As churches assess Synod Carman 2013, one of the articles that will no doubt receive considerable attention is Article 110 re Women's Voting for Office Bearers. It has been a longstanding, contentious issue that Synod has sought to settle once and for all. One can certainly appreciate that Carman attempted, also in light of mail received, to settle this issue once for all. Wrestling with the biblical, confessional, and church government issues at a forum such as synod with a plethora of opinions and views is far from easy. This series of articles will attempt then to engage the various views prevalent in the churches, expose some fallacies, and search for a way which should allow a federation to live together harmoni­ously while acknowledging, as we often need to do, that within a federation of churches a variety of approaches is acceptable. The unity of the churches is not dependent on uniformity on all points.

Over a number of issues, I will attempt to answer a number of questions.

• Is voting advising or governing?
• Is there such a thing as "the headship of man"?
• Is a synod to be governed by democratic princi­ples?
• Is this really to be considered as a matter of the "churches in common"?

A very central question in the whole discussion of who should vote for officebearers is: when a person votes on nominations presented by the consistory of their church, does this person advise the consistory, state a preference, or is this person actually involved in governing?

Synod Carman 2013 observed ¹that several congre­gations "regard voting not merely as advisory but as an exercising of authority." Carman also considered that, according to Article 3 CO, the election has a "binding character" and "cannot be seen as advisory only." Very striking here is the fact that in this consideration 3.3, Synod said:

By allowing the congregation to vote, the consistory gives the congregation influence in the pro­cess of calling brothers to the office and the consistory shall abide by this decision of the congregation.²

It is noteworthy that here the Synod even spoke about "the decision of the congregation," as if the congregation forms an ecclesiastical assembly itself. Ultimately, any view which suggests that members of the congregation are doing more than giving advice or stating a preference to the consistory is working out of a framework which suggests that the congregation is a decision making body in itself. And then the question is pertinent: are we not veering away from a Reformed church polity in which the authority of the officebearers is viewed as being re­ceived directly from the head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ (BC, Art 31) towards a congregationalist church polity in which the congregation is the decisive decision making body? We have often been reminded by the late Rev. W.W.J. Van Oene that a classis, regional synod, and general synod only exists when and for so long as it receives its authority from the officebearers of a local church through a credentialed process. Because of these principles, whenever in Reformed church life the consistory calls together the congregation for a meet­ing, it is careful not to entertain motions but to receive advice and to promise that it (the consistory or council) will make a decision on the basis of this advice. But here churches speak about more than advice, and a Synod even talks about a "decision of the congregation."

More than thirty years ago Smithville 1980 already warned against this wrong path when it wrote in its considerations:

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 basically strange to the stipulations of Article 22, Church Order. It must be noted that participation in an election does not necessarily mean partaking in the government itself.(Synod Smithville 1980, Article 83, Consideration 3, p. 57)

As Rev. VanOene has said in his Church Order commen­tary:

The leadership, the government of the church, and the final decisions rest with the officebearers as a body; but they are always to remember that they are nothing without the congregation...

The assertion that taking part in elections is an act of governing is definitely incorrect. The consistory gives the congregation the opportunity to advise the consistory by means of an election, but ultimately the consistory is not bound by this advice, although it must have very good and compelling reasons to deviate from it. It is the congregation that elects; it is the consistory with the deacons that appoints and calls. Advising is still not the same as governing.³

At bottom, I believe that we need to be more aware of the fact that every step in the voting process is part of a decision process that is initiated, governed, and completed by the consistory. Article 3 of the Church Order makes it clear that the congregation is only involved insofar as the consistory wills it to be. A consistory can decide, for example, to provide as many names as there are positions to be filled, in which case there is no vote but only the opportunity for the congregation to object to a nomination. This procedure is followed quite effect­ively in small congregations. But also when a consistory presents twice the number of men for nomination, it is the consistory that presents the names, the consistory that supervises the meeting process, and the consistory that makes a final decision to appoint based on the nom­ination and voting process that it has initiated and over­seen. Yes, the consistory will in almost all cases appoint the persons who have been chosen by the congregation. Why? Not because the congregation has authority; how did it get authority from the Source of all authority? The consistory will appoint those chosen by the congrega­tion simply because the consistory promised to do that already when it nominated the brothers for office and because already then the consistory said: "All these men are faithful and suitable brothers. We will gladly appoint the ones you choose." At the same time, the appointment process is not a mere formality, for if it becomes evident (as it sometimes does) that a certain brother has done something that actually disqualifies him from office, the consistory can refuse to appoint him and reconsider the matter. But it is important to maintain that even when the congregation is asked for its vote, that vote is not an authoritative act but simply a matter of members of the congregation stating a preference so that the consistory can exercise its God-given authority in a process that begins and ends with the consistory under the rule of the only Head of the church.

Perhaps an example, suggested by a colleague, would be helpful. Pardon me if it sounds a little trivial, but it makes a relevant point. Suppose on one warm summer day, I wish to treat my grandchildren to a round of ice cream cones. No one is compelling me. I am the one gov­erning this situation, as challenging as it might be. When I then ask my grandchildren what flavour they prefer, have I then transferred the decision making over to them? Does this mean that they are now doing it, and that they must pay? Not one of my grandchildren would draw that conclusion, especially the latter. And of course when I go to the counter and place the order, I will keep their prefer­ences in mind. After all, that's why I asked them.

The same principles are at work in the election of officebearers. The consistory says to the congregation: "Here are the men whom we deem fit to be in office. Bar­ring unforeseen circumstances, we will appoint whom­ever you prefer because they are all capable, godly men."

In this way, it should be clear that the act of voting is not in any way an act of governing. It is simply a matter of stating a preference – a preference that a consistory will listen to as it completes its governing process. The governing of the church remains in the hands of Christ through his officebearers. When Synod 2013 states that voting is a decision-making act, it has regrettably veered off in a direction that contradicts the federation's foun­dational Reformed principles.

Seen in this light, one has to ask then: why should women not be allowed to express their preferences here? They are allowed to do so when it comes to suggesting brothers who could serve; they are allowed to object to brothers who are nominated; no one bars women from speaking up at a congregational meeting when they have views about the life of the church. Why not then in elections? This is all an election is: the stating of a preference. Because there are too many people for the consistory to ask individually, by means of a ballot in their hands, they are asked to provide input so that the consistory can properly exercise its task of governing.

Scriptures are sufficiently clear that women should not exercise authority in the church (1 Timothy 2:12); but the Reformed churches do well to maintain that voting is not such an exercise of authority.

Does the Bible Teach "The Headship of Man"?⤒🔗

Where does the Bible say that women should not vote?

Synod Burlington 2010 said that the Bible does not present any such decisive evidence.

Synod Carman 2013 however said in one of its final recommendations that "Synod Burlington 2010 erred in stating that the exegetical sections brought forward in both the majority and minority reports are 'hardly rel­evant or decisive for the matter of women's voting'" – (Art 110, page 118).

That of course makes one curious as to what biblical evidence Carman considers so decisive. What do we find? Carman presents us with one paragraph of biblical ma­terial in Consideration 3.5. It reads in part:

Nine churches brought forward Biblical evidence regarding the headship of men and the position of women within the congregation. It can be summar­ized as follows: The Bible teaches that the man is the head of his wife (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5:22-33). The holy women in the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful by being submis­sive to their husbands (1 Peter 3:5). The Bible shows that this position of headship extends to the position of man and woman in the assembly of God's people (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:33b-34; 1 Timothy 2:11-13).

Now beyond a doubt, these texts prove that a married man is to be the head of his wife. There can be no doubt either that throughout Old Testament men are described as having the authoritative and leadership roles and that in the New Testament too women should not have positions of authority over men in the church (1 Timothy 2:11-13; cf. 1 Corinthians 11).

While all that is true, it should be clear, however, that one cannot conclude from a careful reading of the texts referenced above:

1. that voting is a matter of having authority over a man
2. that voting is a matter in which a woman must be subject to her husband
3. or that every woman is subject to a man as her head.

Voting is not a matter of governing, but simply participat­ing in a process whereby officebearers govern. A church that maintains that a woman who votes is governing and therefore forbids it ought then also to forbid any woman from nominating officebearers, raising objections to officebearers, or even from speaking at a congregational meeting. In voting, a consistory simply asks each person for his/her preference and obligates itself to appoint ac­cordingly. But because it is too cumbersome and less an­onymous to ask everyone personally for their preference, a consistory asks its members to state their preference on a ballot. While relevant to the consistory's act of governing, it is not itself the act of governing.

Regarding b, biblical headship as the Apostle Paul outlines it is really a matter of a Christian husband lovingly leading his wife. It does not necessarily in­volve issuing orders or decrees; nor does it mean that a woman cannot have an opinion or an approach that differs from her husband. Rather, it means that a hus­band sets the direction, priorities, and goals of a family in a way that is as decisive and caring as when Christ loves his church and sacrificially gives himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25). The Apostle Peter likewise urges men to live with their wives "in an understanding way, treating them with respect as the weaker vessel," (1 Peter 3:7). So does this mean that a woman necessarily has to get her preference for an officebearer from her husband? Some might say so; most would not. In any case, one would be hard-pressed to maintain that because of what Scripture says through these passages of Paul or Peter, a husband must tell his wife exactly what to say. The fact is: women often view other men differently than men do. I would thus submit that a considerate husband would inform his wife about his preferences, would suggest that she choose likewise, but then acknowledge that his wife is free to vote according to her own conscience, especially when she feels strongly about the men whom she is to recommend to the consistory.

Regarding c, though Article 110 frequently refer­ences "the headship of man," (Observation 2.3.2, Con­sideration 3.4, 3.5) one is hard-pressed to find exactly that concept in the Scriptures. The result of the fall is that Eve is to be further subjected to her husband who will rule over her (Genesis 3:16). Paul and Peter tell wives to be subject to "your husbands" (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1-5; cf 1 Corinthians 14:35); in five of the six times this phrase is used in the foregoing verses, the additional word "idioi" (their "own" husbands) is used to emphasize that this subjection has to do with being subject to their own husbands (and not the husbands of another woman). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is urging wives to cover their heads; he is not saying that all women must cover their heads. The veil is the wed­ding veil; a woman who refuses to do so is dishonouring her head, namely, her husband.⁴

One might ask: to what man is a single woman to be subject as her "head"? True, she is to "honour" her father and even to be subject to him – but a woman's father is never described in Scripture as her "head." One might also ask: to what man is a widow to be subject when her husband has died? True, she should be respectful of her officebearers and her father, if he is alive, but neither of those is ever described as her "head" either.

Yet Synod Carman wrote about "the headship of men" and that "this position of headship extends to the position of man and woman in the assembly of God's people." But what does this mean? It's an important question because if there are women whom I am to be head over besides my wife, I need to know who she is so that I can exercise such an authority. And a widow or single woman in the church must also know who their "heads" are so they can be subject to them. It seems though that while the Scriptures certainly teach "the headship of husbands," and present us with a world in which men exercise a lot of leadership and authority, they do not know of the gen­eral comprehensive concept of "the headship of the man."

So where does the idea of the "the headship of man" come from? I have a hunch. One church wrote the follow­ing in its bulletin in 2010:

Scripture does teach that particular women have to be in submission to particular fathers and husbands. That seems to be the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:3 where Paul writes that "the head of the woman is man"... The RSV translates "man" as "husband," but as L. Selles explains in his Outline on 1 Corinthians, "the article before 'man' indicates that not a particular man, but what constitutes the genus, the class, 'man' is meant." Often this will be a husband, but it may be a father or brother, in the case of widows it may be the elders of the church. We are dealing here with the principle of representative headship, which is a cre­ation ordinance (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13). The Church Order, because it has to do with authority, reflects and assumes that the male (whether head of a family or on his own as unmarried) is the head: the one governing and making binding decisions. A woman is always subject to man: either to her father, to her husband, or if she is a single adult or a widow, to her oldest son provided he is a communicant member in good standing or to her consistory.

Unfortunately and with all due respect, there is much that is wrong in this paragraph. The difficulty is caused by misunderstanding the purpose of a definite article in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The late Professor Selles once wrote that the article ("the man") is present to denote "the genus, the class, 'man'."⁵But it is not so. Pardon me for being overly technical here, but the definite article is there before the word "head" because when Greek uses the verb "to be" it leaves both the subject and the object of the verb in the nominative and there is no other way to distinguish the subject from the object (predicate nom­inative) except by giving the subject the definite article. In this verse, for instance, the question is: did Paul write

1. "the man is the head of the woman" or
2. "the head is the man of the woman"?

Since "man" has an article ("the"), it is set out as the subject of the sentence;⁶hence translation (a) is the correct one. Genus, class, or kind is not the issue at all. The idea put forth above that "a woman is always subject to man: either to her father, to her husband, or if she is a single adult or a widow, to her oldest son provided he is a communicant member in good standing or to her consistory" has no basis in Scripture. Yes, a woman should be subject to her father, her husband, or her officebearers, but the only one who is her head is her husband (if she is married). A woman is subject to one man alone as head – her husband. Biblically speaking, a single woman has no human head to which she is to be subject, and a single man has no woman who is subject to him! The headship of husbands is true; the general comprehensive headship of man is a myth.

Consideration 3.5 continues:

Acts 1:23-26 shows that the congregation was involved in the nomination of two brothers for the office of apostle. Acts 6:1-7 shows that the congregation was involved in the election of the seven.

First, the reference to Acts 1. Here there are sever­al points to notice. Synod refers to "congregation." But this is a pre-Pentecost passage. Can we speak then of a "congregation" or is this a loose company of believers who happen to be there on the day of the ascension? Who does the "nomination"? Is it the apostles who do so after Peter who spoke up, or the company of disciples, women, relatives of Jesus (1:13), and the 120 believers (1:15)? The text is not clear. Moreover, the passage is not about voting but about "casting lots" (1:26), which is a practice that never happens again after Pentecost. Besides, the whole passage is hardly relevant to Syn­od's argument since Synod says that "the congregation was involved in the nomination of two brothers," but the issue is not nomination of officebearers but vot­ing for officebearers. To our knowledge, no church has ever ruled that a woman cannot recommend a brother to serve as an officebearer.⁷

Secondly, Synod refers to Acts 6:1-7 as it "shows that the congregation was involved in the election of the sev­en." It is true that this passage shows that the "congre­gation" or "the group" (6:5) are involved in the choosing. But what proof is there that the women were not involved in this act of choosing? The issue had to do with "the Grecian widows" (6:1) who were not being treated fairly as part of the "group." Are they then not part of this group that chooses? Especially when the issue had to do with women, it is hard to imagine that the women are immediately left out. Yes, it's possible, but to say it is so is to speculate beyond Scripture. Moreover, when the Twelve speak to the group, they address them with a word that can be understood as referring to all the members of the community and thus could better be translated as "brothers and sisters."⁸Again, the text is not supportive of the argument Synod wishes to make.

But Consideration 3.5 continues:

The Canadian Reformed Churches acknowledge in the Form For the Ordination of Elders and Deacons as well as in the Form For the Ordination (or Installation) of Ministers of the Word, that God calls brothers to the office through His congregation (p. 607 and 613 Book of Praise; emphasis added). Although the Bible does not spell out how this calling took place or how it should take place, it does indicate that the choosing happens within the assembly of God's people.

What Synod seeks to emphasize here is that the choosing process happens through the congregation and within the assembly of God's people. No one disputes this. What Synod had to prove, and failed to, was that these refer­ences prove that women are not part of this congregation or this assembly, or at least not part of the voting process within God's church.

What Synod sought to show was that there is exeget­ical material that is relevant and decisive for the matter of refusing female participation in the voting process of the church. Unfortunately, Synod failed to provide the churches with any such relevant and decisive material. Indeed, it could not because Synod Burlington 2010 was correct: there is no such decisive evidence⁹Nodoubt, for many married women in the church, this matters little as they feel that they have a voice through their husbands. But what about the single women and the widows? Without clear, scriptural warrant a church has only succeeded to do what it should not do with anyone — marginalize them without justification.