Brownson’s Egalitarian Foundation and Dismissal of Sexual Complementarity is Unbiblical

Brownson selects Dr. Robert Gagnon as his principle opponent in this debate.  As I am no expert on Dr. Gagnon’s work I will leave it to someone who is better qualified than I am to defend his positions and to discern whether Brownson has presented those arguments fairly.  To this end I have contacted Dr. Gagnon and asked if he would be willing to defend himself in person during a debate with Dr. Brownson.  Dr. Gagnon expressed an eagerness to defend his positions and I think it is incumbent upon Dr. Brownson to give him that courtesy.  I would be happy to make the arrangements if Dr. Brownson would be so gracious as to accept this invitation.

One of a number of frequently circulated arguments opposed to sexual complementarity states that Adam’s headship over Eve was established after the Fall.  This argument asserts that Adam and Eve lived in an egalitarian relationship before the Fall and the church has a duty to do whatever possible to disestablish Adam’s headship in an attempt to live into the egalitarian ideals of the kingdom of God.  Brownson employs this very argument. “Genesis 3:16 portrays patriarchy not as grounded in creation, but in the conflicted relationship between men and women resulting from the Fall.” (58)

Setting aside the inflammatory nature of the term patriarchy--which Brownson couples frequently with the term domination which is equally misleading, as are his frequent comparisons of biblical manhood and womanhood to American slavery--let’s consider whether or not Adam’s leadership in his relationship with Eve was established before the Fall or after.  Here are three brief reasons to conclude that Adam was in a position of loving leadership in relationship to Eve before the Fall and that proper sexual complementarity is marred by the Fall not a product of it.

1. Adam was formed first and then Eve.  Chronological primacy as an indicator of headship may be easily brushed aside as coincidental or insignificant by modern scholars.  But Paul didn’t think it was coincidental or insignificant.  In making his case to Timothy as to why men should exclusively serve as elders within the church he says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” (1 Tim. 2:13)  Paul considered the complementarity of the sexes from Genesis 2 to be normative for the church.
2. Eve was created to be Adam’s helper.  “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.” (Gen. 2:18)  The fact that Eve was the helper does not mean that she was inferior, less intelligent, less capable, or to be dominated by Adam.  It simply means that God granted to Adam the joyful duty of leading and to Eve the joy of following the man formed in God’s own image.  Submission does not imply inferiority, nor does it in any way imply that Eve was not equally created in God’s image.  To insinuate that complementarians believe otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.
3. Adam named Eve.  “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen. 2:23)  The naming of Eve by Adam implies leadership on his part and submission on her part.  In the same account God names Adam and Adam submits to God and Adam names the animals who are under his authority, so too then Adam names Eve.  The pattern is unmistakable and significant.

Certainly Brownson would not be convinced by these arguments; he’s certainly not convinced when the New Testament writers themselves make them.  “But despite these attempts of New Testament writers to find a basis for certain forms of patriarchy in the creation narratives, we must also note the remarkable egalitarian motifs that appear in the creation stories themselves.” (58)  Note the language that is employed here.  For Brownson these arguments are not convincing, authoritative, or even successful; they are mere “attempts” on the part of the inspired authors to find a basis for their own biases within the creation account.  Brownson believes that these accounts actually teach the opposite of what the New Testament writers find in them.  We must ask ourselves who we believe is better equipped to interpret Genesis 1-3: the inspired New Testament writers, or modern Western theologians.

The logical result of the denial of sexual complementarity is to create a human race composed of interchangeable parts.  No longer are men and women given uniquely joyful duties, but now men and women are interchangeable in the home, in the church, and, for Brownson, even in marriage itself.  This conclusion is arrived at largely through the dismissal Paul’s clear teaching in letters such as 1 Timothy, Titus, and Ephesians, and also by a misconstrued interpretation of Galatians 3:27-28.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3:27-28)

Paul writes the book of Galatians to deal with a specific problem: Jewish converts to Christ were insisting that the Law must be maintained as it formerly had been in Judaism.  Paul was clear that this was not to be so.  Within this context we can well understand that Paul is not stating that there are no longer men and women in the church. Whether we like it or not we live in this reality every day.  I have yet to attend a church that had gender neutral restrooms, nor have I met Christian parents that insist on having their sons or daughters share locker rooms with people of the opposite sex. What Paul means to teach here is that the old covenant distinctions between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave or free that were established under the Mosaic law no longer have any binding force for the Christian.  Hence, for Paul, the only distinctions that remain between men and women are those that would have been in place before the Mosaic covenant was established; this, not coincidentally, is precisely what Paul teaches in 1 Timothy 2.

Brownson argues that in Galatians 3:27-28 “all gender distinctions seem to be obliterated.” (71)  This of course merely takes the modern feminist-egalitarian understanding of so called “gender” to its logical conclusion.  We can commend Dr. Brownson for having the integrity to make these clear connections which many complementarians have been making for years.  But in considering the Pauline writings as a whole do we really see the obliteration of sexual distinctions and roles?  Of course not, no honest reading of Paul’s letters to Timothy or Titus, 1 Corinthians or Ephesians can conclude that manhood and womanhood no longer have any bearing in the home, family, or marriage.  Paul defines marriage clearly in Ephesians 5 in terms of “husbands” and “wives”, not mere “persons” as Brownson would prefer to believe. “Marriage is…a school of Christian living and a means of grace, as two persons learn to live with each other and to deepen their love over the long haul, discovering more deeply the love and faithfulness of God in their relationship with each other (Eph. 5).” (123-124) Consider the astounding, and biblically untenable, shift in meaning that occurs when you perceive of men and women as interchangeable parts due to the obliteration of sexual complementarity.

In the end Brownson’s arguments for the church’s acceptance of same-sex eroticism fail before they start.  They fail when the similarity between men and women is mistaken for uniformity, when the distinctions between the sexes and their God-given roles are smoothed out in ways that are convenient for a feminist Western culture but would have been entirely foreign to the writers of the Bible or to our brothers and sisters in the non-western world. 

Finally, we need to be willing to accept that Moses and Jesus really meant that “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  We don’t need to reimagine or retranslate the clear teachings of scripture, we need to proclaim them to a lost and broken world that desperately needs to repent and believe the good news of Jesus Christ.

For more information on the unique and complementary beauty of manhood and womanhood check out www.cbmw.org, and be sure to check out the Danvers Statement.

Ben Kappers is the pastor of the Baileyville Reformed Church in Baileyville, Illinois.

Let’s start with the basics: What is complementarianism?

Complementarianism is a belief based on two core truths:

1. God created Adam and Eve, man and woman, equally in his own image.
It cannot be emphasized enough that complementarians believe strongly and unequivocally that men and women are of equal value, dignity, and worth in the sight of our loving Lord.

2. Men and women are given different and equally joyful and significant roles in marriage and the church.  These unique roles work together (they complement one another) in such a way that achieves God’s purposes for his people.  The complementarian believes the Bible is clear that men are given the weighty responsibility to lead in the home and the church while women are given the joyful duty of submitting to and helping their husbands and male elders as they lead.

So, why should you believe that men and women are created with complementary roles instead of identical or interchangeable roles? 

Let’s consider a few brief passages from the Scriptures:

1. Adam and Eve were designed differently and with different roles within God’s good creation.  Adam’s role of leadership within the creation is established already before the Fall in a number of ways.  Adam was formed first from the dust of the earth while Eve was formed second from Adam’s rib.  Adam is given the honor of naming not only the animals (who are not created in God’s image) but Eve as well. (Gen. 2:23)  Adam was formed to work the earth while Eve was formed to be Adam’s helper.  (Gen.2:15&18)
2. The differences established by God in the beginning are normative patterns for male-female relationships within the church and the home. 
   It is quite apparent from even a casual reading of the New Testament that men and women maintain distinct roles within marriage and the church.
   
   • Ephesians 5:22-25 makes this point clearly saying, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.  Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” See also: Colossians 3:18-19.
   • In I Timothy 2:12-13 Paul speaks of the need for male eldership in the church saying, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”  Notice here that Paul grounds his teaching not on present cultural issues, but in the creation order itself as we saw earlier.

Now, finally, why should I delight in these teachings?

I’m a product of the modern feminist West.  I grew up thinking that women could and should be elders and pastors; in fact the very first two people I nominated for the office of elder were women.  I was a full-fledged unapologetic believer in women’s ordination and I had a mind to stick it to the knuckle dragging Neanderthals from the dark ages who thought differently than I did.  But then something strange happened to me: I met my wife and she was a complementarian and soon thereafter I realized that the Bible is too. 

Above all else it should delight us that every godly marriage and every church is a theatre in which God’s gospel--the self-sacrificing love of Christ for his church and the joyful submission of the church to Christ--is to be powerfully proclaimed.  Of course what we want most is to glorify God and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus!  Embracing the complementarity of man and woman in our homes and churches is a powerful and joyful way in which we can do just that.

Ben Kappers is the pastor of the Baileyville Reformed Church in Baileyville, Illinois.

For more information on the unique and complementary beauty of manhood and womanhood check out www.cbmw.org, and be sure to check out the Danvers Statement.

Also for a more in-depth analysis of the biblical and wonderful differences between men and women be sure to get your free PDF copy of “What’s the Difference” by Dr. John Piper.

All Scripture references are taken from the English Standard Version (Crossway, 2001)

1.) Admit that we do not trust one another in the RCA. This is not just a denominational problem. It is a symptom of our larger society. Mobility and social media have allowed us to be surrounded by like-minded people and the result is suspicion of differing views. It lurks around every corner. Democrats and Republicans don’t trust one another. White people and black people don’t trust one another. Young people and old people don’t trust one another. Rather than get to know one another and find common ground, people tend to hunker down in their respective camps and demand uniformity in belief and behavior. Uniformity is not unity. My wife and I are united, but we are certainly not uniform in our beliefs or our behaviors. Still, even if we disagree, we always trust that our partner begins with good intentions and give each other space to learn and grow. It would be nice to have that in our denomination as well.

2.) Remove cultural boundaries. Our denomination continues to struggle with unity because, like the first churches, we have a hard time telling the difference between cultural and theological boundaries. Cultural differences, gender roles, and socio-economic statuses prevent us from coming together as one in Christ Jesus. The church is the body of people who confess that Jesus is Lord (or God’s Son or Anointed One or Messiah, etc.) and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead. This is what it means to be Christian, Reformed or otherwise; probably not more and definitely not less.

3.) Understand that our Standards are “faithful and historic witnesses” (but also politically motivated). We already don’t ask our candidates for ordination to subscribe to every letter and line as they are written. We have been humble enough to admit that some of the statements are over-stated or even improperly stated. I’m sure some pastors would like to blur the lines on other portions of our Standards (or the whole Belhar Confession, for that matter) as well. It would also be honest of us to admit that there is more going on than theological clarification. The Belgic Confession throws the Anabaptists under the bus to avoid association and, therefore, persecution. The authors of the Canons beheaded their opponent to seal their victory. They are political pronouncements of a sort. Still, they are helpful documents in offering an answer to the questions that people have asked and will continue to ask about the Christian faith (even if they’re not always very good).

4.) Admit the difference between theology and ideology. Christians can agree that God wants to bring healing into the world. Honestly, the Bible says nothing on private insurance or single-payer plans. The Bible says that the government is God’s servant for our good and that we should pay our taxes. But, we all have to admit that that there aren’t any verses against communism or for capitalism. These are political and economic terms, not theological ones. Again, it would be nice if we could trust one another enough to allow for different perspectives without condemning them as evil (or maybe actually admitting that they start with good intentions). Christians, perhaps more than others, should weigh in on important policies because we (and maybe we alone) understand that government, too, belongs to God.

5.) Admit that we all have different priorities when it comes to mission, but that they are all part of the same mission. The social justice advocate can no more say to the evangelist, “I don’t need you,” than the hand can say to the eye, “I have no need of you.” The glory of God is that we all have different gifts and different experiences and different desires and have been invited into the same house where God can use all of them for good. God’s mission is wide and long and hard and thanks be to the One who allows us to do our small part in it.

6.) Emphasize discipleship. The church is made up of people who have been called out to learn and to grow. Unfortunately, faith has become a very private matter and inquiries from elders and pastors have become uncomfortable, if not resented. Theologically speaking, our denomination has done a good job rooting people in justification by faith and the hope of glorification, but we have been more lax on sanctification in the Holy Spirit; on becoming a people set apart for bold proclamation and compassion in the way of Christ; on dying to the old and rising to the new.

7.) “Priesthood of all believers” doesn’t mean that everyone should be a priest (or a pastor). I understand the exciting nature of the call to ministry. I think seminary education would be good for every Christian. But I’m also beginning to notice how quickly that gets translated into the role of professional pastor. I hope I answered my call to ministry well (sometimes I wonder), but so far I’ve been affirmed. At the same time, being a pastor is not the only way to minister. We can be honest with people about that. We can be proud enough not to feel ashamed about that.

8.) Make better use of our seminaries in our churches. As a pastor in a reformed denomination, it frustrates me to no end when I am criticized for a reformed position by a reformed parishioner. The evangelical movement and mindset has infused a great part of our Christian culture, the RCA included. Most people in our pews don’t know the difference. Some pastors don’t care. Making better use of our Standards would help here. But making better use of our seminaries would go a long way in maintaining our identity.

9.) Stop trying to force uniformity. Uniformity is a slippery slope and its by-products are often heavy-handedness, cold-heartedness, and mean-spirited pride. We must do better at sharing our experiences, building trust between differing groups, and giving each other space to learn and grow. You will know them by their fruits (gentleness, kindness, patience, harvest of righteousness, etc.).

10.) Remember the gospel is good news. Three days after his crucifixion Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Death is defeated! Life is eternal! It can be found in Christ and can start today. Sing it strongly. Preach it loudly. Live it boldly.

Peter TeWinkle, pastor
Hope Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, MI
pastorofhope@comcast.net

Others with greater knowledge of the Book of Church Order have pointed out that General Synod cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against anyone, nor can it order a classis or consistory to do so; hence, from a judicial perspective R-56 S is without effect.  But I would like to see more discussion regarding the implied claim that a synod can by itself establish an “official position” which can then be enforced at any level against dissenters.  An official position (or denominational policy) does not become a “constitutional” component until it is added to the Constitution: the Forms of Unity, the Book of Church Order, and the Liturgy. 

There is a well-defined process for such additions, but this issue has never been dealt with in terms of that process.  Hence, it seems to me that the clause asserting that “advocating homosexual behavior” is a disciplinable offense is void; conscientious dissent from the denomination’s policy on this issue cannot be made the grounds for a disciplinary action against any individual or body.  Is that correct?

David Timmer
Professor of religion, Central College
Pella, Iowa
timmerd@central.edu 

1) This committee needs to proclaim hope. I am grateful that the RCA has declared homosexuality a sin. This is a good first step. But it is not enough for us to say what we are against. As a denomination we must be assert gospel hope. What is the good news for those whose sexuality has been shaped by the broken culture? What is the hope for the sexual sinner? Can men and women find new life through the resurrection of Jesus? Do we believe Jesus can change lives? This must be articulated or we will be seen as insular and bigoted.

2) This committee needs to consider how to be gracious to our friends who consider themselves gay or lesbian. Where can these great people go to be loved, known, and discipled? Will our churches actually be places for our gay friends to belong before they are obedient to the demands of the gospel? How long are we willing to walk in gospel grace? It is easy to be against something, much harder to be a gospel community. The gospel is messy. This committee needs to articulate, in gospel ways, that Jesus loves anyone and everyone and so does his church. And this committee needs to commend and study those churches that are loving the “other” well.

3) This committee needs to find pathways and resources that enable the sexually broken to be discipled in the way of Christ. These resources aren’t just for men and women dealing with homosexuality; it is bigger than that. Adultery, homosexual sin, fornication, and pornography are sins that are destroying people. There are thousands who suffer silently in OUR churches. These sexual sins affect our witness in the world. It is time to help our churches find real freedom. This committee can help the RCA move forward by preparing resources that are Reformed, gospel centered, and Jesus glorifying. If the gospel is the gospel, then it can set anyone free. I challenge this committee to figure out how.

4) This committee would be well served to hear from, and have as representatives, those who have found wholeness in their sexuality. This isn’t just a “truth” issue. This is about people. And I can promise you there are thousands of people in the RCA who have found sexual purity and wholeness in and through the gospel. This committee needs to hear from these voices—they will shape the discussion in ways that will serve the denomination well.

Though some would like to be done with R-56, this is just the beginning. Now, it is time for the real work. I pray that we are willing to do it.

Ron Citlau
Campus pastor, Faith Church
Dyer, Indiana
rcitlau@faithchurchonline.org

During the 2012 General Synod, several overtures will demand that ministers and elders “ought” or “shall” be disciplined by their classis if they take any action supporting LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) members of the RCA in the life of the church — particularly marriage in states where it is legal.

However, did the 1978 report objectively interpret Scripture? Or was there a bias (eisegesis) that prevented a clear understanding of what was and was not said within the Hebrew and Christian scriptures? Let’s step back a few decades to consider the cultural context of the 1978 report.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association (AMA) provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. In 1973, homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II (or second edition) classification of mental disorders. Since then, the issue of homosexuality for the Reformed Church in America has been out of the closet.

During the 1977 General Synod, a motion was approved that General Synod “go on record affirming the human and civil rights of homosexuals and lesbians.” This motion was referred to the Theological Commission for study and recommendation (MGS, 1977, p. 204f). This appeared to be a straightforward motion consistent with the scientific and clinical findings of the AMA and which have been confirmed in the subsequent decades. In short, the motion simply asked to affirm that homosexuals (male and female) were normal human beings (i.e., not sick) and they should not be limited in their civil rights because of their sexual orientation.

However, the introduction of the 1978 Theological Commission report indicated it felt obliged to go beyond the referral by the General Synod. “In formulating its response the commission deemed it necessary to broaden the scope of its inquiry.” That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If the mental and medical health professionals could be wrong about their pre-1973 understanding of homosexuals, then religious communities should take a second look at their pronouncements and biblical understanding. The vast majority of Americans at that time thought homosexuality was a moral corruption at worst and a mental illness at best. In most U.S. states, homosexual sexual behavior was illegal. Since the mental illness aspect — including its negative impact on society — was undercut by the DSM-II, perhaps a review of the few biblical passages that deal with this issue was in order.

Although this article is too short for a line-by-line analysis (I urge you read it yourself), here are a few things hinting that the 1978 report is not infallible — or even a reliable basis for our current discussions.

To begin, the 1978 report states, “We propose a fresh look at the biblical material, careful exegesis, and interpretation that is both faithful to the historic Reformed witness and aware that always ‘God has yet more truth to break forth from His Holy Word.’” However, the next paragraph states, 

The texts which do refer to homosexual activity are unequivocal in their condemnation of the practice. It is not possible or necessary to offer detailed exposition of each of the explicit texts [italics added].

How do we get the “truth to break forth from His Holy Word” if we don’t talk about it? Instead, the commission simply says there is a wide range of scholarship on the issue.

This spectrum of opinion is part of the research which informs this study and will be referred to at key points. This study is prescriptive rather than descriptive. It presents our conclusions drawn from the biblical material rather than enumerating the wide variety of current opinions.

The 1978 report does an adequate job on the two Levitical passages and points out the difficulty of making these passages normative when other prohibitions in the same chapters are pushed into the shadows of history. But when dealing with the New Testament passages, the report uses the same casuistic picking and choosing it condemns in Leviticus when dealing with St. Paul. The commission declares,

The Romans passage will be considered here because it is Paul’s most familiar statement on the subject and his sharpest rejection of homosexual behavior. Also, by focusing on this text we may bypass the complex exegetical debate [italics added] as to whether the Greek malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy were ever intended to refer to homosexual behavior.

In other words, it’s too complicated so we won’t deal with it.

In the section titled “The Human Sciences,” the following concession is made:

Scripture does not refer to the problem of homosexual acts which emerge in accord with one’s conscious, sexual orientation and not against it. As Jesus remained silent on the entire subject, so the biblical writers did not address the human condition now known as homosexual inversion. 

Aside from using archaic psychiatric language — “inversion” — the commission simply returns to its default position in spite of its acknowledgment that Scripture does not deal with this issue.

So, we can take away from the 1978 Theological Commission Report on Homosexuality that while there are no statements condemning homosexual orientation or condemning same sex marriage, the overtures to be considered by the 2012 General Synod urge the Reformed Church to create policies and canon law within the Book of Church Order according to tradition and human judgment that condemn homosexuals. The overtures would prevent homosexuals from full participation within the church and ignore their desire to create sanctified relationships in monogamous, committed, and lifelong marriages.

Tradition and human judgment instead of Scripture and the Holy Spirit? What could possibly go wrong?

Rev. Robert W. Fretz
Upper Saddle River, NJ
rwfretz@verizon.net 

1. A report from a five-member special committee in 1957, which began as six short articles in the Church Herald, was adopted by the 1958 General Synod, recommending that all offices be open to women in 1962, noting that "in case the offices are open to women... each congregation and each consistory continues the responsibility of deciding whether the Spirit of God is calling anyone to an office.... No deliverance of General Synod on the question of women's eligibility to office will change the Reformed principle of church polity that the power of ordaining and installing rest in consistory and classis."  The 1958 booklet was often cited by later synods. 
2. The 1958 amendment to the Book of Church Order failed, as did amendments to open the offices of elders and deacons (1967), separate amendments for elders and deacons, and for ministers (1969), and "local option" for classes (1970).  In 1971 an amendment to open the offices of elder and deacon to women passed.  In 1972 the General Synod Executive Committee published in the Church Herald: "... bylaws, if these limit [these offices]... should be changed to be in accordance with The Government of the RCA ... [This] does not mean that a congregation must elect women to be elders and deacons.... a consistory/congregation may still determine by its own procedures which members are to be nominated. ... such nominations cannot be disallowed because a member is a female."
3. The Synod of 1973 noted: "In practice, the ordination of women will be adopted in some churches and not in others, depending on the interpretation of Scriptures and the judgment of the consistory and congregation as to what will most contribute to the upbuilding of the church."
4. Amendments to ordain women as ministers failed in 1974, 1975, and 1976.  In 1977 the General Synod adopted the recommendation of the General Synod Executive Committee: "WE RECOMMEND that the General Synod request all classes to refrain from the ordination of women to the ministry of the Word until such time as the Book of Church Order is amended." An amendment to open the office of minister of the Word was sent to the classes, but did not pass.
5. Before the 1979 Synod a ruling in the Presbyterian Church USA had held that ministers, elders, and seminary students, even if willing to serve with ordained women, could not be ordained or installed unless they favored the ordination of women.
6. The 1979 General Synod, by a 54% secret ballot, upheld the Judicial Business Commission ruling that ordinations of  women ministers in the classes of Brooklyn and Bergen and a scheduled ordination in the Classis of Albany, all of which had been appealed, should be sustained. In the debate Dr. Elton Eenigenberg from Western Seminary argued that the report should be upheld, allowing those classes which wished to ordain women ministers to do so, and the others which did not wish to do so would not have to.
7. After the 1979 action some classes voted not to receive ordained women ministers, or license or ordain women candidates. A full page ad was published in the Church Herald, signed by two past Presidents of General Synod and others from across the denomination, including those who favored and opposed the ordination of women as ministers of the Word, arguing that judicial action had subverted the requirement that the Book of Church Order be amended.
8. In the spring of 1980 the General Synod Executive Committee urged the Synod:  "To call for careful avoidance of pressure which might lead either one who supports or one who opposes the action permitting the ordination of women to the office of minister of the Word to offend against his or her conscience, and to urge that no member of the church be penalized for conscientious objection to, or support of, the ordination of women".  That language is in the "Conscience Clause."
9. The lack of theological consensus, continued challenge to the legality of women serving as ministers of the Word, the prospect of women being unsure if they could be considered as candidates for licensure, ordination or transfer, and the concern about individuals being pressured to take actions against their consciences, as guided by Scripture, were all factors,  I believe, which led the 25 member Advisory Committee, of which I was a member, to unanimously present the "Proposal to Maintain Peace in Diversity Concerning Women In Church Offices". It was adopted with scarcely any dissent on the floor of Synod, and then approved by two-thirds of the RCA classes, including a majority of the classes in every regional synod.
10. The "Conscience Clause" was a package amendment to four different places in the Book of Church Order, voted on as one amendment.  It made clear that ministers of the Word are both men and women, and guaranteed that women would have the right to be licensed, ordained and transferred, thus ending any "collective conscience" for the classis.
11. If there have been examples of ridicule, innuendo or obstruction contrary to the conscience clauses, I would strongly deplore such actions. But the “conscience clauses” may, in fact, continue to contribute to their intended purpose: “to maintain peace and diversity in the RCA concerning women as church officers.”  Members of classes and congregations should apply the conscience clauses in a way that is discreet and gracious.  I believe that has been the practice of most of us, if not all.  I have certainly seen that to be the practice of men whom I know in our classis. Those who do not favor women in offices of authority do not, I hope, bear any ill will to them personally, or desire anything other than spiritual good in their lives and ministries.

Tom Stark (starktomel@aol.com)
Retired Minister of Word and Sacrament
Lansing, Michigan 

Al Janssen (aljanssen@hotmail.com)
Community Church of Glen Rock
New Brunswick Theological Seminary

First, I’m responding because I moderated the Commission on Church Order when we were tasked by the General Synod to evaluate policy governance. Together with the Commission on Theology we offered a report that is buried in the Minutes of General Synod.

Second, it’s taken me a while to respond because while I have been uncomfortable with policy governance, I couldn’t put my finger on the root of my discomfort. I now think I can begin to do that. It has taken a reading of the philosopher Charles Taylor to help me figure out what is going on.

When policy governance was in question, the General Synod Council would ask: “Does this conflict with church order or Reformed theology?” And we hesitated. It didn’t appear to conflict. But something didn’t fit.

Policy governance seems to make sense. And that gets to the point. It does make sense – to us late moderns. Policy governance talks about “ends” and “limitations.” It divides responsibilities into discrete spheres. This is all instrumental thought, the very essence of modernity. We’ve not only been educated that way, we are so shaped that way that “that’s the way it is.”

Taylor helps me to see that we are talking not only different languages, but from different worlds. Church order strives to live out of the world of Scripture. And indeed church order, like the Reformed confessions, emerge from an earlier, different world. Ours is the world of efficiency. We think of church order as organizational: we measure by what works. That’s instrumental thinking. 

Church order, and Reformed theology, offer an alternate way not only of thinking, but of being. It doesn’t fit well. And we might ask ourselves: should it fit well? Are we as the church different? Or to put it in the language of Nicaea: are we holy?

Allan Janssen (aljanssen@hotmail.com)
Community Church of Glen Rock
New Brunswick Theological Seminary