Decision⤒🔗

General Synod Ommen 1993 of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands decided:

that participation in the voting for the election of office bearers in the congregation of Christ should no longer be withheld from the communicant sisters.

In this article we will pass on some of the back­ground of this important decision which differs from the practice we have known for many years. Also from abroad critical comments were made, for example by Rev. Grossman in the Reformed Herald. In this way, we think, justice will also be done to what Rev. Grossman wrote.

Brief History←⤒🔗

Sometimes the remark is made that the plea for women's voting right stems from the modern femi­nist movement. But it has already been under dis­cussion in the churches in the Netherlands for the last 100 years. Synod Utrecht 1923 dealt with objec­tions to the fact that two local churches had intro­duced it on their own. The report of this synod contains practically all the arguments that have played a role in the next 70 years. Although the tendency of the report was clearly against women's voting rights, Synod did not take a decision but appointed new deputies to investigate whether God's Word permits it, whether it is desirable in the present circumstances, and whether it promotes the spir­itual well-being of the churches.

Synod Groningen 1927 took no decision either but appointed new deputies to study whether voting by women is an act of governing and whether there is a distinction in the nature of the office of male and female believers. Synod Arnhem 1930 finally de­cided not to grant the sisters voting right, but care­fully formulated the grounds:

Convincing evidence that Scripture demands women's voting right has not been produced, whereas the information from Scripture seems to speak rather against than in fa­vour.

This decision left room for further study although no new deputies were appointed.

In 1972 Synod Hattem appointed deputies again who reported to Synod Kampen 1975. The report of deputies was unanimously against and strongly emphasized the distinction between man and woman.

Woman is not to have authority over man which would happen if she takes part in voting. Synod itself, however, was not unanimous and appointed new deputies for further study. Their report at Synod Groningen-South 1978 was divided, with the major­ity in favour. Synod decided against, with two important considerations:

1. expressing oneself in voting has a binding character on the consistory;
    
2. it is not in accordance with the position of submission which Scripture assigns to women in the congregation (1 Cor. 14:34-36; 1 Tim. 2:11-­15).

Between 1978 and 1993 discussions on this topic continued in the churches, also in the press. It became clear that support for the conclusions of 1978 was crumbling. As a result Synod Ommen 1993 received twelve letters, while four regional synods requested revision. The committee at synod came with an extensive report, reviewing and evaluating all the arguments brought forward in the course of time.

Scriptural Arguments←⤒🔗

Synod dealt first of all with the question: are there Scriptural data that give specific prescriptions for election? The answer is that the Bible gives direction but no precise prescriptions. In what direction does Scripture point?

1. Christ Himself gives office bearers to His congregation (Eph. 4:7-16, 1 Cor. 12:28, Col. 1:25);
    
2. The election must be held under the leader­ship of the consistory (Acts 6:3ff, 14:23, 1 Tim. 5:22);
    
3. Christ determines the requirements for office (1 Tim. 3);
    
4. The congregation can be involved (Acts 1 and 6);
    
5. The involvement of the congregation is the result of the indwelling of Christ with His Word and Spirit (Acts 2:17-18, 1 Cor. 3:16, Col. 3:16);
    
6. Word and Spirit are not the possession of the office bearers but have been entrusted to the congregation (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 2:18-22, 1 Peter 2:5, 9).

Conclusion: Christ calls to the office, under the leader­ship of the office bearers, with the cooperation of the congregation. We see this line also in Art. 31 of the Belgic Confession and Art. 20 of the Church Order.

The report deals extensively with the position of the woman. Scripture teaches in the first place the equality of man and woman before the Lord, and secondly that there is a distinction between man and woman with respect to each other. This distinction is first expressed in marriage, where woman is to be sub­missive, but is effective also in the congregation. Therefore women are not called to give leadership or govern. This does not mean, however, that the sis­ters in the congregation are excluded from every task or activity. Already in the Old Testament we read of prophetesses (Miriam, Deborah, Hulda) and of ac­tive service in the sanctuary. In the New Testament women have a major place in the life of Christ on earth. They are the first witnesses of the resurrection and play an important role in the spreading of the gospel and the establishing of the Christian congre­gation (for example, Acts 5:14; 12:12; 16:13, 14, 40; 17:4, 12, 34). Men and women are mentioned in the assembly of the congregation (different from the Jewish synagogue where women were not even counted). Men and women share in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17-18).

An important question is: may a woman also speak in the congregation? From several Scripture passages it is clear that women played an active role in the spreading of the gospel (see the list of names in Romans 16, of which many are women; also Col. 4 :15;1 Cor. 1:11: Philemon 2; Phil. 4:2-3). In 1 Cor. 11:5 women are not forbidden to pray or prophesy but are to do so in a proper manner (which meant in those days: not bareheaded). The context makes clear that this does not refer to life in the family but to praying and prophesying in the congregation. If women are not at any rate excluded from praying and prophesying then there can also be women among the prophets of 1 Cor. 14.

But what is now the relation between the speaking and the silence of women in 1 Cor. 14:34-35? Paul does not forbid women every kind of speaking in every situation but the teaching, judging, speaking-admonishing: speaking with authority. This is first of all the task of the male elders. Therefore woman has to be silent here.

Synod also discussed the difference between speak­ing in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and voting:

1. 1 Cor. 14 deals in the first place with speaking in the worship service, which is not the case in voting.
    
2. 1 Cor. 14 deals with speaking in public; voting is speaking in "secret" via a ballot.
    
3. 1 Cor. 14 deals with the judging of prophecies; voting is expressing a preference of one or more brothers who have already been judged by the consistory to be fit for office.
    
4. 1 Cor. 14 deals with speaking in pursuance of prophecy; voting has nothing to do with that.
    
5. 1 Cor. 14 deals with a form of individual speaking not in harmony with the submission of woman; voting is not a matter of individual, separate votes but the vote of the congregation.
    
6. Speaking in 1 Cor. 14 brings the woman in conflict with the submission Scripture requires; speaking in voting takes place under the leader­ship of the consistory and is therefore not in conflict with woman's position of submission.
    
7. When should a woman then be silent? An­swer: in the office of teaching and ruling or governing (1 Tim. 2). If she is not allowed to speak "silently" in voting, when is she then allowed to speak at all?
    
8. We should not only focus on 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15, but on many other passages as well, and then compare Scripture with Scrip­ture.

In 1 Tim. 2:9-15 the apostle forbids women to teach in the assembly of the congregation and so have au­thority over man. This text can only be a valid argument against women's voting right if voting is indeed a matter of teaching, of having authority, and governing, which is not the case here.

Other Arguments←⤒🔗

Is voting a form of governing? What is governing in the church? It is Christ who governs by His Word and Spirit (see for example, Eph. 1:23, 2:19-22; Belgic Confession Art. 30; Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21). His Word has the final say in the church. Christ uses people, office bearers. Therefore we may say that Christ governs or rules via the office bearers. Not the people but the office bearers govern, and in fact not the office bearers, but Christ rules by His Word and Spirit. There is a difference in principle between a "democracy" in which people govern, and a "Christocracy;" the church where Christ rules. In a democracy the people have the first and the final say; the people have the right to elect and the govern­ment is accountable to the people again. In the church the people (the congregation) remain subject to the consistory, and the consistory, in turn, to Christ.

Is voting exercising authority? It is Christ who calls people to the office (see the Form for Ordination: "do you feel in your hearts that God Himself through His congregation has called you to these offices?" also Art. 31 Belgic Confession, and Art. 3, 5, 20 of the Church Order). The calling through the congregation is the means the Lord uses to call His office bearers.

This is also clear from the fact that:

1. The election, and therefore also the voting, is completely under the leadership of the consistory.
    
2. Prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit is necessary prior to the voting.
    
3. In the choice we make in voting we are bound to the requirements Christ has set for the office.
    
4. The election is not free; the congregation is limited to the names of the brothers deemed fit for the office by the consistory.
    
5. Election to office does not lead automatically to the ordination: it is still possible to bring in lawful objections.

Voting, therefore, is not an act of governing, not even governing with the consistory. Voting means: coop­erating in the call of Christ to the office under the leadership of the consistory.

During the election process the consistory gives the congregation the opportunity to express itself a few times: by suggesting names, by voting and by the approbation. Till now the sisters were excluded from voting. Why?  Because voting is a form of speaking? Then they would not be allowed either to cooperate by submitting names or taking part in the approbation. Or is it because voting is a form of exercising authority? That argument has been re­futed above. Synod 1978 stated that voting has a binding character, in distinction from the other parts of election. But:

1. The voting should not be isolated from the other parts: submitting names, the nomination, the approbation.
    
2. In order to submit names it is necessary to be able to distinguish the gifts of the Spirit; the same (and nothing else) is necessary to be able to vote.
    
3. The voting is not free but is preceded by the nomination and is thus bound to the prior judgment of the consistory.
    
4. According to Art. 20 of the Church Order we can do without the voting but not without the approbation.
    
5. At the approbation lawful objections can be brought forward by the congregation; this also requires the gift of discernment.
    
6. The voice of the members of the congregation can be heard even more strongly at the approbation, even in a judicious sense, than in the voting.

It is hard to understand why sisters in the congrega­tion are allowed to take part in submitting names and in the approbation but not in the voting. To say it positively: because there is no difference in princi­ple between the voting and the other parts of the election process, sisters are also allowed to take part in voting. In fact, they are not, but should be.

It has been said that the sisters are not allowed to vote because then they would rule over the nominated brothers. In addition to what has been said above already, we can add: if voting is an act of ruling or governing over or with the consistory, then the brothers should not be allowed to vote either.

The Calling of the Congregation and of the Believers←⤒🔗

Art. 31 of the Belgic Confession states that the office bearers should be chosen "by lawful election of the Church." There is no difference of opinion among us on this point. But why should it be by lawful election of the church (congregation)? This is directed in the first place against the Roman Catholic Church where the election is done by the clergy only: the congrega­tion is left out altogether. The Reformation, how­ever, discovered again that the keys of the kingdom have been granted, not to the clergy, but to the congregation-as-a-whole under the leadership of the office bearers; the members of the congregation too have received the gift of the Holy Spirit! In the second place Art.31 is directed against the Anabaptist idea that one can become an office bearer on the basis of a personal calling alone or an election without the leadership of the office bearers. No one among us questions the fact that the congregation is allowed to participate in the election. But on what basis? Not because the church is a democracy, but because the New Testament speaks of it (Acts 1 and 6, 13:2-3). There is a progression in the history of salvation: the congregation has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (see for example 1 John 2:20, 27). The office does not produce the office. It is the Lord who calls to the office by the voice of the congregation, under the leadership of the office bearers.

The sisters clearly belong to the congregation. When they have made profession of faith they, too, are members in full rights. But should the distinction between man and woman not be applied to the voting? In our opinion it should not, on the following grounds:

1. Women no less than men share in Christ's work of salvation (Gal. 3:28).
    
2. Women no less than men share in the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17-18, 10:44-45; 1 Cor. 12; 1 John 2:20, 27).
    
3. Women can receive the gift of prophecy and also practice it (Luke 1:46ff, 2:36ff; Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5).
    
4. Women also work in the spreading of the gospel (Acts 16:14ff, 40, 18:1ff, 18; 26; Rom. 16:1ff; Phil. 4:2-3; Col. 4:15).
    
5. The command to work together for the up­ building of the congregation counts for women no less than for men (Eph. 4:12ff; 1 Thess. 5:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Peter 2:5, 9-10).
    
6. In the Reformed Churches sisters are allowed to speak on various occasions: when they make promises (public profession of faith, marriage, baptism); in discipline (Matt. 18); in the work of evangelism and mission; in teaching in our schools; in catechesis; and we may add: in the election (submitting names, approbation and voting).

In voting we work together to fill the offices, not in order to govern but to be governed, for the edification of the congregation (Eph. 4:11-16). Why would the sisters have to be excluded from that?

The consistory involves the congregation, not be­cause the consistory is not able to do it alone, but because the congregation has received so many gifts. When the voice of the congregation (Art. 31 Belgic Confession) is to be heard, it should be heard optimally, and the gifts of the congregation should be used as much as possible, also the gift of discernment (cf. Gal. 5:22). All this speaks in favour of involving the sisters in the election, voting included. For the elec­tion by the congregation has no other meaning than that the congregation "takes note of the gifts and points out the persons whom Christ has appointed to the office" (H. Bavinck).

Since the sisters have also received the office of all believers (Lord's Day 12, 21, 24, 32, for example), the consistory should involve this office not minimally but optimally. There must be very urgent reasons not to include a part of the congregation in the election (voting) that is aimed at the edification of the congregation.

The Spirit of Our Age←⤒🔗

It is often argued that if you give the women in the church the right to vote you are giving in to the pressure of the unchristian emancipation movement of the woman and/or feminism. Is that not how it started in other churches? After women's voting right, the woman in the office?

When we look back we notice that the input of the congregation in elections has not always been the same. In the early Christian church the congregation had an important input, based on Scripture, viewed from the New Testament. But since the hierarchy in the third and fourth century, the congregation was more and more silenced till the Reformation in the sixteenth century. That was the "spirit of the age" we might say: the people have no say, the leaders de­cide. This was the general opinion in society and in the church as well.

The Reformation brought about a return to Scrip­ture, also in how the congregation and election to the offices was viewed. The congregation became more involved in the election of office bearers. But soon the government pushed back the influence of the congregation. In many places the right of election came into the hands of the nobility of the congrega­tion, the patrons or the government. Again: the spirit of the age!

Only since the Secession (1834) the congregation became more involved again, in a return to Scripture. We also acknowledge that the "spirit of the age" of the nineteenth century has been influential by involving the congregation more in the elections. It was said that this was the positive influence of the democratic movement, also in the church. At the same time that in politics a plea was heard for voting rights, it was heard in the church too. The church was actually ahead of politics! It would be a bit shortsighted not to see a connection between the two.

Yet it is not true that the church introduced the right to vote because of the democratic or feminist move­ment. Since 1875, before there was even a feminist movement, Professor Lucas Lindeboom of the Se­cession (Kampen Seminary) pleaded in favour of women's voting right in the church. Also Kuyper (1898) and Bavinck (1918) were in favour. It is hardly possible to accuse these men of supporting the femi­nist movement. Kuyper stated in 1898 that with holding from women the right to vote was a result of the "spirit of the age!" We should judge women's voting right not from the "spirit of the age" but from Scripture.

Synod 1993 stated the following:

1. In the church, not the arguments suggested by the spirit of the times should be decisive, but the arguments from Holy Scripture, in which we are offered the right framework for the relation of man and woman.
    
2. The influence of the spirit of the times does not necessarily have to be negative; it has also influenced the present manner of election in the course of time.
    
3. The church should not grant the sisters the right to vote as a sacrifice to the spirit of our times, but neither should she withhold it out of fear of that spirit.
    
4. Withholding from the sisters the right to vote on the basis of Scripture can lead to a (forced) isolation for the church; withholding it while Scripture does not forbid it, can lead to unnecessary estrangement with regard to the gospel, in the church as well as outside.
    
5. Granting the sisters the right to vote is not an expression of unscriptural individualism or of democratizing the church and should not be regarded as bending the knee to an evil desire of emancipation.
    
6. Since voting should not be considered a form of governing, granting the sisters the right to vote should not be seen as a first step on the road to the teaching — and ruling offices of the sis­ters.

We conclude that it has been sufficiently demon­strated from Scripture that women may take part in voting.

But will this not automatically lead to the "woman in office?" Many churches here and in other countries have let go of the Scriptural doctrine about man and woman, with the result that women are appointed in the consistory. I would like to make the following remarks:

1. In many churches women enter the office as a result of abandoning the authority of Scripture; Synod Ommen 1993 grants women the right to vote on the basis of arguments from Scripture.
    
2. There is a principal difference between (co­operation in) being governed (voting) and actually governing (in the office). Scripture does not allow the sisters to govern but to be governed.
    
3. Scripture sets high demands for eligibility to the office; we do not read the same high demands for taking part in the election.
    
4. Several churches abroad and also the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken have had women voting, in some cases for a long time already, yet this has not led to the woman in office.
    
5. The argument that in some churches the offices cannot be filled anymore by men who are willing to be available, has fortunately not played a role in Synod Ommen's decision, not even in the background.
    
6. We should not too easily use the argument that now things will go downhill. Already since 1875 L. Lindeboom pleaded in favour of women's voting right, and those who were in favour at the Synods of 1923, 1927, and 1930 can hardly be classified as Bible critics.
    
7. Once again: "Since voting should not be considered a form of governing, granting the sisters the right to vote should not be seen as a first step on the road to the teaching — and ruling office of the sisters."

Conclusion←⤒🔗

This article is a summary of Synod Ommen's deci­sion to grant the communicant sisters in the congregation the right to vote. It is our conviction that this decision is not a symptom of modernism or Scrip­ture criticism but of an honest listening to Scripture. It is our hope that this article may help the churches abroad to share this opinion.