Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)
Hi everyone. Since it's not in accordance with Network guidelines to discuss women in office under this post, since the post isn't about that, I've created a separate post where we can engage on that topic. I would value your contribution if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on that page. Here is the link:
Hi Bonny, thank you for your comment. I am sorry my use of gender-specific language wasn't to your liking, seriously. This is a difficult situation. I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this question: After prayer and searching the scriptures in community, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors. My position is not rare and it is fully accepted by the CRC, alongside your view. Do you think I should go against my conscience—which says women can't be pastors—and write as if I do not believe that? Or, do you think The Network should edit my writing to reflect something contrary to my conscience?
Thanks for your response, Bonny. I understand your perspective. As I mentioned, it's a difficult issue. I'm always interested in navigating our "two ways" on women in office. So, thank you for your perspective. In response, I'd say changing articles to be gender-inclusive, with regard to pastoring, solves one problem (yours) while violating another (mine). That is, what about my ability to read something that aligns with my view? Shouldn't that be prioritized as well? Again, just working through this messy issue. Thanks again.
I replied to this comment, but it seems it was deleted. I'll re-write the short version: As per 1 Tim 2:12 etc., I and many other pastors / congregants in the CRC believe the Bible prohibits women from being pastors. The CRC has recognized this position as viable, alongside the pro-women in office position. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that everyone in the CRC must hold to women in office, but this is not the case. To answer your question, Hetty, no, the ordained women in the CRC are not invisible to me. However, yes, I do not think that their ordination is in line with the biblical prescription for ordination. I understand this may be uncomfortable for many, but this is the denomination we are a part of. For more information, please see Eric Van Dyken's helpful post: https://network.crcna.org/topic/church-strategy-mission/church-renewal/thinking-about-third-way-crc-uniquely-qualified-forge
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Dear Bev,
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Peace to you,
Rob
Posted in: Is Christmas the Appetizer?
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Hi everyone. Since it's not in accordance with Network guidelines to discuss women in office under this post, since the post isn't about that, I've created a separate post where we can engage on that topic. I would value your contribution if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on that page. Here is the link:
https://network.crcna.org/topic/leadership/pastors/christian-discussion-women-office#comment-61587
See you there!
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Hi Bonny, thank you for your comment. I am sorry my use of gender-specific language wasn't to your liking, seriously. This is a difficult situation. I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this question: After prayer and searching the scriptures in community, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors. My position is not rare and it is fully accepted by the CRC, alongside your view. Do you think I should go against my conscience—which says women can't be pastors—and write as if I do not believe that? Or, do you think The Network should edit my writing to reflect something contrary to my conscience?
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Thanks for your response, Bonny. I understand your perspective. As I mentioned, it's a difficult issue. I'm always interested in navigating our "two ways" on women in office. So, thank you for your perspective. In response, I'd say changing articles to be gender-inclusive, with regard to pastoring, solves one problem (yours) while violating another (mine). That is, what about my ability to read something that aligns with my view? Shouldn't that be prioritized as well? Again, just working through this messy issue. Thanks again.
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Amen! Blessings to you, Johanna. May He demonstrate His power in our weakness!
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
I replied to this comment, but it seems it was deleted. I'll re-write the short version: As per 1 Tim 2:12 etc., I and many other pastors / congregants in the CRC believe the Bible prohibits women from being pastors. The CRC has recognized this position as viable, alongside the pro-women in office position. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that everyone in the CRC must hold to women in office, but this is not the case. To answer your question, Hetty, no, the ordained women in the CRC are not invisible to me. However, yes, I do not think that their ordination is in line with the biblical prescription for ordination. I understand this may be uncomfortable for many, but this is the denomination we are a part of. For more information, please see Eric Van Dyken's helpful post: https://network.crcna.org/topic/church-strategy-mission/church-renewal/thinking-about-third-way-crc-uniquely-qualified-forge
Posted in: When Jesus Said ‘Take Nothing’
I've never heard that, but it makes a lot of sense! Thank you for that insight. May we walk the earth as the Lord's priests in His temple.