Woman in office in the RCN?


Slip-up or structural decline?

 

This month the general synod of Ede 2014 of the RCN (GKv) will have to deal with deputies report ‘M/V in de kerk’ (Man/woman in the church). Many are waiting in suspense, for since the publication of the report, a storm of diverse responses has risen. The synod also received objections from 10 consistories and from at least six churches abroad. Furthermore, there was a notice of appeal, signed by more than 1500 church members, in which, besides objections to this case, other concerns were included.

 

Because of our great concern for the liberated churches and our sympathy with the concerned members, it is good to again pay attention to the content of this report. In addition we will discuss the question whether it is a glitch, a ‘slip-up’, or whether it testifies of a structural and general decline.

Introductory remarks

Already at the GS Amersfoort 2005 a deputyship for ‘women in the church’ was set up. Their report to the GS Zwolle 2008 already propagated a hermeneutical (exegetical) line that declares the Biblical message being time-bound, next to a more Scriptural hermeneutic line.

 

The following is a quotation taken from this report via a booklet by H.J.C.C. Wilschut in 2010, Vrouw en kerkelijk ambt; een bijbelse verkenning (Woman and ecclesiastical office; a biblical exploration):

Both lines agree that the writers of the Bible were themselves rooted in the culture of their days. That, for instance, marks the way they take things for granted ( and therefore can be omitted in the description) or rather, are recorded as striking. The question is, to what extent does that culture work through in the authority of the texts for today. When Bible writers pass something on as a message from God then already a certain ‘cultural processing’ is included, and both parties acknowledge that, but could that also mean that the message of God is, as it were, hidden under that cultural layer? So that Christian sensitivity is required in order to see through that layer and to receive insight on the message for today? Could it even be possible that the Spirit intentionally remains hidden behind that cultural layer to challenge us to use our Christian freedom in wisdom? So that we, led by the Spirit, more or less grow out above the statements of the New Testament, in the sense that we are no longer bound to them? Are those statements so interwoven with the concrete situation in which they are given, that a direct application for today is not possible, may even be contradictory with Gods purpose?

 

Very questionable words, that directly affect the authority of Scripture. The synod of Zwolle-Zuid 2008 did not reject this line of the new interpretation, but gave the TU at Kampen instructions to carry out a ‘scientific reflection’ concerning ‘hermeneutical and theological questions’. So now, commissioned by the Synod of Harderwijk 2011, there is a report M/V (man/woman) in which the line of the Scriptural interpretation is merely represented by one deputy, D. Slump, in which he gives account of why he has not agreed with the report.

Area of Tension

The report sees as its task the solving of a ‘problem’(!): how do we read the Bible, partly motivated by socio-cultural shifts and changes in thinking and lifestyles of church members. Regarding the background of this ‘problem’, we read the following: Compared with the past, more and more women fully participate in the broad social life. Girls can now study and work. Women lead and carry responsibility. Within the RCN women also increasingly fulfil more leadership and teaching tasks. ‘They give catechism instruction, are secretary or write minutes for the consistory, function as ecclesiastical or pastoral worker, do diaconal work, take part in the management of church goods, and are part of various committees, including calling- committees that assess sermons and other works of office of a minister’. Also, so says the report, women have the possibility, since the synod of Ommen (1993), to participate in voting for elders, deacons and ministers.

 

The report shows the church members, because of this, coming into an ‘area of tension’ ‘between the possibilities for women in social life and, in comparison, the limited possibilities for women in ecclesiastical life.’ But as a result also ‘the ‘area of tension’ between the doctrine’, that is: the official standpoint concerning the closed special offices for women, and ‘life’, that is: the way in which the women at present deploy their gifts in the churches and thereby also perform leadership and teaching tasks.’

Use of Scripture

For the solution of the so-called ‘problem’, the well-known Bible verses about the role of the woman are now explained in the manner of the new hermeneutics: relate the message of the text that originated in an ancient environment to the current environment, so that it becomes ‘trustworthy’ and acceptable for today.

 

The authoritative relationship between man and woman in texts such as 1 Cor. 11:3-16, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, 1 Tim. 2:11-14, Eph. 5:21-33 is not completely denied, but is associated with the ‘class system’ in the society of those days. Paul himself would have affiliated with ‘the prevailing moral standards’ of his time. With it, Paul, in his argumentation, used ‘typical Christian notions, such as awe for God and for Christ, references to the Old Testament (creation, the fall into sin and the giving of the law) and the prevention of unnecessary criticism from outsiders.’

 

The essence of these Scripture passages is, according to the report, that in the ‘subordination of the woman’ Paul wanted to adapt himself to the culture of his days for the sake of the ‘progress of the gospel’. That therefore, is its message for us today. They were guidelines to avoid outsiders raising unnecessary impediments for accepting the gospel and joining the church. While Paul warns here for dominant behaviour of women towards men, in our culture there is mostly a warning for dominant behaviour of men towards women. The Christian attitude must therefore not be unnecessarily out of step with the culture in which we live. Thus far the report.

God’s order of creation and our ‘problem’

But does Scripture teach somewhere that God adjusts His own institution and ordinances to the world? Did God not put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:16)? Doesn’t that also and particularly concern the obedient carrying out of His will and His ordinances? Yes, the Lord God is long-suffering, especially towards the world. He wants none of His elect to be lost. But doesn’t He, with that, maintain His right to His order of creation and His covenant demands against conformity to the world? See how the Lord Jesus Himself, referred back to God’s institution in the beginning for the relationship between man and woman. Man is not allowed to interfere with God’s institution ? (Math. 19:4-6)! We know from Romans 1 how much God abhors people who reverse His orders of creation, nor honour Him in it.

 

When the apostle Paul speaks of the position of the woman in the church, he affiliates with the Scriptural position of the woman versus the man. The woman is the glory of the man, as the man is the glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7). As an equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28), the woman should be submissive to her husband, who is her head, and who leads in responsibility (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph.5:23). Paul uses the interaction between Christ and His congregation as an example for the relationship between man and woman (Eph. 5:22-23). With that he excludes the woman from the special office (1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:12). That is not his interpretation of God’s message, for his words are inspired by God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20,21). That is why Paul affiliates with God’s teachings on the ordinances of creation, that are universally applicable to humans of this earth (1 Tim. 2:13, 1 Cor. 14: 34). That is the message of the whole of Scripture regarding man and woman.

 

Moreover, Paul’s words were not only meant for the congregation of Corinth or for Timothy. They count as divine words also for the church of today. God already had our situation in mind, for our good (Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16)! His words warn us also not to take on the desire for emancipation of the world. At the Fall, the Woman had that emancipation desire, whereby she did not follow the order of creation (1 Tim. 2:13,14). That desire was also present in the days of Paul and can also be seen in the woman Jezebel in Rev. 2: 20 (see De dienst en de vrouw in de kerk (= The worship service and the woman in the church), by Prof. K. Deddens, Vuurbaak 1978, page 49,50). Nowadays this desire for emancipation obtrudes even more boldly. That is our real ‘problem’!

The authority of God’s Word

Unfortunately these dimensions do not come into the picture at all in the report. Deputies do repeatedly say that God’s Word must have the first and the last say, but to that Word they impose their own framework of adjustment to the culture of the world. Because they do not know how to deal with it. Thus they come to an explanation that is at odds with Scripture, namely that the woman nowadays does not need to be submissive (‘subservient’) where it concerns the fulfilling of the special offices.

 

The used Biblical foundation of continued validity of the submissiveness of the woman, is dismissed with the thought that this was handy for Paul in his situation. The writers are saying implicitly: but this Biblical foundation does not suit us in our situation.

 

In this way they think to have found the solution for their described ‘problem’ and for the ‘area of tension between doctrine and life’. They say to have done this under ‘continual prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit’. But the question comes up strongly as to whether the word of 2 Tim. 4: 3, 4 isn’t true here. In these verses we read: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. (NKJV)

Broad development

How could it come so far? In his leading articles Doorgaande deformatie (Ongoing deformation) and Lees wat er staat (Read what it says), De Bazuin, volume 7, no’s 33 and 35, br. T.L. Bruinius has already written a few things about it. In addition to this we want to point out various coherent lines of development within the RCN that, in our opinion, come together in this report. In random order:

 

The first line of development that we wish to mention, is that of the false ecumenism through which they now have firm bonds with the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (NRC) and are striving for unity with them. Recently there is also more rapprochement towards and cooperation with the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In both church communities the woman has been admitted to the pulpit for some years now. For this also, a linkage with the culture in the time of Biblical events was brought forward as argument.

 

A second line of development is the increasing openness towards the world, with a desire for adaptation, amongst other things, in liturgy, preaching and ethics (see our articles on the book Doorgaande revolutie (Ongoing revolution) by Prof. G. Dekker).

 

A third line is the dominating thought of being a missionary church, in which non-reformed teachings of, among others, D. Bonhoeffer play a major part. For a long time now one no longer wants to be a ‘church with walls’, but a church following the model of an ‘open market’.

 

The fourth line of development is that of Scripture criticism within the TU at Kampen since the publishing of the Scripture-critical book Woord op schrift in 2002. In the meantime Scripture has been adapted in many parts. We mention the history of creation, the miracles in the Bible (Joshua), the power of expression of Gods law (congregation-ethics) including dealing with Sunday rest, divorce and homosexuality in a different manner.

 

The fifth line is the said decision of GS Ommen 1993 to allow voting rights for women. This, for the benefit of adapting to the time-spirit, already meant a break with almost 20 centuries of being church (see Acts Mariënberg 2005, Art.25.A.) At that time it was already considered to be a venturing on a ‘slippery slope’ and a prelude for the woman in office.

 

The sixth line of development is the changed view on the role of man and woman in marriage, as became evident in the new form for the solemnization of marriage of Leusden 1999. The main accent is in its ‘doing things together’ with emphasis on equality, in which the Biblical teaching, regarding the diversity in tasks and order, is missing. (see Acts Mariënberg, Art 25. E.b.).

Broad reformation necessary

The synod of Ede is yet to meet to discuss the report. Many hope for a rejection of this step beyond the ‘boundary’. Then one can remain ‘orthodox’ and carry on in relief. But this would be a big mistake, given the broad apostasy in which this report has been established. Only a genuine and broad repentance is the only right step. A repentance that asks much more than just resolutely rejecting this report. That is true even if it can be prevented that small steps are taken on the road to women in office. True repentance means a radical repentance from the many paths which they have already taken in departing from God’s Word. Much more could be mentioned than what has been touched upon in this article. (see e.g. everything that the Australian churches have specified in their letter of admonition to the RCN and what GS Emmen 2009-2010 wrote in a letter to the RCN). Only if there is return to the pure Word of God, and a rejection of all that is contrary to it, then one can speak of a true reformation. Only in this manner can the RCN again become true church of Christ.

 

For the concerned who do see the breadth of it, it is therefore of the utmost importance to come to the deed of true reformation and to summon others. May the Lord help them in this and give courage of faith.