Women on GKv pulpits (instalment 13)

D.J. Bolt

18-10-14

There is a well-known comical joke about a church minister who received a call to another congregation. Someone curiously asks the minister’s daughter whether her father has already made a decision. She answers: Dad is still in his study praying, but mum is already packing the suitcases.
As a variation on this theme: GKv’s M/V Deputies[1] are still busy with the question whether the Bible will allow women ministers, but the churches are already installing them. And just like the minister (above) who departed from his congregation, so the first female office bearers are already taking their place on or under GKv pulpits.

Because what was it again? Had GKv’s[2] Synod not rejected the report from M/V Deputies in which they advocated women in office? Yes, there are people in our churches who are desperately clinging to that Synod decision. But this is a broken reed [3], because Synod also took other decisions. And in particular: the decision that removed the barriers to union with the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (hereafter referred to as the NGK) - the church community in which women office bearers officiate at all levels.
Synod said even explicitly that the (un-reformed) hermeneutics which in those churches underlies the introduction of women in office, no longer forms an obstruction. The Synod decided namely

“… that the consensus in the discussions on hermeneutics removed the obstruction that arose from the decision of the NGK to open the offices for the sisters.”(Decision 3).

This leaves no doubt. Many at home and abroad have concluded that this de facto accepts ‘women in office’ in the GKv churches. And that this will also happen in practice.
We mention the very first (to our knowledge) example of it.

Nunspeet

The NGK (450 members) and the GKv (100 members) in Nunspeet are establishing “intensive cooperation”. This was announced in the region “with joy.” And also the GKv Classis Hattem has given the green light (ND [4] 10/07/14)
This cooperation means that the congregations will admit each other’s members to Holy Supper, that their ministers may officiate in the other congregation, and that joint church services will be held. Catechism classes also have been combined, and the GKv youth have already joined the NGK youth-clubs.
This is merger, ecclesiastical oneness, with the consent of the bond of churches. We cannot make anything else of it. Yes indeed, and why not?

But there is, in any case there was of course a problem: the NGK in  Nunspeet has female elders and deacons, whereas the GKv (formally) not yet. Well, this is not seen as a problem. Only three of the forty GKv  families would be against it. And the remaining ‘inconvenience’ is removed by “having no female elders and deacons serve in the first combined services.” This does indeed show a sympathetic approach towards ‘minorities’!
O yes, there is still the processional to the office bearers’ seating in front, but at the foot of the pulpit there is not as yet a handshake for the minister and also not lugging around with collection bags ...

Is there still anyone who believes that the GKv have not allowed women in office?

Had a fright?

Last Monday’s ND (13 October) published a remarkable letter from two GKv Deputies for Church Unity (DKE). Here it is.
Under the heading Cooperation they reported that they 
 

“... share in the joy of the NGK and GKv at Nunspeet about their decision to cooperate (ND 7 October). The GKv Synod of Ede made allowance for this. In brief, ‘women in office’ is no longer an obstacle to local cooperation with a NGK congregation. However, that statement is just a bit too brief.
The obstacle arose especially by the way in which the NGK was using the Bible in allowing female elders and ministers. In recent years the two church federations have found each other at that point. [There is] no more distrust whether the Bible is taken completely serious, even though the churches do not always agree in its explanation. After Synod Ede’s decision this should still be a topic of local discussions. 

If an NGK congregation has chosen in favour of women in office, then that in itself does not have to be an obstacle, that is true. But there should be ongoing discussion about the reason for that choice. If you find that you really are one in how seriously you take the Bible, then you can move towards cooperation. With respect for everyone’s conviction and for the rules that apply in each church federation. Combined services of GKv and NGK congregations will therefore not be led by female ministers, and only [by] ministers who are signatories to the Reformed confession.

The obstacle is therefore gone. But this was not the fence that stopped all cooperation. Ecclesiastical cooperation is still possible only within the mutually accepted fence of respect for Scripture.”

Remarkable.
We will put a few statements from this letter under the microscope.

Deputies say:

After Synod Ede’s decision this should still be a topic of local discussions. … there should be ongoing discussion about the reason for that choice. 

Really? This is not evident from any Synod decision, click MV-decisions. In the discussion at Synod, Deputies’ chairman (of Deputies for Church Unity) Messelink said that it can be discussed; but in the record of Synod’s decisions even that remark cannot be found back. To the contrary, it was strongly argued that discussion of NGK’s VOP [5] report is no longer necessary, for it was, after all, their report on which the NGK took their decision about women ministers. Opening up of the offices for women is therefore no longer an obstacle for ecclesiastical unity at the national level. Fini. 
According to these Deputies there should therefore be a discussion on the why of women in the offices. But why this ‘why’? What will that lead to? Rejection of their choice for these office bearers? But that was according to Synod precisely not the intention. In short, we understand nothing of such ‘discussion’.  Or is it the intention that GKv members learn from the ‘right choice’ made by the NGK?

Combined services of GKv and NGK congregations will therefore not be led by female ministers, and only by ministers who are signatories to the Reformed confession.

Why apply this restriction to the NGK? Despite our best efforts we have been unable to locate this in the decisions of Synod. Besides, why this restriction to female minister-elders? Is there then no problem with the other female governing-elders? Sermon reading, ‘handshakes’, attendance at elders-only meetings , home visits, and so on? Who came up with this distinction? In any case, it was not Synod.

And - we just ask the question - are there ministers in the NGK who have not put their signature under the confession? If so, and if Deputies knew this, how did they dare to propose to Synod to go in the direction of unity with these churches? Why was this not an issue at Synod, and why did Synod in its ignorance (?) adopt Deputies’ proposal? 

Wool

Or is there something else going on with this letter of Deputies for Church Unity? Has it become clear to everyone that with ‘Nunspeet’ the genie is actually out of the bottle? And are they now trying to pull the wool over the eyes of distressed and shocked GKv church members by suggesting that Nunspeet is actually overstepping Synod’s decision in allowing also female office bearers to join the procession to the pulpit?
We would like to say: Come brothers, show some courage, a little more support for your own proposed and adopted decisions. Or else, what we much rather would see: an admission that they are not correct and a heartfelt rejection.
But we fear that we shall have a long wait for a letter of that nature. For Deputies for Church Unity are again running behind the times – as they themselves complained about at Synod.
And the fence of respect for the Bible can of course no longer be found if the foundation on which it rested - the authority of Scripture – has been demolished.[6]
What remains is at most a postmodern ‘respect for everyone’s opinion’.

(Translated from the article Vrouwen op vrijgemaakte kansels 13, rubriek In de pers 18 October 2014)

Notes