Office Bearers

GS 1974 ARTICLE 84 – “Women’s Voting Rights”

Advisory Committee IV presents:

MATERIAL:

  • R 1 – Church at Toronto proposing that Synod recognize the rights of active participation of women in the life of the Churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to acknowledge their privilege to take part in the election of office­ bearers.
  • Toronto submits six grounds for such a decision.
  • R 2 – Church at London, offering objections against the grounds, given by Toronto. 8 8 – Rapport inzake de materie van het VROUWENKIESRECHT, nader bezien vanuit de H. Schrift, submitted to General Synod Kampen, 1975, resulting in 5 conclusions, the last one being, “Op grond van hetgeen de Heilige Schrift ons duidelijk leert aangaande de plaats en taak van de vrouw, is het de kerkeraden niet geoorloofd bij de verkiezing van ambtsdragers toe te staan, dat de vrouwen keurstem uitbrengen.”

OBSERVATIONS:

I.  Re: “Toronto”:

This Consistory gives as a reason for its proposal that, according to the New Testament the sisters were active in the early Church and were included in the ‘congregation’ also when the latter took action with respect to the election of office-bearers.

Further, voting is not an act of government; if it were, then it should also be denied to the male members of the congregation, because the government of the Church is entrusted to “the elders of the flock.”

Exclusion of women from voting cannot be proven from the Scriptures_ The new Testament does not give exact information about election-proce­dures.

Jesus Christ has, although maintaining the creation-order in the relation­ ship husband-wife in the bond of marriage, delivered from the curse of sin not only men but also women.

CONCLUSION of Advisory Committee IV:

These remarks of Toronto, though supported by references etc., do not provide a thorough study of all the relevant biblical teaching.

II.  Re: “London”:

This Consistory objects to the grounds given by Toronto.

Although there is value in this communication, Committee IV noticed several weak spots in its reasoning, of which the following are mentioned;

  • l. It confuses the issue by not properly discerning between the marital relationship and the position-in-general of the sisters in the Church. Or in other terms: the “creation-order”: re: marriage (life) is applied to “all social relationships.”
  • 2. Voting is called an act of governing the Church, rather than serving and assisting the Consistory in the process of electing office-bearers. While the governing-elements in this ‘process’ remain within the province of the Consistory (nominating – appointing – ordaining), in serving and assistance there should be equality between men and women.
  • 3. London, having spoken about “social relationships”, proceeds then to the general and far-reaching statement that a woman’s task can never and nowhere be one of giving leadership (again: apart from the husband/wife creation-order). Apart from whether voting is giving leadership, such a ‘principle’ would exclude all women from any leading position in “social relationships” (what about “God save our gracious Queen”?).

It leads to the consequence that no woman has ever the right to teach and to govern.

CONCLUSION of Advisory Committee IV.

The objections of “London” against “Toronto” do not offer conclusive grounds for rejecting Toronto’s proposal.

III.   Re: “Rapport Vrouwenkiesrecht.”

Your Committee has perused the Report and in detail discussed its conclusions on page 30, 31.

We came to the conclusion that we had to state several weak spots, statements subject to doubt and incorrect dilemmas.

The following are mentioned.

  • 1. As in the communication of “London” there is hardly any distinction between the marriage-relationship, established with creation and upheld in redemption at the one hand and at the other: the position of woman, married or not, in all life’s relationships in general.
  • 2. The same must be stated when this Report speaks about “de gemeente”, the congregation. It does not hesitate to make statements like: “In de verkiezing wordt de gemeente ingeschakeld.” • “de medewerking die de gemeente mag verlenen” (“medewerking”! Cooperation which is not govern­ ing) – “opzieners door de gemeente aangewezen” etc. The Report refers, page 31, to Acts 1:6, 14. This repeated use of the word “gemeente” or “congregation” seems, instead of taking “congregation” in the biblical and creedal sense (including all believers), to be a narrowing-down to “only male members”.
  • 3. The Committee took notice of the repeated expression that, according to the creation-order the woman has “een plaats achter de man”. We compared that with Adam’s word, also quoted in Dutch: “de vrouw die Gij bij mij gegeven hebt.” Both expressions are not identical, to say the least.
  • 4. The general thesis of this Report that “de Heilige Geest verbiedt, dat de vrouw op enigerlei wijze gezag heeft over een man” (stress added by Committee) could, apart from the many relations in society which show a different picture, lead to the conclusion, that a mother-widow has no authority anymore over her son age 18 who has done profession of faith.
  • 5. Similar weak spots occur, in the opinion of your Committee, throughout the whole Report.

CONSIDERATION:

Your Committee, after study of the materials, has become convinced that they are not sufficient to lead to a responsible, clear decision, which takes all biblical (as well as church-political) aspects into account.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod appoint a Committee with the mandate to:

  • a.  thoroughly study the Scriptures on the right of active participation of women in the life of the congregation, including their taking part in voting.
  • b. thoroughly study whether such voting can and/or must be considered an act of governing the Church.
  • c. establish and maintain contact with Sister-Churches abroad which are engaged in studying the same matter.
  • d. send the result of their studies to the Churches, in time before next General Synod.

This Recommendation is rejected.

SYNOD DECIDES: After study of the materials Synod has become convinced, that they are not sufficient to lead to a responsible, clear decision,: which takes all biblical (as well as Church-political) aspects into account, and therefore could not grant the request of the· Church at Toronto.