I think a few of you are or were affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church at one point. If you're in the Grand Rapids area, I encourage you to check out Synod 2007. It's a historic Synod...
1. the CRC is entering it's 150th year.
2. women in office are up for debate and a vote (again. this has been on and off the docket since the 70's)
3. two female candidates need to be approved to teach at Calvin Theological Seminary
4. the theological and practical issue of allowing children to the communion table will be debated.
I'm personally interested in all of these issues. Particularly 2 and 3 as they relate to my own vocational journey and 4 because it's truly Reformed to welcome all baptized members to the table.
If you're passionate about equality, justice, and stopping the abuse of women as equal image bearers of God, I encourage you to check out the Cloud of Witnesses web site and events surrounding Synod.
Short history off the top of my head. The CRC has been theologically and Biblically examining the full inclusion of women to serve as Elders, Deacons, Evangelists, and Ministers of Word and Sacrament since the 70's. By the early 90's the offices of Elder, Deacon, and Minister were opened to women by an exception clause. Some folks left the denomination. A few women like Rev. Mary Hulst were ordained during this time, but only able to serve in a few churches as many were not in support of women in office. The debate came up a few more times and Synod went back and forth. Fast forward to last summer. Women in office was on the Synod docket again. This time changing the polity i.e. constitution of the denomination. It's a big deal to take the word Male out of church order...it means that the entire denomination is on board with women in ordained ministry. As the committee discussed the overtures they came up with a compromise. Take the world male out of church order, keep the ability for local classes to vote and local congregations to call or not to call women, and take a seven year sabbath from the debate. oh, and the issue of women serving as delegates to Synod (the voting body of the denomination that sets agendas etc.), put that on hold for seven more years.
I listened to the debate on podcast and heard echoes of the 3/5 compromise. But, I digress.
So, this summer Synod 2007 has to ratify the seven year sabbath compromise. I hope they don't. I hope they keep the polity change and challenge the delegates to call the dozens of women who went through Calvin Seminary and are still looking for church jobs. I hope they stop silencing women. It's abusive. I hope the men who have power, voice, and authority speak up for those that have no voice. It is this arrogance, this mentality that is driving folks from the CRC, that will kill this denomination. I hope it doesn't. The CRC has a lot to offer the world and to the current American religious crisis...
Stepping off the soap box.
Also, if you want to read up on the agenda check it out here.
I'll be there on June 9 and 12.
6 comments:
Well here's hoping the CRC can find a broader vision for their future by allowing ALL their members to participate in all aspects of the church. Let us know what happens, Suz.
Ugh. I don't even have the patience to read all this; not what changes ought to be made, but that these changes still need to be argued for. Good luck. It sounds like applying a defibrillator to a days-old corpse.
that's a great analogy. and yet another reason why I switched to the PCUSA.
Synod debated last night on women in office. The majority and minority reports were both in favor of taking "male" out of the Church Order as a requirement for ordination. So, that was approved.
Today (Wednesday) they'll discuss the delegate issue.
In my opinion, it's still going to be 10-15 more years before churches will be willing to call women. You can change the polity, which is significant, but cultural changes come much more slowly.
Suz, what are their main arguments for keeping women from being ministers? Is it the male-dominated language of the New Testament? I guess I, like Stevo, just don't understand how this even needs debating in our day and age.
The issue was/is Biblical Authority. Some argue interpreting the biblical passages as against women is approrpiate, thus opening the offices to women chips away at the authority. Others argue that women in office is Biblical and in keeping with authority/interpretation of Scripture.
The offices were all opened up to women and women can serve as delegates.
However, as a concession to the other side, churches still have the right to "protest", but they must come and sit at table with women.
In watching the debate, I thought "wow, we're still arguing this?"
After 40 years of debate, it seems the matter is settled on paper.
Hopefully CRC's will live into this with charity and actually call women to serve them. In my opinion, this is a significant change, but it will take a while to shift the culture.
Enough blogging about this. Like Stevo and AD said, for most this is all a moot point.
I'm thankful it's a moot point for me as well.
Susan,
I have to admit I'm conflicted on this issue. My mother is an elder and my Aunt Sharon is a pastor, so this is an issue close to my family. I have no doubt about the sincerity of those on both sides of the issue. Leaving women out of key positions in the church seems unjust and seems to ignore their faith, wisdom, and gifts. However, many who are firmly on the other side (which I am not, I believe I'm somewhere in the middle) are not misogynists, they truly believe that scripture prohibits it. Romans 16:1 talks about a woman named Phoebe that served the church in a role some believe is similar to our deacons and others believe was more of a pastor. But in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a male." What do you make of this verse, is Paul suggesting that this is only a local or temporary restriction?
Post a Comment