1999 Issue 6 - Covenant Voting - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1999 Issue 6 - Covenant Voting - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/8

Introdnction

The purpose ofthis article is

to set forth the Biblical and

Confessional argumeljt for

restricting congregational voting

to male heads of

households.

Though an admittedly unpopular

position, it is the official position

of the Reformed Presbyterian

Church In The United States

(RPCUS). We believe this

limitation is consistent with the

teachings of God's Word on

church government, and that it

may be deduced by good and

necessary consequence

from the system of truth

set forth in the Westminster

Confession

of

Faith and its

Directories. Clear infer-

ences are as binding upon

Before we proceed with our

biblical argumentation, we need

to emphasize that the RPCUS

position is not chauvinistic. We

are not anti-woman. The Scrip

ture teaches that women are to

be honored as fellow heirs of the

grace

of

life (I Peter 3 :7). The

new covenant opens up many

privileges to

~ o m n

that were

not granted to her for various

reasons under the old. These

privileges largely concerned the

sacraments of the church. In

the old covenant church, the two

sacraments were that of circum-

The new covenant extends

comparatively greater partiCipa

tion to women in its rites and

ceremonies. We are told in

Galatians 3:26,27 that there is no

longer any distinction between

male and female pertaining to

entrance into the covenant

community: For you are all

sons of God through faith in

Christ Jesus. For all of you who

were baptized into Christ have

clothed yourselves with Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek,

there is neither slave nor free

man, there is neither male nor

female, for you are all one

CovenantVoting in Christ Jesus.

In

the sacrament

of

the

justification a the

RPCUS

practice

o

estricting

congregational votin to male heads ofhouleholds Lord s Supper, the new

us, according to our Con

fession, as the foundational

doctrines that are explicitly

spelled out. We read in chapter

I section VI of the Westminster

Confession Of Faith, The

whole counsel of God, concern

ing all things necessary for his

own glory, man's salvation, faith,

and life, is either expressly set

down in scripture, or by good

and necessary consequence may

be deduced from scripture ...

John Otis

Icovenant opens participa-

L =

tion up to the women in the

In his exposition

of

the Westmin

ster Confession of Faith, Robert

Shaw said the following con

cerning this portiod of the

Confession:

... it

we hold that

couclusions fairly deduced from

the declarations of the Word of

God are as truly parts

of

divine

revelation as

if

they were

expressly taught in the Sacred

Volume. We shall demonstrate

from,the Standards and its proof

texts that the Scripture does

restrict congregational voting to

only male heads of households.

The Principle

of

Male

Headship

in the Old Covenant

cision and the Passover meal. In

these two old covenant sacra

ments, women did not personally

participate. Only males received

the sign of the covenant through

circumcision, and only adult

circumcised males partook of the

Passover meaL By their non

participation, did this e ~ that

women did not share in the

blessings of the covenant? No,

women fully shared in the

blessings of the covenant

through their male representa

tives. When Abraham believed

in the promises of God by faith

and then was circumcised, his

wife Sarah was obviously

included in this covenant through

her husband. Unmarried women

~ ~ r

represented through their

tathers and elder brothers if

there was no father in the

household. Likewise, in the

. Passover meal, both women and

children were represented via

the'male head of household.

The New Covenant

Inclusion of Women

28 - THE COUNSELofChalcedon - October/November, 1999

covenant community. In I

Corinthians 11 Paul is address-

. ing the church as

it

is gathered

for worship and explaining the.

proper observance off the Lord's

Supper; In the Passover meal,

only male heads partook of the

meal; but now, in

theLord s

Supper, women and some chil

dren could partake of the meal.

We read in I Corinthians 11 :28:

But let a man examine himself,

and so let him eat ofthe bread

and drink

of

the cup:' The word

for man in this passage is the

Greek word, anthropos. This

is the generic word used for

man; it would include women

and children. When a New

Testament writer wanted to

distinguish the sexes, aner was

typically used. In the context of

I Corinthians

11;

the word aner

is exc1usivelyused,until verse

28. In all the references prior to

verse 28, the word aner is

referring to a male

as

opposed to

a female. If Paul had wanted to

restrict the sacrament of the

Lord's Supperto males, he would

have

used

the word aner.


2/8

In the light of this expansion,

the following argument is antici

pated: since there is an expan

sion ofprivileges in the new

covenant to incorporate women

in church sacraments, this should

extend to voting privileges.

However, there is no explicit

reference in the New Testament

to justify this position, and there

is no example of this or a related

practice occurring

in

the days of

the apostles from which we

could support the practice of

female voting by good and

necessalY consequence.

Hermeneutics

and

Female Voting

t is crucial that we grasp a

key principle in Bible interpreta

tion. Since there is

an

overarching unity to the Bible,

we must assume that a law or a

regulation of the old covenant is

still operative unless the new

covenant nullifies it What was

true in the old covenant is true in

the new covenant unless there is

an explicit statement in the new

covenant that sets it aside, or if

one can exegetically deduce

from Scripture that something

has changed. For example,

opponents of the Reformed

doctrine of infant baptism have

argned that since there is no

explicit reference

in

the New

Testament that instructs

us

to

baptize infants, then this practice

must be unbiblicaL These

opponents have said that refer

ences to household baptisms do

not specifically point to infant

baptism. On the other hand,

Reformed theology has con

tended that the lack of any

explicit reference to infant

baptism in the New Testament

does not imply that such didn't

occur. The argument for infant

baptism is that God commanded

His old covenant people to

circumcise their male children as

the sign and seal of His covenant

promises to Israel. We would

assume that circumcision would

still be operative in the new

covenant

if there was no explicit

or properly deduced argument to

indicate otherwise. In the light

of

an explicit biblical command,

the lack of an explicit command

for infant baptism and examples

of it is not a valid argument

against infant baptism.

In a similar way, those who

disagree with the RPCUS

position ofprohibiting women

and children from congregational

voting might argue, There is no

explicit statement in the West

minster Standards that forbids

them. Such an argument is on

as

shaky exegetical and theologi

cal ground as those who deny

infant baptism. Where is the

explicit statement in the West

minster Standards forbidding

women from holding the church

offices of elder and deacon?

Does this mean that women can

hold these offices? We will see

that the Westminster Standards

clearly imply by good and neces

sary deduction that women are

not to hold church office by

examining primarily the proof

texts given to support the

Standard's statements. Like

wise, this applies to the prohibi

tion against women having a

congregational vote.

The Biblical rgument for

Covenant Voting

Introduction

How shall we build our

biblical argument that prohibits

women from congregational

voting? First, we shall establish

the fact that in the Old Testa

ment , the term whole congre

gation or whole assembly does .

not always include everyone

without exception, such as men,

women, and children. We will

demonstrate that the term

whole congregation can be

legitimately restricted to male

heads of households. We will

establish that adult males repre

sented their respective house

holds in the old covenant sacra

ment

of

the Passover meal. We

will establish the fact that male

heads of households often

represented the whole congre

gation not only in public worship

but also

in

civil government.

Generally, we will e ~ t b l i s h the

principle of male representation

in the old covenant and that this

principle carries fOlward in the

new covenant organization of the

church.

The Westminster Divines on

hurch

overnment

In The Form of Church

Government dealing with the

section on Pastors, comment is

made that the public reading of

the Scriptures belongs to the

office of pastor. Appealing to

the church in the Old Testament

makes justification for this. The

section reads, That the priests

and Levites in the Jewish church

were trusted with the public

reading of the word is proved.

In the section entitled, Other

Church Governors, The Form

of Church Government states,

As there were in the Jewish

church elders of the people

joined with the priests and

Levites in the government of the

church; so Christ who hath

instituted government, and

governors ecclesiastical in the

church, hath furnished some in

his church, beside the ministers

of the word, with gifts for

government ... Which officers

reformed churches commonly

call Elders. t is evident that a

continuity is seen between the

Old Testament church structure

and the New Testament.

October/November, 1999 -THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - 29


3/8

Lessons

from

the Passover

In the observance of the

Passover meal, male heads of

households

are

said to 'represent

their own households, but also

collectively they are said to

represent

the

congregation or

whole assembly of thecongrega

tion. We read in Exodus 12:3,4

that' God said to Moses and

Aaron, Speak to all the congre

gation ofIsrael, saying

'On

the

tenth

of

this month they are each

one to take a lamb for them

selves, according to their fa

thers' households, a lamb for

each household. Now if the

household is too small for a lamb,

then

he

and his neighbor nearest

to his house are to take one

according to the number

of

persons in them; according to

what each man should eat, you

are to divide the lamb.

How do we know that only

adult males ate the Passover

meal, representing their entire

household

of

women and chil

dren? The words each one

that are found in verses 3 and 4

are the Hebrew

word,

eesh.

This Hebrew word is used more

than two thousand times in the

Old Testament. The word is

usually used to refer to men

as

individuals rather than as man

kind in general, although it can

be used generically. The basic

idea conveyed by eesh is

maleness as opposed to female

ness.

Exodus 12:6 says, And you

shall keep it until the fourteenth

day of the same month, then the

whole assembly

of

the congrega

tion ofIsrael is

to

kill it at

twilight.;' A very significant point

is that adult male heads of

households

are

collectively said

to be all the congregation and

the whole assembly of the

congregation. Here is the

principle ofmale representation

clearly set forth. Only the adult

males

ate

the Passoyer meal.

The mechanics

of

how the

Passover meal wast\> be ob

served is seen in Exodus 12:21,

Then Moses called for all the

elders

of

Israel, and said to

them, go and take for yourselves

lambs, according to your families,

and slay the Passover lamb.

The term elder is the Hebrew:,

word, zagen, which often

refers to old aged men. Some

times it is used to refer to a civil

ruling body

of

men who render

judicial decisions in the gates

of

the city. In Exodus 12:21 the

elders would refer to the old men

of

extended families such as the

heads

oftribes.

These patri- '

archs of the tribes would take

lambs for each

of

their families.

In other words, these elders

would give a lamb to each male

head

of

household in their tribes.

In Exodus 12:22 we read,

and you shall tal


4/8

offering, ... So they took what

Moses had commanded to the

front

of

the tent

of

meeting, and

the whole congregation came

near and stood before the Lord."

Kiel and Delitzsch in their Old

Testament commentary make

this observation abont this

passage, "To this end Aaron and

his sons were to bring to the

front

of

the Tabernacle a yonng

calf as a sin offering ... , and the

people were to bring through

their elders a he-goat for a sin

offering" (Kiel and Delitzsch,

Commentary on the Old Testa

ment, Vol. I, p.345). Leviticus

9:5 emphasized that the "whole

congregation" came near and

stood before the Lord. Concern

ing this phrase, Kiel and

Delitzsch say, " ... and the con

gregation (in the persons of its

elders) were

to

stand before

Jehovah" (Ibid.).

The Selection

o

Elders n

the Old Covenant

We

noted earlier that the

Westminster framers saw a

pattern in the Old Testament

church for having ruling elders in

the New Testament church.

How were these elders

of

Israel

chosen? In Exodus

18

Moses'

father-in-law, Jethro, tells Moses

that he needs to delegate most

of

the necessary judicial decisions

to other people. Jethro says in

Exodus

18

:21 - "Furthermore,

you shall select out

of

all the

people able men who fear God,

men

of

truth, those who hate

dishonest gain; and you shall

place these over them,

as

leaders

of

thousands,

of

fifties

and

of

tens."

We

are told in

Deuteronomy 1:13-15 how this

counsel was carried ont. Moses

told Israel the following: "

Choose wise and discerning and

experienced men from your

tribes, and I will appoint them as

your heads. And.yon answered

me and said, 'The thing which

you have said to do is good.' So

I took the heads

of

your tribes,

wise and experienced men, and

appointed them heads over you,

leaders

of

thousands, and

of

hundreds, of fifties and of tens,

and officers for your tribes."

The people chose their represen

tatives, and Moses appointed

them as judges. Would women

have voted for their representa

tives? No Women in the old

covenant did not receive the sign

of

the covenant. They did not

partake of the Passover. They

did not present their sacrificial

offerings to the priests. Women

had no part in the detennination

of civil officials. Women were

represented through their male

heads

of

households.

The Meaning Qf All the

Congregation

There are several places in

the Old Testament that demon

strate that the term "all the

congregation" is often restricted

to male heads

of

households. In

Numbers I :2,3 we read where

God commands Moses to: "Take

a census of all the congregation

of

the sons

of

Israel by their

families, by their father's honse

holds, according to the nnmber

of names, every male, head by

head from twenty years old and

npward, ... " Obvionsly, male

heads of families are said to

constitute "all the congregation

of

the sons

of

Israel."

In Nnmbers I I 10 there is an

incident where Israel was

complaining that it had only

manna to eat and no meat. In

verse 10 Moses heard the people

weeping thronghout their fami

lies. Each

Inan

eesh, was

weeping at the doorway

of

his

tent.

We

learn that the "eesh"

represented their respective

households, which constitnted

the phrase, "the people."

In Nnmbers

13

we are told

that twelve spies were chosen to

give a reconnaissance report

of

the land

of

Canaan. These spies

were the heads of the twelve

tribes

of

Israel.

We

learn that

ten spies gave a bad report in .

that they enconraged Israel not

to fight against the inhabitants

of

Canaan. These spies said that it

would be virtual suicide to

attempt to fight against giants

and fortified cities. Only Joshua

and Caleb gave a good report

rooted in faith in the promise

of

God. We are told in Numbers

14:1-3 - "Then all the congrega

tion lifted their voices and cried,

and the people wept that night.

And all the sons

of

Israel

grumbled against Moses and

Aaron; and the whole congrega

tion said to them, 'Would that we

had died in the land

of

Egypt Or

would that we had died in this

wilderness And why is the

Lord bringing us into this land, to

fall by the sword? Our wives

and our little ones will become

plunder; would it not be better

for us to return to Egypt?" The

phrase "the whole congregation"

in verse 2 is limited to male

heads because in verse 3 these

male heads told Moses and

Aaron that their wives and little

ones would become plunder.

Hence, male heads of house

holds are said to be the whole

congregation.

In Numbers 16:1,2 we read

that Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and

On, together with 250 leaders of

the congregation who were

chosen by the Assembly rebelled

against Moses and Aaron. We

are told in Numbers 16:19

"Thus Korah assembled all the

congregation against them at the

doorway

of

the tent of meeting.

October/November, 1999 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - 31


5/8

And the glory of the Lord

of

refuge to which he fled; ...

The Place

of

Women

n

the

appeared to all the congrega-

Who is the congregation? Ac-

Government of the

tion. t is evident from the

cording to Joshua 20:4, the

New Covenant Church

passage

that the phrase, all the

judges in the cities

of

refuge

The governing principle in the

congregat ion was restricted to were the elders

of

the city, for

New Testament pertaining to

only the male heads that are

we read - Andhe shall flee to

mentioned in Numbers 6:

1 2. one

of

these cities, and shall

women is that they are to keep

We are told that these rebellious

stand at the entrauce

of

the gate

silent in the churches and be

submissive to their own hus-

men represented their entire

of

the city

and

state his case in

bands. We read in I Corinthians

households, which included their

the hearing of the elders of that

wives

and

children. God com-

city; and they shall take him

into

14:34,35 - Let the women keep

manded Moses to instruct the

the city to them and give him a

silent in the churches; for they

rest of the congregation to

place, so that he may dwell

are not permitted to speak, but

depart from the tents of the

among them.

Moreover, we

let them subject themselves, just

wicked men. Numbers 16:27

are told in Joshua 20:6- And

as the Law says.

And

if they

states: So they got back from

he shall dwell in that city until he

desire to learn anything, let them

around the dwellings ofKorah,

stands before the congregation

ask their own husbands at home;

Dathan and Abiram; and Dathan

for judgment until the death

of

for it is improper for a woman to

and Abiram came and stood at

the one who is high priest in

speak in church.

The contrast

the doorway

of

their tents, along those days

...

t

is evident that is clear in the passage - for

with their wives

and

their sons

the phrase, the congregation is

they are not permitted to speak,

and their little ones. When God

represented by the elders of the

but let them subject them-

judged these

men

for their

city.

selves ...

rebellion, the Scripture states in

Summary

of

rgument from

I Timothy 2: 11-14 gives a

Numbers 16:32: and the earth

the ld Covenant

similar admonition as the

opened its mouth and swallowed

The Old Testament clearly

Corinthian passage: Let a

them up, and their households, all

woman quietly receive instruc-

the men who belonged to Korah,

establishes the principle

of

tion with entire submissiveness.

with

their possessions. t was

household representation via

But I do not allow a woman to

the male heads who rebelled

male heads of households in

teach

or

exercise authority over

private and public worship and in

before God; however, by virtue

civil government. As we move

a man, but to remain quiet. For

of

the principle

of

male headship

into the New Testament we need

it was Adam who was fIrst

representation, the wives

and

to remember our basic herme-

created, and then Eve. And it

children of these households

neutic principle:

Old Testament

was not Adam who was de-

perished with their heads.

patterns are assumed to be still

ceived, but the woman being

In Numbers 35, we see cities

operative unless the New Testa-

quite deceived, fell into trans-

of

refuge established in Israel

ment explicitly nullifIes it, or if

gression. In public worship, a

for those who have unintention-

one can clearly deduce from the

woman is not allowed to teach or

ally killed their countrymen.

Scripture that it is no longer

exercise authority over a man in

Numbers 35:12 says, And

the

binding. With regard tothe

any capacity. She is to remain

cities shall be to

you

as a refuge

government of the church, there

quiet; thereby showing willing

from the avenger, so that the is nothing in the

New

Testament submission to her covenant

manslayer may not die until he

that would nUllify the principle

of

representative. This prohibition

stands before the congregation

male headship in the government

is not a cultural phenomenon that

for trial. Numbers 35:24,25

of the church. In fact, there is

has given way to a more enlight-

says: then the congregation

additional

New

Testament

ened modern age where women

shall judge between the slayer documentation that only male

have more dignity. The Timothy

and the blood avenger according heads of households are permit-

passage is very clear in stating

to these ordinances. And the ted to participate in the govern-

why women must keep silent in

congregation shall deliver the ment

of

the church. This would

publ ic worship: 1) Adam was

manslayer from the hand of the mean that women and children created fIrst.

When God created

blood avenger, and the congrega-

would be prohibited from con-

human society, he gave a struc-

tion shall restore him

to

his city gregational voting. ture

of

authority. I Corinthians

3 - THE COUNSELof Chalcedon - October/November, 1999


6/8

:3

is very explicit in stating this

fact, for we read - "But I want

you to understand that Christ is

the head

of

every man, and the

man is the head ofwoman, and

God is the head of Christ."

Wives are to be subject to their

husbands because

of

their

husband's priority in creation. 2)

The woman was deceived, not

the man.

The pplication

o

Covenant

Headship t Specific Church

Government Issues

Many denominations have

correctly understood the I

Timothy 2 passage as a prohibi

tion against women officers

(teaching and ruling elders and

deacons) and as a prohibition

against women teaching men in

the church. The problem

is

that

these denominations have fallen

short in the proper application of

the Scripture, for they permit

women to serve on pulpit com

mittees and vote in congrega

tional meetings. A congrega

tional vote is an exercise of

government or rule in the

church.

t

is an exercise of

ecclesiastical power. One of the

foremost responsibilities of a

congregational meeting is the

selection of church officers,

from the pastor to ruling elders

and deacons. This selection has

tremendous long-term effects

upon the ministry of any particu

lar church. This selection of

officers is probably the most

important decision in the life of

any church. Since it is not

unusual for women

to

constitute

a greater number of communing

or voting members in a church,

this means that women can out

vote the male members and

determine who is to be church

officers. t is not uncommon for

pulpit committees (this is a

committee that is selected by the

congregation to locate prospec

tive pastors, interview them, and

bring recommendations to the

congregation) to be comprised

of

at least one woman, which

means that her vote carries even

more power, seeing that the

pulpit committee is not that

large. The ability to select one

man over another

as

a church

officer is an exercise of author

ity or rule in the church. One

facet of government is the

placing of men in power and the

ability to remove them. For

women to have this kind of

power is totally out of accord

with the Scripture's admonition

to them to be submissive to male

headship.

Someone might argue that

forbidding women to vote in

congregational meetings disen

franchises her from the privi

leges of being co-heirs of the

promises

of

God that is clearly

taught in the New Testament

(Galatians 3:28 and I Peter 3:7).

This is not the case for a woman

is represented in the government

of the church through her hus

band, father, or elder.

What about single women in

the church? The Scripture is

clear that a single woman is

always under the authority of her

father until she is married (see I

Corinthians 7:36-38). In the

case of a widowed or divorced

woman, with or without children,

and who is the head of her own

household, she would be repre

sented by an elder of the church

who is appointed by the session

to provide spiritual counsel and

oversight to her household.

Unmarried women, who are

heads of their own households,

are not exempt from the clear

prohibition of Scripture. A

woman, regardless of her marital

position, cannot teach or

authority over any man in the

church. She is to be silent.

Covenant Voting and

the Westminster

Confession o Faith

Some might argue that the

RPCUS has digressed from its

own strict adherence to the

Westminster Standards

by

prohibiting women from congre

gational voting, for the Standards

do not explicitly state such a

prohibition. First, this argument

proves too much. Where do the

Standards explicitly teach that a

woman cannot hold a church

office? t doesn't; therefore,

does this mean that a woman

can hold church office?

f

course not

We

can implicitly

build a case for these prohibi

tions through the Scriptural proof

texts given at various points.

For example, in The Form of

Presbyterial Church Government

dealing with the section on

pastors, we find the following

comments concerning the public

reading of the Scriptures: "That

the priests and Levites in the

Jewish church were entrusted

with the public reading of the

word is proved. That the minis

ters of the gospel have an ample

charge and commission to

dispense the word, as well as

other ordinances, as the priests

and Levites had under the law,

proved, Isa Lxvi. 21. Matt.

Xxiii. 34 where our Saviour

entitleth the officers of the New

Testament, who he will send

forth, by the same names of the

teachers of the Old." t is clear

from this statement that a

parallel is being drawn between

priests and Levites of the Old

Testament with ministers of the

gospel in the New Testament.

Obviously, there are dissimilari

ties between the two groups, but

there are similarities as well.

October/November 1999 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - 33


7/8

The similarities are addressed in

the proof texts. Deuteronomy

31:9-11

and 1 Timothy

3:2

are

cited. In these two proof texts,

we

find that Moses wrote the

law, giving it to the priests, the

sons ofLevi for them to publicly

read

to the congregation

of

Israel.

We

are told in I Timothy

3:2 that one of the qualifications

for an elder is that, i he is

married, he is to be the husband

of one wife. Hence, we see that

the Westminster Standards do

implicitly teach from their

proof

texts that only males are to hold

church office.

In the Form of Church

Government pertaining to the

section

on

ordination, we read,

Ordination is the solemn setting

apart of a person to some

publick church office. The

proof

text given for this point is

Numbers 8:10-22. In verses 9

and

0 we read, So you shall

present the Levites before the

tent ofmeeting. You shall also

assemble the whole congregation

of

the sons

of

Israel, and present

the Levites before the Lord; and

the sons of Israel shall lay their.

hands on the Levites. Thus, we

see male representatives setting

apart other males for religious

service. The phrase, the whole

congregation of the sons of

Israel, is expressed in terms of

male heads who laid hands on

other male representatives. The

Westminster Standards. implicitly

teach through its proof texts the

principle ofrepresentation by

male heads of households.

In The Fortn of Church

Government under the section

dealing with the ordination of

ministers we read, He that is to

be ordained, being either nomi

nated by the people, or otherwise

commended to the presbytery ...

Was this nomination by the

people inclusive ofwomen? We

have no reason to think that

women voted for the minister

just because it says that the

nomination was by the people.

Elsewhere in the Form

of

Church Government regarding

church governors (ruling elders)

we noted that the Jewish church

is referenced as a guide. Our

earlier exegesis concerning the

phrase, the people, demon

strated that the Jewish church

model did not include women in

the selection of these elders.

Under the section for the exami

nation ofministers in The Form

of Church Government, one of

the requirements is that the

candidate is to be sent to a

particular church where the

congregation can discern his

gifts and examine his godly life.

The presbytery is to exhort this

church

as

follows: a competent

number of the members of that

congregation, nominated by

themselves, shall appear before

the presbytery, to give their

consentand approbation to such

a man to be their minister. ..

We would not expect women to

have participated in this action

either.

Summation o the Confessional

Argument

or

Covenant oting

The major thesis of this

article is that the Old Testament

established the principle ofmale .

heads of households who served

as representatives for the whole

congregation. This principle is

not abrogated in the New Testa

ment, but i t is actually magnified

in several explicit references in I

Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2.

In The Directory For Family

Worship men are seen as the

heads or masters of their fami

lies who are not only responsible

for leading family worship, but

they are responsible to have their

34 -

THE COUNSEL

of Chalcedon - October/November 999

families in worship on the Lord's

Day. We read, The master of

the family ought to take care that

all within his charge repair to the

public worship, that he and they

may join with the rest of the

congregation .. The Westmin

ster Standards is accustomed to

thinking of a congregation not

as

a group of individuals, but as

fainilies where there was a male

head who represented the

family.

Covenant oting Supported by

Reformed Church History A

Powerful Testimony

The major thrust ofthis

article has been to carefully give

exegetical argumentation for

prohibiting women from congre

gational voting. The Bible is our

sole standard for determining

church practices. While the

Bible remains as our foundation;

nonetheless, we can find useful

testimony in church history.

While this author did

D ot

have

the time to

do

much historical

research, he did come across an

interesting letter written by

Thomas McCrie in

1822.

This

letter was made into a pamphlet

entitled, On The Right of

Females

To

Vote In The Election

ofMinisters and Elders pub

lished by Still Waters Revival

Books in Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada.

McCrie comments that while

women constitute the invisible

church equally as men,

But

as

to the organic state and integrity

of the Church, women do not so

constitute it, as that the power of

rule and jurisdiction belongs to

them either

as

to its common

exercise, whether by votes and

declaration of opinions ... or by

scrutiny, or by holding up the

hand, or by vocal and outward

acclamation; or as to its special

exercise, which belongs to the


8/8

ministers only and the Presby

tery, not to the Christian people."

He further states, " ...regards the

calling or electing

of

chnrch -

officers as part

of

ecclesiastical

jurisdiction

.. In

choosing office

bearers, the people seem neces

sarily to exercise a species

of

power, and their call seem, in so

far, to have an authority over the

individuals who are its objects,

and to constitute in part what

goes in ordinary cases to deter

mine the call

of

God ... In my

opinion, and so far as I have

attended to the subject, the

exclusion

of

women from an

explicit choice

or

formal vote

(for their consent

or

dissent must

always be supposed, and there

are many ways in which it may

be ascertained or declared) rests

on the apostolic prohibition, I

Cor. 14:34,35; I Tim. : 11,12;

taken in connection with the

grounds and reasons of it, which

are laid down in these places,

and in I Cor. 11:3-16."

Concerning the practice

of

women voting in church,

McCrie states, "The silence

of

Scriptnre, and

of

ecclesiastical

history, respecting the exercise

of any such right in primitive

times, is, in my opinion,

of

considerable weight .. That the

woman should call or elect

ministers

of

the Word, neither

the Word

of

God, nor the order

of the Reformed Churches,

permit." McCrie refers to

another writer who said that

women were not allowed to vote

in Holland even in the parishes

where election was most popular

and free. t was noted that in the

dispute between the Orthodox

and the Arminians, the

Arminians resorted to women

votes to get their ministers into

various parishes.

McCrie continues - Even

among the sober part

of

the

Independents, Brownists, and

Anabaptists in the 17th century,

women were not admitted to

vote; as you may see stated in

"Gillespie's Misc. Questions,"

p.24. Dr. Owen, when, speaking

on this subj ect, very frequently,

and evidently

in

the

way of

restriction, employs the

word

"fraternity."

t

will not be

pleaded, I snppose, that it was a

practice for women to vote in

the best times of the Chnrch of

Scotland. "

Conclusion

Why should we prohibit

women from congregation

voting? Is it because

we

are

chanvinistic? No t is because

we

adhere to the anthority

of

Scripture alone as onr gnide for

all chnrch practices. Why do so

many churches in so many

different denominations, espe

cially self-confessed Reformed

Presbyterian churches, allow the

female vote in congregational

meetings? The church has

always had a tendency to

be

subject to the "spirit

of

the

times" in its culture. With the

passage

of

the 19th Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution, which

was ratified in 1920, women

gained the right to vote in civil

affairs. Since then, the practice

of

women voting even

in

chnrch

affairs escalated. The idea is,

How

can

we

deprive women

the right to vote in the church

if

we allow them to vote in civil

affairs?" Evangelical chnrches

cannot escape

"the spirit

of

the

times." As far as liberal

churches are concerned, the

issue of debating the legitimacy

of women voting in congrega

tional meetings is a moot point.

These chnrches do not believe in

the sole authority of Scripture.

This is why there are ordained

ministers, elders,

and

deacons

who are women in these

churches.

We must

remain

true to the

Word

of

God. We must not

allow pragmatism

or

cultural

acceptability to dictate matters

of

policy and

procedure

to the

church

of Jesus Chris t. We

must have the courage to stand

firm

on

the rock that does

not

move. Let us allow

our

Chris

tian women to fulfill thei r God

given roles as

mandated

from

God - "Older

women

likewise

are to be reverent in their

behavior, not malicious gossips,

nor enslaved to much wine,

teaching what is good,

that they

may encourage the

young

women to love their husbands, to

love their children, to be sensible,

pnre, workers at home, kind,

being subject to their own

husbands, that the word

of

God

may

not

be dishonored" (Titus

2:3-5). Let's not burden our

women with fnrther responsibil

ity that was

never

intended for

them, such

as

exercising author

ity in the chnrch. The godly

woman is more

than happy

to

yield such authority to men, for

she recognizes that this is the

will

of God her King and

Savior,

that God has equipped

men

to

govern in the church,

and

that he

has graciously

given

her numer

ous responsibilities in spheres

best suited to the wonderful gifts

bestowed upon

her by her

Creator.

October/November 1999 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - 35

Documents

1999 Issue 6 - Covenant Voting - Counsel of Chalcedon