that settles nothing. While gifts are indispensable for the task, the issue is calling to office. No one takes an office by himself; he is chosen of the Lord (Mulder, Reformed Journal).

The question is not of ones talent or ability. Many fine Christian women have as much or more ability than their husbands. Many of them often do good work in the church. One doesn’t have to be an office-bearer for that. There is much volunteer work that needs to be done: Sunday School, Calvinettes, visiting the sick and shut-ins, etc. And many fine Christian women do it. I sometimes observe in catechism classes that the girls are better students than the boys. We must observe also that the women who are crusading to get into the ruling office are the least qualified for the consistory. They miss one essential qualification for office: humility. The tactics and attitudes of the Committee for Women in the CRC are anything but conducive to the welfare of the Church of Jesus Christ.

How About Society?

We have been talking about women and the ruling office in the church, specifically as that church comes to expression in its institutional form. The church is not identical with Christ’s kingdom. The Bible’s directives for the church are ,clear. They are less clear regarding the task of women in society, and we ought to be careful about making oracular pronouncements about that.

Conclusion

The basic issue in this whole debate is our view of Scripture. Mulder put the matter succinctly:

So, the whole issue of ordaining women is in fact only incidental to a much bigger issue: that of the interpretation of the Scriptures. Somewhere along the line that is always at stake …because that is the Achilles heel of the faith; when the Scriptures no longer stand, nothing stands as far as our salvation is concerned. It surely was no accident that Dr. Kuitert promoted his views in a booklet entitled, Do You Understand What You Are Reading?! At that very point the battle lines are going to be drawn, if I am not mistaken, in our own denomination as well.

Would it not be a tragedy indeed if the turbulence caused by the pros and cons of women’s ordination to office would in fact divide the Church on the larger question of the Bible? Nothing less than that, I believe, is at stake. The position of the women in our Church will prove to be a great divide and watershed in our denomination, for the simple reason that we are back to . . . the question . . . What does the Bible say? (Banner).

May God forbid that the CRC go in the same direction as the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands did. They too began with this “innocent looking” issue. But you see the results today.

Jelle Tuininga is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.