Women of the Christian Reformed Church
- A Short History
On a recent Sunday while visiting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, I worshiped at Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church (CRC). There I ran into and was reminded of women who had participated at ground level in the search for gender equality in the CRC. Some answered the call to build a network of encouragement and education concerning equal partnership. Another answered the call to attend seminary so she could preach God's Word. This old congregation in the heart of the city has long been an advocate for men and women serving God together. I heard a good sound sermon that morning, preached by Rev. Thea Leunk.
I recall CW-CRC (The Committee for Women in the CRC) meetings held there - celebrating small steps achieved in the early '90s, and grieving large steps back - also in the '90s. And I smile to think that one of the earliest stories concerning the journey of women in the CRC also involves that church. For the tug of war to keep our women in the kitchen began years ago, before most of us were born. Way back in the early 1900s, when U.S. suffragettes were determined to vote, men of the CRC were vigorously in opposition. But already then, some men spoke out for equality.
One such early advocate, was Rev Johannes Groen, pastor of Eastern Ave CRC. Much heated discussion about why women should not vote was being carried on by CRC leaders in the Banner and the Grand Rapids newspapers. On a Tuesday evening, April 1, 1913, against this background, Rev. Groen spoke to a large gathering in support of women's suffrage. In 1984, Mr. Nick Huizinga wrote an extended article on these debates for the CW-CRC Newsletter, spelling out the arguments and the price an advocate paid in this bitter climate. The 1914 Synod even appointed a short lived committee on women's suffrage. Two years later the report came back recommending that the church should not concern itself in this question. The first reason given was, "The Word of God gives no rule for suffrage, and consequently no rule in relation to suffrage for women."
Later however, the subject did become a matter for Synod. Women who had been voting since 1920, began asking to be included in the decisions of their congregations. By 1947 Synod was looking into this question. In those days, while there was no direct rule in the Church Order against allowing a woman to vote, it was assumed by deep set traditions which were explained in the Church Order Commentary. Finally, in 1957, after years of opposition, Synod allowed congregations to let their women vote. It took another 50 years for all CRC congregations to include the women - if they all do now.
But something even more significant began to happen during this time. The Church Order was to be revised. According to the Index of Synodical Decisions, this was requested already in 1950 and dealt with at several Synods during the decade. In 1965, the Revised Church Order was adopted. A significant change appeared in Article 3 at this time. A new word "male" was now embedded in the requirement for ordination. For the first time, language which might have been generic was rephrased to leave no doubt. In the language of the day, "man" or "men" often meant "people" and included women. For example, In the 1954 edition of the Church Order, anyone in need of discipline was called "he" inclusively. "He" was understood to mean he or she - except when it didn't.
By 1965, CRC women were not only voting in increasing numbers in their congregations, other Reformed churches in fellowship with us were beginning to consider the ordination of female deacons. Our leaders took great care to nail down their position. Like a sword deeply thrust, that little word "male" has so far been impossible to remove. To this day it bars the door to Synod - even for women duly ordained in the Christian Reformed Church.
In 1963, the Reformed Ecumenical Synod of which the CRC was a member, appointed a committee to examine the exclusion of women in ordained offices of the church. By 1968 each member denomination was encouraged to evaluate the question concerning the office of deacon, and by 1970, our Synod appointed a committee with instructions to report in 1972. There followed annual debates and new questions and committees to examine them… Are unequal roles divine law or cultural? What is the meaning of ordination? Is there biblical proof for exclusion? There were questions about hermeneutics, creation order, and headship. Then, in 1978, Synod allowed women to be deacons as long as the role was distinct from that of elders. Ratification failed however, and the debate continued until final approval in 1984.
The overtures and protests which followed, led to more in-depth study of headship. According to the helpful booklet Women in Office which the CRC published in 1990 to review the process, Synod 1987 called for a "…further reasoned study on the biblical and confessional basis for extending the 'headship principle' from marriage to the church." (Acts of Synod 1987, p 646)
The committee's mandate had two parts, and its response in 1990 launched the struggle that would define the next fifteen years as advocates for gender equality rejoiced and wept repeatedly when decisions were made and undone over and over in our quest for women to participate fully in the privileges and responsibilities of our denomination. The report said: "Part A ...assumes that the headship principle in the church is based on an extension of the headship principle in marriage. This no synod has affirmed ... Part B ... assumes that the headship principle entails the headship of all men over all women in the church. This no synod has ever declared" (Agenda 1990, p 329).
Synod 1990 discussed this report and the advisory committee's recommendations and decided with a 99-84 vote to permit churches to use their discretion in utilizing the gifts of female members in all the offices of the church. Further, synod changed the Church Order to delete the word male from Article 3a. It was an unexpected decision and led to much joy. It also led to challenges in 1991 and to a decision not to ratify in 1992. That loss was 109-73. For the next few years, advocates for each side fought with political agility over the removal of one little word which had by now become a deeply entrenched thorn. Synod 1993 overturned the '92 decision with a 95-88 vote which reinstated the rule to remove the word male from Article 3a, only to have ratification fail in 1994 by a vote of 95-89.
Synod 1995 reacted strongly to the basis of the '94 decision which stated, "The clear teaching of Scripture prohibits women holding the offices of minister, elder and evangelist." Such an argument ignores years of work by previous synods. For decades many study committees had grappled with this question. Clearly, the answer was not clear!
The resulting outcry was yet another reversal. Only this time Synod broke the cycle that required ratification. Rather than going back to the effort to change Article 3a, the committee advocated a plan to allow Classes to declare the word male inoperative. This argument was successful and was passed as a supplement rather than a permanent change to the Church Order. It would take effect immediately, but at the price of several compromises. Among them, further discussion would be closed for five years and women would not be allowed to be voting delegates to synod.
Five years later the ban on women at synod was not lifted, and to the great disappointment of many, the 2005 synod did not lift it either. Some adjustments have been made whereby congregations who wished to ordain a woman in spite of being in a classis which banned them, would be able to make arrangements to do so. Seven women are sent to Synod each year as non- voting advisers similar to the role of ethnic advisers (except this year only six were appointed). And classis may appoint women to be synodical deputies as long as long as there are male alternates in case people are offended. But as to the bottom line, a woman's right and responsibility to vote, it appears that until we can convince more classes to accept women, the matter is closed. Synod 2005 voted to "revisit the issue of female delegates to synod at such a time when a majority of classes has declared the word “male” inoperative." At this point I count 22 out of 47 classes accepting women.
So, how far have we come? Ten years after the ordination of women as ministers of the Word first began, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church remains all male. We have growing numbers of ordained women, yet none may help to shape the denomination with her presence and her vote. For many who have long worked toward full participation this latest decision is painful.
Yet there is a bright side. We know the day will arrive! As it has since those early days in 1912. But even more exciting is the picture that is emerging against that day. In the past thirty years hundreds of CRC women have been studying theology. Not all seeking ordination. Not all at Calvin Seminary, yet thanks to these students, the theological insight of our people is maturing. Even with some of our daughters leaving the CRC to be ordained, there is an impact on their families to see them rise and answer God's call on their lives. And those who studied and stayed. What a quiet influence they are having in our midst. The balance is changing and young children in the church are enriched by that. These newly educated women are able to teach with a knowledge and wisdom our fore mothers did not have access to.
But the greatest joy to celebrate is this. In the 2000 yearbook I counted seven ordained women. By 2005 that number had increased to 26 - not counting 2005 candidates and others ordained - or soon to be - during 2005. At least seven more by my count so far. The emergence of theologically educated CRC women is so encouraging. As more and more of us in the coming years will call our pastors “she”, our sons and daughters will grow up seeing that male and female are equal to serve in God's family.
.
Yet there remains that fundamental flaw. An inequity that must be changed. Our women who preach the Word, administer the sacraments or serve as our elders, must be allowed to vote and help shape the future of our denomination. Women may not yet have the power of the vote to participate in the decisions of the CRC, but like those to whom we are indebted for the right to vote for our countries, we do have a voice. Let us use that voice. To share ideas. To speak to our pastors and other church leaders. To join with other advocates until we open the floor of synod to all who are ordained to be there. We need not sit back and be acted upon by others. We are not impotent. We must not be silenced. Let us encourage the women who have answered God's call to preach and to lead. Let us continue to move forward, writing and joining our voices in a great chorus until the walls of inequity tumble down and all in the CRC are one.
JoMae Spoelhof
September 2005
This article was published in the 10/24/2005 issue of Christian Courier
