Marriage & Tornadoes 1933

 MARRIAGE & TORNADOES

I'm reading Ted Gup's  A Secret Gift - with one eye on the 1933 stories he so carefully fleshes out, and the other on the lives of my parents as seen in the many letters from the 1930s that my mother saved.  Gup's book places a new framework around those letters.

My parents were married in June of 1933, just after Dad graduated from the Seminary.  I have the letter from a small country church in Northern Michigan asking him to be their pastor. He accepted even though they were unable to ordain him until later and only able to pay him $30 a month. (They were finally able to officially call and ordain him in December of that year.)

Gup's depiction of depression poverty enlightens the stories in my parent's letters and offers a context for the hardships their families and so many others endured in those days.  A backdrop of pervasive need so prevalent in the late '20s and the early '30s.

Dad's family in South Dakota were especially hard hit.  Mom's people in Michigan less so.  In spite of a $7 cut in pay, Grandpa V was able to keep his job - and even help the young couple out as needed.

A letter from Dad's unmarried sister writes about the hope of getting a new coat.  Hers is short. It should be, she says, she's had it since she was 16.  Her brother needs one badly too, but has told her to go ahead.  Later Grandma K writes to thank Mom's parents for the coat they sent.  He looks so nice in it, she says.  I imagine it was one Mom's brothers had outgrown.

Grandma K's letters offer a powerful (yet often understated) peek at life on a SD farm.  Grandpa wrote too, but his letters are all in dutch and I can't read them.  She is thankful when the boys get a turn to work on the road.  They are allowed so many hours and then must wait their turn again.

One Precious Letter

One letter is especially poignant.  Dad's job offer came in early May.  A month later my parents were married in Michigan.  Photos show Mom in a beautiful dress and veil (which she later loaned out to other brides) and Dad in a black tux. (Or maybe that was his familiar preaching suit!) It appears to have been a lovely wedding.  I have the reminders of plans and gifts and showers etc that Mom saved.  But one thing was missing.  No one from Dad's family was there.  Letters indicate fond wishes, congratulations and lots of love, but there was no money to travel to Michigan, nor clothes to wear to a wedding if they could get there.

So following their wedding, Mom and Dad traveled to South Dakota.  There they celebrated and visited with extended family.  Dad preached in his home church before leaving to pack up their belongings and begin their new life.  His Mother mentions how much his message meant to her.

Heading back to Michigan, after less than three weeks of married life, Dad landed in the hospital in Chicago with appendicitis.  More serious than it first appeared, he was hospitalized for about two weeks.  Mom's folks hurried out to help.  Extended family kindly offered lodging and assistance for Mom - and after care for Dad.

The treasured letter from Grandma K was written on Saturday, July 1, the day after the shocking news had reached them.  Less than a week after their young son had preached for them.  The first part of the letter is full of praise and thanksgiving to God.  Full of the shock and concern they were feeling. To think that while they had been wondering how the packing was going, Dad was in fact in the hospital having an operation.  "It sure shockt us but we are not better than other ones,"  Grandma writes.  (It is interesting that two days later, in a letter from Grandma V, the same phrase "we are not better than other ones" appears!  Also, the native language of both Grandmas was Dutch and while they both wrote in English, they would burst into Dutch when writing of deep feelings.)

Then the letter transitions into the rest of the story.  Shock and fear had also struck in their South Dakota neighborhood that week.    Grandma eases into it by telling that the hot weather had continued after they left,  "but this morning it is nice and cool."  She continues, "We had a bad wind storm here yesterday about five o'clock.  Our buildings all stayed alright, but south of us and west and north it is terrible.  There are farms there is nothing left but the house."

They had heard of no deaths, but an uncle's big barn was a total wreck and on their son's farm and at other friends, buildings were badly damaged.  There is hardly a mill (windmill) to be seen.  "They are all twisted in a nather."  Their son Charley's hay is flat to the ground.  "Some had a bad hail storm too, and rain."   Their farm didn't have much rain, she says, but the corn is all eaten by the grasshoppers.  They are thankful that their lives were spared.

Grandma goes on to say that they sold their little pigs for $1.35 each and the calves for $6.00.  There is no feed for them.  (Some months later, after a government loan was approved, they were able to replace them.)  She closes her letter saying she is going over to help clean up at Charley's  where there is a lot to do because the windows blew out there "and you can imagine how much dust they have."

She closes by turning back to the news from Chicago.  "I hope children your trust is in the Lord in every way in this circumstance.  How is your headache, Ann.  We are anxious to receive a letter.  Best regards from us all.  Your loving Mother,"

Tucked into this letter is a small note.  "We would have written you folks before but we had no address until we got that night letter."

Such is a glimpse into the heart of an immigrant mother in the hard scrabble days of no money and nature's harsh hand.

-JoMae Keuning Spoelhof
1/11/11

Brassac France - Visiting Judy

Kitchen Window View
On a clear day ... the Pyrenees Mountans

 BRASSAC FRANCE

So.  We are on top of the world.  It is windy up here.  Often windy, Judy says.  Yesterday it was a brisk breeze.  Drying the the laundry - the blue jeans dancing a jig and doing the twist - while I sat in the sun with my book and a cup of tea, at a small table overlooking the patchwork of fields in the distance and the dried corn stalks just beyond the yard. When the wind picked up, I found a small corner on the other side of the house to shelter my chair so I could read in comfort.  Here too, I was right next to that field of waving corn and under a vast expanse of exposed sky.  The sky is huge and visible everywhere!  With wonderful white clouds today.  A marvelous contrast to our heavily treed city yard back home in Rochester!

So Much Sky!

'On a clear day you can see forever,' my heart sang!  I had seen photos and heard much about this small 1837 farm house our daughter purchased three and a half years ago. We've followed the progress of a wall taken down in the living room and an unusable room with a rotted out floor and moldy wallpaper, made new with the help of her friends.  Much of the work she has done herself.  Freshly painted white walls and ceilings every where.

The hired work or costly materials have taken time - moving along as she could afford it.  Some was bartered; some was a gift. Her friends are amazing. Readily loaning and borrowing tools.  At one point, needing to put in a cement floor, she purchased a small cement mixer. She would need it again for future projects, and in the meantime it would be a good tool to have available to loan out.  But somehow, focusing on each accomplishment and story, we hadn't realized the amazing view she has of sky and fields and sparsely populated country side.  Now finally we get to see first hand the dream that is unfolding and the wide open setting it is in.

Kitchen Nook

The old house has unfinished corners, out buildings and a barn.  One building has emerged (with a great deal of effort) into the beginnings of a beautiful studio for working with fabric and quilt making.  Like everything else, it is still a work in progress and at this point functions as a work shop, but the dream beams through!  Large windows are positioned to catch the best light.  The roof is tight and the beautiful slatted wood ceiling she installed sort of blesses the place.

Garden Bounty

The soul of my daughter echoes here!  Her love for the place.  Her hand on the hammer. Her self in the work. Her vegetable garden providing nourishment.  Her shoulder and wheel barrow removing rocks from the lawn.  Her shears trimming oddly placed boxwoods and her pick pulling them out.  Her voice telling the story and its potential delights me!  Renewing this old place is her palette.

-JoMae Spoelhof
Written 10/4/10 - Monday

       

A Perfect Little Get-Away

Glenora Inn

A Perfect Little Get-Away

Room with a view - -

Our deck faces east so we are viewing the sunset by watching the shadows creep up the hill across the lake. Such a beautiful day this has been! At 7:30pm it is still warm on our deck after a high of about 88 degrees this afternoon. We´ve been out here since our 3pm check in soaking up this amazing view. We brought along fruit, nuts, cheese and drinks and have been picnicking out here all afternoon along with the glass of champagne they sent us off with upon arrival!

We planned this well as we´ve been here before. Knowing that it would be mild and lovely on the deck til well into the evening and we´d hate to leave our view to go have dinner, we stopped for a nice lunch on the way at the Glen Motor Lodge Restaurant. They have loads of window tables - each with a magnificent view looking down onto and across the lake. On this hot late August Sunday there were oodles of boats on the sparkling water below. We packed sandwiches for supper which will soon be enjoyed right out here on the deck, as darkness settles and lights begin to glow from the farms across the way.

Last Minute Balconies - -

I´m always on the lookout for lodging with a private balcony, a forecast of sunshine and a last minute vacancy.  So when last weekend´s promise of several days of great weather coincided with our 51st anniversary, I made a call. To my delight, a favorite room was available for Sunday night. I splurged and off we went.

Our destination was the Glenora Inn at the Glenora Winery on Seneca Lake just north of Watkins Glen - about two hours away from home.  The complex features a wide panorama looking down over the vineyards, the lake below and the hills beyond.  And each room has a private balcony or deck.

Ours was a perfect little get-away. The late afternoon/early evening light was wonderful to watch as the sun went down behind us.
Later the stars were brilliant - until the moon came up and washed them out.  The whole wall to the deck is window, so we slept with the drapes open and the next morning we were up early to watch the sunrise. We woke to purple and golden hues snaking along atop the distant hills. And then the glory of the sun peeking out! A new day!

Jean had sent us off with homemade jam and scones for our Monday morning breakfast, so we had no need to leave our private panorama until checkout. In the end we felt like we´d spent about 20 hours in an evolving presentation of God´s marvelous creation!

-JoMae
8/29-30/10

Time Travel to the '50s

Time Travel

This weekend I tackled the 1950s box of Mom's letters.  There I was re-introduced to an 18 year old free spirited young woman through my letters home to Minnesota from Calvin College.  What fun this is!  I quite like her!

Also found an assortment of letters from siblings - to be returned to them.  And then there were the weekly letters from my grandparents.  Many to Mom from her Mom in Michigan. Her Father was a pretty prolific correspondent as well!   And from the grandparents in South Dakota.  I can almost hear their long gone voices as I read!  Even my Grampa K - although I can't read his letters.  They are all in Dutch. 

Not to forget the news that flowed between my Parent's siblings and themselves!  And those between my Parents when they were separated by visits home or meetings away.  News of loss when Grandma V died.  News of illness or scheduled surgeries and the unspoken fear that underlies such worries;  fear that is ensconced in Faith and cradled in words of Trust in God.  Many of the envelopes hold comforting blankets woven of words from friends and family far and wide. 

Add to these the letters from Aunts and Uncles and other extended family, along with friends and former parishioners, and you have a cedar chest full of envelopes bursting with surprises and a cross section of American life beginning in 1926 when our parents first met.  I didn't need the cedar chest, but how I love the letters!

The problem is time.  I wasn't making much progress after separating the envelopes into decades.  I'd gone through the love letters of the 1920s, and some of the late '30s when I came along, but then hadn't visited them for over a year.  Until this weekend when I intended to find the young girl who married over fifty years ago and find the letters I'd written home when our family was young. 

Most of those will be in the '60s and '70s boxes and it might take a while to get to them!  Right now I have many more to read from the girl I once was and her parents and siblings.  Stories of crushes (not only mine!) and Mom's trips to her family and Dad's pleas for her to hurry home because he is getting skinny - or his delightful descriptions of our family life while she is gone.  Or his familiar quip on sleeping in: that he 'stood on his back too long' that morning.

So it's back to '50s for now.  Don't know how long I'll be gone, but I've been there before so am sure I'll enjoy the visit!

-JoMae
 8/9/10

God's Word in Man's Language

God's Word In Man's Language

                                                                                       - A Journey

"The Word of God is infallible, but man's interpretation of that Word is not."  After thirty years all else is long forgotten from that course in sociology.  I believe the professor left our denomination soon after I left Calvin, but his words have remained with me. 

I still recall the impact of that statement, the newness of that thought for me.  As I went on to raise a family, I'd pull it out from time to time and pass it on.  Yet I have left it up to other women of the Christian Reformed Church to begin to look more seriously at the interpretations men have given Scripture.

I have been content with the status quo.  First valued as a daughter, then as a wife and mother, I have no axe to grind.  I have felt no call to be a pastor, no desire to be an elder.  My life is full.

During my first decade as a confessing member of the CRC,  I could not vote.  As I recall, even this didn't particularly bother me.  I did at times feel hurt on behalf of other Christian women or anger at husbands who might belittle them, but I always came back home for the most part unmoved.

Then in the late seventies a communication arrived entitled Women in the CRC.  This also failed to pique my interest.  I felt that if my Creator had established a helper role for women, I couldn't question His design.  And if generations of theologians had studied His Word and not changed their basic understanding of the role of women, it must be valid. 

Perhaps too, being deeply bonded to the church and heritage of my ancestors and confident in her solid teaching on the Word of God, I feared "Pandora's box."  What if I mustered up the energy to question?  What if my parent church has misunderstood a major teaching all these years?  How could I then be sure of anything?  And who was I to challenge theologians? And whom was I to trust?  So for all these years I've taken little interest in better understanding the role of women as designed by God.

Something, however, has changed all that.  Over the past several months I have been repeatedly confronted with articles, speakers, and books which interpret passages in a new and different way.  Explaining the ancient language and context in a manner which forces one to stop and re-examine.  These repeated confrontations were at first totally unsought and amazingly consistent, although completely unconnected as to source.

Finally my attention has been captured!  I find myself searching for answers, only be be left with more questions.  What does the Bible say?  What do the words mean?  As interpretations vary, which is reliable?  And how are we to grow?  I wonder how many other women find themselves somewhere along the path I have described.  More than ever I admire Laura Smit and others like her who have had the courage to face these challenging issues.  How we need the expertise and the unique insight of our female students of theology!  They are gifted women of integrity and talent, able to encourage us with respect and dignity.  Yet one by one we have lost them to be a blessing to other denominations while we still have so many questions.

Since time began, humankind has delighted in unlocking the secrets of God's marvelous creation, grasping each new concept only by first comprehending the truth which had encased it, excited to make each new discovery a foothold to a deeper understanding.  Should we then wonder that the gold mine of God's written revelation of Himself still holds deep veins of truth hidden in its labyrinth of language?

In the end, perhaps my convictions will not change.   But I cannot go back to burying the questions.  I must listen to the arguments and have opportunity to test them and hopefully to grow. 

Remember how you smile when children burst with enthusiasm at some new idea so commonplace to you?  I like to think God smiles that way as scientists and theologians and even I enrich our understanding of the truth.  To such a gentle God I pray for wisdom, for myself as well as for all the men and women of the CRC.  I pray that we will keenly seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we continue to pursue a fuller understanding of God's Word to us.

-JoMae Keuning Spoelhof
   April 1988


This piece was written in the Spring of 1988 and appeared in the 5/9/88 edition of The Banner.  It was also printed in the 1988 Spring issue of the Newsletter for the Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church.  This is the CWCRC version.  The Banner article was slightly edited.

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

Samson's Mother

SAMSON'S MOTHER - A WOMAN OF CONFIDENCE

Imagine this woman.  Married yet childless.  She is an Israelite living in the days of the judges - about one thousand years before the Angel Gabriel would appear to young Mary the mother of Jesus.  And roughly half way between that event and the announcement of the impending birth of Isaac in his parents' old age.  Only a few centuries have gone by since the Children of Israel have been freed from four hundred years of slavery in Egypt.  We are given no name for her other than that she is the wife of Manoah of the tribe of Dan.

One day the angel of YHWH comes to her.  She is told, "Although you are barren, having borne no children, you shall conceive and bear a son."  The angel instructs her to "be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, or to eat anything unclean."  Then come instructions about how to raise her son.  "No razor is to come on his head, for the boy shall be a nazarite to God from birth.  It is he who shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines."

What an amazing moment for this woman!  Was she afraid?  Did she speak?  All we know is what she later tells her husband.  That a man of God came to her looking like an angel of God and very awesome.  She reports,  "I did not ask him where he came from and he did not tell me his name."

In contrast to God's similar announcement to Abraham and Sarah, Manoah was not there - not even within ear shot.  This wonderful news was delivered to his wife alone.  Part of what I admire about this woman though, is that she did not harbor this encounter to herself.  She goes to Manoah and repeats the information.  There is a sense of companionship and mutual respect among these two.  A sense which continues throughout the story - even when Samson is grown and they are concerned about his selection of a wife from among the Philistines.  Unable to dissuade him, they go together to meet this girl.  And later travel again to attend the wedding.

Going back to the announcement, however, it strikes me that Manoah believes his wife's strange tale.  He doesn't doubt her or wonder if she is imagining things.  His response is to entreat YHWH to "let the man of God whom you sent come to us again and teach us what we are to do concerning the boy who will be born."

The Bible tells us that "God listened to Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her."  Clearly the mother of this special child is sought out to be the first line of contact about this important event.  This time, however, the woman hurries to get her husband and coming to the angel, Manoah gets to ask his burning questions.  After verifying that this indeed is the one who had spoken to his wife, he inquires,  "Now when your words come true, what is to be the boy's rule of life; what is he to do?"

According to the account we have in Judges 13,  Manoah is the only one who speaks to the angel,  yet his wife is the only one entrusted with instructions on raising the child and details about his destiny.  Twice she is sought out for a visit.  Twice Manoah asks about how to bring up the child.  All he is told is to follow the instructions given to his wife.  They are not repeated for him, although the angel does repeat for him the food and drink his wife must avoid. 

After this conversation, Manoah invites the man of God to stay so they can prepare a kid to eat.  The angel will not eat, but suggests they make a burnt offering to YHWH instead.  Manoah then asks for the name of their visitor, who replies,  "Why do you ask my name?  It is too wonderful."  We read that in all of this exchange, Manoah did not know this was the angel of YHWH. 

Finally, Manoah makes a sacrifice of a young goat and a grain offering.  As the flames rise toward heaven from the altar, their visitor ascends in them and disappears - while the man and his wife fall to their faces on the ground. 

At this point Manoah realizes to whom he had been speaking.  That this was the angel of YHWH.  "We shall surely die, for we have seen God," he says.  But his wife calmly answers,  "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these." 

Here we see the deeper understanding of this Israelite mother, her quiet confidence and the respectful camaraderie of this couple.  Later, when this woman bears her son, she will name him Samson.  He will be a powerful mix of service to God and pain to his parents.

Some have noticed that Samson's mother does not seem to have told Manoah what their child will grow up to do. I wonder why this piece of information entrusted to her seems to have been kept from him at first.  I wonder if she was sparing him some worry, as mothers to this day are wont to do. 

Did you ever study this articulate woman as a child?  Have you heard her story preached?  Her life, so honored and sought out by God, celebrated?  Would that I, in this era where I am free to speak and think for myself, can model some of her attributes.  As a parent, as a partner, and as a woman following the Christ.

-JoMae Spoelhof

Written 2/14/04 and published in the 3/15/04 issue of Christian Courier

Double Exposure

Ancient Church in France

As faith evolves beyond patriarchy and understanding deepens…

Double Exposure

Yesterday we celebrated the Lord's Supper in our church.  We also celebrated an infant baptism.  The two events became superimposed upon my heart.

We were nourished at communion with spiritual food.  Christ's broken body.  Christ's blood shed for the complete remission of all our sins.  We remembered and believed.  We were nourished as truly as an infant at its mother's breast.

I thought of Moses angrily confronting God in the ancient desert:  "Did I conceive all this people?  Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me,  'Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries a sucking child,'  to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors?"  (Num11:12)

No Moses, I thought.  God is the one who conceived us and gave birth to us and carries and feeds us as if we are sucking children.

Feeds us as surely as each of our mothers, (created in God's image) after shedding her blood to give us life, fed us with her body and made us one with her again.

Seeing that young couple holding their newborn,  reminded me of my FatherMother God in whom I am reborn.  Whose arms have held me since before my baptism.  Who saves me daily from myself and feeds me love and makes me one with God.

Whose salvation I remember at communion.

-JoMae 
Written March 15, 1999

Women of the CRC

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! For momentum has continued  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

Bobby's Baptism

                                       BOBBY'S BAPTISM

A little boy's baptism. A first born son. The occasion brought much reflection to my heart on what it means to be heirs in God's Covenant. For boys. For girls. From childhood we learn to worship God as our Father - through prayer, music and in the messages we hear. So too, Bobby was baptized into the name of the Father.

The children's message that day taught something of the meaning of the sacrament. Small boys and girls absorbed the familiar story of being part of the family of God and having a Heavenly Father who loves them so very much. I watched as they turned to look at the sleeping infant and then at the child's Dad, as the point was made that God's children have not just one, but two Fathers. Did they think it strange that God's family has no Mother?  Or that Bobby's Mom did not seem to have any significance in this story?  Or were they already so conditioned to patriarchal thinking as not to notice the omission?

There sat the lovely young Mother whose body formed this child, who carried this little life nine months before shedding her blood to give him birth. Between the couple on that front pew were three proud little sisters - future Mothers in God's family. Would their generation continue to be invisible as to the image of God reflected in them?

So much of the Christian message is about birth.  About being born again. About being born of the Spirit of God. Even little children know that one who gives birth is called a Mother.  Yet in my church we never mention God as Mother.  We never use this honored name to celebrate the one who gives us second birth.

Why are we so reluctant to use the name Mother in relation to God?  Is the idea of Mother demeaning for God? Is Mother somehow a lesser name for the Most Holy? There was a time when I thought so. When addressing God as Father/Mother felt blasphemous. I wondered why. It has been a prayerful journey.

At Bobby's baptism I saw a sincere and loving couple, each created in the image of God. Yet the link we emphasize between our earthly and heavenly Fathers carries a powerful patriarchal message that blinds us to the link between our Mothers and our God.

I wonder. One day when we see God face to face, will we only see the face of a loving Heavenly Father? Or will the faces of our Mothers be reflected there as well?

-JoMae

Written December 2002