As a preface to our discussion of women in ecclesiastical office we want to look briefly at the Biblical concept of “office” itself.

When a surveyor prepares to set the boundary lines on a piece of property it is crucial t hat he establish an exact point of beginning. If his point of beginning is wrong, the boundary lines will be wrong and building will be misplaced.

So it is with the whole issue of women in ecclesiastical office. If the church’s understanding of office is faulty, its conclusions regarding the authority of that office, the functioning of that office and the occupants of that office will be wrong.

   

Office

In 1973 two study committees responded to synod, one on “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination” and the other on “Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Although the study committees functioned separately, there is a strange unity to the conclusions reached by both. In fact, the faulty foundational principles outlined by the committee on office leads directly to the faulty conclusions offered by the committee for women in ecclesiastical office.

The committee on office maintained the office is a task which is committed to all the members of the church. The fact that some persons are set aside to serve in a special way is only designed to promote efficiency in the church. There is to be no special “status, dominance, or privilege attached to these offices. They only differ in junction and not in essence from the office of believer which everyone in the church holds.”

From these statements one can only conclude that office is basically service and nothing more. Such office requires no submission on the part of the members of the congregation, it carries no authority, it deserves no special honor.

The synodical advisory committee that handled the report saw the fatal flaws. But instead of advising a rejection of the study committee’s recommendations, the advisory committee prepared a set of guidelines which were designed to correct some of the erroneous thinking in the study report recommendations. The guidelines emphasized the difference in essence of the ecclesiastical offices from the general office of believer. The guidelines stressed that office was service but service with authority demanding respect, submission, and honor. What synod accepted in 1973 was a package of study committee recommendations going in one direction and guidelines to those recommendations going the opposite direction. It was a n attempt to fit the proverbial “round peg in a square hole.” It was like so many reports, a synthesis that has not worked and never will.

The study committee on office obviously has never felt the weight of verses like these:

• Titus 1:7: “A bishop must be blameless as a steward of God.”
• Titus 2:25: “These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority.”
• Matthew 16:18 and 19: Jesus says to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church . . . I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
• Acts 20:28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to feed the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood.”
• Hebrews 13:17: “Obey them that have rule over you and submit yourselves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief.”
• I Peter 5:2: “The elders . . . I exhort . . . feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint but willingly.”
• I Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders that rule will be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and in doctrine.”

One reason that the church for centuries has denied ecclesiastical office to women is precisely because the church has believed that ecclesiastical office is to be vested with authority. Since women (wives) are not to have authority over men (husbands) in the home or the church, they, according to prohibitions in Scripture, are not to hold ecclesiastical office in the church.

Now if the concept of “office” can be stripped of its authority and woman can be shown to be a partner of man and not a helper to man, equal in status and role, then she need no longer be considered “‘under submission” and thus she can be admitted to ecclesiastical office. The attempts to do this in the CRC are many and they are most clearly demonstrated in the list of documents presented earlier in this series.

Partner vs. Helper

Synod of 1973 also received and acted upon another report entitled “Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Many of the points raised in this document will be treated later in our discussion. But at this point we want to look at a matter raised on p. 521, Acts of Synod, 1973.

In this section of the report the authors discuss the relationship of the first man and the first woman to each other. The Christian church for centuries has understood Genesis 2:18 and 20 to teach that the woman’s role is to be that of “helper” to the man.

This concept is contrary to the current women’s liberation movement in society today. It is also unacceptable to most of the Christian Reformed authors on our document list. The synodical report of 1973 introduces a new interpretation of the word “helper” and that interpretation is picked up by Karen Helder De Vos in her book A Woman’s Worth and Work, pp. 40 and 41. It is further developed by the book authorized and printed by the Christian Reformed Board of Publications, co-authored by Dr. Gordon Spykman and Mrs. Lillian Grissen, Men and Women: Partners in Service, p . 50ff.

The synodical report of 1973 tells us that “The best translation of ‘helper fit for him’ is likely ‘partner’ . . . If woman was created as a helper of man, is she not then by that very token an inferior, a lower human being?”

This “superior-inferior” perspective is imposed on Genesis 2 by many of the authors on our list. For that reason I would like to propose this analogy in the hope of demonstrating two things:

1. That the word “helper” does not mean inferior;

2. That a substitution of the word partner for the word helper does injustice to the intent of Genesis 2 and subsequent related passages of Scripture.

In modern parlance, “partners” are understood to be equal in every respect. Two partners in a business are understood to have equal investments of money, effort, and time with equal shares in the dividends.

On the other hand, a president of a corporation or the President of the United States has helpers. Now these helpers can be of various kinds. One “helper” can be a cleaning lady at the White House. Another “helper” can be a cabinet member who researches ideas, criticizes programs, prepares legal packages for the president to send to Congress and advises the president on crucial matters. Obviously, the cabinet member is an indispensable “helper” to the president without which the president could not function . But it is entirely possible that the cabinet member, the “helper,” may be a better speaker than the president, may have a higher G.P.A. than the president, may have more charisma in his personality than the president. If that is the case—may the cabinet member then announce to the president and to the public that he is now a partner in that presidency? No way. No matter what superior qualities he may possess, the cabinet member is not the president. The president holds an executive office unique to him and him alone. He cannot function in that office without the help (support, brains, insights, communication skills, etc.) of his cabinet member. But when the final decisions are to be made, they are made by HIM.

Why is it that time and again many of the authors on our list impose a “cleaning lady” interpretation on the word “help” in Genesis 2? The rest of the Bible—the Old Testament and New Testament—is replete with evidence that God never intended for women to be inferior. Man (husband) cleaves to woman (wife)(Genesis 2:24). This indicates a tenacity which is profoundly more intimate than the relationship between a boss and a cleaning lady. It even reflects a tie which is closer than that of president and cabinet member. The cleaving involves a tenderness and unswerving loyalty which is not inherent in a business or professional relationship.

Also man (husband) is dependent on woman (wife) as part of his physical make-up. There is a physical bond of mutual dependence (I Cor. 11:11) which binds them together in love, in relationship. The authors do an injustice to the Scriptures when they impose the “cleaning lady” perspective on the word “help.”

They also feel they can improve on the Holy Spirit by substituting the word “partner” for “helper.” Not only is it grammatically illegitimate to substitute a status word (partner) for a role word (helper), but it is contrary to the intent of the Scriptures, as we shall see in subsequent articles.

When these authors make this kind of substitution and use it as their “point of beginning,” their foundation in developing the Biblical teaching on woman, it has tremendous implications for their views on headship, submission, and women in ecclesiastical office.

Mrs. Vanden Heuvel, the writer and department editor of “Reformed Women Speak,” lives at 207 Kansas Ave. N. W., Orange City, Iowa 51041.