Although WICO was supposedly settled 30 years ago, Covenant CRC's loss of 30% of its congregation over the issue of female elders suggests that it is still a very contentious matter
Jessica, I also am interested in seeing what kind of path the CRC charts. Your connecting that the CRC may become a “denomination unto itself” is valid. I’m optimistic that this path will include growth in commitment to the historic creeds and confessions, continuing in the path set out by the last several synods. I also agree that our failure to lay out a proper biblical position on WICO made the same-sex marriage discussion more difficult. It is apparent that Dr. Cooper’s “the former was not confessional, the latter is confessional” is not a good enough argument. And I share some of the blame for Synod 2022 not making a stronger theology of body statement in support the Human Sexuality Report conclusions.
I share grief over the cost of the WICO divisions in our church. My little church in the Pacific Northwest lost families when we approved women deacons and also when because we only have male elders. My gut feeling is that this division has more to do with, as Carl Trueman suggests, the “rise and triumph of the modern self” than a lack of theological precision. And I am convinced that it is conflict and failure to submit and reconcile that is the primary cause of our angst. Not too long ago I was sitting in small local breakfast joint with another couple from church at the next table. Two more people came in. The wait staff took orders. When they returned with food, the couple who ordered second were served first. The other couple made a huge issue of being served second, storming out of the diner. My friend, who loves the pancakes there, looked over at me and said profoundly, “The pancakes don’t taste at good today.” Conflict does that to pancakes and the gospel. I don’t think the CRC tastes as good to the world because of the conflict you have identified.
Finally, I would challenge your use of “incompatible.” It’s not always easy, but I believe my views of the WICO issue still allow me to work with women officebearers in our larger church family. Ten years ago I was having a moment of personal crisis over division in the CRC family when a godly CRC leader suggested that the trial could be a part of my sanctification. As Cowper wrote, “God works in a mysterious way.” Might it be that our struggle over WICO sharpened the CRC to stand firm over the issue of human sexuality? Just thinking out loud. Thank you for sharing your struggle.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic Jessica. I"m not sure exactly where it was, but I believe sometime during Synod 2022, the denomination marked the 25 Anniversary of WICO, and ran through a number of stats on how many churches participate. Off the top of my head, the numbers were around 50% of the CRC has had women serve as deacons, maybe 35% as elders, & 20 some percent as pastors (and I don't think these numbers were necessarily current, but just counted any church that had once had a woman officially serve in one of these roles). From this, I found it interesting how far WICO had and hadn't progressed in the denomination.
Second, I'm not sure that the denomination needs to make a statement about it being a practice of being "grandfathered" in, as beyond the local congregation, I don't think that reversal of the congregations ordination of women would have had any impact. I doubt it would have changed anything at the Classis, and it certainly wouldn't have impacted anything at the denomination level that I can think of (other than maybe the possibility of being hired to a denominational position, as you pointed out).
So, if it is only a local decision, why was their the push back in your local context? Not knowing the church that you attended at all, my guess is that the scares from when that congregation first opened the offices to women still remain. Maybe there are families that one brother attends, while one has gone elsewhere ever since. Maybe there were founding members of the congregation that left over the decision. However it played out, there was likely a cost and a dividing line that was made when they opened the church offices to women. Not actively practicing it for a season, might have been something that people were fine with going along with, but the thought of revisiting their decision and possibly overturning it was apparently still too fresh for some that experienced the first battle and division?
Jessica, I also am interested in seeing what kind of path the CRC charts. Your connecting that the CRC may become a “denomination unto itself” is valid. I’m optimistic that this path will include growth in commitment to the historic creeds and confessions, continuing in the path set out by the last several synods. I also agree that our failure to lay out a proper biblical position on WICO made the same-sex marriage discussion more difficult. It is apparent that Dr. Cooper’s “the former was not confessional, the latter is confessional” is not a good enough argument. And I share some of the blame for Synod 2022 not making a stronger theology of body statement in support the Human Sexuality Report conclusions.
I share grief over the cost of the WICO divisions in our church. My little church in the Pacific Northwest lost families when we approved women deacons and also when because we only have male elders. My gut feeling is that this division has more to do with, as Carl Trueman suggests, the “rise and triumph of the modern self” than a lack of theological precision. And I am convinced that it is conflict and failure to submit and reconcile that is the primary cause of our angst. Not too long ago I was sitting in small local breakfast joint with another couple from church at the next table. Two more people came in. The wait staff took orders. When they returned with food, the couple who ordered second were served first. The other couple made a huge issue of being served second, storming out of the diner. My friend, who loves the pancakes there, looked over at me and said profoundly, “The pancakes don’t taste at good today.” Conflict does that to pancakes and the gospel. I don’t think the CRC tastes as good to the world because of the conflict you have identified.
Finally, I would challenge your use of “incompatible.” It’s not always easy, but I believe my views of the WICO issue still allow me to work with women officebearers in our larger church family. Ten years ago I was having a moment of personal crisis over division in the CRC family when a godly CRC leader suggested that the trial could be a part of my sanctification. As Cowper wrote, “God works in a mysterious way.” Might it be that our struggle over WICO sharpened the CRC to stand firm over the issue of human sexuality? Just thinking out loud. Thank you for sharing your struggle.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic Jessica. I"m not sure exactly where it was, but I believe sometime during Synod 2022, the denomination marked the 25 Anniversary of WICO, and ran through a number of stats on how many churches participate. Off the top of my head, the numbers were around 50% of the CRC has had women serve as deacons, maybe 35% as elders, & 20 some percent as pastors (and I don't think these numbers were necessarily current, but just counted any church that had once had a woman officially serve in one of these roles). From this, I found it interesting how far WICO had and hadn't progressed in the denomination.
Second, I'm not sure that the denomination needs to make a statement about it being a practice of being "grandfathered" in, as beyond the local congregation, I don't think that reversal of the congregations ordination of women would have had any impact. I doubt it would have changed anything at the Classis, and it certainly wouldn't have impacted anything at the denomination level that I can think of (other than maybe the possibility of being hired to a denominational position, as you pointed out).
So, if it is only a local decision, why was their the push back in your local context? Not knowing the church that you attended at all, my guess is that the scares from when that congregation first opened the offices to women still remain. Maybe there are families that one brother attends, while one has gone elsewhere ever since. Maybe there were founding members of the congregation that left over the decision. However it played out, there was likely a cost and a dividing line that was made when they opened the church offices to women. Not actively practicing it for a season, might have been something that people were fine with going along with, but the thought of revisiting their decision and possibly overturning it was apparently still too fresh for some that experienced the first battle and division?