Thanks for the write-up, Paul. I understand your perspective on this. However, I encourage you to read what you wrote by replacing the word "Dawn" with "a minority male" and the word women with "minority men" etc. You seem to be suggesting "Hey, if the culture doesn't want black men to participate, then let's roll with it." If we really had a part of the country that did not want black people at classis, would you suggest that is fine? 

The issue for me is no longer that there is discrimination in the world. I know I am not going to be able to get the Catholic church to change and have women priests, for example, nor even change CRC churches that wish to keep blocking women. Where this rips at my conscience, much as it likely does for someone opposed to women (outside of the kitchen and bedroom) to see women voting at a classis meeting, is when I realize that I really seem to be willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit minority tee times. I am appalled by myself for participating in this injustice. 

Why am I willing to continue to do something that is so clearly wrong to me? This is also not about me, it is about the willingness to continue to help our society perpetuate a place for women that is tied into many much more dreadful treatments of women both in and outside of North America. By being a member of a classis that blocks women, what is my involvement in the mistreatment of women in other ways around the world? My email tagline was once "think globally, act locally." 

I do agree with you on this point "I am disinclined to advocate for a synodical level effort to force these classes to change their policies." I do not think it would be good to drag this through synod for a few more rounds either. Enough people have been battered and many have left the denomination to get to this point. I was in a PCUSA service on Easter with former CRC members, for example. 

You seem willing to accept a few black men blocked from our classes, or the analogous. Hey ho, not everyone thinks the Bible tells us that we need to include minorities in our work, so let's not rock the boat. I think we are being complicit in some terrible ills in the world by blocking women, just as we would be if blocking minorities. I understand that others are fine with it, but our structure requires that I participate in this injustice rather than more simply living side by side with it. So, given that we agree that it would not be good for synod to address it, let's at least take a first step to make classis as irrelevant as possible and then work to put in place a new structure that does not have this problem. I hope you can at least understand my disappointed that the denomination seems to be putting a bunch of resources toward this remaining women-blocking organization that I am compelled to be part of if I remain CRC.

Does that make any sense to you?  --dawn

Thanks Dawn for commenting. 

I understand your argument and I feel the force of your analogy. I would far rather the CRCNA had never inserted "male" into article 3 in 1965 rather than going through all we've gone through. It would certainly have been better if the church had simply allowed women to be office bearers at the places and times they were locally selected and then proceeded into the other assemblies as it happened. I'm glad the CRCNA never put an ethnic modifier into Article 3. 

I believe based on what we find in the Bible women have in the Old Testament, in Jesus' ministry and in the New Testament played a prominent role in the movement of God's kingdom. It seems clear to me that from the women who supported Jesus in his ministry, to Lydia and Junia and others women were not in God's eyes any less important than men. I cannot explain why the twelve apostles were all Jews and all men apart from the mission and the context of that time and place. The rest of the New Testament is insufficient in my opinion to adequately sex the ancient church leadership. Lynn Cohick's book on Women in the World of the Earliest Christians is enlightening in terms of revealing a world no less complex than our own.

I've worked in contexts where there were only male pastors (and all with dark skin) and in my present church we haven't had a male elder (just female, some white some black) for a number of years. In each context I believe I've been working in the church, always flawed, but also loved by Jesus. 

I want to be slow to find fault with my brothers and SISTERS who see the Bible as espousing a complementarian picture of gender roles in the church. I might not agree with their Biblical interpretation, but I'm not ready to denounce their effort. As with many things we disagree on in the church (and outside of it too), part of justice is not only the demand for just outcome, but also allowing just and therapeutic process. Whatever position these groups come to, I want them to come to it freely. It's out of that same position that I won't impinge on your process of promoting your perspective with them. This was part of why I wrote this post, to give you the opportunity to speak your mind on this issue. 

I cannot say that if I were in your position that I would not do what you are doing. You are feeling the force of this prohibition in a way that I have never. You desire to use your gifts in the broader assembly of the church and you are blocked. I can understand your anger and I won't ask you to not be angry or to not speak your mind. 

I do also have empathy for my brothers and sisters who see things differently. 

Part of the role of a classis is to afford a fair process where we can either live with conflict we cannot settle or process conflict in a fair and healthy way. Conflict is one of the most important and difficult areas of life. All conflict requires humility, patience and prayer. 

I won't be surprised if someone comments that the classical structure has failed because it allows women elders and that allowing them to be delegates violates the Word of God. I pray that our disagreements and the processes that we employ to deal with them creates strong communities of love and justice and that through our conflicts we grow in obedience and compassion. pvk

I'd also like to note that the person who led Classical Renewal, a process that I believe greatly helped the CRC rework many classes was Thea Leunk. Her leadership helped many classes around the US and Canada (whether they seated women or not) to re-vision their classis, restructure and revive. I think her efforts in the story of the CRC and classis should not be overlooked. 

Honestly, I think if we were more open to the prophetic gifting of the Holy Spirit, which is clearly biblical to include women in that gifting based on numerous passages, including Acts 2:17-18, that would be a huge boost for our denomination.  From my perspective, we seem to be hesitant in gaining further understanding of what that prophetic gifting looks like and how to incorporate it into the structure and culture of our denomination (please let me know if I'm wrong and so maybe not aware of it as I only speak from my experience and knowledge via discussions, the banner, network, and other crc forums).    Maybe there should be believers with prophetic gifting included at classis and other governing gatherings?   just saying, I'm not seeing a place for this gift to be shared in our current structure, particularly if a woman has this gift.

Yes, please note that I applaud all of the good things done by all of the fine people related to classis. My point is that we have a limit in our ability to thrive as a denomination that directly relates to a classis structure that has no means to purge the wrongs it is perpetuating both in the denomination and in the world. If anyone has a road map that shows us opening up all classes to women without going through synod (something that no one I know thinks would be a good approach), then I'm all ears. Not only is such a road map lacking, no one at all is working on it.

Maybe we hope that all people who really care about the problems faced by women in the world or who think we are complicit in such wrongs have left for greener pastures. They have not all left, however. We can guess that most of those whose conscience was bound by having women church officers has left, given that we now permit women to be seated and voting at synod. Those of us who grew up CRC and are pro-women have surely gained patience. Many have decided to simply be quiet on this topic for the duration. In any case, whether we are quiet or not, classis has a fatal illness. We have no means of fixing it. So, when you write about the joy of combining classes with the RCA, you are raising up healthy classes, perhaps pretending this could ever happen across our denomination in some positive way. While I realize no one wants to hear the "b" word and I surely know that no one is intending their behaviors to come from any form of biogry, when I heard you extol the virtues of classis (and there surely are some), it "feels" like you are saying "Hey, CRC -- we can be healthier if we put more eggs in our biogtry basket."  Do you understnd why I hear it this way?

Ok, so a plan to move beyond it -- you know I have painted a broad stroke picture that would accomplish this. There are many ways to do this, but all of them are big, not tiny little steps. On the "tiny steps now" front what we can do is talk about what is happening regionally without mentioning classis. Then we include all churches and members of those churches. We could start by renaming this blog "Church regions" and try to narrow our discussion of classis down to only those things where we know that we are blocking women and that is simply where our denomination is right now. Let's now bring up the "c" word anywhere else. It is a painful part of our denomation and one that none of us knows how to redeem. The efforts to try can make some positive changes in the world, no doubt, but none that could not also be made by a focus on how to work with churches within regions. 

I'm just tossing this out for discussion. It really is the case that if anyone could lay out a plan that would eliminate the bigotry that our classis represents through some means other than to come up with a way to eliminate the "culture of classis" from our midst, I'm all ears.  Cheers!  --dawn

Respectfully, Dawn, your analogizing to racial prohibitions doesn't work.  Although culture may play a role in limiting the office of elder to men (as Paul repeatedly says), there is more to it than that.  There is a good faith, Scripture-based, argument that women should not be permitted to teach or have authority over men.

Before you jump all over me, understand I've come to the view that Scripture does NOT prohibit women from being elders or ministers.  I came to that position by very closely examining the question when I was a synodical delegate in 1992, assigned to the committee that dealt with whether or not to ratify a prior synodical decision to open the offices of elder/minister to women.  I decided then, and publically said so, that I thought Scripture does NOT prohibit women from serving as elder/women, I still did NOT think the CRCNA should remove the CO exclusion of women from those offices.

Why?  For the same reason that the folks at Jerusalem in Acts 15 did not make their decisions based solely on "theological correctness" -- the unity of the church, a much greater mandate, was at stake.

Let me repeat: there is a good faith Scripture-based argument for excluding women from the office of elder/minister.  Conversely, there is not a good faith, Scripture-based argument for excluding persons with certain racial characteristices from those offices.  And as to women in office, if I need to choose between the unity of the church (whether the "other side" has a good faith argument) and fencing individual women (or men for that matter) out from one of the many, many, many ways to serve their Creator, I'm going with unity.  Did then, still will.

So does this mean women will "always suffer this injustice?"  Probably not.  Consider what Paul told a slave who left his master and how history has developed since then.

Personally, I find more than enough ways to serve God without being an elder.  Indeed, I resolved to "bear with women" since Synod of 1992.  I've not been an elder since (I regularly decline nomination).  Frankly, I have found that a bit liberating: it has allowed me to do other things that I find I enjoy more and would judge more profitable in many ways.  These days, I spend my "discretionary time" doing more cooking.  I'm a regular for the annual Cadet breakfast and the Thanksgiving meal served to 100+ every year.  I teach more Sunday school.  I take care of a neighborhood park that hadn't been taken care of by the county.  We have three international students from the local Christian high school.  It's a bit hard to say with certainty, but I probably wouldn't be doing at least some of that, maybe most of it, if I were an elder.

Personally, I'm persuaded that the CRC would have eventually opened the offices of elder/minister without it having to be "forced open," at the great cost of disunity and division.  In other words, I believe the CRC erred when it opened those offices, even though I think it was theologically correct (and who knows, I could be wrong on the theology).  Again, I would appeal to the "logic" of Acts 15, but as well to 1 Cor 13 (we can be right, yet nothing but a loud noise).

Final point: I think those who favor women in office could have, and still can where the classis doesn't seat women, can find ways to "chip away" at those restrictions and become more involved, even at a classis level.  I would also suggest that when women -- or men -- express their disagreements as to the prohibitions with words like "discrimination" and "bigotry" -- or analogize to racism -- they prove their theological opposition's point, at least in the mind of those who have concluded that opening those offices would be the result of worldly thinking.  Talking about wanting to serve will create much more unity and opportunity than talking about rights, discrimination, or "this is like racism."

If you like, this is my "road map."  Might not be what you wanted (too slow), but I find it Scriptural.

Hi Doug -- Yes, absolutely there are many ways to serve God and the church without holding an office. My concerns are global. One organization in my life where I can "act locally" is the CRC. I fully believe that if we model the culture we would like to see in the world, if we are a light to the world, we can have a positive influence regarding the mistreatment of women here and around the globe. 

Yes, I understand that in the past there were people who in good faith, using a strong understanding of Scripture, defended the practice of owning slaves. 

I also really do understand that having all women's voices be the same would not be any better than having all the men's voices be the same. I am someone who determined early on that because it was highly unlikely I would ever have an opportunity to serve the CRC as an officer, I could be a voice for other women without it being about me. I could put a magnifying glass on how I "feel" because I know I am not alone. If I can help be a voice of those who know they will be more effective by keeping quiet on such matters, then I have served in the role I feel called.

Fact: there is a good analogy to racism when it comes to the perception of women in our denomination. 

Many of those who cared deeply have left the denomination for greener pastures, but when I see a slate of speakers like this http://www2.crcna.org/pages/summit_speakers.cfm in what is apparently a conference for both men and women, I feel like there is still a need in our church for someone like me to put a magnifying glass on it and suggest that we can do better as a light to the world. When we have a quota for minorities in leadership and not for women (I do not prefer quotas, please understand), but our statistics show we have a bigger issue incorporating women into our leadership, then it is good for us to have some voices that point this out, right?  Thanks.  --dawn

It seems to me that this debate always orbits the wrong sun.

Let's remember our church polity folks. The discussion should not be primarily about women, but about the nature and authority of church office. In our polity and ecclesiology, there is no man in authority over any other man either. We practice an intentional mutual submission at both the council and classis level. It's built in, and though some mega-church enthusiasts would prefer a CEO model for pastors, such a model is definitely out of sync with our ecclesiology and our church order.

Do not all elders submit to each other? Don't all pastors submit to their elders? Does not everyone in classis submit to the decisions of classis? Where is there a man (as a man, or as an individual) exercising authority over another man? It doesn't happen. In fact does our church order not say that no officer bearer shall lord it over another?

I'd like to suggest that much of the discussion on women's roles in the Bible simply don't apply to the discussion of how women may or may not serve in church office in the CRC. I'd like to suggest that both complementarians and egalitarians can be theologically comfortable with women serving as elders or pastors.

I appreciate your perspective Richard, and I have certainly heard this many times over the years. Many people speak from a place where they have never experienced any sort of institutional lock-out because of their gender. I do not know if that is the case for yor or not, but I wonder what you think about systematically locking out a group of people because of basic demographic information about how God made them? Do you favor that in general?  --dawn

Respectfully Dawn, you acknowledge the argument (re women in certain offices) but you have neither time nor respect for those whose conclusions on the question differ from your own.  What you write denigrates those who hold that different position by equating their positions with positions on other questions that none of them would have.

The source of this irreconcilability is not that the "culture of classis is fatally ill" but that some, including you, wish to stay within the denomination (a structure that includes classis) but yet insist that it must change as you dictate to fit with your conclusions.

Again, respectfully, I think it would be better for the church (the 'holy catholic or universal' one) if you decided to to associate with an church institution tradition other than that of the CRCNA.  Paul and Barnabas separated over a difference.  It may be that you and the CRCNA should as well.

Actually, I don't understand how that (classes who do not seat women) "tugs at your conscience."  I suspect I understand how disagreeable that is for you, but not how it "tugs at your conscience."  I think you tend to characterize things so that you will always look good and reasonable and those on the other side bad and unreasonable.  I don't think you have any concern or inclination to understand or empathize with the position of others on this question.

Richard: I re-read my post and don't find either mischaracterizations or a dearth of gracious understanding.  Certainly, I know I wrote nothing in anger or with the intent to be less than respectful.  Your own post says, and I quote,

"we must stop compromising with the cry-baby, foot-stompers who threaten
to leave or walk out should we decide "X." I say, let 'em go. If not, let's just admit
that we prefer to be held hostage by cry-babies and foot-stompers. Besides,
if their commitment to us, is that shallow and fragile, they are already admitting
that their primary loyalties lie more with themselves than with the covenant we
have together as this part of the Body of Christ to which they claim to belong."

The differences between my post and yours are two: (1) I use much less name-calling, (2) I talk directly to the person who isn't going to like what I say instead of say things about not-specifically-named others.

I meant "respectfully" when I said that.  Still, there's a time to call a spade a spade.  In your post, you bemoaned a lack of willingness to submit.  I'm being specific about applying that admonition, not with name-calling words or words that are hyperbolic or gratuitously sharp, but still directly.

And perhaps we have a different definition for "conscience."  When one decides he/she is aggrieved, repeatedly asks others how they would feel if, like he/she, they were the analogical object of racism, one is feeling victimized but not a tug of conscience.  He/she is, after all, not the perpetrator of the analogical racism but the victim of it.  And just sometimes, actually often, when we are convinced we are the victim, we think we have a special license -- because of the victim status -- to interact with others in ways we ourselves would deem unacceptable.

The church is simply not benefitted, but harmed, by repeated accusations of analogical racism (among other analogies, e.g., slave-keeping) against those who sincerely hold the position that Scripture does not allow for women to hold certain offices.  Keep in mind, my view is that the church should allow women to hold those offices.  Still, I respect, and insist on respect for, those who disagree out of Scripture based motivation. Our church (denomination) made a decision about this  and some classes are following that decision, respectfully, but then are called analogical racists, perhaps "cry-babies" and "foot-stompers" as well (not to mention members of a culture resembling "stagnant water").  At some point, it's time to object to the characterizations, describe these (mis)characterizations as what they are, and suggest a biblically consistent resolution (separating) if some just can't live with that (or at least stop with the characterizations).  I thought it was that time, understanding and respecting your right to disagree.  And Dawn's right too.

I first want to acknowledge that I am very aware that there are people who have their conscience torn by permitting women to be ushers in their churches, or, more commonly, by permitting women to be church officers. I get that. I understand how deeply matters of conscience hurt individuals. There was an entire civil war in the US that included both pragmatists and those whosw consciences were torn on both sides.

This does not mean that there is no right or wrong, but that in the shades of gray there are actual human beings who can be personally harmed when what they are planted in a place where what they believe and how they feel compelled to act are counter to each other. I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs. That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times. This is an analogy to make clear to others what my beliefs are, not in order to point fingers at anyone else. If someone else does not have beliefs that contradict their actions, that is good for them. I do, and it is a problem for me, as I would hope it would be for anyone living in a way that is counter to their beliefs.

I care enough about the CRC to help "us" change rather than just sit and accept this disconnect quietly. Many others in the CRC felt strongly enough to leave the CRC over the past 20 years, whether for a denomination like the PCUSA or one like the URC.

So, I definitely understand that we can have people in the world who are not living in accord with their beliefs when they are drinking from the same drinking fountain as someone unlike them; others who are not living in accord with their beliefs when they are in a church with women elders; others when they are compelled to be a member of a classis that blocks women, etc.

How then should we live? This is where classis comes in. There are no doubt many, many good things that come from classis. The culture of classis, given that few want synod to discuss "the women's issue" again, is flawed in a way that I see no way to fix.

One suggestion (only one, there are other possibilities, I'm sure) which is part of a much bigger design from me, is that we raise up new structures for different "brands" (choosing non-marketing terms, so just roll with me on that if you could) and that these brands have their own cultures. If your church opts for "Classic CRC" then you continue to work through classis, else you work with other churches in your stream/brand/franchise/whatever-we-call-it. If there is a carrot (including materials, common goals, excitement, networking, education, etc), not stick, approach, then eventually more churches will opt to choose their brand, some of which block women as part of their brand, some of which do not. It would take too many words for me to lay this out further and there is no call for me to do so. These brands could span denominations, perhaps including churches from any denomination in the WCRC, for example.

I thought through this matter when it really seemed clear to me that I was part of a dying denomination. I would like to help us. With my glasses on, it appears that classis is one of the issues that we need to address to get the cultural changes we need to start to thrive again. I really do think it is possible, but it definitely will not be easy.  Cheers!

Are we seriously giving this much space to silencing hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?

I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation."  When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated."  Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do.  It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.

So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.

In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook.  Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right.  And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.

If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience.  Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't.  She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.

Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.

Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?

Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.

Well, if this were a matter of disagreements on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then I would not understand someone having a conscience issue. No one has to believe me, and I do not know how others feel, but I would not be willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black people to have tee times. I can imagine that would be very close to identical to how I am stressed, torn by being a member of a CRC in a classis that does not seat women. I am rather appalled that I would be willing to do this. What I know to be right (recognizing that others think they know the opposite) is in opposition to how I am living. If you do not perfer the term "conscience" then feel free to give it another name. The fact is that I know it is wrong for me to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times and yet that is what i am doing, from my own perspective. 

Yes, because we have no means to solve this problem that I can see through our existing classes, it seems to me that classis has a fatal flaw. I say "fatal" because I can see no way to turn our denomination into one that is thriving without removing this problem. Maybe others have great plans for that, but I haven't seen them.  --dawn

Dawn: You say, "I do not think anyone really thinks that we should act in a way that counters our beliefs."

Assuming you are not kidding, I and most other people in the world conform to things we disagree with all of our lives.  Children sincerely believe they should be allowed to do this or that, or allowed not to do this or that, but their parents insist otherwise.  Growing up as adults doesn't change that.  Some adults sincerely believe they should keep their money instead of giving it to the government (for all kinds of reasons), or that they should be allowed to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, or talk in their cell phone while driving, etc etc etc etc etc.  I even conform to what my wife says, sometimes, and she sometimes to what I say, in each case including about things counter to our own beliefs.

Could be that I'm a lawyer, but I just see acting in conformity to be forced upon all of us everyday.  Without that, we don't even have a political society, let alone a church, or even a family.

So yes, I do think we should -- often -- act in ways that counters our beliefs. 

You say, "That is what I am asked to do as a member of the CRC, feeling wrenched by the fact that I am willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times."  Hey, I feel wrench by big things and and little things, including that I can't speak my mind respectully on this forum without being censored.  And yet I conform.

Your solution, really, to your feeling wrenched, is to not be "willing to be a member...".  I can't stand what certain political parties advocate for, and so I'm not a member.  Indeed, I'm not a member of any political party.

But you want more.  You want to keep the CRC banging on the drum.  Well, not argue about the women-in-office question anymore (you've said you don't want to argue that anymore), but you do want to, as Michael Bentley suggests, "silenc[e] hermeneutical opponents by eliminating denominational structure?"

Again, I actually agree with your position that women should be allowed to be pastors and elders.  What I disagree with is that the decision the denomination made should be continually pounded on.  At some point, we need to agree to disagree, and getting rid of classis as a denominational structure is not that.  Nor is characterizing those who disagree with your position as being analogical racists and slave keepers.  At some point, we need to submit to the decisions made or decide we want out.

You were right, I think, when you observed that the CRC is a "dying denomination."  I think it is that in no small part because too many simply want things their way and refuse to see themselves as ever having to "act in a way that counters their beliefs."

You are correct. I will rephrase it as "I do not think that anyone thinks that a person should be willing to sin without trying to change that behavior." That is what I am doing. There are reasons that I will be staying CRC at this point, so the way to align my behavior so that I am not sinning, according to what I believe Scripture tells me, is to change the organization. I realize there are others more diligent in doing this, but by not keeping silent on this matter, I am making a small step.

You are wrong, however, when you suggest that I "want to keep the CRC banging on the drum." In fact it is in order that we not have to do this that I propose doing away with classis, although not in one fell swoop.

Also, I do not characterize any other person as a racist. If I were to be willing to be a member of an organization that did not permit blacks to be members, then I would consider my behavior to be racist. I am curious -- would you consider it sinful behavior for yourself to be a willing member of a country club that did not permit tee times for black people because they were black? Would you consider such a membership? Why or why not?  --dawn

I appreciate the reflections re women attending classical meetings.  I have a few thojughts on this but not sure I can get it out this time.  Am working on it and might go through Paul to get it in the comment section.  Al Hoksbergen

There are two things I want to point out.

First, Paul speaks in the article about the possibility of Synod forcing classes to seat women delegates.  He rejects that as a viable plan.  I concur, because it would not force classes to seat women.  It would force them to leave the CRCNA - and they would.  In effect, it puts them in the position of doing what they believe they may not do or leaving, and the fact that they have maintained the position they hold over 20 years of argument and invective is a pretty clear indicator of which option they'd take.

Second, at one point in the discussion, Dawn explicitly refers to those who do not believe they are permitted by Scripture to seat women delegates at classis or ordain women into one or more of the offices of the church as "anti-women".  This sentiment is further implied in equating that belief to racism, slavery, etc., etc.  This sentiment is, at least in part, an expression of the hurt Dawn evidently feels in regards to this matter - a very understandable pain.  But it is also not true, and the fact of its falsity creates a barrier between Dawn and the people she wishes to persuade.

Permit me to explain.  Besides the fact that many of those who believe the Bible does not allow them to see women as elders or ministers are themselves women, the vast majority of the men who hold such a view are not in the least misogynist.  They love their mothers, wives, daughters, sisters; they work with women in various contexts both within and outside of the church; they are polite, respectful, protective, and compassionate.  They are not anti- anybody, nor do they believe women should remain barefoot and pregnant.  Characterizing them as such simply says to them that they are not understood.  When they explain the biblical reasons for their belief, and those reasons are swept away amid renewed accusations of misogyny, they eventually come to believe communication is impossible.  Once this happens, the walls go up, communication is ended, persuasion is impossible.

There are times when I'm willing to have those walls go up, when I'm not really interested in persuading so much as venting.  That's fine, and there's a place for it.  I may be nearing 50, but there's still a bit of 7th grader in me that enjoys a good, clean, fun exchange of witty insults and venting barbs.  No harm, no foul.

But if your desire is to persuade and change, then I think, Dawn, you would do well to pay more careful attention to what Doug has been saying here.

Let me try this again.  Apparently the last note I sent worked so here we go.

I do not think classes are irreparably broken.  It is true that a lot of work is required to get classis back to what the Church Order stipulates.  I think it can be done provided major assemblies stop making decisions they should not make.      

We should begin with Church Order Article 27 that states that the authority of church councils is original while that of the major assemblies is delegated.  This is foundational to our church polity.  Article 34 is about delegation to the assemblies.  It says, "Major assemblies are composed of officebearers who are delegated by their constituent minor assemblies."  

With this in mind, we recognize that a church council exists around the clock, even when the council is not in session.  This is different from the major assemblies.  Major assemblies only exist during the time they are in session.  When a classis adjourns, that particular classis no longer exists.  The same is true regarding a synodical gathering.  When the Synod of 2012 adjourns, that particular synod no longer exists.  While the Board of Trustees acts in the place of synod, its decisions are subject to the approval of a later synod. 

Article 28 is about matters that are legally before each of the assemblies.  This article limits the actions of the major assemblies to such matters as cannot be dealt with on the local level.  

It is questionable whether a major assembly has the authority to determine whom it will seat in its assembly   The council has the responsibility to make that decision, not the major assemblies.  When councils delegate their officebearers to be their representatives at a major assembly, that major assembly does not have the authority to decide whether it  will seat certain delegates.  When major assemblie receive credentials, its only task is to make sure that the delegates are in good standing in the local church, and are in fact officebearers there.  When synod decided some years ago that only males could serve in the offices of the church, it is questionable whether it had the right to make such a decision.   The church order used prior to that questionable decision stipulated only that members in good standing should be considered to be officebearers.  Sexual status, social status, or racial issues were not relevant.  Only the Bible and our creeds which interpret the basic tenents of our faith serve as our guide.  When a synod or classis decides to exclude certain persons sent by local churches that follow Scripture and our three forms of unity, that major assembly has overstepped its boundaries. 

So, may a classis or synod seat female delegate?.  Of course they may, provided they are in good standing in their local congregations.   It is time for us to move away from allowing major assemblies to interfer with matters that belong rightly to the council.  Al Hoksbergen

When you write that any body "ultimately makes the rules it makes" I think you also recognize that not only can rules change but the way in which rules and entities are handled also changes. If a company made a rule about a typewriter, for example, they might say that it applies also to a computer, but they could also decide that the advent of the computer is a way to get rid of the rule over time as typewriters went away.

So, synod has ruled on classes. I don't want them to revisit it any more than anyone else does. Those were painful times in the life of our denomination. Unfortunately, we were left with a broken structure that has contributed to a broken culture. So, one thing that I can see the denomination is thinking maybe they can do about it is to sink more resources into this broken entity (classis) and see if it can be redeemed. What I am saying is that I feel quite certain that we will not be healthy until we leave our classis structures, but not the good they do, in the dust.

So, when I see someone like Paul who has so much to contribute to our denomination spending his efforts touting the delights of classis, an all-male entity in my neck of the woods, I figure I should speak up. Let's stop putting this effort into classis and start putting it into the venues and organizations where we do not have votes about whether or not to permit black people to join our denominational decision-making (this really happens today -- we do not permit any black people to be seated at our classis meetings if they are women!)..

So, yes, there are rules and then there is the culture of the denomination given those rules. We are hurtin' for certain in this regard. I am trying to help by calling this out. I think we need to render classis impotent to the extent we can while building up new venues. I understand why many would applaud more resources going into making healthy classes. I understand that might seem like a good direct approach to fixing "us." I am suggesting that I see no way that we will reap the changes we seek by taking this tactic. I think we need to downplay, not play up, our classes, while raising up whatever we come up with as the new approach to regional ministries. This is not a small thing to do, but it will be necessary if we want our denomination to thrive.

I am a futurist, as are many people in the computing industry, and I sometimes get things like this wrong, but my instincts have proven to be very good on such matters over the years. So one piece of advice I have for the CRC is to figure out how to build up the structures that build up people, not the ones that deny them a seat at the table. 

Cheers!  --dawn

Dawn: I bit on answering your question -- would like an answer to mine.

As to your post immediately above, I feel like I'm watching re-runs.  You say you don't to want to rehash women-in-office but yet you seem to rehash but from a different angle (get rid of classes because some won't seat women) so as not to be recognized as a rehash.  And you make the racism analogy again, but without any further explanation to help anyone understand the point of your analogy (again, I bit on your question, would like an answer to mine).

I just don't think classis is a broken structure, unless of course you mean that we are all living broken lives, etc etc.  My classes met no long ago and it "worked" (so, not broken).  You simply disagree with some classes who won't seat women about not seating women, as if that is all there is to classis.  Its hyperbolic to call it "broken."  They won't seat me either -- still doesn't mean its broken.

Again, would like an answer to my question that is in my response post answering yours.

Why not let each CHURCH decide instead of each CLASSIS?  Individual churches are very different even within one classis.  Churches should have control over whether or not women are elected/selected.  Ultimately, in our church God makes the final decision because we draw names.  PLEASE consider doing more at the church level.  There is already a lack of unity within some congregations.  There are enough issues between young and old (music type for instance) and specific individuals.  Let each church handle this question individually with voting by their OWN MEMBERS.  The possibility of women in council was suggested to our pastor.  He immediately said, "No, I'm not even going there" -- not because he (and many) of our congregation are against it, but I think he said it for two other reasons:  1) he didn't want to prepare for a battle, 2) many churches in our classis are against it.  I say churches should have more power for these decisions.  I don't have time to read all of the comments above, but WHY NOT HAVE CHURCHES DECIDE THIS TYPE OF THING SINCE IT INVOLVES A MEETING GROUP WITHIN THAT CHURCH ONLY?

I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4.   But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious.   I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others.  I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars. 

She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis.   If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so.   If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.  

If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church.  She should make that argument  to Christ who selected 12 male apostles.   She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons).  She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel.    If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse.   She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven.   She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.   

Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant  analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men. 

I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk.   I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course.    I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles.   I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way.   I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do. 

I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before.   Further, I am not even slightly interested in  an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.   

It has been very interesting to read all these posts. I am a pastor in Classis Yellowstone which is very conservative and currently does not allow women elders to be seated . We are sparsly populated and very spread out .Last month I drove 550 miles to our classis meting .Our classis has been going through a sort of renewal during the last few years. We had Eugene Peterson at our last classis meeting which  was very powerfull, I even had a few people say to me that it was 'life changing" We are talking about planting a few new churches in our classis ,including one in Salt Lake City that will target the large immigrant population that has been growing there. We see classis as a time of worship ,renewal, mission, and prayer.

We had a very intense  but loving and patient discussion on the Belhar and voted on two overtures to Synod on whether to accept it or reject it .The overture to ask Synod not to adopt the Belhar passed by a majority. But the the overture that came from one church to accept the Behlar was treated with dignity ,respect and love .Our classis even voted on sending two people to this years Synod even though we all know that they will probably  vote pro Behlar. What I am trying to say is that a lot of good spirit led stuff is happening in our classis.

 One church has expressed its plan to seat women at our classis in the future .Thier communication to us about this  was one of love, and kindness ,with a call to all of us for patience and prayer.  The communication was recieved in grace.  I don't know what is going to happen this Fall when we bring up seating women elders at Classis, but we are off to a good start .So what am I saying? Let us in this classis talk to one another ,disagree with one another, pray with one another ,as Eugene Peterson says "to practice Ressurection with one another" Havins something forced on this classis concerning the issue of seating women elders would do harm to all the work we have been doing.  Dawn I can sympathize with your frustrations, but you need to remember that for many of us outside CRC areas, Classis is very important. If churches in the classis and some others who currently did not seat elders felt presure from  Synod about this, it would not go over well.  Anyway, Dawn ,I would like to hear some of your ideas on how you think churches could work at the regional level but not as a classis.

I've appreciated the discussion and although frank and conflictive, I think I've benefited from it. 

On conflict and convincing. We all have our points of view and one of the things we desire from language and deliberation is the possibility of influence and shared perspective. Even in this comment stream we've seen that (and we knew it already of course) that words are often insufficient to change someone's perspective no matter how much we try. Part of this amazing gift of agency we've been given is the decision to remain where we will.

So often we imagine "If I can only help them to SEE the world as I know it THEN they will agree with me and we will be together. We SO long for this, and sometimes it never happens. For me this is the greatest experiential proof we have of the existence of hell. Sometimes there is no talking us in or out of something. Sometimes we either can't see or won't see, which means we are left to ourselves. 

I often remind my congregation that the LORD can make this vast universe with his word, and Jesus can calm the sea with a word, but look how even God gets frustrated, and speaks and speaks and speaks and how we resist him. In one short chapter God makes the world, but spends the rest of the long book of the Bible trying to talk us into seeing ourselves from His perspective. 

Paul, I appreciate your comments.   They are true.   My personal perspective related to this is:   we are presently going through a provincial election which makes media presentation and sound bites virtually the most important impact on the outcome of the election.   We do not need would be politicians with their sound bites trying to control a discussion about women at classis, nor about the Belhar, nor about any other issue, within the church setting.   We need sincere, considerate discussion with sincere listening and respect for others.   If we do not have this, then respect will be lost on all sides.  And then no discussion will be possible.

Al Hoksbergen called me with his comment when he was trying in vain to get it posted. I thought it was an interesting perspective. To me his insight highlights some of the reality of what a church community really is. We've got a church order, rules and regulations about proceedure, but we're also a community with a mixture of oral tradition and selective application the combination of which creates culture. 

Part of what we have unfortunately learned from our broader culture is manipulative tactic of playing the victim. This tactic I think is an ironic perversion of one of the most important gospel additions to our culture which is respect for the weak out of their inherent value by virtue of the image of God. When we internalize a victim mentality and appropriate it as an element of our identity we devolve further from our inheritance of created goodness. We recognize that the use of power to advantage oneself at the expense of another image bearer is a violation of the rights of the other by virtue of what the creator has bestowed upon them, in playing the victim we rob from our own status in order to injure the other through manipulation. Out of vengeance we try to pervert weakness and the power of the powerless. It is a parody of the Gospel power of weakness. 

Run this thought experiment with me. You are a woman elder in a classis that won't seat women elders at classis. What happens if the church delegates you to classis anyway? Will they bar you at the door? Will they call the police?

What is the worst that will likely happen? They may not accept the church credential or refuse to afford the woman elder the floor or accept her vote if that is possible. Is any of this the reason why churches don't do this? No. 

Why are churches and women hesitant to go and act according to their convictions? For a number of good reasons. They don't want conflict. They don't want things to get ugly. They don't want to get a name as a trouble maker. They don't want to alienate friends and family. They don't want to be seen as a jerk. They want to honor the church and the church order and the implicit fabric that creates our community. We all understand these things. We don't like people who like conflict for conflict's sake because we know the cost of conflict is real and painful and sometimes breaches are long lasting and costly. 

The civil rights movement has been repeatedly brough up in this conversation. I too have mixed feelings about the applicability of that conflict to this one. In reading Ross Douthat's new book "Bad Religion" he noted that many have attempted to leverage the success of that movement in other movements and most have for the most part failed. I think there are some deep reasons for that, one of which being that a generation of African Americans accepted poverty, physical brutality, economic injustice, blood and even death itself to purchase their freedom. Most other movements try to win the victory on the cheap and it just won't come. 

Part of why the CRC is where it is today are because of these implicit bonds of community. In conflict these bonds are tested, and sometimes they are severed. My father's generation knew the painful PRC split. The URC split was painful for others in our generation. We don't like conflict because it can be costly and the reason often we don't push things is because we our relationships with other are complex and there are broad economies of connections between us, Women in Office being one of those items on the list. 

I really appreciated Brian's input from Classis Yellowstone. I thought it filled out the picture nicely. This is a broad stage upon which we play and the issues involved are serious and are played out in this complex matrix of relational bonds. 

A while ago I saw the movie "The Help". On some levels it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie and I saw it with some friends, some of whom were African Americans who experienced the Jim Crow south first hand. Part of what the movie tried to do, but I think failed to do, was to show the complexity of the dilemma of sin in community.

Whether you believe the sin is the failure to embrace an egalitarian ethos or the failure to embrace a complementarian ethos one thing I hope we can agree upon is that we are all captives to sin in our world and the costs of it are enormous. Not all those who embraced a Jim Crow world were monsters. Not all who rebelled against it were heroes. LIfe is more complex than that. I've known my safe of people who could say the most racially prejudiced things in one minute and then turn around and treat someone across a racial boundary with sacrificial love the next. This is what we are like. 

We play our parts in these conflicts and we ought not to pretend that either they can be denied through living in denial or stopping our ears, nor by complaining and playing the victim. 

The longer I ponder the miracle of the gospel, the more I see that love of enemy is not some optional merit badge in advanced, exceptional Christian practice, but rather the very basis itself. We made no greater enemy and no other enemy than God himself and it required the Son of God himself at no lesser expense than the cost of his life to get us back into the family. Why we imagine that we can finesse, negotiate or fudge our way through the inevitable conflicts of life in order to avoid loving our enemy is only attributable to the ever present blinding nature of sin. 

Love hard, play hard, work hard, let the Christian life flow out of joy, not duty. pvk

I have to close this machine up, so one more quick response, not doing justice to all that has been written. I agree with you, Paul, regarding taking on a victim stance. I certainly do not see myself as a direct victim in this, even if recognizing that unlike the civil rights movement, when all women are locked out of this or that, I am part of that gender. I see myself as complicit in victimizing other women. Just because we, ourselves, do not want to claim we have been victimized, if we see someone punched in the face, we surely do not want to chide them if they scream, suggesting that they are acting like a victim.

There really are real victims out there and I know that I really am part of the problem where i want to be part of the solution. Throughout the world women are often treated as second class citizens. I am only trying to "act locally" by making noise here in this CRC forum as I am very familiar with the CRC.

I'm a bit confused that first you seem to imply that I take on a victim stance and then you ask me to pretend I am a victim. I do not have any goals nor delusions of ever being an officer in the CRC. So, I can speak out on behalf of victims, recognizing my part in harming them and working to overcome it, but I do not feel that it would be helpful for me to run through a scenario of this nature. My take is that we have some brokenness in our midst and can either go along as we are now, which to me seems like we are sweeping things under the carpet and not building a thriving church, or we can recognize we have this disease and work to overcome it. 

--dawn

It is incredible - in this day and age of ministry some people still don't believe women can do an outstanding job in ordained ministry.  Honestly, I strongly believe many women have shown they can do a great job - sometimes better than many our our men in ministry.

I still can't believe some CRC males have the archaic mentality that women cannot contribute to the Kingdom in ordained ministry.  It's time to wake up!!!

Eric,

I couldn't agree with you more on the issue of "diversity" quotas and ethnic advisors; although, I am aware in the United States the race/ethnic card is always in peoples minds,  yes, including the Christians...  The "diversity" quotas and ethnic advisors are many times (although with good intentions) insult us as human beings created in God's image.  The quota and ethnic cards attempt against the dignity of us as members of different races and ethnic groups in the United States and Canada.

Eric our focus as a Church, the CRC, is to work for the Kingdom of God now and here, where God has placed us, male and female, and, yes, in ordained ministry.  Remember God is Spirit and therefore has no sex - gender.

My recommendation  - don't be afraid to work with an ordained female elder or minister of the Word and Sacraments...  Challenge yourself and learn something for the Kingdom...

I am trying to catch up and will undoubtedly miss some questions, perhaps some directed toward me. I'll tackle this one as it is the first one I am seeing.

Yes, I understand why you might say "ah, come on," however I do want you to understand that I am not accusing any individuals other than myself of bigoted behavior. I am indicating that our church seems to have no means for me to be a member without knowingly living a life of sin in this regard. If others think this means that they too are sinning, then that is outside of the scope of my statements, but I can see how this can be logically derived from my statements about my own behavior. I am honestly making no such accusations in this situation, however.

I realize that I will be living my life side by side with people who block women from this or that. Of course I want all such behavior to stop, just as I want to eliminate hunger. I cannot purge the world of all such ills and I do not go around judging others. I know that it is not my job to judge in that way. I am called to align my own behavior with what is right, however. 

So, my statements here are not intended to change the minds of anyone who might think that they have been called to lock women out of church offices. I no longer have what it takes to carry on a dialog on that topic. I no longer feel that any good can come out of me addressing questions such Jesus choosing 12 men as disciples. If this is such strong evidence to you of something, I would think I should hear more (or ANY) sermons about how I should not be a disciple. 

My interest is in the question of how the CRC can thrive, given people like me and others equally convinced that women must suffer lock-outs. Over the course of my career, I have worked hard to leave those organizations with whom I have worked, whether as an employee, a vendor, a customer, or a partner in any respect better off than when I started working with them. It is, therefore, difficult to see my denomination seem to be in a state of decline.

My statements here are about how to take the CRC today and help it grow and thrive into the future. I have ideas on how to do this, but others might have even better ideas than mine (not provided in any detail here -- it would take a book!). My design for thriving include minimizing the work of classis and growing up other efforts that help provide a better culture within the CRC. That is why I am responding to Paul's blog on Classis.

The fact that I can see no way for the denomination to thrive if we put any sort of focus on classis does not imply that no one can come up wtih a means to fix things while retaining classis as it stands. I simply cannot see it. My intuition on this is not backed by clear business intelligence, although I have reviewed various charts regarding our decline and my intuition has some basis in experience. If I could hear anyone else give a clear strategy for getting from here to there while also trying to raise the importance of classis or even keep it the same, I would definitely listen. I have pictures and designs in my head for how the denomination could thrive (please tell my head to STOP as no one has asked me to do this!!!) and all of them require giving classis the most minimal role we can at this point and working to replace it over time. I do not think that synod should address women-in-church-offices again, but what we have now is not workable, in my opinion.

If you see a path for us to put more into our sometimes all-male classes and have a culture that permits us to thrive into the future, please lay out a plan. I just can't see it. I want us to thrive. I think we need to give classis as minimal a role as required and work to replace it over time. I realize I did not provide a ton of facts, but I did provide one. We appear to be continuing in some state of decline. I can see some ways to get us out of it provided we give classis as minimal a role as possible. That's all I'm trying to say while providing some rationale by showing you the culture I'm living in -- where given that I want to be a member of a CRC church I am compelled to live in a way that I feel and think is sinful. This is not about making it easier for me. It is about a culture that is broken and could be fixed. I suspect if you can fix this issue for me, you can do a lot to repair the culture of our denomination.   --dawn

Doug,

The HISTORICAL Jesus of Nazareth was a GOOD JEW and as such was part of the patriarcal society that sorrounded him and he lived in.  Jesus was no REVOLUTIONARY - He didn't even conspired against the Roman Empire that had colonized the Jewish people. 

God bless the ORDAINED WOMEN in the CRC - they sure demonstrate that GOD uses them for the  establishment of the Kingdom.  Keep up the good work no matter the opposition from some archaic men in the CRC.

Al,

I see what you are saying, but in the case of a classis that hasn't voted to declare the word male inoperative according to their classical rules of procedure, wouldn't the chair of the classis meeting probably just rule the delegation out of order (probably not saying it right, but hope you get the idea).

Well, so much for 2 equally-accepted hermeneutical positions. However, I do feel a massive sense of freedom now that I can dismiss much of the Bible in my next sermon. To know that my contemporary views of culture outweigh Jesus’ is very empowering! Thanks for this post.

Paul,

Forgive me if this has been addressed somewhere already but I have a question about what you are writing here. Do you believe that the complementarian view is based on culture? If the reason women officebearers are not forced upon all classes is because of differing cultures, then does that imply complementarians are complementarian because of their culture? It seems that the more these differing views are seen as cultural, the more it can be said that complementarians are just prejudiced and misogynistic.

It's a generous position, Paul. However, I really don't see how this is going to subside. The root of all of this is hermeneutical, and nobody is giving up that ground easily. It is not the case that all the people who see a universal cultural application regarding gender have left the denomination. MANY remain, but are not willing to break the denomination again to press their view. Instead, they are content to wait for God to show the other side their error.

As long as we're all willing to let everyone else be wrong in their hermeneutics and still call each other "family," then we're a fairly quiet bunch. You see from this post, once someone advocates eliminating the opposite hermeneutic (especially through denominational government), the division is not re-opened, but exposed for what it has always been.

Aaron,

It shows the Apostle's Paul own contradictions... in Corinthians women are NO GOOD in Galatians there is no male or female... if you get it, please explain!!!

God bless the ordained women in the CRC!!!

Two comments: When I grew up, men and women usually occupied roles that were suited primarily to them.  Churches did not consider women as eligible nominees for the positions of pastor, elder or deacon.  In the 1970s, my perspective began to broaden.  As a new awareness developed, I wondered how I would have dealt with slavery had my parents owned slaves.  Perhaps had I been challenged I would have used biblical texts to defend the position of my parents.  But I hope eventually I would have recognized the Bible's emphasis on freedom and that slavery denied the freedom Christ proclaimed.  I find the change that took place in my thinking to be similar.  I now recognize that it is wrong to put anyone down because of sex, race, social standing of any other issue society may use to differentiate between people.  Therefore, I find the current debate about whether women should be accepted at classis as delegates to be both offenisive and belittling to women.

A second observation: The church polity of the CRC is non-hierarchical.  Classis and synod are called major assemblies, but that does not mean they hold a position that is superior to the council,  The Church Order says the council is a minor assembly whose authority is "original" while that of the major assemblies is "delegated."  While major assemblies make decisions that are binding on congregations, synod defied its own Church Order when it gave classes the authority to refuse to seat certain delegated based on their sex.  Such a decision gives the major assembly authority that does not honor the non-hierarchical principle of the Church Order.  The decision to delegate persons to serve as representatives at major assemblies belongs to the minor assemblies only and that may not be challenged by a major assembly.

The CRC got off track with it authorized classes to make a decision the Church Order does not allow.  Synod should have made the same ruling for both major assemblies, namely that officebearers shall not be required to participate against their conscience should they be delegated to a major assembly (see the supplement to article 3-a of the Church Order).  Now we are faced with the challenge of getting back on track.  That could be a difficult road to navigate, but unless we take that route our denomination will continue to promote a biblicism which is not in keeping with Reformed principles and will frequently detract from effective evangelism.  Al Hoksbergen

Al: I appreciate and respect your perspective, and your arguments (and I think you make good CO arguments).  At the same time, your comment that you view "... the current debate about whether women should be accepted at classis as delegates to be both offensive and belittling to women" gives me pause.

You speak of "women" as if they are all of one mind.  I very much doubt they are.  Even in faith communities where the role of women is much, much more "rigid" than the CRC (e.g., many Mennonite traditions) I can't imagine there aren't a great number of women to believe that women have Scripture-prescribed, defined roles which both mandate and exclude in some respects.  So when you find the mere debate of the matter to be "offensive and belittling to women," some women (who have concluded other than as you have) would find it offensive and belittling that you assume for them what conclusions they have/must reach.

The greatest migration of mindset we've had in our modern era, even greater than the "individualism" and "materialism" we are so good at constantly lamenting in our prepared liturgy materials, is our tendency now to look at most everything as rights and power issues.  We have lost a great deal of our servant perspective. We really can't understand why Paul would tell Onesimus to go back to Philemon.  With this loss in our mindset, an Acts 15 kind of resolution cannot happen.

As for stubbornness, God made Frisians too, but, yes, I understand that there has been a compromise, so now I am asking questions about what to do in light of this.

I do not agree that the church should remain stagnant and not move forward. There were many stubborn people on either side of the civil war and many other disagreements in history. Those who were in the South really do have to accept the decisions made about which they did not agree. Those agreements do change over time, however (think about discussions related to the confederate flag).

Given the wisdom provided by Hoksbergen here, it might very well be that the actions of synod were out of order, that synod cannot give Classis the right to forbid women to be seated at its assemblies. In that case, it should be revisited, I would think.

My comments here were related to 1) accepting the actions of synod as a compromise, awful as it was and 2) figuring out how to move the church forward in spite of some problems with our organizational culture given that we have in that those whose consciences are torn by having a woman at the table (2nd CRC in Kazoo, for example)  and those, like me, who find it very difficult to understand how I, personally, am willing to permit myself to be a member of a country club that does not provide tee times for black people (or the analogous in the case of women in office). How can we address this "org culture" issue so that we can sail into the future?

I surely do not have all of the answers to this question, although I have spent some time designing an approach that I think would work (even if taking a lot of work). I am able, I think, to detect an anti-pattern when I see one -- something that will surely not help us move forward on this front. The one I am seeing here is too much attention being given to classis -- such as this well-done blog on the subject of classis. That is where I differ with Paul. I think we need to focus our local and regional attention on everything but classis, a place where we have severe issues (as evidenced by 2nd Kazoo and also what I can feel in my own wrenched conscience, especially when I again hear that my classis voted against women being seated).

So, yes, I hope that someone takes and runs with the Hoksbergen information to try to redeem classis, but if we cannot, then let's at least take the spotlight off from it and put our resources into non-classis work.  Make sense?  --dawn

Dawn: Such superlatives. If the church is now, as you say, "stagnant and not move forward" because some classes do not permit the seating of women, then it follows that the church was stagnate for most of its existence, that the apostle Paul kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward," and, arguably, that Jesus himself, by his example in selecting disciples, kept the church "stagnant" and from "mov[ing] forward."

You make some good points Dawn, but so many, like this one, are expressed with such hyperbole (also the whole racist analogy) that the quality of the points made are lost. Worse, they foster division, a much greater concern to the biblical authors than the question of whether all organizational distinctions in the church between men and women should be obliterated.

And on it goes. This post proves why we need a multi-level denominational authority structure.

Going off of what Dawn is suggesting, it seems the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis. The CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations. How many offices do we need at 2850? Every office means more ministry shares, more snailmail and email, more groups vying for churches' attention. As opposed to what Michael Bentley said, the need is for less structures. (Sorry Mike, I seem to agree with you on a lot of topics but maybe not his one.) This might be why non-denominational churches are doing so well. They don't have anything to do except worship together and minister to their communities. I am not advocating for zero structures and offices because that creates different problems, but a thinning out would be beneficial. More attention, money and time on a congregation's own community translates into more effective ministry. Just a thought.

Ok, been following this thread since it started, all 90+ comments...  I made one comment early on (April 14), but no one touched it and I'm baffled when it seems like such an obvious answer to me, so I'm very curious why (or so it seems) no one is interested in pursuing the prophetic gifting of the Holy Spirit.

I will state it again, using this phrase from one of Dawn's posts on 4.19.12 at 2:32 whatever time zone that might be..

BOQ...So one piece of advice I have for the CRC is to figure out how to build up the structures that build up people, not the ones that deny them a seat at the table. EOQ. EOQ

So, I mention the prophetic "table" again...  Scripture (I Cor. 14:1-5,12) tells us we are to eagerly desire this gift, which I'm not seeing this in the crc to any extent (yet), and then that this gift is used primarily for strengthening, building up, edifying and encouraging the Church, the Bride of Christ.  Acts 2/Joel 2 clearly states it is for male and female, sons and daughters, all flesh, young and old, I don't think anyone can argue that point.

It seems the prophetic table is an open door for women, but for whatever reason, we/crc are hesitant/resistant to walk through that door. 

As was mentioned, we have bigger problems than women and classis, even though it is a significant and sensitive underlying one.    We desperately need the power of the Holy Spirit, which has been significantly lacking for a variety of reasons in the crc (and it seems other denoms similar to crc).  It will not matter if my voice as a woman is heard, when we are not hearing the Holy Spirit to any significant extent.  The Holy Spirit's one "thought" given to His Church through the gift of prophecy can easily trump a thousand human thoughts. 

Am I saying that we don't have the Holy Spirit?  No, I'm saying we haven't been listening to Him very well.

Aaron V. - For what it's worth, Back to God Ministries are not at 2850 K-zoo in G.Rapids.  They're in Palos Heights, IL.

Wonder if there's a connection between that fact and their relative effectiveness......

Thanks, Bev! That does help a lot.

I'm not sure how to answer the idea of informally adressing official bodies. To make a table "official" without "official" participants may be a problem in semantics (brown is the new black, etc.), and may not offer a real solution. Not much of this is nitpicked in scripture, so many ways of solving the problem may be relative to each congregation, giving each classis a unique flavor (although your 'snarkyness' is well recieved and understood). The questions that need answering seem to be, ‘how are prophets identified?' and 'how is prophecy received by congregations and classes?' To answer this problem certainly requires wisdom and a spirit of edification (gifts of the Spirit themselves). 

In our congregation, all sorts of stuff filters up to classis from the council, which is informed by committees (men & women with a council representative), personal visits and written statements from anyone in the congregation. While our council is male (due to scripture), the information we recieve comes from all sources in the congregation on all topics without a preference to male 'prophetic' insight over female 'prophetic' insight. Therefore, there is no "women's table" at our council,  precisely because is the council's responsibility – inherent to their office – to actively consider all of the congregational needs and expressions, as well as relating that voice to classis. LIke I said above, this requires wisdom and a spirit of edification, which may be more powerful in some council members than in others. I am a relatively new pastor in my congregation, but as I have seen the Spirit working here I have personally asked certain women with specific gifts to move forward with programs and consider serviing on committees where their gifts will be used and treasured, as well as encouraging and training the council to creatively use the gifts of the whole congregation.

Hopefully, your council and classis are open to hearing these voices and creatively opening all sorts of avenues to edify the local congregation(s) and promote Christ's gospel in the hearts of those in your community – it is their responsibility! If that is not the case, then I understand the frustration. I have preached from the pulpit, specifically to the men, that it should not come as a shock to them that women made in the image of God should wish to see mercy and justice done in our family – and will become more active in realizing those evidences of the kingdom when the men abandon their calling and responsibility.

Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll.  What I found interesting was:  1.  They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years.   2.  They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers.  (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.)   3.  His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series.  4.  Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34.   5.  They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week.  6.  They are intentionally "complementarian" in church   and family .