DIALOGUE ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN IN THE CRCNote: to print a hard copy of this material, simply click on your "print" icon.
The Doctrine of Scripture The Reformed doctrine of the organic inspiration of Scripture says that the Holy Spirit as the primary author inspires human or secondary authors to write the very Word of God itself. The Spirit uses the human authors' words, styles, vocabularies, backgrounds, choices, and emphases; the Spirit does not circumvent or ignore these unique, individual characteristics. The human author is an important contributor to the content and character of the Bible, while operating entirely under divine guidance. The words of the human authors are, by the mystery of divine inspiration, the very Word of God. A conservative or orthodox doctrine of Scripture also takes with complete seriousness the Bible's integrity and reliability when it presents the words of Jesus or David or an Old Testament prophet. We accept these as the words of those to whom they are attributed and not the words of a later editor, final author, or the New Testament church. This authenticity of the words cited in Scripture is an important dimension of the Bible's inspired, infallible character. Unlike liberal theology, which often puts words in the mouths of a Bible figure and then takes these words as less authentic and less authoritative than words regarded as actually coming from the Bible's characters, confessional Reformed theology accepts these words as the words of those to whom the Bible attributes them. As such they are part of God's binding, trustworthy Word for our lives. Our doctrine affirms II Timothy 3:16, which says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching (didaskalian), rebuking, correcting and trainig in righteousness." What is intriguing is that the Spirit and the human authors of the Bible employ the words of women for "teaching" the church of all ages. Hannah's prayer (I Samuel 2:1-10) and Mary's song (Luke 1:46-55) are notable examples. And which congregation has not at some time been instructed by Ruth's plea and testimony (Ruth 1:16-17) or by words of Miriam, Esther, Mary of Bethany, or the anonymous woman healed by touching Jesus' garment? As part of the infallible, inspired Scriptures, these words of women in redemptive history stand above and define the sermons that male preachers have delivered throughout the history of the Christian church! For the confessional Reformed doctrine of Scripture teaches that the biblical text stands above the preached Word; the preached Word must be faithful and submissive to the biblical Word. The foregoing line of thinking certainly renders puzzling and problematic what Paul and the Spirit intended when in I Timothy 2:12 we read, "I do not permit a woman to teach (didaskein - the same root word as in II Timothy 3:16) or to have/usurp authority over a man." How is this verse to be reconciled with what they said in I Timothy 2:12 is not as clear as once was thought on the matter of women teaching men. Even if one argues that I Timothy 2:12 prohibits the act of a woman standing before a group of men and instructing them, a Reformed view of inspiration implies that on an even higher level God used the actual words of women to "teach" all Christian teachers and preachers when they make official presentations to the church. If women are used to teach the church of all ages through the inspired Word of God, is it so radical or threatening to consider that God would allow women today to join men in teaching believers from the Word? [The above statement of the first corollary is found on pages 19-21 of Dr. De Jong's "Freeing the Conscience."]
RESPONSE TO THE FIRST COROLLARY
I believe there are two key points to Dr. De Jong's first corol- lary as stated above. As I understand it, the first one lies in the fact that because men are and have been taught by Hannah’s prayer, Mary’s song etc. women are in fact teaching men. ("The foregoing line of thinking certainly renders puzzling and problematic what Paul and the Spirit intended when in I Timothy 2:12 we read . . .") There- fore our understanding of I Timothy 2:11-12 as prohibiting women from teaching must somehow be a misunderstanding of that passage. The second key point is because women have contributed to Scripture, to the canon, and because the biblical text stands above and is normative of the preached word, if women can do the greater, it is reasonable to believe that it is God's will that they do the other as well. (Reference especially the third paragraph in the statement of the first corollary.) In connection with the first point above, I would like us to consider the following: It is not uncommon for words to have a broad meaning in Scripture and a narrow meaning. That is true of everyday usage of words as well. In James 3:1 we are told not to let many become teachers. Some- times our children, with their childlike faith, can almost put us to shame when we get caught up in all the concerns and responsibilities that our lives are full of. They do so when we worry about something that is on our minds and they remind us in simple, straightforward terms that Christ will take care of us. In a very real sense they are teaching us in instances like this. Does that mean when these types of things happen we are allowing our children, our neighbors, our friends etc. etc. to become teachers and as such are violating the above referenced command? The answer to this is clearly, no. Our children teach in a general sense but James 3:1 is speaking in a narrower or more focused sense. In Colossians 3:16 we read, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." If we have a number of people in our community in whom the word of Christ dwells richly and who teach us etc. do we violate James 3:1 by having many teachers? Colossians 3:16 is meant for women as well as men; does it go counter to the historical interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul says he does not allow women to teach? The answer to both of these is: no. Colossians 3:16 speaks of teaching in a general, broad sense while James 3:1 and the historical reading of I Timothy 2:11-12 sees teach- ing in a more focussed, narrow sense. In the same way, as much as women do in fact teach men through Hannah’s prayer and Mary’s song etc., they do it in a general or indirect sense. This does not negate the historical understanding of I Timothy 2 because it speaks of a narrower use of the term. The second main point is that women have contributed to the canon. It claims that contributing to the canon is a more significant activity than preaching from it and therefore women should also be allowed to teach from it. In John 19:17-22 it is recorded that Pontius Pilot had the inscription, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" posted on the cross above Christ. When the chief priests objected requesting that he post, "This man said, I am the King of the Jews" Pilot refused to change it. I would think this would make excellent material for a sermon. It certainly is theologically correct. However, this example also indicates that the logic in the above corollary on the doctrine of Scripture is not quite right. Even though what Pilate said is absolutely correct and can be used in a sermon, and even though Pilate contributed to the canon, it does not follow that Pilate could be a candidate for the ministry. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude, then that the same would be true in general? Just because what a woman or some women have said in the Scriptures is true and can be used in a sermon to edify the congregation, it does not necessarily follow from this that women can be ordained as ministers of the Word. In Pilate's case the missing element that would prevent him from ever being ordained was no less foundational than faith itself. As far as women are concerned, it is very possible that even though they have contributed to the canon and have in a general or indirect sense taught men, it may still be God's will that there be some element that would not allow them to be ordained. One possibility would be that God intended there to be a role differentiation between Christian men and women. This first corollary gives us something to think about. However, when it is examined, the best conclusion is that it does not provide enough to warrant considering it a legitimate argument in favor of the ordination of women.EVALUATION
You can contribute to this "electronic dialogue" if you would kindly send in your evaluation. Automatic email links are provided below for your convenience. However, it is a general policy that individual responses will be kept in strict confidence. (With the exception, of course, of insights contributed to be considered for inclusion in future material.) Additional input containing insights into this particular facet of the discussions can be included in the body of the response to the addresses below. For the sake of keeping tallies with respect to the Christian Reformed Church, please indicate if you are a member of that denomination when sending in your evaluation. Thank you. If you would like to receive future emails as they are sent out, please respond to: subsribe@dialogos-studies.com. To register AGREEMENT WITH COROLLARY ONE, please respond to: corollary_1@dialogos-studies.com. To register AGREEMENT WITH RESPONSE TO COROLLARY ONE, please respond to: response_to_1@dialogos-studies.com. To register as UNDECIDED, please respond to: undecided_1@dialogos-studies.com. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!!