Recently an excellent editorial entitled “Women In Office – Scripture in Disrepute” appeared in Christian Renewal. The managing editor John Hultink in the February 20, 1984 issue contends, and correctly so, that in the current debate concerning the matter of women and ecclesiastical office, much more is involved than simply an attempt to open the offices to female members of the church. Much more basic, says Mr. Hultink, is the attack upon the authority of Scripture. He writes: “In spite of costly lessons from the recent past, the desire to place women behind pulpits and in consistory rooms has become so overwhelming in some reformed circles that the authority ofScripture is being challenged as a result.’”
That one’s view of Scripture is ofvital significance in the present discussion is illustrated in the January 23, 1984 issue of The Banner. The editor of The Banner who has become a vocal proponent for the opening to women of offices in the Christian Reformed Church writes: “The church would be well served if we who say that the Bible allows women to hold office in the church frankly admit that we have made a hermeneutical decision: we have decided how to interpret certain Bible texts.” Although I strongly differ with the position taken by the editor, he is to be commended for his admission.
Too long we have been told by the proponents of women in ecclesiastical office that it is merely male chauvinism which is keeping women out of office in the Christian Reformed Church. Men, we are told, are fearful that they will lose their monopoly on authority in the church, an authority which they have usurped to themselves. More recently we have been informed that it is the older, less educated in the church which is keeping women out of the offices in the church, and so, for some, it has become a matter of waiting until the younger and supposedly better educated segment of the church’s membership gains the ascendency.
But now we have a proponent of women in ecclesiastical office admitting “that Paul was prescribing a restricted role to women in the service of worship when he wrote I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12” and that “One should not try to make these texts say the opposite of what they seem to be saying to the ordinary reader.” This great admission however is followed immediately by the declaration that “the reasons for the restrictions were local, cultural, and therefore temporal.”
It matters not then that the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 14 declares that what he is writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the law, the revelation of God given in the Old Testament Scriptures. Nor does it matter that in I Timothy 2 Paul, in making his prohibition in regard to women, appeals to the creation ordinance. Since we should not according to the proponent of women in office make these texts say the opposite of what they seem to be saying, we will simply make them of none effect by declaring that they are local , cultural and therefore temporal. And so we have a new hermeneutics.
The church should be aware of that fact when she gathers in synodical session in June to consider that report of the committee on headship. Those who adopt a new hermeneutic in order to justify the opening of ecclesiastical offices to women will sooner or later find themselves applying their principles of interpretation to other teachings of Scripture. A writer in the recent issue of the Mid–America Messenger says: “The story of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerd) is too well known among us to need a lengthy rehearsal. Officially it allows for homosexuality as an alternate life-style. Officially it works hand-in-glove with the World Council of Churches which severely criticizes any form of capitalistic society while supporting communistic terrorists. Officially it leaves in office a man who denies the substitutionary atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. Officially it is seeking union with the Reformed Church (Hervormd) which tolerates within its ministry men of every stripe, including those who deny the deity of our blessed Savior. And while these and many other positions were not occasioned by opening ecclesiastical office to women, they are justified by the same kind of biblical interpretation.”
Hultink, in the editorial referred to earlier in making reference to those who have attacked the authority of Scripture, adopting the new hermeneutic in order to open the offices in the church to women, writes: “It will not take much imagination to see where this unreformed view of Scripture will take us, for it is a view already practiced by many. Kuitert is of the opinion that the Genesis account about Adam and Eve is culturally conditioned. Wiersinga is of the opinion that the biblical teachings about sin are outdated and Harpur sincerely believes that the biblical teaching that Jesus ascended into heaven is archaic. Others argue that Christ and the apostles were simply children of their time. What they said and taught should not be taken too literally. Having set out on this perilous course, it is only a question of time before the fundamentals of the Christian faith are discarded . Who then will apologize to our children a generation from now for having g iven them stones for bread?”
When the synod ofthe Christian Reformed Church meets in June of this year there will be voices raised pleading for the abandonment of the position permitting only men to serve in the ecclesiastical offices. In making this plea the proponents of women in office will be attacking the position which the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has held fo r nearly two thousand years to be the requirement of Scripture. Those who make this plea will be appealing to the new hermeneutic. The delegates to synod must ask themselves the question: “If the teachings of the apostle Paul given by divine inspiration, in which he appeals to the law and the creation ordinance can be dismissed as being local, cultural and therefore temporal, what then is to prevent other teachings of the Bible from being treated in the same way?” In fact one wonders how many year s it will be before the gospel declared in John 3:16 is dismissed as being merely local, cultural and temporal. The history of other churches with which we have had a close relationship shows that the concern just raised is not unfounded but rather must be seriously considered.
The concluding words of Hultink in his editorial deserve our affirmation: “The vitality of Christianity is its unwavering confession that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. And that Word of God is universally valid for all peoples, of all places, for all times until the end of this age.”
Arthur Besteman is the pastor of the North Street Christian Reformed Church of Zeeland, Michigan.
