03 Jun GS 1980 art 83

Posted at 15:33h in CanRC, GS 1980 by

GS 1980 ARTICLE 83 – Women’s Voting Rights

Committee II presents:

I. A. Material –  Agenda VIII,

  • F, 1 – Report from the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights.
  • F, 2 – Letter from br. B. van Huisstede. F, 3 – Letter from sr. G. van Weerden. F, 4 – Letter from Rev. D. DeJong.

B. Information

  • 1. Coaldale 1977 appointed a committee with the mandate
    • ” a. To make a thorough study of all Biblical and Church-political aspects regarding the question of women’s voting rights.
    • b. To forward the results of their studies to the Churches one year prior to the next Synod and to invite comments to be submitted within six months after publication of the study.
    • c. To submit their report with recommendations to the next General Synod.”

In fulfilling its mandate, the Committee has provided General Synod with a report with the following conclusions:

A. Considerations:

  • 1. in regard to the voting for office-bearers as we have it today, there is no clear evidence in the Scriptures that such a practice existed in the Church of the Old or New Testament (see: page 21, h, i).
  • 2. the role relationship between man (husband) and woman (wife) under the Old Testament dispensation does not give any reason to assume that the women in the congregation had an active part in a form of decision-making as it takes place in the voting for office-bearers in the Church today.
  • In the New Testament we do not find evidence that the role relationship between man (husband) and woman (wife) in the Church has changed principally (see: page 21, g).
  • 3. n the Church Order in Article 22 speaks about the choosing out of a double number of candidates by the congregation, it does not prescribe that ail members, including women, must take part in the voting.
  • 4. thee procedures prescribed in Article 22, Church Order include a form of decision-making (or, an involvement in governing) with respect to the electing of office-bearers, and thus voting by women would be in conflict with the role relationship of man (husband) and woman (wife).
  • 5. the history of De Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands indi­cates that the General Synods in their decisions abide by the con­viction that “convincing proof that the Scriptures demand women’s voting rights has not been supplied, but the data which they do present to us seems to plead more against than in favour” (Arnhem 1930, see: p. 24) and accordingly, did not change the practice of excluding women from voting.

B. Recommendations:

  • 1. Neither the stipulations of the Church Order nor Reformed Church History indicate that women had a right to vote in the election of office-bearers.
  • 2. That such a right cannot be deduced from the Holy Scriptures.

C. Decision:

  • Synod therefore decides that the Churches should refrain from introducing the practice of women voting in their elections for office-bearers.”
  • 2. B. van Huisstede addresses General Synod with “some remarks about the Report of the Committee on women’s voting rights in the hope that Synod will take these remarks into consideration” in its decisions. These remarks are mainly a number of quotations from a published speech of Dr. B. Wielenga (1919) and references to other Reformed theologians who have spoken in favour of women’s voting rights.
  • 3. G. van Weerden has sent a copy of a letter previously submitted to the Committee in which she indicates disagreement with the Committee’s conclusions.
  • 4. D. DeJong requests General Synod “to acknowledge the right of our sisters who are confessing members of the Church to take part in the voting, since this is part of their prophetic calling according to Acts 2:17/18.”

II. The Scriptural Data

A. Observations:

  • 1. The Committee recommends that the right for women to vote “can not be deduced from the Holy Scriptures” and that “Synod therefore decides that the Churches should refrain from introducing the practice of women voting in their elections for office-bearers” (Final Report, Recommenda­tion B2 and Decision C).
  • 2. With regard to the voting for office-bearers as we have it today, the Com­mittee considers, “there is no clear evidence in the Scriptures that such a practice existed in the Church of the Old and the New Testament” and “In the Scriptures we have no clear indication that voting, as -we know it today, was used to determine which nominee was most able to serve.” The Committee therefore has no reason to conclude that women “partici­pated directly in the election process … ” (Report, page 21, h; Final Report Consideration 1).
  • 3. The Committee admits that “There is no Scripture passage that speaks directly to the subject under investigation, namely may women vote in the Church or not” (Report, page 21, i).
  • 4. The Committee considers that “the role relationship between man (hus­band) and woman (wife) under the Old Testament dispensation does not give any reason to assume that the women in the congregation had an active part in the decision-making as it takes place in the voting for office­ bearers in the Church today.”
  • The Committee further considers that “In the New Testament we do not find evidence that the role relationship between man (husband) and woman (wife) in the Church has changed principally” (Final Report, Consideration 2; Report page 21 g).

B. Considerations:

  • 1. If it is not known from Scripture how the voting was done or whether this included women, yes even that no Scripture passage addresses itself directly to this matter, the Committee’s conclusion “that such a right cannot be deduced from the Holy Scriptures” is not complete, for it could be added, such being the case, to deny such a right “cannot be deduced from Scripture” either.
  • 2. This becomes all the more pressing when it is noted that various Scrip­ture passages, speaking of congregational involvement in the election process, Acts 6:1-5; Acts 15:22, which denote “the whole Church” and the “whole multitude” and which could include the women (as the Committee itself admits, Report pages 10, 11) do not seem to support the Committee’s recommendation “that such a right cannot be deduced from the Holy Scriptures.”
  • 3. Important is the Committee’s reasoning with respect to the “role relation­ ship” between man and woman. Since there is no clear, direct Scriptural data on the subject of voting, the biblical teaching concerning “role rela­tionship” would seem to give the only Scriptural foundation for not grant­ing or granting women the right to vote.
  • However, this “role relationship” (meant is: the different position and function of man and woman) does not offer much solid ground. At most the Committee can say, this role relationship under the Old and New Testaments “does not give any reason to assume that the women in the congregation had an active part in a form of decision-making as it takes place in the voting for office-bearers in the Church today.” The lack of knowledge concerning the exact practices with respect to voting in the Old and New Testaments do not bear out an assumption either way whether women had an active part or not.
  • 4. The Committee’s conclusions with respect to the “role relationship” between man and woman are not unproblematic. While on the one hand the Committee states that there is no principal change in the role rela­tionship between man and woman in the Old and New Testament, on the other hand the Committee does suggest that there are certain differences in this relationship before and after the fall (Report, Page 4), consequen­tial even for the relationship of man and woman “within the church.” Before the Fall it was a relationship of “leading and following,” while after the Fall it is a relationship of “ruling and subjection.” The Scrip­ture passage referred to (I Timothy 2:12-14) does not cover this suggestion for there it is clear that the difference in relationship (position) is not because of the Fall, but of creation, “for Adam was first created,” a differ­ence which is maintained after the Fail (“Adam was not first deceived”). If it is true that that Fall has specific consequences for the role rela­tionship within the Church (“The female is NOW placed in subjection to the male,” Report page 4, see also note 7), it should have been investi­gated whether the redeeming work of Christ did have consequences for the “position of the woman” (see: the implications of Conclusion f, Report page 21).
  • 5. The Committee has not proven that the role relationship between the man (husband) and the woman (wife) has a specific bearing on the matter of voting, only that this relationship implies that the woman may not “govern” or “have authority over the man” (I Timothy 2), and this ordi­nance is not merely in effect since the Fall, but since creation. Indeed this ordinance has remained unchanged throughout Scripture, but “assump­tions” derived from this ordinance are inconclusive.

C. Conclusion:

The Committee on Women’s Voting Rights recommends that the right for women to vote “can not be deduced from Scripture,” but this recommendation is not supported by the Scriptural data presented and therefore does not sub­stantiate the proposed decision “not to grant women the right to vote.”

Ill. The Church-HISTORICAL Data

A. Observations:

  • 1. The Committee concludes that “the history of the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands indicates that the General Synods in their decisions abide by the conviction that convincing proof that the Scriptures demand women’s voting rights has not been supplied, but the data which they do present to us seems to plead more against than in favour” (Arnhem 1930, see page 24) and accordingly did not change the practice of excluding women from voting (Conclusion 5).
  • 2. The Committee recommends on the basis of Reformed Church History “that women had no right to vote in the election of office-bearers” (Recommendation 1).

B. Considerations:

  • 1. The Committee does admit that “it is an established fact that Reformed Churches in various countries” (also The Netherlands) “have taken a different approach to the matter” and even that “certain Churches have later adopted women’s voting rights” (Report, page 23).
  • 2. The fact that some Churches did not accept women’s voting rights is termed by the Committee as belonging to “exceptions,” the main exception of interest to the Committee being De Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands. The Committee then makes a general conclusion (“Reformed Church History indicates ….”)from a specific Church (Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands) while admitting that it is an exception.
  • Normally the exception confirms the rule; here the exception has become the rule.
  • 3. The further facts in the history of De Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands indicate that indeed women in these Churches did not receive “the right to vote.” But these facts also uncover more upon careful scrutiny, especially that this decision not to grant these rights (Arnhem 1930) has been severely criticised and oftentimes appealed. The tumultuous “Reformed Church History” in The Netherlands in this respect does not show such a consensus of opinion as might be gleaned from the recommendation of the Committee.
  • This is also alluded to by the communication from Br. B. van Huisstede.

C. Conclusion:

The Committee’s conclusions with respect to Reformed Church History and women’s voting rights – though in themselves correct when restricted to the history of De Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands – do not give a complete picture and are therefore somewhat misleading. conflicting also with the material presented in the Report itself (page 23). As such these conclusions do not really contribute to solving the issue at hand.

IV. The Church-POLITICAL Data

A. Observations:

  • 1. The Committee considers that “When the Church Order in Article 22 speaks about the choosing out of a double number of candidates by the congregation, it does not prescribe that all members, including women, must take part in the voting” (Conclusion 3. Final Report).
  • 2. The Committee recommends that the “stipulations of the Church Order” do not “indicate that women had a right to vote in the election of office­ bearers” (Final Report, Recommendation B 1).
  • 3. The Committee considers that “the procedures described in Article 22, Church Order include a form of decision-making (or, an involvement in governing) with respect to the election of office-bearers, and thus voting by women would be In conflict with the role relationship of man (husband) and woman (wife), Conclusion 4, Final Report.
  • This consideration is preceded by an emphatic assertion that “voting is an involvement in the governing of the Church. It is not an involvement in the sense of governing or ruling, but of electing those who are to govern.” So it is “more in harmony with Scripture if women are not called upon to be involved in the voting for office-bearers” (Committee Report, page 31).

B. Considerations:

  • 1. When the Church Order in Article 22 speaks only of the congregation, it indeed gives no specific prescription concerning the participation of women in the election process. By the same token, however, the formu­lation of Article 22 does not specifically exclude women either.
  • Synod Coaldale 1977 considered that “Article 22, Church Order does not stipulate anything positive or negative about women’s voting rights but refers only to ‘the congregation.”‘ (Acts, Article 27, Consideration 1). The Church Order speaks in one breath about nomination, election and approbation and each time the congregation is called to partici­pate/cooperate.
  • When the Belgic Confession (Article 31) speaks of “lawful election by the Church,” the Scriptural references which are alluded to (Acts 1:23; Acts 6:1-6), speaking of “the whole multitude” and “the whole Church,” do not necessarily exclude women. The Committee has already admitted that we have no way of determining whether “the women took an active part in the meeting, although it seems doubtful” (Report, page 8). The Committee further admits that no proof has been given for the statement that women have “no part in the proceedings” (Report, page 8, note 13). It may also be pointed out that also the Form of Ordination speaks of lawful election by the Church, without specifying either way whether women are included or excluded.
  • 2. Whereas the Committee first states (Consideration 3, Final Report) that the Church Order does not prescribe that women shall vote, the Commit­ tee then makes a far more extensive claim (Final Report, Recommenda­tion B 1) that the women on the basis of the stipulations of the Church Order have no right to vote. It is a result of faulty reasoning to deny someone a right merely because it has not been specifically prescribed.
  • 3. The decisive question seems to be whether voting is to be seen as governing. The Committee here speaks in very uncertain terms of “a form of governing” or an “Involvement in governing.” The Committee feels that the truth of the matter lies “somewhere inbetween” (Report, page 29). To state that voting is merely “advising,” the Committee feels, would be “devaluating” the vote; yet to say that voting is fully “governing” would be “to a certain extent an exaggeration” (idem, page 29). The in between solution means tha\ voting is “more than advising” and still “less than governing.”
  • As proof for the statement that voting is “an involvement in govern­ing” is given the fact that the vote has a “determinating character” (page 29) for the consistory. This is true, but only to a degree. The consistory has the first say in the presenting of nominees out of which the office­ bearers are to be elected and the last say in the installation of the office­ bearers chosen. Before the presentation and installation, the congrega­tion is called to participate in all aspects: nomination, election and appro­bation.
  • Meanwhile, the Committee admits that “no vote is ever absolutely binding” (page 29), while the final judgment is always to the Consistory. The Committee also speaks of the vote as being a “preference” but then adds, “the vote is more than simply expressing a preference” because the outcome is binding.
  • Of course the consistory, seeking the cooperation of the congrega­tion, will abide by the outcome of the vote (the preference of the congre­gation) “unless any obstacles arise” (Article 22, Church Order), since it has requested the cooperation to begin with, as the Committee itself admits, “the Consistory has allowed the vote to become determinative” (Report, page 29). Therefore, to conclude from this binding character that voting “is an involvement in governing” goes too far.
  • Another important aspect must be considered here. If voting can indeed be considered comparable to governing, we have in essence a Fifth Assembly in the Church, namely the meeting of the eligible voters which “in a sense” governs the Church or at least is involved in the governing process of the Church. This “form” of democratic rule is basic­ ally strange to the stipulations of Article 22, Church Order.
  • It must be noted that participating in an election does not necessar­ily mean partaking in the government itself. The Committee cannot bridge that gap by speaking of a “form” of decision-making or an “involvement in governing. The Committee has not solved the question whether voting is governing in the sense of I Timothy 2:12 ff. (see also the letter of sr. G. van Weerden).

C. Conclusion:

The Committee’s reasoning is unsatisfactory and basically inconclusive. Voting is either fully a deed of governing or not. It is either in harmony with Scripture or not. A wording of “more in harmony” (versus less in harmony) with Scripture (Committee Report, page 31) does not seem to warrant the conclu­ sion “in conflict with” the role relationship between man and woman.

The Committee has not been able to convince of the validity of its conclusions and recommendation.

V. Letter Rev. D. DeJong

A. Observations:

  • 1. Rev. DeJong points out that voting “is not a matter of governing, neither of advising, but a matter of prophecy” and “that also women are called to prophesy” (Acts 2:17, 18). In connection with this he sees no difference between voting and approbation since both are considered “the prophe­ tic application of the Word of God.”
  • 2. In connection with the above Rev. DeJong gives a definition of prophecy “i.e. pass on the Word of God you have heard or read and apply it in a certain situation, i.e. to persons to be nominated.”
  • 3. Rev. DeJong argues that when the Apostle Paul says, “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (I Corinthians 14:34 ff.), he does not deny the women the right to prophecy (for this right has been previously recog­nized in I Corinthians 11), but the right to judge prophesy “by means of a teaching and ruling discussion.”
  • 4. On the basis of the Scriptural evidence adduced, Rev. DeJong requests Synod to “acknowledge the right of our sisters who are confessing mem­bers of the church to take part in the voting for office-bearers, since this is part of their prophetic calling according to Acts 2:17, 18.”

B. Considerations:

  • 1. Since Rev. DeJong alludes to various texts in which the verb “to prophesy” plays a key role, we are to investigate its usage in its context. It is to be noted that Rev. de Jong does not present any compelling proof that voting is to be seen as a matter of prophecy in the sense of Acts 2 and I Corinthians 11 and 14.
  • 2. In accordance with Rev. DeJong’s general definition of prophecy it remains doubtful whether this verb can be applied specifically to the act of voting (or approbation) to the extent that it would be decisive as to whether or not women have this right. The context of Acts 2 and I Corinthians 11 and 14 shows that prophecy is a matter of edification, encouragement and consolation, especially when used in the context of worship (I Corinthians 14:3, 19).
  • The verbs used in connection with voting (Acts 6:5, 14:23, 15:22) simply mean “to choose” or “elect by show of hands” or “to appoint to office.” However, the exact method used is not clear from the Scriptural data.
  • 3. It is not evident from Scripture that the activity of “judging the prophecy” (I Corinthians 14:29) denotes a public discussion of the prophesies uttered. It is also not evident or proven that in I Corinthians 14:34 ff. Paul begins with a “related yet different subject” such as a “teaching and ruling discussion.” This “judging” could be done in silence. It could as well be that the Apostle indeed denies women the right to prophesy in the worship service.

C. Conclusion:

Rev. D. DeJong’s assertion that voting is to be seen as a matter of pro­phecy cannot be sufficiently concluded from the Scriptural data which he sup­ plies to support his statement.

VI. Summary

A. Observations:

  • 1. The Committee on Women’s Voting Rights has completed its work in accordance with the mandate received from Synod Coaldale 1977, Acts, Article 27.
  • 2. Other than the three letters indicated, General Synod has received no further communication in favour of women voting. Similarly no communi­cation has been received with the recommendation that the conclusions of the study report be forthwith adopted.

B. Considerations:

  • 1. The Scriptural, Church-historical and Church-political data discussed do not warrant a definite conclusion that the right for women to vote should be denied.
    It is evident from the Report that women should not govern or exer­cise authority over men in the church. However, it has not become clear whether this has decisive implications for voting in the Church “as we have ii today.”
  • 2. Those who have written in favour of women voting have failed to present clear Scriptural evidence that such a practice must be introduced.
  • 3. Since Synod is unable to arrive at a well-founded decision in this matter, because of the inconclusive evidence presented, it is wise to retain the existing practice, but at the same time to continue working towards a warranted conclusion.

C. Recommendations:

Synod decide:

  • 1. To thank the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights for its work.
  • 2. To refrain from recommending that the practice of women voting be intro­ duced in the Churches.
  • 3. To continue the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights with the following mandate:
    • a) to re-examine the matter, including the Study Report presented to Synod in the light of the criticism voiced in letters to Synod and in the report of the Advisory Committee;
    • b) to give more consideration to material available in other study reports re: the place and task of women in the Church;
    • c) to submit a report with recommendations to the next General Synod, with a sufficient number of copies to the Churches.

ADOPTED

Print page