Anyone acquainted with ecclesiastical affairs recognizes that the issue of “women in office” is tearing many a church apart.

Throughout the Roman Catholic Church the question of “females in the priesthood” is heatedly discussed. The recent rupture of the Protestant Episcopal Church cannot be correctly evaluated apart from the approval on the part of a majority to ordain women to the priesthood. The Presbyterian Church in America owes its separate existence at least in part to decisions taken by the Presbyterian Church in the United States to open ecclesiastical offices to women. And the Reformed Church in America is agitated year after year by the same issue. Its General Synods have approved such opening of office, pending the approval of two-thirds of the church classes. Although this has not been achieved, women in some parts of that church have been ordained as deacons or as elders or, in an instance or two, as ministers of the Gospel.

At its 1978 Synod the Christian Reformed Church has taken a “landmark” decision. In sharp contrast to its historic position, to its Church Order (now quickly amended by said Synod and to be “ratified” next year). and its Belgic Confession, it has declared:

“That consistories he allowed to ordain qualified women to the office of deacon, provided that their work be distinguished from that of elders.

Grounds:

a. 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).

b. The headship principle in which the woman (wife) is to be subject to the man (husband) is not violated as long as the office of deacon is expressed in terms of assistance and service.

c. There is historical precedent for this in the Reformed tradition (see Calvin‘s Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 9, and the Synod of Wesel, 1568).

In this article we refrain from rehearsing all the arguments either for or against opening this or any other ecclesiastical office to “qualified women members of the church.” With these our readers have had ample opportunity to acquaint themselves during the past few years.

Instead, we point out that Synod, by a reasonable majority, has now “thrown the apple of discord” into the congregations. And what may well be the consequences of this decision?

   

That question is by no means out of order.

The 1975 Synod declared “that the practice of excluding women from the ecclesiastical offices recognized in the Church Order be maintained unless compelling Biblical grounds (italic ours) are advanced for for changing the practice.” The contention of those who oppose the recent synodical decision is that such Biblical grounds have by no means been presented.

Let us review these for a moment.

How weak, even wavering are the grounds adduced by the 1978 Synod. At best Synod could say, “There is some evidence (ital. ours) in the Bible . . . .” Both texts, and we challenge anyone to adduce others which speak directly to the issue at hand) have been consistently explained by Reformed and even other commentators in a manner quite contrary to the interpretation which Synod now proposes we give them.

Nor is the second ground one which carries the weight which Synod supposes it has. Here Synod actually proposes that the “office of deacon” be “expressed in terms of assistance and service.” But, pray tell, is that all that the diaconal office within the Reformed churches has come to mean? Those who have any Reformed sensitivities will soon discover that this means a grave reduction of the high calling of deacons. No longer, then, are we to regard the diaconate as having official authority, exercised corporately in the name of Jesus Christ. It is simply a service-organization.

The “restriction” incorporated in the supplement to the revised Article 3 of the Church Order also helps very little. It declares that “the work of women as deacons is to be distinguished from that of the elders.” Just what does this mean in the context of a document which is to provide direction for our church activities? When and by whom and how will this distinction be spelled out? Synod, while radically changing the regulations by which all our churches are supposed to live, provides no guidance whatever. And for an issue as intensely discussed and debated as this one that lack is lamentable indeed.

We cannot find any strong support for the 1978 decision in the third ground either. Whatever Calvin may have written about the assistance which women can and ought to provide for those who are needy and distressed, in his day we find no deacons in the Genevan church. And the decision taken at Wesel whatever its intent and scope, which needs much more detailed investigation and demonstration before a synod should use it in this wise—was not taken by a “synod” but by a “convent,” that is, by a conference of ministers and elders without the accreditation from consistories and congregations which is proper to a synod. It was a preliminary gathering, important indeed in the story of the Reformed churches, but without such authority as is usually ascribed to a synod. It baffles us that, with so many ecclesiastical leaders present at the 1978 Synod, the term synod should be applied to said gathering.

None who knows anything of Reformed church history and its achievements in the area of Christian philanthropy will ever deny a large measure of gratitude and honor to the services in this area rendered so lovingly by women of the church. Without these much would undoubtedly have been left undone. And should one desire to call them “deaconesses” and recognize them as a kind of order or group within the life of the church—somewhat after the fashion of Paul’s discussion of the “widows” in I Timothy 5then no legitimate objection to such a procedure need be raised.

But the 1978 Synod has opened the way to the ordination of women to an ecclesiastical office which, according to the Belgic Confession (Art. 30), engages in the government of Christ’s church. Here together we have confessed,

“We believe that this true Church must be governed by that spiritual polity which our Lord has taught us in His Word; namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the Church . . . ” (ital. ours).

By its serious restriction of the diaconal office Synod is faced with two choices. And neither of these. we believe. will make many church members happy. Either the churches through the Synod will have to revise the Belgic Confession (Art. 30) or otherwise in all honesty and. hopefully. with clarity will have to state that women–deacons are not really deacons at all in the official sense of the term.

In the nature of the case, then –and this happens every time when a synodical decision is either incomplete or ambiguous—the present issue is by no means settled.

Already now some consistories and congregations have begun to outrun Synod. A few have had women as deacons for quite a time. even opening the sessions of the church council with its discussions and deliberations to them. At least one congregation (perhaps more) has ordained a woman as elder. And the agitation for ordaining qualified women to the Gospel ministry (preaching and administering the sacraments) promises to proceed apace.

This change in its basic polity demonstrates uumistakably that as Christian Reformed Church we are no longer united by common convictions on important issues. This became clear also from the long and arduous debate which preceded the final decision. Let us again be honest and acknowledge that all our leaders and members no longer read, understand and apply the Holy Scriptures in the same way. Some speak of “rabbinical exegesis” as an influence on the teachings set forth by Paul. Others-insist on finding also with regard to the place and position of women in Christ‘s church “time–bound” elements, despite Paul‘s appeal to both the creation–and the fall-account. But when we remember that some among us regard those accounts as giving facts which cannot be controverted while others think it legitimate to interpret those accounts as providing simply a literary framework to teach important truths, then the sharp differences on women in the diaconate need come as no surprise.

This “changing of the rules” has not been accomplished by the so· called conservatives. Yet they have become the ones upon whom the 1978 decision by Synod has forced a crisis of conscience. And what can and will they now do?

Undoubtedly we will find some, perhaps many, who prefer to follow the pattern of “live and let live.” As long as within their local congregations no women are inducted into ecclesiastical office, they will tolerate and even close their eyes to what is happening in other congregations.

Others will as individuals and families leave the Christian Reformed Church for a more “congenial” congregation and/or denomination which still pursues the historic Reformed pattern. This, too, should not then come as a shock, much as we may regret and deplore such leave-taking. Within the past ten or more years, because of other issues which have beeun to divide the Christian Reformed Church sharply, dozens and even a few hundreds have followed this Course. And as agitation for women elders and preachers continues, we may well see many others leave.

But there are still many ministers and elders, deacons and church members who love the Christian Reformed Church, despite what they humbly confess as her many and even growing failings, as their “spiritual mother.” At all costs they hope to remain within that fellowship. But what can they do? The crisis of conscience disturbs them daily and deeply.

Here each member, each consistory, and even each congregation will have to make a choice. Often this will be painful. It will arouse, should such individuals and churches declare the 1978 decision contrary to Scripture and the Creeds, the anger and antipathy of those who delight in the recent decision. It may well produce division within families and discord within local congregations. It can easily range one congregation against another in some of our classes. And when such divided convictions and loyalties show themselves, sins so easily multiply to corrupt the fellowship which should be ours in Christ Jesus even more. Against these all of us must continually be on guard. No one has the right to question the “sincerity” of either those who support or those who oppose the 1978 decision. Only Christ is Lord of the conscience; only the living God knows the secrets and the motives of the heart. But of two contradictory “sincerities” only one can be correct according to the Scripture.

Thus we ask again: What can those who oppose the recent decision now do?

First, so it seems to us, each consistory has the God-given responsibility to determine whether in obedience to the Bible it can and may abide by that decision or not. If and when convinced that it cannot, this should be declared openly.

Thereupon the way of official protest is open. Already several congregations and classes have decided to protest the 1978 decision and petition that it be rescinded. This will require patient and prayerful waiting. But let no one allow his or her hopes to rise too high. Seldom do synods reverse decisions from year to year. And in the light of present trends, it may well be that the 1979 Synod will “ratify” the Church Order amendment without much discussion. But again if Synod then is honest and honorable, it will set in motion the attempt to amend and correct what to its mind is an “error” in the Belgic Confession.

But during this period the crisis of conscience remains.

Those conscientiously opposed to the 1978 decision face the matter of their prayers and their gifts.

Throughout the denomination in many a home and in nearly every congregational worship service prayers are oHered for our leaders engaged in the many work-programs of the church. But a sizeable number of these openly advocate the admission of women to the diaconate and even the other ecclesiastical offices. Those who oppose said decision regard those views in flagrant conflict with Holy Writ with respect to the polity and government of the church. This is no longer a matter of personal offense to be settled according to Matthew 18; it is public and official matter which involves many including also those who voted for the recent decision. And merely mouthing petitions that our God may richly bless them in their work seems little short of hypocrisy on the part of those who oppose what Synod has approved. We do better to humble ourselves, one and all, and confess that the church is drifting ever farther from its moorings in Scripture and the Creeds. The wounds which have been inflicted, no doubt by parties on both sides of this issue, will not be lightly healed.

And convinced of all this, can we then in good conscience before the Lord bring oHerings for the work of those institutions and agencies which through their personnel are advocating and implementing what the 1978 Synod has decided? Here we face a painful and perplexing matter. It will affect every thoughtful steward. It will affect even more every consistory in disagreement with the recent decision. For consistories are expected to recommend and endorse the support of our denominational agencies and causes. But to give for what one believes to be contrary to Biblical teaching can hardly be the loving, spontaneous, and responsible giving in which the Lord delights.

What will happen, if the 1979 Synod approves the recent change, is known to the Lord alone.

The lines, however, are being sharply drawn which bode little peace (or the Christian Reformed Church. Perhaps a few pastors and consistories may decide to “secede,” a path which to everyone who knows church history is also filled with pains and perplexities.

Others may declare openly their refusal to cooperate with congregations, broader assemblies, and denominational agencies which implement the recent decision. Then inevitably the question must arise whether classes and synods which “tolerate” differences of conviction on this and other weighty issues will also “tolerate” within the denomination those who in good conscience before the Lord cannot and will not support financially some or even much of the denominational work-program. Here perhaps, even as in the 1934 case of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. versus Dr. J. Gresham Machen, the issue may be forced to a tragic conclusion.

Then it will become evident which is more important to the Christian Reformed Church in our day—loyalty to the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions or financial cooperation with our church programs,