Where are the Women?

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN?

The headline at the CRC's online news page for Synod 2006 reads: "Synod Votes to Remove 'Male' As Qualification for Office."  The story begins as follows: "June 15, 2006, Grand Rapids, Mich. - Synod 2006 took another step toward making all ordained offices in the Christian Reformed Church available to women, but with hesitation. Synod voted to remove the word 'male' from the qualifications for ecclesiastical office listed in the Church Order, opening the way for women to be ordained as ministers of the Word, elders or ministry associates.  But the decision needs to be adopted by Synod 2007 before it takes effect."

It goes on to mention the stipulations binding the decision, "Synod also imposed provisions that women ministers or elders would not be permitted to serve as delegates to synod or as synodical deputies." Stunning as this information is, it fails to reveal the gordian knot by which the favorable news for women (deleting the word male) is married to the negative (no female delegates or deputies.) The trick is, the two rulings are intricately woven together with the words "provided that." The recommendation reads in part, "that the word male be deleted ... provided that ... women ministers and elders not be allowed to serve ..."

Good news is cancelled out

The online report ends with synod asking for seven years of silence on the subject. "Finally, synod encouraged the church to "undertake a Sabbath rest of seven years following the adoption of these changes ... before revisiting this action in the assemblies." So the headline which at first glance appears to be good news, is quickly cancelled out by the rest of the story.

Prior to Synod's discussion of women, I was familiar with the requests of Overture 5 - that the word male be deleted from Church Order Article 3a and that delegation of women office bearers to synod be permitted. I had also read the Board of Trustee's advice for clear leadership, as printed in the supplement to the Agenda for Synod. It concludes: "The Board sees no benefit in synod's responding ambivalently to the proposed change and advises synod to speak clearly for the change."

I had the report of Advisory Committee 8B at hand in preparation for the debate. So the evening of Thursday, June 15, found me glued to the video webcast on my computer screen. I watched as delegates listened to passionate testimony about how a spirit of unity had pervaded the committee as they prayed for guidance and worked to form a single recommendation rather than a majority/minority report. A dramatic plea spoke of the Holy Spirit's role in the compromise they arrived at and urgently encouraged unanimous approval of it. It was a powerful introduction to their work. Watching, I almost felt that a vote against, would be a vote against the work of the Holy Spirit. Almost. Because the recommendations in front of me just didn't make sense.

Men speak eloquently against exclusion

At 8pm, only an hour after the report had been introduced, and after only about ten speakers (all, I believe, spoke in favor,) the question was called and my heart sank. Strong objections emerged immediately, however, and men who had held back out of respect for the climate of unity which had been presented, now began to speak eloquently against the demeaning exclusion of ordained women to full participation in their office. Arguments from both sides flew back and forth. I heard biblical references such as Jacob waiting seven years for Rachel! (Did he wait seven years to exercise his rights?) I was appalled. Even the notion of a seven year sabbath rest was confusing. Is a "sabbath rest" seven years long? I continued to watch and listen in dismay and disbelief until the vote was taken about three hours later and the recommendations of the advisory committee, though some were modified, basically passed.

The first recommendation was approved 112 - 67 with one abstention. The word male will be deleted from Church Order Article 3a, but at a great price. Last year's provision for female synodical deputies will be withdrawn and women will not be permitted as voting delegates at synod. Two grounds are given for this. The first speaks of "honoring and respecting on the synodical level those who oppose women serving in the offices of minister or elder." It does not mention that this "honoring and respecting" is at the expense of dishonoring and disrespecting those who advocate women serving in these offices.

The second ground points out that both perspectives as to whether or not women are allowed to serve as minister and elders are "within the bounds of biblical authority and Reformed theology." Both the removal of the word male from Church Order 3a and the retention of an all male synod are based on this declaration. How can this be defended? How can one be prevented from serving on the synodical level when her ordination is "within the bounds of biblical and Reformed theology?"

A huge step back

The reversal of last year's acceptance of female synodical delegates is a huge step back for women ordained in the CRC. Considering the restrictions imposed, have women gained anything by the vote to remove the word male from Church Order 3a? Will this change force classes to accept women? Or congregations to elect us? It is hard to see any progress in this decision.

The rest of the recommendations of Advisory Committee 8B sought to nail the details of the above changes firmly into the Church Order where if ratified they would be very difficult to change. One small hopeful note concerning this is that some of these, such as #3: "No classis shall delegate a woman minister or elder to synod," and #4: "No woman shall be nominated by a classis (or appointed by synod) as a synodical deputy," were amended to be placed in the supplement to the Church Order rather than in the Church Order itself. The significance is that the supplement can be modified more easily.

The effort to strong arm our women to stay on the sidelines and the extent to which it was successful, leaves me discouraged and angry. The request in recommendation #7 for a seven year hiatus on the subject represents one more painful twist in this power play.

How will women respond?

Now the question is, what will Synod 2007 do? Will they ratify the deletion of the word male from the Church Order? Will they remove these 2006 changes to the supplement? Will they overturn the encouragement of a seven year silence? Perhaps the larger question is, how will our women respond? Will we be willing to send a loud and clear message as to female leadership abilities and our power to insist on change?

Synod declared these recommendations to be its response to Overture 5. What will be the response of the women of the Christian Reformed Church? At Synod some women spoke in favor of these limitations. Is that the belief of the majority of our women? Perhaps this is the time for more CRC women to become active leaders in our denomination. To take a stand and raise our voices on our own behalf. Without asking permission. Without waiting to be told we are allowed.

Challenging all women

I'd like to challenge the women who care about this issue to each choose at least one expression of their determination for change. Whether that is monitoring her classis, writing letters to the Board of Trustees and/or the Banner, finding other directions for some of our tithing during Synod's "sabbath rest" or taking a sabbatical of our own from some of our congregational involvement.

Women do have power. As Christians, we are hesitant to use that power. It would rock the boat. It might hurt our families. It would hurt our congregations to lose teachers, to lose committee chairs, or to lose financial support. We don't want to seem pushy by sticking our nose into the business of a classis where we are not wanted. Yet if each woman used her power in some small way, to make Synod recognize, value and utilize the untapped wisdom of the female half of our denomination, this would be a valuable gift to the Christian Reformed Church.

The majority of Synod just doesn't get it! We are wasting resources. We are wasting wisdom by not embracing the leadership potential of our sisters in Christ. This is folly. Women do a huge amount of the work in our churches. We have illustrated our gifts of leadership in countless ways. When our women hear of this latest insult to our integrity and capability to govern our denomination along with our brothers, I hope many will speak out.

-JoMae Spoelhof
       6/26/06


Written 6/26/06 and published in Christian Courier