Anyone who is not a stranger in Jerusalem nowadays realizes that on the part of a very vocal minority in the CRC there is a great deal of pressure to get women into ecclesiastical office. Of course, for the present it is largely limited to the office of deacon(ess), a request which the Rev. Bill Deenick of Australia called “a modest enough (though sometimes tongue-in-cheek) request.” “But,” he goes on to say, “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” (in Trowel & Sword). Deenick is right of course.
One of the churches in the Classis to which I belong already has a woman deaconess. But contrary to the decision of Synod, the elder from this church openly stated that this deaconess sits in on all the council meetings and takes part in all the deliberations and decisions. That shows something of the mentality in our church today. We really don’t care too much what Synod says, as long as we have the opening. Once that is there, the rest will follow. Every one does that which is right in his own eyes. And that is going to bring about a very strange situation in our churches, not to speak of chaos.
Of course, Synod’s decision itself leaves a lot to be desired. For Synod has actually now created a “hierarchy” among the offices, something which goes contrary to the very genius of Reformed church polity. We have emptied the diaconal office of any kind of biblical authority. With such a decision we can expect problems to arise. That’s what we get when we try to compromise biblical givens in order somehow to accommodate a pressure group within the church.
One other thing ought to be said in this connection: As one who is opposed to women in office, I sometimes have to hear from some well–meaning, oh-so-condescending brothers (and sisters): “We can more or less understand your view, for it takes time to get used to something we haven’t had before.” As if that was the issue! Some people “get used” to adultery and divorce and homosexualism too. Does that make it right? Is it only a matter of “getting used” to it? What a bunch of nonsense.
It’s a matter of what does the Bible say. And so far the best we’ve been able to come up with is that there is “some” evidence for deaconesses. And on women elders we don’t know, for Scripture is “not clear.” But we’re going to make sure we get them anyway. In this respect it’s interesting to note what the 1975 Committee said of the 1973 Report (the Report which tried hardest to find biblical evidence for women in office): “The committee fails to prove that women participate officially at all.” Again: “The committee has not given a single example of women called to official leadership. In fact, we can find no clear example in the New Testament.” That is at least honest talk. And that’s where we still are today. No one has come up with any more evidence since that. But then, biblical evidence is not the deciding factor in this (and other) matters. It’s more a matter of what we want.
