06 Jun GS 1983 art 160

Posted at 14:24h in CanRC, GS 1983 by

GS 1983 ARTICLE 160 – Women’s Voting Rights

Committee IV presents its report on the Report from the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights.

The Recommendations 0, 1, 2 and 3 are ADOPTED.

A.  MATERIAL –  Agenda VIII

  • I.    1. Report from the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights
  • 2.  Letter from the Church at Abbotsford
  • 3.  Letter from the Church at Burlington-South
  • 4.  Letter from the Church at Carman
  • 5.  letter from the Church at Chilliwack
  • 6.  Letter from the Church at Cloverdale
  • 7.  Letter from the Church at Fergus
  • 8.  Letter from the Church at Hamilton
  • 9.  Letter from the Church at Smithers
  • 10.  Letter from the Church at Smithville
  • 11.  Letter from br. and sr. J. Tillema
  • 12.  Letter from br. T Vandenbrink
  • 13.  Letter from br. B. VanHuistede
  • 14.  Letter from br. A. VanRaalte
  • 15.  Letter from br. Cl. VanRaalte

B.  OBSERVATIONS

  • 1.  Synod Smithville 1980 decided to continue the Committee on Women’s Voting Rights with the mandate:
    • a.   to reexamine the matter, including the Study Report presented to Synod, in the tight of 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.
  • 2.  The Committee provides General Synod with a Report that contains the conclusions re the following Scriptural Data:
    • a.   Genesis 3:16 – Man’s rule over the woman is not an ordinance of God , but part of the curse of sin. It is a statement of the cursed state of affairs. Gen. 3:16 should read “Yet your desire shall be to rule over your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Man is going to rule over her, instead of leading her as it was in the beginning.
    • b.   Ephesians 5:21-33 – The verb “be subject” (Greek: “hypotassomai”) in verse 22 does not so much mean to obey but to lose or to give up your own right or your own will. Any suggestion of subordination must be rejected It only expresses the woman’s recognition of man’s assigned position. Man is the head (Greek: “kephale”) of the woman. The Greek word for head here has the meaning of “source” or “beginning” or “what comes first,” or “what goes ahead,” or “completion” or “crown.” That wives must be subject to their husbands means in this connection. that they must follow where they lead, where they go ahead.
    • c.   1 Peter 3:1-8 – The verb “hypotassomai” is used in the specific situation of wives whose husbands are unbelievers and who subsequently fail to treat them in the way of the Lord. These wives are like Sarah, if they like Sarah do right. and like Sarah, let nothing terrify them. Both they and Sarah were up against terrifying things in their marriages. Sarah obeying Abraham like a slave, acting like a slave and in doing so calling him lord or master is pic­tured before the eyes of Christian women, whose husbands treated them like slaves, as an example to be followed. The verb “to obey” should be un­derstood here as “to follow.” The woman is called the weaker one because she, as female, was created after man had been created. and therefore ac­ cording to God’s creation order is the follower in God’s service.
    • d.   1 Corinthians 1 1:3-16 – The original and most common meaning of the Greek word “exousia” is to have the  freedom or the authority to do something or to be licensed to do something. In the way the woman covered her head she demonstrated her exousia i.e., the freedom or authority, the correct license to pray and prophecy. It is therefore strange to call the exousia on the woman’s head a sign of man’s authority over her instead of a sign of her authority. Vs. 10 speaks then about the Christian freedom of the woman to pray and prophesy. provided she does it as a woman and realizes that man has received a place between her and God. Man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man. Man being the first goes ahead and the woman as woman follows him .
    • e.   1 Corinthians 14 – In the New Testament the election of special office-bearers consisted of an appointment preceded by a prophetic pointing out of the persons to be appointed for these offices. This prophetic pointing out is the privilege of both men and women. Once all the prophets in the congregation have made their prophecies , others must carefully weigh and judge these prophecies. “Let your women keep silence in the Churches” (1 Car. 14:34ff) does not deny the women the right to prophesy (e.g. the pointing out of special office-bearers) but denies them the right to judge this prophecy by means of a teaching and ruling discussion.
  • 3.  With respect to the Historical Data the Committee remarks:
    • a.   It is highly unlikely that the women in ancient Greece and Rome were allowed to participate in the election of assemblies.
    • b.   The Reformation did not succeed in transcending the view of the woman as it was held during the Middle Ages. The Articles of Wesel (1568) are silent about the participation of women in electing office-bearers. The time was simply not ripe for women’s voting rights.
    • c.   The Enlightenment changed the thinking about the position of the woman. It is this change which caused the Churches to reconsider its principles and practices. The new situation of the changed times, which allows women to receive the place which Scripture never denied them, must be taken into account.
    • d.   The Dutch sister Churches have resisted a change in voting practice. The Synod of Groningen 1978 stated: “In the vote the congregation gives its opin­ion, but this act of giving its opinion is of binding character as regards the Church council. It is not in accordance with the position of submissiveness of women to credit them with an independent decisive vote.”
    • e.   The terms “to approbate” and “to elect” were used interchangeably. Approbation of the single number was open to women as well, according to the Waalse Synod. The approbation of the chosen candidate before his installation was also expected from the women. It would be logical if women also participated in approbating by way of voting from a double number. Sub­mission of names, voting and approbation must be seen as a whole.
    • f.    Since voting cannot be seen as an act of ruling with authority over the Church, over the male members or over the consistory the women must be given an equal voice with the men to express their insight.
  • 4.  The Committee recommends that Synod decide:
    • that there are no Scriptural or church political grounds which forbid the consis­tories to call the sisters in the congregation to participate in the election of of­fice-bearers by their vote
    • Grounds:
    • 1.    Voting is not an act of participating in the government of the Church.
    • 2.    Women have received the Spirit of wisdom no less than men to exercise the congregational right and freedom to elect its own office-bearers.
  • 5.  Br. T. Vandenbrink advises Synod to adopt the recommendation of the Com­mittee for two reasons:
    • 1.   The report leading to this recommendation is clear and sufficient.
    • 2.   The recommendation leaves it to the wisdom of the local Churches whether or not the prohibition of voting by female members will be lifted.
    • Moreover, there is no indication in the New Testament that only male members were invited when the whole congregation was called to choose office-bearers. Although there is no absolute certainty that women did vote, all things point in this direction. Male members do not represent the whole congregation.
  • 6.  Br. B. VanHuisstede concludes from the use of the word “congregation” in Ar­ticle 3, Church Order “I and every Church member may read the whole congre­gation, in this case of election for office-bearers thus those communicant members in good standing, or still in other words , those who are allowed to participate in the celebration of the Holy Supper.”
  • 7.  The reaction of Churches and members to the Scriptural Data of the Commit­ tee’s Report.
    • a.  Re Gen. 3:16:
      • i  Genesis 3:16 is an ordinance of God.
      • ii  The Report’s reading of Gen. 3:16 differs from the generally accepted reading “your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.”
      • iii  The Report’s interpretation of this text needs insertion of some words which are not found in the original.
      • iv  I Cor. 14:34 refers also to Gen. 3:16 when this verse speaking about the women to keep silence in the Churches, not being permitted to speak, but to be subordinate, adds “even as the law says.”
    • b.   Re Ephesians 5:21-33:
      • i  The Report’s paraphrase of Eph. 5:21-33 is a generalizing and therefore a weakening of the original word ” hypotassoo” in view of its context.
      • ii  The Greek word “hypotassoo” involves a relationship of authority , and does not simply mean ” to follow. ” In Eph. 5:24 Paul refers to the authority of Christ over His Church. The element of recognized authority appears to be lost in the Report.
      • iii  Calvin is referred to as saying: woman is subject to man as the body to the head. In his Commentaries Vol. xx, page 357 (Baker House) Calvin writes “that as the woman derives her origin from man, she is therefore inferior in rank” and “that the woman was created for the sake of the man , she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause.” This shows the difference in rank between man and woman, although they are one in Christ. Voting by women is not a following of man. Voting by women in the Church means that they are stating their opinion, while the apostle Paul says that women should keep silence in the Churches.
      • iv  Eph. 5:22 is taken as a prooftext for showing honour “to all in authority over me,” and for “submitting myself with due obedience to their good instruction and correction,” in Q and A. 104 of Lord’s Day 39.
      • v  When the Committee refers to G. Kittel’s, Theologisches Worterbuch for its definition of “hypotassoo.” other theological dictionaries of W. Bauer , W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich give as definitions:
        • 1.   subject, subordinate,
          • a.   (active) to bring someone to subjection
          • b.   (passive)
        • i  become subject (to a person or state of being);
        • ii  subject oneself, be subjective or subordinated. obey (towards the husband. parents. masters, secular authorities, church officials, Christ, the law).
        • Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich give the following definition of “kephale” (head)
        • 1  (lit.) head
          • a.   of man or beast
          • b.   metaphorically, Christ the Head of the Church (thought of as a body, Col. 1:18)
        • 2.   (fig.)
          • a.   superior rank (of the husband in relation to his wife, 1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:23).
          • b.   (of things) the uppermost part, extremity , end.
      • This also coincides with the description of the husband’s headship in the old and new Forms for the Solemnization of Marriage.
    • c.   Re 1 Peter 3:1-8:
      • i  The Report gives the impression that, while in v. 7 the believing husbands are exhorted to live considerately with their wives, in the vv. 1-6 only those wives are called to submission who are mistreated by unbelieving husbands, but v. 1 starts with a general call to all married sisters to be submissive to their husbands, whether they are believers or not.
      • ii  There is no reason to remove the word “obey” from the marriage vows or to replace it by a weaker term because Scripture clearly states that wives must be subject to their husbands, which implies a form of obe­dience as is shown in the example of Sarah.
      • iii  The Apostle Peter maintains the wife’s subordination to her husband with­ in the created order.
      • iv  The context shows that Sarah is an example of how holy women in general, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands. Therefore, Peter commends the holy example of Sarah.
    • d.   Re 1 Corinthians 11:3-16:
      • i Here “head” is used figuratively; it means a governing, ruling organ. (F.W. Grosheide, New International Commentary of the New Testament) It was necessary to write, “the head of the woman is man” because the Christian women at Corinth abused their liberty; there was a desire to put man and woman on the same level as equals. A man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. A woman covered her head in public to show that she was subject to her husband. In the verses 8 and 9 this is shown as a created relationship between man and woman.
      • ii The Committee does not seem to agree with its own conclusions. It con­tradicts itself by the statement: “v. 10 speaks about Christian freedom of the woman to…prophesy, provided that she does it AS a woman. ” Would this say that a woman is a prophet, and, as such, may perform only the prophetic duties of a woman prophet?
    • e.   Re 1 Corinthians 14:
      • i  The central point of the verses 33-35 is that the women should not proph­esy in the public meetings. These verses would sooner argue against the Report’s conclusion that the gift of prophecy to men and women included pointing out those who were to rule in the congregation of Christ.
      • ii  The Committee’s statement that prophecy plays a part in the acquiring of office-bearers has not been proven.
      • iii  The Committee itself admits that there is a difference between the early Church and today with respect to the place and function of prophecy.
      • iv  The Committee’s argument regarding the role of prophecy in acquiring office-bearers is inconclusive.
      • v  When 1 Cor. 14:34-36 reads that women must keep silent in the Church­es the question may be asked how a woman can give a deciding vote in the election of office-bearers in the Church.
      • vi  No clear proof is given by the Committee to conclude that a connection exists between prophesying and “Women’s voting rights.”

C.  CONSIDERATIONS

  • 1.  This Committee comes with a totally different recommendation than the last Com­mittee. It demonstrates the contrasting views on this point in our Churches. There is an obvious lack of consensus on this matter.
  • 2.  The Committee’s explanations of the aforementioned Scripture passages are rather unusual if not questionable They are by no means generally accepted explanations of the passages in question.
  • 3.   Although our Dutch sister Churches do not consider voting an act of governing, they still maintain that voting carries a binding character for the Church council and that the submissiveness of women does not allow an independent vote.
  • 4.  Various Churches have expressed the conviction that the matter of “Women’s Voting Rights” does not live in the midst of the Churches and that granting women’s voting rights would definitely cause great concern and even division. Even if the Report of the Committee would be conclusive and clear with respect to its considerations, which it is not, it would still for the above mentioned rea­ sons be unwise to grant such voting rights.

D.  RECOMMENDATIONS

Synod decide :

  • 1.   to thank the Committee for the work done;
  • 2.   not to accede to its recommendation;
  • 3.   not to appoint a new Committee on this matter.
Print page