I. Introduction

A recent article in The Banner, commenting on women in office, suggested that with this issue the Christian Reformed Church has entered a new stage of “tradition-forming” in Reformed church history, similar to that caused in earlier centuries by “the introduction of new forms of prayer or new words for the Trinity.”¹ The question was asked: “Does the movement to include women arise from the Holy Spirit, offering a renewed way to understand and live out the Scriptures—and is it therefore something that ought not and cannot in the end be blocked? Or does it arise merely from the spirit of our own historical age?”²

Both positions are present in the CRC. On the one hand there are those who say that women are not given “full opportunity and equality” to use their gifts in the church and that the apostle Paul couldn’t possibly have meant that “the consistory door and the pulpit be closed” to qualified women.³ On the other hand one reads of a speaker at the 1985 Synod whose “voice shaking with emotion” asks, “What about our convictions that are based on the Word of God? Where do we go? What do we do?”⁴ This pain was caused by a narrow margin of votes which decided “that synod not accede” to the request of a moratorium on women deacons because “such a procedure is not in harmony with the Church Order or Rules for Synodical Procedure,” (Matters Legally Before Synod-Rules for Synodical Procedure, Church Order Arts. 28, 30, 31).⁵ To salve the pain of those represented by the more than fifty overtures, protests and appeals received by synod, a pastoral letter was sent which noted “with deep regret that a divisive spirit” had arisen within the denomination and speaks of “our personal and communal pain.”⁶

But more than a pastoral letter is involved in settling this issue which sets new precedents in the life and practice of a Reformed church. It is church polity which determines the implementation of decisions taken by synod. To implement the 1984 decision which Synod 1985 confirmed, a study committee was appointed with a mandate to “define the work of elders and deacons in such a fashion that the local churches will be assisted in carrying out the decision of Synod 1984, that ‘the work of women as deacons . . . be distinguished from that of elders’ (Church Order Supplement, Art. 3). “This committee was also mandated to “recommend such changes in the Church Order as are necessary to implement the findings and recommendation of the study committee.”⁷ It is our contention that an overview of the fifteen-year-old history of women in ecclesiastical office indicates that the way this synodical decision will be implemented will not only affect Church Order, but could be a decisive turning point in the history of the CRC. For changes in church polity regarding women deacons and the future of Reformed hermeneutics are inextricably intertwined in the issue of women in office.

II. History of Women in Ecclesiastical Office in the Christian Reformed Church

Women’s issues are not new at CRC synods and show that the social conditions of the age have a bearing on the church’s task in this world. Synods of 1914 and 1916 considered women’s suffrage in civic life. They made no ruling, deciding that this was not an ecclesiastical affair. Questions regarding women’s voting rights at congregational meetings surfaced at the Synod of 1947. No agreement could be reached and women were refused voting rights until Synod of 1957, which left it up to local congregations whether to implement this decision. A protest led Synod 1958 to rule that women voting at congregational meetings does not involve a ruling function, since the Church Order does not recognize the congregational meeting as an ecclesiastical assembly (C.O. Art. 26).⁸

Women’s issues surfaced again when the “women’s liberation” movement demanded equal opportunity for women in all areas of life. A stimulus was provided by a 1968 study report of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod which recommended member churches “probe further into the question whether or not all ecclesiastical offices should be opened to women.” The report said that it “was not convinced of the unity of the offices or of such a concept of that unity which would preclude the entrance of the woman into the diaconal office which has been generally viewed among us as a non-ruling or service function . . . .” 9 Because the RES report showed a sharp disagreement with Christian Reformed Church Order Synod 1970 commissioned a study committee “to examine in the light of Scripture, the general Reformed practice of excluding women from the various ordained offices in the church.”¹⁰

Realizing that church polity and hermeneutics are interrelated , Synod sent back an earlier commissioned report on “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination”, requesting further clarification of the authority involved in ecclesiastical office.¹¹ An extended report “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination” (Report 44) was presented to Synod 1973 and adopted with some modifications and Synod appointed a new committee on “Guidelines for Understanding the Nature of Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination.”¹² At this same synod the “Report on Women in Ecclesiastical Office” was presented. This study committee concluded that “the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office cannot conclusively be defended on biblical grounds.”¹³ It also stated “that some very important hermeneutical problems (questions regarding the principles of the explanation of the Scriptures)”¹⁴ were at stake. Synod decided that “the importance of this subject demands that we proceed with care (because) a long standing policy of this church is substantially affected by this report.” ¹⁵ Thus a new study committee was appointed to further examine and evaluate the reaction of the church to the ordination of women.

In 1975 this new study committee presented the report “Women in Ecclesiastical Office” and stated that there was “support for instituting the office of deaconess, although this office is not clearly defined.”¹⁶ Also, “there is considerable concern that the church make all possible use of women in the work of the church outside existing offices.”¹⁷ The report recommended, “That Synod declare that the Christian Reformed Church is not ready or willing to open her offices to women”, but that “Biblical teaching is not opposed in principle to the ordination of women to any office that men may hold in the church.”¹⁸ Based on this report a majority and minority advisory committee made recommendations to Synod. The majority report recommended that the practice of excluding women from the ecclesiastical offices recognized in the Church Order be maintained unless compelling biblical grounds are advanced for changing that practice.¹⁹ It became evident to the majority of the members of the advisory committee that there were “underlying hermeneutical and exegetical difficulties in interpreting the relevant biblical givens . . . (and) also that various Reformed scholars do not accept the interpretations of the biblical givens advanced by those who wish to change the present practice.”²⁰ Another committee, composed of Old Testament and New Testament scholars was appointed to “undertake a study of the hermeneutical principles which are involved in the proper interpretation of relevant Scripture passages.”²¹ Committee reports increasingly made it clear that hermeneutics was a key factor in deciding the women in office issue.

The 1975 synodical decision completed the mandate of the committee “Women in Ecclesiastical Office”. No major synodical reports or decisions regarding women in office were made until Synod of 1978, but the women’s issue was hotly debated. Synod 1976 declared that female M.Div. students should be waived from field education since present Church Order Art. 22 does not allow for this.²² A flurry of activities was begun by the committee on “The Use of Women’s Gifts in the Church” which later changed to Volunteer Resource Bank, a committee which was discontinued by Synod 1985.²³ An overture to establish the work of evangelist as a fourth office generated some important studies on the offices. Noteworthy is a study report’s statement that “the alleged relationship between the threefold office of Christ and the three offices known to us”²⁴ is called “a theological gloss of the New Testament, where support for this contention is lacking.”²⁵ A minority report rejected the new office on the grounds that “proliferation of office in the church” would destroy the “three fold division of service that forms the foundation of the three offices of the Church Order, (which) may not be the only possible division one might legitimately have and be faithful to Scripture, (but) the fact is that this is the one we have.”²⁶

The landmark decision regarding women deacons came upon the findings of the “Report on Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Church Office.” This lengthy report, besides finding grounds for equal worth and full participation of women in the gifts of the Spirit and work of the church, took a lot of space to explain hermeneutical and exegetical principles.²⁷ Both a majority and a minority report recommended that the church permit women to be ordained as deacons. The minority report’s recommendation, “That consistories be allowed to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon, provided that their work is distinguished from that of elders” was adopted by Synod. Article 3 of the Church Order was amended and ratification was requested from Synod 1979.²⁸ The same synod established the office of “evangelist” as a fourth office upon the grounds that “the Scriptures do not present a definitive, exhaustive description of the particular ministries of the church, and because these particular ministries as described in Scripture are functional in character, the Bible leaves room for the church to adopt or modify its particular ministries in order to carry out effectively its service to Christ and for Christ in all circumstances.”²⁹

The divisive nature of the women deacon decision became apparent at subsequent synods. Synod of 1979 saw a total of sixty-four printed appeals, overtures, personal appeals, and various communications.³⁰ Its response was to “review without prejudice the 1978 report on ‘Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office’ and the decision of 1978 regarding the ordination of women.”³¹ Synod instructed “consistories to defer implementation of the 1978 decision . . . .”³²

The period between 1981 to 1984, when the decision to ordain women deacons was reaffirmed, was marked by a flurry of activities. An overture to delegate deacons to major assemblies is referred to present studies on women deacons.³³ Women deacons who have been ordained may serve out their term, but churches are not to ordain any more.³⁴ The 1981 study report, “Synodical Studies on Women in Office and Decisions Pertaining to the Office of Deacon” contains much that is valuable in regard to the office of deacons and the historical development of that office. But neither the majority report, the two minority reports, or the advisory committee’s recommendations were approved, and a new committee, this time to study headship, was appointed.

It should be noted that the minority report of a 1981 study report by Henry Vander Kam recommends, “That the practice of excluding women from ecclesiastical office be maintained.”³⁵ Also the subsequent report of “Committee on Headship in the Bible” had a minority report in which Thea Van Halsema disagrees with women having “an ordained office,” but urges the church “to acknowledge women’s role as man’s fitting helper in the church by establishing a position of assistants in ministry.”³⁶ Alongside these voices to exclude women from all offices, are those who want to open all offices to women, so that it is proposed that Church Order Article 3 read that “Confessing members of the church (meaning both male and female) who meet the biblical requirements for office-bearers are eligible for office.”³⁷ Between these two poles is Synod’s decision that a study committee ”define the work of elders and deacons in such a fashion that the local churches will be assisted in carrying out the decision of Synod 1984, that ‘the work of women as deacons . . . be distinguished from that of elders’ (Church Order Supplement, Art. 3).”³⁸

III. The Diaconate in Scripture and History

A. Scripture

When Synod 1984 reaffirmed its 1978 decision to open the office of deacon to women it did so on the grounds that “no study committee (1973, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984) found biblical reasons to keep the office of deacon closed to qualified women.”³⁹ Yet the recommendation is backed by very little Scriptural evidence. The grounds given in the 1978 decision are that, “There is some evidence in the Bible for opening the office of deacon to women. At least two passages in the New Testament (Romans 16:1 and I Timothy 3:11) indicate that women may serve as deacons (deaconesses).”⁴⁰ 

But when one checks Reformed Bible commentators there is no unanimity that these passages refer to women in the office of deacons. The word “diakonos” as used in the New Testament can be used in a general term for ministry, but is also used in a specialized or technical sense for deacons (Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8). If Romans 16:1 uses “diakonos” in the technical sense, Phoebe is a deaconess. The question is whether this was a position which was a special office, or whether it was a fixed position of service . ⁴¹ The only thing we can positively say is that “diakonos” implies that Phoebe was a servant of the church and as such “occupied a stable position, performed a definite and important function, in and for the church.”⁴²

As for I Tim. 3:11, there is even more of an ambiguity. Calvin comments that Paul “refers here to wives of both bishops and deacons, for they must help their husbands in their office . . . .⁴³ Hendriksen believes that the women referred to here are not “the wives of the deacons,” nor “all the adult female members of the church,” but that “these women are here viewed as rendering special service in the church, as do the elders and the deacons.”⁴⁴ Because this verse is wedged in between the stipulated requirements for deacons, with equal clarity indicates that these women are not to be regarded as constituting a third office in the church, the office of ‘deaconesses,’ on par with and endowed with authority equal to that of deacons.” Hendriksen refers to I Timothy 5:9 for support that there were women who were ‘deacons’ assistants” and “women who render auxiliary service, for which women are better adapted” than men.⁴⁵ It seems, therefore, not at all certain that women occupied the office of deacon. The only certainty we do have is that Scripture teaches that women had a function of helper in the diaconal ministry of the church.

1. Dr. Van Engen. “Christian Reformed Tradition,” The Banner, October 28, 1985, p. 9. 2. Ibid.

3 Quoted from Lillian V. Grissen and others at the October 22, 1985 meeting of The Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church.

4. MM. “Women: Office Yes, Headship No,” The Banner, July 1, 1985, p. 6. 5. Acts of Synod of the Christian Reformed Church 1985, p. 774. 6. Acts of Synod 1985, p. 775. 7. Ibid., p. 781. 8. Gordon J. Spykman and Lillian V. Grissen, Men and Women/Partners in Service (2850 Kalamazoo SE, Grand Rapids , Ml 49506: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1981), pp. 113–15.

9. Acts and Reports of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (Amsterdam 1968), p. 34.

10. Quoted by Spykman and Grissen, Men & Women/Partners in Service, p. 116; cf. Acts of Synod 1972, pp. 37, 401.

12. Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 61–64.

13. Ibid., p. 587.

14. Ibid., p. 585.

15. Ibid., p. 86.

16. Acts of Synod 1975, p. 572.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., p. 593.

19. Ibid., p. 78.

20. Ibid., p. 77.

21. Ibid., p. 79.

22. Acts of Synod 1976, p. 54. 23. Acts of Synod 1985, pp. 612–13. 24. Acts of Synod 1976, p. 523.

25. Ibid., p. 522.

26. Ibid., p. 544. 27. Acts of Synod 1978, pp. 487–502 . 28. Ibid., pp. 532–33; cf. p. 104. 29. Ibid., p. 77.

30. Acts of Synod 1979, p. 119; cf. pp. 6–7.

31. Ibid., pp. 121–22.

32. Acts of Synod 1979, p. 122.

33. Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 105–6. 34. Ibid., p. 56.

35. Acts of Synod 1981, p. 531.

36. Acts of Synod 1984, p. 341.

37. Ibid., p. 376.

38. Acts of Synod 1985, p. 781.

39. Acts of Synod 1984, p. 654.

40. Acts of Synod 1978, p. 104.

41. Colin Brown, Gen. Ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, s.v. “Serve” by K. Hess (Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), pp. 544–548. 42. William Hendriksen, Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981), p. 500.

43. Calvin’s Commentaries, II Corinthians, Timothy, Titus. Philemon (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 229.

44. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, I-II Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House 1965), p. 132.

45. Ibid., p. 133 Mrs. Prank, the wife of the pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is a student at Calvin Theological Seminary.