Individual Canadian Reformed Churches may decide whether to allow female communicant members to participate in the election of office bearers. That, it is commonly thought, is the implication of the decision taken by Synod Burlington-Ebenezer 2010, Article 176. It certainly would seem to have been the intention of that decision. But does it indeed imply that?

Purpose⤒🔗

The focus of this article, is not the scriptural arguments in favour of or against females voting. The focus of this article is on church political aspects. Synod 2010 adopted the following recommendation: “That any arrangement for the election of office bearers that goes beyond what has been agreed upon by the churches in Article 3 CO is a matter of the local regulations, adopted for that purpose by the consistory with the deacons” (Art. 176). Given the aim of this decision – to grant local churches the freedom to allow females to vote – this decision implies that Article 3 CO does not determine anything in regards to females voting. The purpose of this two-part article is to indicate that it probably does, and will suggest how this might be remedied.

Why bother?←⤒🔗

No doubt many will read this with the question in mind, why bother? It is clear what Synod 2010 intended and some churches already allow female communicant members to vote. Is it worth looking at this?

I believe it is. For allowing female communicant members to vote is not just a question of hermeneutics and exegesis. It also touches the use of the church order. The church order has been adopted with common consent. It functions as the constitutional document for how churches operate internally and relate to each other. If one seeks peace and order in the churches of God, there needs to be respect for what has been prescribed for all the churches by all the churches. Such respect is undermined when churches permit themselves and each other liberties with respect to the church order. If we do not take our church order strictly, all sorts of explanations need to be given when church visitors ask local consistories with deacons, whether “the adopted order is being observed and maintained in every respect” (Article 46 CO). Churches too are to keep their commitments made before God (Eccl 5:4-7).

Peace and order are facilitated by a set of agreements among the churches that not only is in keeping with Scripture and within the bounds of our confessions but also reflects our desired practice. A disconnect between our church order and our practice will likely lead to ecclesiastical licentiousness and disunity. My impression is that the Christian Reformed Churches in our continent are experiencing this, and my own experience is that this is also one of the root causes of what is troubling our sister churches in The Netherlands.

Hence, what follows in this article ought not to be brushed off as being legalistic. There is a time and place for due attention to the letter of the law. Our Lord criticized the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, not for their attention to details of the law. For our Lord said to the Pharisees: “You should have practised the latter (weightier matters of the law, e.g. justice) without neglecting the former (lighter matters of the law, e.g. tithing spices)” (Matt 23:23). The churches have together agreed that “they shall endeavour diligently to observe the articles of this Church Order as long as they have not been changed by a general synod” (Article 76 CO).

If it be true that the Church Order as currently phrased does not clearly allow female communicant members to participate in voting for office bearers, Article 3 should be changed before such a practice is introduced.

Scrutiny required←⤒🔗

Article 3 CO states: “Those elected shall be appointed by the consistory with the deacons in accordance with the adopted regulations.” (For the sake of space, “the consistory with the deacons” will, hereafter, be referred to as the “council.”) The auxiliary verb “shall” indicates the council has an obligation it must meet. The council is here being bound to the outcome of the election. This implies that those who elect exercise a form of authority over those who appoint. For those who appoint shall do what those who voted have indicated. Now women are not to exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2:12). As those who appoint are exclusively men, indeed, the leaders in the congregation, those who vote are not to be women. For the plain reading of Article 3 CO suggests voting is here defined as an act of authority.

This issue was raised at Synod 2010. For one, the church at Carman-East pointed it out (Art. 175 obs. 2.12.8). Moreover, the Minority Report spoke of authority being delegated to the congregation.

Synod 2010 addressed this matter, among others, when it considered: “In the congregation only the consistory has governing authority to lead and make all decisions. The congregational meeting is not a second governing authority besides or over the consistory, but the consistory voluntarily agrees to respect the voice of the congregation, as expressed in Article 3 CO with the phrase that ‘those elected shall be appointed by the consistory with the deacons…” (Art. 176 cons. 3.9). This, however, does not address the point being made. Regardless of how the congregation’s vote becomes authoritative, the fact remains that the Church Order adopted with common consent prescribes the appointment by the council of those elected by the congregation.

Synod 2010 also considered the following. “The Minority Report does not prove that the consistory with the deacons delegates a responsibility, or its authority when it gives the congregation the opportunity to elect men from those nominated for office. The statement in the Minority Report: ‘Authority may be delegated by involving the congregation yet remains with the council of the congregation at all times,’ is puzzling and confusing. The Minority Report does not give evidence that it is even possible for a consistory (with or without deacons) to delegate its God-given authority. It is at least foreign to Reformed church polity” (Art. 176 cons. 3.9).

Not only the statement in the Minority Report is puzzling and confusing, I find this consideration to be so as well. First of all, the idea of councils delegating God-given authority is not foreign to Reformed church polity, it is the foundation beneath broader assemblies.

However, given the remainder of consideration 3.9, what this consideration seems to want to say is that it is foreign to Reformed church polity for the congregation to have authority over the council. That too, is puzzling. For, if that is true, then Article 3 CO, when stating “those elected shall be appointed by the council…” itself states something foreign to Reformed church polity.

Clearly, Article 3 CO warrants closer scrutiny.

The origins of Article 3 CO←⤒🔗

Article 3 of the Canadian Reformed Church Order has its roots in four articles of the original Church Order of Dort, 1619 (hereafter: CO 1619). These four articles express the position held by the Dutch Reformed Churches in the early seventeenth century after some sixty years of Reformed church life in The Netherlands, Flanders, France, various places in Germany, and London.

Article 4 CO 1619 deals with the calling of a candidate, to serve as a minister of the Word, and Article 5 with the calling of a minister of the Word already serving as such elsewhere. Neither article makes any reference to an election involving the congregation. The practice in those days was that congregation did not become involved until approbation (approval) for the ordination or installation was sought.

Article 22 CO 1619 deals with the calling to office of elders. It stipulates the following: “The elders shall be chosen by the judgment of the consistory and the deacons, so that every church shall be at liberty, according to its circumstances, to present to the congregation as many elders as are needed, that they may be ordained with public prayers and stipulations after being approved by and with the assent of the congregation, unless any obstacle arise; – or twice the number of elders needed may be presented, half of them to be chosen by the congregation, and ordained to office in the same manner, according to the (liturgical) form for this purpose.” ¹ Article 24 CO indicates that the same procedure is to be followed for calling deacons to office. The simple reading of this article would suggest that, if an election is held – and we note that an election is optional, not mandatory – the council would ordain those chosen by the congregation. However, it is worth noting that the council is not explicitly bound to the outcome of the election. Dr. F.L. Rutgers, a respected authority on Reformed church polity, is claimed to have said: “The consistory does not need to follow the choice of the congregation.” ²

In conclusion, CO 1619 does suggest the council appoint those chosen by the congregation if an election is held, but does not explicitly bind the council to this choice.

Three approaches regulated←⤒🔗

After the formation of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands with the Union of 1892, it was decided to thoroughly revise the church order. The revised church order was adopted by Synod Utrecht 1905, and is thus known as CO 1905. In North America, the Christian Reformed Churches adopted a revised church order in 1914, in content almost identical to CO 1905. Both these church orders have played a role in the drafting of our own church order.

With regard to Article 22 CO Dort, two revisions require attention. The first relates to the procedure for calling a person to office. CO 1619 does not mention the fact that the congregation be invited to submit to the council the names of brothers deemed suitable to serve in office. This was introduced into CO 1905. Thus a procedure of maximally six steps was created: recommendations from within the congregation; presentation by the council; (3) election by the congregation; (4) appointment by the council; (5) approbation by the congregation; and (6) ordination during a worship service. Article 22 CO 1905 indicates that steps (1), (2), and (3) are optional, while steps (4), (5), and (6) are mandatory.

A second revision is the wording of step (3). It now read: “or present a double number to the congregation and thereupon ordain the one-half chosen by it, in the aforesaid manner.” Originally, election and ordination were referred to in two separate phrases. CO 1905 placed them in one single phrase. This slightly tighter formulation suggests that the council was considered bound to the outcome of the election.

In his 1923 commentary on the church order J. Jansen³ explains the background to the first revision just mentioned. He indicates it was introduced “under the influence of the more democratic current of our time” (p. 97). He explains how in the history of the Dutch Reformed churches there have been three approaches to the procedure of calling to office.

The “more aristocratic approach” has the council appointing, the congregation approbating, and then the ordination. It was commonly practiced by the French churches.

The “more aristocratic-democratic approach” has the council presenting, the congregation electing, the council appointing, the congregation approbating, and then the ordination. It was commonly practiced by the churches in the southern Netherlands (Flanders and Zeeland).

The “more democratic approach” had the congregation recommending, the council electing and appointing, the congregation approbating, and then the ordination. It was practiced by the refugee congregation in London.

The “more democratic approach” bound the council to those recommended from within the congregation. Jansen notes that this approach was as much part and parcel of the Reformed tradition as the other two approaches. Hence it was used to legitimize the introduction of a more democratic approach into the procedure for calling brothers to office. As such, the second revision noted above would probably have been considered to be no more than a linguistic revision. For allowing the congregation to recommend names has its roots in a Reformed tradition in which the congregation exercises a measure of authority over the council.

When discussing the matter of women voting, Jansen sees voting as the exercising of general power to rule, in line with Voetius, a member of the Synod of Dort 1618-1619 and considered the father of Dort church polity. Because power is being exercised, it is an exercise of authority and the sisters are excluded from participation in the voting, Jansen explains.

Noteworthy is yet the following comment of Jansen in regards to the revised Article 22 CO: “The unity and clarity of this article has suffered from this (revision), but its intention can be understood. It begins with the more aristocratic ground pattern … and then follows the more democratic manner, the more aristocratic manner, and the more aristocratic-democratic manner.” (p. 97)

It would seem to me that in the existence of these three approaches we find the seeds for the present-day confusion on whether the Church Order allows females to participate in the voting for office bearers.

Article 3 CO created←⤒🔗

The next major revision of the Church Order undertaken in our church history is that which led to the adoption of CO 1978 in the “Liberated” Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and CO 1983 in our own churches. Though the two products are not as closely related as CO 1905 and CO 1914 are, the Dutch revision did influence the Canadian revision.

CO 1978 merged the election of elders and deacons into a single article, which became Article 20. With regards to the issue we are looking at, it stipulates: “The consistory shall allow the congregation to choose from a double number, and next appoint those chosen … Alternatively the consistory shall present as many people as there are vacancies to be filled.”

Two things are to be noted here. First, the order of mentioning “the more aristocratic-democratic approach” and “the more aristocratic approach” is reversed, indicating a preference for the former.⁴ Second, the council is bound to appointing those chosen. The sentence here reads, “The consistory shall let the congregation choose from a double number and next appointed those chosen.”

In 1983 the Canadian Reformed Churches revised the church order to suit their needs. CO 1983 contains just one article on the calling to office, it applies to ministers, elders, and deacons. Here, the appointment to office is no longer a phrase or secondary sentence, but a sentence on its own, indeed, a separate paragraph: “Those elected shall be appointed by the consistory with the deacons in accordance with the adopted regulations.” The phrase “in accordance with the adopted regulations” is an addition.

The debate on women voting is heated, in part because of the stipulations of Article 3 CO. We have seen that having a clear church order is important, and reviewed the textual history of this article to understand its intent. In the following instalment we will be looking at various aspects to the sentence in question, and suggest how it might be revised.

The debate on women voting is heated, in part because of the stipulations of Article 3 CO.

Compulsory or advisory?←⤒🔗

In his practical guide to the Church Order, W.W.J. VanOene suggests it is otherwise. His comments are to be found not in connection with Article 3 CO, but in connection with Article 5 of a set of Regulations for the Election of Elders and Deacons found in Appendix I. VanOene writes, “Election by the congregation does not yet mean that one is now automatically appointed. This is up to the consistory with the deacons … It may be expected that they now appoint those who were elected.” But VanOene does allow for the Council to deviate from the election result (p. 348). On this issue, VanOene is in the good company of Rutgers almost 100 years earlier. This suggests appointing those elected is advisory. The same position was assumed in a recent Clarion editorial (May 6, 2011).

How might this seeming contradiction be explained? To answer that question, some consideration has to be given to the words “election” and “elected” in Article 3 CO. We also need to look at the whole sentence.

Election←⤒🔗

The term “election” can be understood in a broad sense and in a narrow sense. Understood in the broad sense, the term “election” refers to the whole process beginning with the Council receiving recommendations from the congregation and ending prior to appointment.

This is how most works on the Church Order use it. For example, VanOene speaks of “Regulations for the Election…” and begins this “Election” with the process of receiving recommendations from within the congregation. Article 3 CO uses the term “election” in this way in its third paragraph. Understood in this broad sense, “those elected” does not necessarily refer to those voted in by the congregation, but simply those who are indicated to be appointed by the procedure that has been followed. While, by implication, it still binds the Council to the outcome of a vote of the congregation, the force of that binding could be different. One could argue, that prior to the appointment (and thus still part of the “election” in the broad sense) the Council decides to drop someone voted in, elects another, and appoints that person. That, too, would see Council appointing “those elected.”

But this is not the way the term “elected” in the sixth paragraph is commonly understood. For example, Synod 2010 spoke of “the participation of only the male communicant members of the congregation in the election of office bearers” as being the Reformed tradition for the past 400 years (Art. 176, cons. 3.12). That is only true if “election” strictly refers to “voting,” the narrow sense of understanding this term.

The term “elected” in the sixth paragraph of Article 3 CO can thus be understood in two ways. Historical analysis of the same expression in Belgic Confession Article 31 indicates there, too, it may be understood in two ways.

The whole sentence←⤒🔗

Article 3 CO indicates: “Those elected shall be appointed by the consistory with the deacons in accordance with the adopted regulations.” One could argue that this sentence does not mandate “the appointment of those chosen,” but mandates “an appointment in accordance with local regulations.” If such local regulations allow for women to vote, then all is fine.

However, this understanding of the sentence does not accord with the textual history of the article. CO 1619, CO 1905, CO 1914, and CO 1978 do not contain such a reference. Furthermore, originally the point of this line was that, even if the congregation chooses, it is the Council who appoints.

One may even argue that the reference to “local regulations” in this sentence is superfluous. For the third paragraph of Article 3 CO already prescribes this.

As such, there are two ways to read this sentence.

Ambiguity←⤒🔗

There are thus two ambiguities in the sixth paragraph of Article 3 CO. The term “elected” can be understood in two ways and the focus of “shall” is not clear.

Ambiguity in the Church Order is not a good thing. For ambiguity in a church order requires interpretation by office bearers and assemblies when applying that church order. While a measure of ambiguity can never be avoided, the reason why “legalese” exists is to minimize ambiguity and have agreements state as precisely as possible what is and what is not intended. Lack of clarity is a source for charged discussions (like this one) which could be avoided. Hence it would be helpful to revise Article 3 CO.

The authority of the congregation←⤒🔗

Synod 2010 considered “the statement in the Minority Report: ‘Authority may be delegated by involving the congregation yet remains with the council of the congregation at all times,” to be “puzzling and confusing.” The consideration continues: “The Minority Report does not give evidence that it is even possible for a consistory (with or without deacons) to delegate its God-given authority. It is at least foreign to Reformed church polity” (Art. 176, cons. 3.8).

Strictly speaking the consideration is correct: the idea of Council delegating authority to the congregation is foreign to Reformed church polity. One can adduce the original Church Order of Dort for this, as well as the already referenced comments of Rutgers in the broader Dort tradition and VanOene in our own more recent tradition.

However, it would be erroneous to claim that it is foreign to Reformed church polity that the congregation has no authority of its own and is always subject to the Council in all things. The more democratic process of electing office bearers existed already in the mid-sixteenth century. Furthermore, it was introduced into CO 1905 (Netherlands) and CO 1914 (North America). Jansen argued that the opening line of CO 1905 Article 22 “The elders shall be chosen by the judgment of the consistory and the deacons” – should have added to it the words “with the co-operation of the congregation” for BC Article 31 indicates that ministers, elders, and deacons “ought to be chosen to their offices by lawful election of the church.” (Mind you, in the light of HC Q/A 85 that is debatable.) Jansen further stated: “According to Scripture, the right of election belongs to the congregation under leadership of the consistory” (p. 96). It should also be noted that the Form for Ordination asks whether those to be ordained feel in their hearts that God himself, through his congregation, has called them to these offices. Interestingly, this form has its origins with the Dutch refugee congregation in London that practiced the more democratic approach. In fact, it is somewhat remarkable, that in our tradition the questions have never (even today) been revised to match the practices outlined in CO 1619, which came almost seventy years later.

While it is foreign to Reformed church polity to say that the Council delegates authority to the congregation, it is not foreign to Reformed church polity to say that the congregation has a measure of authority. For example, Jansen also wrote: “In the organism of the congregation Christ grants to the body of the offices the leading and ruling power and to the congregational members to helping and controlling power” (p. 96). On the one hand, there is a “power” with the congregation. On the other hand, this power is restricted in that it is “helping” and “controlling,” as opposed to “leading” and “ruling.” Elsewhere Jansen speaks of this as the “general power to rule” and the “specific power to rule” (p. 99). The question becomes: does “power” imply “authority” or is “authority” limited to just “leading and ruling”?

So we find that there are in fact two positions in the Reformed tradition. These align with the more aristocratic approach and the more democratic approach to electing office bearers. And then a middle position was born, the more aristocratic-democratic approach. It is this approach that is practiced by most Reformed churches in the Dort tradition, including our own. From a procedural and judicial point of view compromise has not proven helpful.

I may have lost the reader by now. My point is, the confusion in our churches over whether female communicant members can be allowed to vote is caused not just by inconclusiveness on what Scripture teaches in regard to voting. It is also caused by the co-existence of two positions on the authority of the congregation in the tradition of Dort church polity. Further, given that the most common practice is a compromise, there will always be division over the definition of “voting” in relation to authority. Those inclined to the more aristocratic position will argue voting is an act of authority and hence disallow the sisters from voting. Those inclined to the more democratic position will argue voting is not act of authority, and thus advocate the privilege of voting for female communicant members.

Should women vote?←⤒🔗

I consider it proven that there are various ways of understanding Article 3 CO and that there are three different procedures in the tradition of Reformed church polity for persons to be called to office. The plain reading of Article 3 CO in its present rendering is that the word “shall” implies the Council is bound to the decision of the congregation. The history of this article, in particular the changes made in 1905/1914, indicates revisions have taken place within a democratizing context. Further, the term “elected” in the line in question is commonly understood in the narrow sense of “voted.”

While other positions can be argued, this most common practice in our churches suggests that the current wording of Article 3 CO as commonly understood defines voting as an act of authority. As Scripture clearly indicates that women are not to exercise authority in the church (1 Tim 2:12), to allow communicant female members to vote would be “to go beyond what has been agreed upon by the churches in Article 3 CO.”

This implies that when Synod 2010 adopted recommendation 4.3 as found in Article 176, the churches did not receive the freedom to allow female communicant members to vote.

What needs to change?←⤒🔗

The text of Article 3 CO should prevent us from allowing sisters to participate in the election of officers. This is clearly not the situation the Canadian Reformed Churches intended at their most recent synod. The intention was to leave it in the freedom of the local churches to determine a practice. Hence, the wording of Article 3 CO ought to be changed.

Currently, the fullest process for calling someone to office is a six step procedure: recommendation from within the congregation, presentation by the Council, voting by the congregation, appointment by the Council, approbation by the congregation, and ordination.

In this process, most believe that “voting” should be no more than an instrument used by a Council to consult with the congregation and seek its input. Ideally, the “vote” should have the character of a nonbinding referendum.

It seems advisable, then, to drop the term “election” in the sentence in question and introduce the concept “consultation.” It will then be clear that those being consulted present their opinion in a voluntary and advisory capacity. The advice is not binding. By means of local regulations (one for the calling of ministers and the other for the calling of elders and deacons) the mode of such a consultation can be determined: will it mean a vote (as is most common for elders and deacons) or can it be no more than a meeting of Council with the congregation at which discussion takes place (as is becoming more common when seeking to call a minister).

A Draft Article 3 CO←⤒🔗

What would this mean in terms of our church order? The paragraphs “The consistory with the deacons shall present to the congregation either as many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled, or at the most twice as many, from which number the congregation shall chose as many as are needed. Those elected shall be appointed by the consistory with the deacons in accordance with the adopted regulations” would be dropped.

In their place, the churches could insert something like the following: “The appointment to office shall take place by the consistory with the deacons. The consistory with the deacons is free to consult with the congregation on who to appoint to office. During such consultation, the consistory with the deacons shall present to the congregation at the most twice as many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled. From this number the congregation can then choose as many as are needed. The consistory with deacons will duly consider the results of this choice when appointing brothers to office. The consistory with deacons may also simply appoint as many brothers as there are vacancies to be filled.”

There is no need to refer to “the adopted regulations” here as they are already referenced in the third paragraph of Article 3 CO.

By the way, if the Proposed Joint Church Order were in effect, there would be no issue with having sisters vote. One might then wonder, why not simply adopt the PJCO into our church order? The problem is that the PJCO regulates the calling to office in six different articles. It would be quite a cumbersome undertaking to incorporate its texts into our church order.

In closing←⤒🔗

Stating clearly in the Church Order that voting for office bearers is not an act of authority will take some of the sting out of this debate. It will give “lawful room” to female communicant members to participate in the second step of the procedure to calling someone to office, consultation, just as they may already participate in the first step, recommendation, and the third step, approbation. Most importantly, it will allow all communicant members to act in accordance with their conscience, a principle we confess with Article 32 of the Belgic Confession. For, as a recent Clarion editorial indicated, “This is a matter about which a difference of opinion can exist.”

Out of respect for the Church Order, the Abbotsford Canadian Reformed Church has decided not to introduce voting by female communicant members at this time, but will first seek to have the Church Order revised on this point.