A Momentous Decision in the Christian Reformed Church

As a result of actions taken in June 1994 at the general meeting (Synod) of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), that church now holds as its official policy that the Bible clearly prohibits the ordination of women to the office of elder, evangelist and minister. What led to this historic decision reversing a direction that had been underway for some years?

The Christian Reformed Church has been in existence in America for more than 135 years.[1] It was an immigrant church made up largely of people who had "seceded" from the state church of the Netherlands in 1834 and were determined to remain true to the Reformed faith as defined in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. In the new soil of America these people established strong congregations based on biblical doctrine. They established Christian schools and founded a seminary for the training of ministers. Steady growth accompanied faithful home mission and foreign mission evangelism. The "Back to God Hour" radio ministry attracted other accessions to the church.

Recently, however, together with other traditionally conservative Christian churches, the CRC has been beset by problems that threaten its historic beliefs and mission. Its very identification as a Reformed denomination is in jeopardy.

Problems

The CRC's problems date back to 1924, when modifications in the approach to the Bible were introduced, leading eventually to controversies over evolution, women in ministerial office, diminishing regard for the church's historic doctrinal beliefs, and a challenge to the Apostle Paul's teaching against homosexuality. Other issues have included challenges to biblical inerrancy, to creation ex nihilo, as well as abortion and the feminization of God. Pluralism of views has confused church members, resulting in declining membership with the specter of schism and fragmentation raising its disruptive head. By November 1992 4000 people and twenty congregations had seceded from the denomination, in particular in response to the 1992 decision to allow women to "expound the Word, and provide pastoral care."

Defiance

In 1992 one of CRC's most liberal congregations (Grand Rapids, Michigan) declared its intention to take independent action and begin to ordain local women elders. In open defiance they went so far as to examine and approve a woman candidate for ministry "in the Christian Reformed Church," not just in the local congregation. Obviously such a declaration and action posed a major threat to denominational unity and mission.

Because such an action required a change in the Church Order, it would have to be ratified in 1994. Thus the general Synod of the church in 1994 would be crucial. By that time many people felt it was a foregone conclusion that the church would ratify the previous action and make the ordination of women official.

Which way would the Christian Reformed Church go? Would it go the way of the Anglican-Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church, succumbing to liberalism and culture, or would it follow the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention in remaining true to the Bible? What would be the implications of its decision?

Alarm

As conservatives became more alarmed over what such a decision implied regarding biblical authority, opposition increased. One example was that of a congregation (Chino, California) whose Church Council sent a letter to its members, subsequently published in The Outlook (March 1994, pp. 11–14), which stated reasons for not supporting the Synod's 1993 action: It was not in harmony with Scripture, it was based on a dangerous method of biblical interpretation, and setting aside God's Word in this way invalidates the total witness of the church to the world "and makes mission and Commission impossible." The letter concluded: "If we are asking our world to fully believe God's Word, the least we can do is to fully believe it ourselves." We Seventh-day Adventists, in harmony with our own historic understanding of God's will for our church, and in harmony with our doctrinal and missionary history, can only respond with hearty Amens!

In a formal statement accompanying the letter, the 24 members of the Church Council declared their unanimous opinion that "When a denomination becomes disobedient to the Scripture, this action undermines the local church's main mission, which is to proclaim and live by the Word until Christ returns." Also, the initial decision "to allow women to serve as elders and ministers in the church is one major symptom of this trend in the CRC, where the Word no longer functions authoritatively." With keen perception, they went on to say that "The major problem, as we see it, is what this decision does to the Bible." Furthermore, with deep concern for the faithfulness of the church to which they were committed, they concluded that "A church that ignores the Biblical pattern for ecclesiastical authority is, in fact, a church that has lost its Biblical authority, including its authority to call people to faith in Christ."

Reinterpretation

Underlying the problems faced by the CRC are issues of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) which have their roots in the enlightenment and rationalism of the 18th century, the romantic idealism of the 19th century, and the existentialism of the 20th century. These "isms" supported the idea that men and women must be set free from biblical restrictions and from biblical authority which inhibit affirmation of human existence. Hence, if it is to be retained at all, the Bible must be reinterpreted in order to make it acceptable to modern man for whom self-love has become the ultimate value. Whatever affirms life is not only desirable but required and demanded. Conclusion: the Bible is full of errors and contradictions and must be rejected or reinterpreted wherever it appears to be restrictive or repressive. Using human reason, feelings, and experience, one must learn to cull from the Bible that which is acceptable and eliminate the unacceptable, based on the needs imposed by times and cultures.

Since mankind has become more "tolerant" (a debatable assertion), the biblical doctrine of divine judgment must be rejected. Since man is basically good and needs only education and development, the biblical doctrines of sin and salvation must be rejected. Since modern man has learned that homosexual relationships can be loving, homosexuality is no longer sin in spite of what the Bible says about it. Since the highest value is self-love, abortion is seen as a morally acceptable solution for that which inhibits its free expression.

With such presuppositions it is easy to reject the biblical doctrines of male headship and female submission as inhibiting the freedom of women. To deny them ordination is considered repressive and abusive.

Truth changes with the times, liberalism insists; therefore the Bible must be demythologized and deculturized. Liberalism cannot tolerate conservatives who hold to absolute truth and brands them as "fundamentalists," "reactionary," "old-fashioned," and "non-progressive."

Scripture Effective

The 1994 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church was preoccupied with one great issue: the role of women in ministerial office. More specifically, it had to decide whether to ratify the 1993 action, thus making ordination for women official church policy. The meeting took place on the campus of Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, beginning on June 14, and this issue dominated the meeting for most of the second week. The debate began with a panel discussion, one and a half hours long, that focused on the teachings of the Bible. It was apparent to observers that opponents of the ordination of women made the most effective use of Scripture in presenting their case. One powerful example was a demonstration from the Bible that slavery was a direct result of the fall whereas Paul's counsel concerning male leadership and headship is based on creation.

When the vote was finally taken, the results surprised many delegates. By a slim margin the delegates voted not to ratify the 1993 proposal. What this action accomplished, in effect, was to rescind previous actions endorsing ordination for women. As of June 1, 1995, women are not permitted to serve as elders, evangelists, or ministers; women who had been ordained to such offices in the interim are to be released by that date; all congregations were urged not to ordain any additional women to such offices.

While many felt that the wording of this part of the action could have been even stronger, it was allowed to stand, perhaps because by that time most delegates were wearied by the tension and stress of days of debate, discussion, and parliamentary maneuvering.

Finally, the action declared that the ordination of women is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible, incompatible with the general analogy of Scripture, and inconsistent with the historic consensus of the universal Christian church.[2]

What makes this action so momentous is the fact that women were denied ordination in order to uphold the authority of the Bible.

In reporting on this momentous action, Cornelius P. Venema, who teaches doctrinal studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, said: "I do not recall ever hearing a debate on this issue in which the two sides of the issue were as starkly contrasted, or the basic hermeneutical differences as obvious. The debate at this year's synod did not obscure but clarified the extent of this difference in a striking way. . . . The strength of the majority's recommendation clearly rested on the Biblical grounds cited. . . . Absent, however, from the argument of the minority was any sustained attempt to show the Biblical case for the ordination of women." Appeals by proponents were made instead to "personal experiences and something vaguely termed the 'thrust' of the Scriptures."[3]

Factors

What were some of the factors that made possible such a dramatic reversal of what appeared to be a deeply entrenched trend in the Christian Reformed Church? At least three factors are apparent:

(1) Opponents of women's ordination did not permit proponents to control the terms of the debate. They did not surrender the field in the face of demanding cultural pressure nor in spite of the branding they suffered.

(2) The issue was not swept under the denominational rug but was openly debated in the church press prior to the Synod meetings.

(3) When constituents were permitted to see the arguments for and against juxtaposed, the biblical arguments opposed to the ordination of women were powerfully persuasive.

Adventist Issue

Reports have reached Seventh-day Adventist church members that the 1995 General Conference session will witness a strong attempt to obtain a decision allowing divisions, unions, and conferences to go their own way on whether to ordain women to the ministry. But would such a decision ultimately satisfy proponents? If to them it is a matter of full equality and justice, they could not settle for such a solution as final. It would prove to be unworkable in a world church and would play into the hands of proponents, who would come to the next General Conference with the argument that the decision (which they themselves proposed and endorsed) was causing chaos and that the only solution would be to authorize ordination for women throughout the whole church.

But there is another recourse, the example for which has been provided for us by the Christian Reformed Church's courageous 1994 action, effectively reversing prior actions in order to uphold the authority of the Bible!

Crisis of Conscience

If the Seventh-day Adventist church in General Conference session votes to allow divisions, unions, conferences to take unilateral action relative to the ordination of women in ministry, it would create a crisis of conscience for all those opposed on biblical grounds. With some 80% of the churches in North America not even having women elders, clearly the mainstream of the North American church is not supporting ordination of women. Would approval reduce the financial support of the church by members committed to the Bible? Would ministers be forced to accept the new teaching? Would their careers suddenly be in jeopardy when pastors and administrators find themselves in opposition to voted church policy? Would ministerial students be denied entrance to ministry if they oppose the ordination of women based on consciences captive to the Word of God? Would pastors and others be pressured into silence by the implied threat of loss of employment? What would happen to pastors who refuse to ordain local women elders or participate in the ordination of women in pastoral ministry? Because such an action would become church policy, would those who continue to be opposed be free to object in church publications? Would hypocrisy be forced upon opponents due to the contradiction between privately held convictions on this matter and any restriction imposed on the public statement of those convictions? Such questions, and more, would suddenly demand attention.

How much better for the church to take its stand on what Scripture actually says regarding qualifications for the authoritative role of pastor or elder, rather than speculate that because the Bible does not address the issue of ordination. The Christian Reformed Church faced the issue squarely and courageously, making Scripture their final appeal. Can the Seventh-day Adventist church do less?