Favorite Quotes: “The Scarlet Letter” — Hester Prynne
Women, more especially,—in the continually recurring trials of wounded, wasted, wronged, misplaced, or erring and sinful passion,—or with the dreary burden of a heart unyielded, because unvalued and unsought,—came to Hester’s cottage, demanding why they were so wretched, and what the remedy! Hester comforted and counselled them as best she might. She assured them, too, of her firm belief, that, at some brighter period, when the world should have grown ripe for it, in Heaven’s own time, a new truth would be revealed, in order to establish the whole relation between man and woman on a surer ground of mutual happiness. (ch. 24)
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter revolves around three sinners who respond to their sinfulness in wildly different ways and with wildly different results. The adulterous pastor Dimmesdale hides his sin, and nearly loses his soul in the process. The sinned against physician Chillingworth never forgives. Instead, he grows obsessively vengeful and finally becomes devil’s food. Hester Prynne owns her guilt, accepts the full consequences of her sin — and even goes the second mile, so to speak, by generously (if misguidedly) protecting the identity of both her paramour and her husband. In the end, she emerges with a quiet radiance about her. She becomes a magnet for others whom sin has left “wounded, wasted, wronged, and wretched,” especially women. She can comfort and counsel chiefly because of her crucible.
It was impossible for me to read The Scarlet Letter and not burn with Hawthorne’s anger at a world and a church that suffered the male pastor’s hypocrisy and the male physician’s duplicity at the sinful woman’s expense. Yet the world Hawthorne longs for in the future — one in which “the whole relation between man and woman” is established “on a surer ground of mutual happiness” — I find in the new creation Jesus came to inaugurate in the first place. How sad that it remains so elusive.
Jesus comes to an adulterous woman’s defense, demanding that the sinless among the (male) scribes and Pharisees throw the first stone, and setting her free when her accusers wither at his challenge (Jn 8:1-11). Jesus accepts the hospitality of Samaria’s infamously five-times-over serial-adulteress (Jn 4). Jesus allows the up-close-and-personal touch of a woman who is marked out only by the moniker, “a sinner” (Lk 7:36-50). Jesus chooses women as first to witness his resurrection, and with his “Go tell …,” makes them, if you will, apostles to the apostles (Mt 28:1-10). Surely, this is part of what he did to “make all things new” (Rev 21:5).
Even the apostle Paul — whom Hawthorne’s Puritans would arguably have considered more an authority anyway — sees a different and new place for women in Jesus’ new creation. Paul notes approvingly the fact that women are praying and prophesying in church — a sign of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that the day would come when God would pour out his Spirit on all people (1Co 11:2-16; Joel 2:28-32; and cf. Ac 2:16-21). He calls Phoebe a “minister,” employing the same term he applies to Jesus, to himself, to Timothy, and to what appear to be junior officers in the church — in fact, he (at least as I understand the text) lays out in his first letter to Timothy specific requirements for women who are to fill this office (Rom 16:1; 15:8; 2Co 3:6; 1Tm 4:6; 3:8-13, and note. v. 11). He may number a Junia among the “apostles” (interpreters disagree) in the same way Luke numbers Barnabas among them (Rom 16:7; Ac 14:4). Paul accepts the hospitality of Lydia, an unattached, business woman — no doubt one of those “new Roman women” whom Bruce Winter’s scholarship has brought into relief (Ac 16:14-15). And so important are his women Philippian “coworkers” Euodia and Syntyche — “who have been fellow athletes with me in the gospel” (to render his phrase overly literally, just to make the point) — that he urges their reconciliation for the sake of the ongoing ministry (Php 4:2-3).
To be sure — if I correctly understand two passages in Paul’s letters, 1Co 14:29-63 & 1Tm 2:9-15 — there is a point of demurral. A point at which women in the church defer to, as an Episcopal bishop recently put it to me, “a male presbuterate.” But what that point of demurral is isn’t obvious. And I would submit that according to Jesus and Paul, it’s not the first thing you look for. In fact, you only realize what it’s there for in an atmosphere that is alive with men and women co-laboring together in the gospel ministry. There have to be a thousand ways ecclesiologies can respect the dance that Paul envisions — and the whole argument about “ordination” is altogether beside the point.
In the last few years, I’ve been blessed with a number of relationships and models that have made it more important to me to urge us all to work harder to approximate the world of vibrant male-female co-laboring in ministry that Paul experienced and promoted.
Just for starters …
There’s Carla Waterman, with whom I team-teach in the Robt. E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies. Carla is the sister I never had. It’s amazing to me the way she completes my sentences. My, “That you may have life,” inevitably leads to her, “And that more abundantly.” My, “That reminds me of a carburetor that’s got too rich a mix of fuel and air,” invariably prompts her, “You know, it’s like your yard is a jungle you want to make into a garden.” Carla says she looks to me for grounding. I look to her for wings.
There’s Carolyn James, whose books, When Life and Beliefs Collide and Lost Women of the Bible, boldly, biblically, and astutely encourage women to become students and sharers of God’s Word regardless of the shape of specific vocation.
There’s Geri Scazzero who complements her husband Pete’s (author of The Emotionally Healthy Church and Emotionally Healthy Spirituality) voice so nicely, if forcefully — using her public strength to urge him to protect her by telling people the truth, not necessarily what they want to hear.
There’s Vicki Taylor, my co-laborer at Orangewood Presbyterian, whose own tutelage in Christ’s school of suffering gives her a whole-souled winsomeness, whether she’s singing or counseling or mothering or speaking in public.
Of course, there’s Shari, my wife, who has chosen to teach her sons at home, all the while supporting my various ministries — nobody will ever know how much of what I teach or write that is of any value has really come from her.
And, finally, there are any number of women who have come to a testosterone-rich RTS/Orlando for training in ministry. Often from left-of-whoopee denominations, these sisters have convictions that have led them — often in defiance of church officials — to come to us for training that is theologically orthodox. They do so just so they can stand in pulpits that otherwise would be sub-orthodox. Their courage shames me because, unlike them, I’m in a theologically “safe” denomination — gee whiz, the most courageous thing I’ve done in years is force my eyes to accept contact lenses. But these sisters’ bravery bespeaks the promise that Jesus is not finished with his new creation.
Well, somebody better post a comment on this. Reggie, I don’t know whether I wish everyone in our “safe” denomination could read this or not. The “not” is only because of what I know you’d probably have to go through if they did. As for me, I say, “AMEN”! Like you said, telling the truth is telling somebody something they don’t want to hear. And I’ve found in my very limited experience in this enterprise that they’ll either experience the Holy Spirit unclogging their ears or they’ll come at you with torches.
Comment by Linc Ashby — August 18, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks, Linc. Been watching too many sisters get dissed for doing their best to serve the King … and listening to too many sermons that have only football or baseball illustrations (which is reason enough to have women in preaching classes!).
Comment by Administrator — August 18, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Reggie,
Thank you for a deeply encouraging post. Your words give me hope of better things to come and of making strides towards the “world of vibrant male-female co-laboring in ministry” Paul experienced and promoted.
May your tribe increase!
Comment by Carolyn James — August 18, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Thanks, Carolyn. So, when do we get to hear about what’s coming up in Book 3?
Comment by Administrator — August 18, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Reggie: I always have admired your authenticity but now even more so. I share the concerns which you stated so clearly and so well. I believe our glorious Lord is doing a new work in judging and renewing His Body the Church. I wish I were younger that I could be here to watch as He remakes His Church and our seminary to conform more perfectly to His Word and to prepare all the redeemed to rejoice together (men and women together)in the city of God.I have hoped and given 14 years at RTS in the hope that united together RTS might play a key role in the future of the whole Church.
I often have been proud of RTS. But now in light of the decision just given to us, I can’t help but wonder what the future of RTS will be.I’m concerned about the possibility of RTS’ being unnecessarily blacklisted in the educational world, of unnecessary,expensive law suits as well as sanctions by the accreditors. But primarily I am most concerned about whether this recent decision is in synch with the Lord’s sovereign will as revealed in His unerring Word.
Vonnie and I are praying for the Lord’s Spirit to be given afresh to us, to the Trustees, and to all our dedicated faculty and wonderful students.We are hoping that the Lord will intervene and bring us all together.Let’s pray fervently that the Devil may not divide us and short-circuit His will for this beloved school. God bless you my dear brother…Let’s keep in touch….SHERRY
Comment by Sherry MacKenzie — August 18, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Sherry, I join you in praying that a greater wisdom may eventually prevail. Thanks for your personal encouragement and for your example of service to Christ … expressed so well, in the last several years by your faithful, godly, and wise service to our fair institution and its students. You know how much they love you, don’t you?
Comment by Administrator — August 18, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Apologies – could you clarify on the passages that “specific requirements for women who are to fill this office”? I just wish to see whether there’s anything the church I’m in has missed on the issue of women ordination or teaching in the church pulpit.
Thanks,
Comment by Mak — August 21, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Reggie,
I’ve read this post a few times over in the past few days and appreciate your ability to articulate what so often is left unsaid. I’m grateful for your willingness to receive input from others and listen to the experiences of others that differ from your own–and to see the value of your own experience in teaching and ministry for the body of Christ. Thanks for this.
Comment by Melanie Webb — August 22, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Mak, the “specific requirements” for women who hold the office of deacon/minister are in 1Tm 3:11 where Paul says, “Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.” He either means wives of deacons/ministers (see vv. 8-10 & 12-13), or women who happen to be deacons/ministers themselves (the term Paul uses for Phoebe at Rom 16:1). Commentators are divided, but in view of Rom 16:1, I believe he means the latter. As Mel indicates in her post that follows yours, I do want to listen to others and gain from their experiences, but it does not seem to me that Paul draws the gender line at deacons/ministers. Thanks. Reggie
Comment by Administrator — August 22, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Reggie:
Are you advocating female ordination via two or three unclear texts?? I’m sure you are aware of the basic hermeneutic principle that teaches when a subject is less than clear, we are not to impose upon the text (or whole of Scripture) what we deem right or (culturally) fitting.
Phoebe is mentioned ONCE as a ‘deaconess.’ Paul says to Timothy “Likewise, wives (their wives, or women) are to be blameless….” The Apostle was either talking about the ministry couples (elders & wives, deacons and wives) or he was talking about women in general. Regardless, the clarity is less than crystal.
In such case, it is dangerous to build an office (or expand the current offices) beyond what is sufficiently clear. It is far better for the Church to err on the side of caution than to fling open the doors to something that is not expressly commanded and defined.
Our culture screams – “Women must be ordained. It’s only fair” while the Scriptures whisper something about a few exceptional women.
If the Scriptures commanded the ordination of women, I’d be in favor it. But, the Scriptures barely hint at such a notion.
We must guard the gospel from the accomodation of the culture and stand firmly on the clarity of God’s Word.
Comment by Bill Lamkin — August 23, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me offer a few matters for further consideration:
First, you raise the question of “ordination” without differentiation. Though you go on to talk about Phoebe and deacons, I’m not sure whether you mean “ordination” in general, or “ordination” to a particular office. I say as clearly as I know how that I think Paul intends a male presbuterate (eldership). I do not advocate the ordination of women to eldership — I do think those of us in conservative denominations that do not ordain women to the teaching office should salute and support orthodox women who seek the teaching office in sub-orthodox denominations to bring orthodoxy to those pulpits, even when we disagree with the hermeneutic by which those women get there. I don’t expect everybody to agree with me on this point. But I’m willing to extend hermeneutical grace, because sisters are waging a campaign for the gospel in places where I have no say.
When it comes to the diaconate, yes, I do think including women in the office of deacon is more biblical than not doing so. I do not agree that it is that unclear, despite worthy commentators in our tradition (e.g., George Knight’s otherwise splendid commentary on the Pastorals). And this is a place where I think Scripture would encourage us to be more daring, and less fearful … or perhaps where Scripture would nudge us in the direction of being more fearful of missing our sisters’ contribution to the work of the ministry.
In the first place, in my view (and I realize you may disagree), the basic reason conservative presbyterians resist ordination of women to the diaconate is that we fear the next move would be to ordain women to the eldership. At least that’s what Don Seltzer and I were told in the early 1980s when we asked the Presbytery of Southern Florida to consider the question of women deacons. That’s putting a hedge around the law, not obeying Scripture … it’s a way of doing theology that is beneath children of the Reformation. Fact is, none of us is free of the danger of letting culture control our reading of Scripture. When we hear culture scream “Women must be ordained. It’s only fair,” some of us tend to respond more liberally, “Hmm, maybe we’ve missed something.” And some of us respond more conservatively, “Well, maybe we need to get even tighter.” We need to resist pressure from both sides of the cultural divide.
In the second place, in presbyterian polity, the diaconate is not a teaching and governing office, so 1Cor 14 & 1Tm 2 concerns do not apply. I’ve always found it puzzling that the case for ordaining elders and the case for ordaining deacons are not judged on different merits … especially by presbyterians who hold that the office of teaching and governing is not to be confused with the office of mercy.
Third, with apologies, the very fact that Paul applies to Phoebe the term “deacon” (not, by the way, “deaconess”) means that Paul probably does not mean that the women he discusses in 1Tm 3:11 are merely wives of deacons but rather are women who otherwise fit the rest of the profile of deacons he is outlining from 3:8-13. Especially, when Paul adds the tag “deacon of the church of Cenchrea” (Rom 16:1) … seems to me that unless you are determined that the text can’t mean what it seems to say, the term has about it an official sort of feel.
You give me much to ponder, brother. I, no more than you, want to be saying simply what our culture wants us to say. But when it comes to being co-laborers, as Paul was, with the likes of Phoebe, Euodia, and Syntyche, I do not think we conservative presbyterians have come as fully in to Jesus’ “new creation” as we could.
Comment by Administrator — August 23, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Reggie:
I appreciate your further clarity (you are not pushing for the ordination of women to the office of elder).
When I was at RTS-J, Dr. Pratt taught us that a basic rule of Biblical interpretation is to speak only where the Bible is clear and remain quiet where the Scripture is not very clear.
I still find it hermeneutically dangerous to imply from a few unclear texts that the Apostle Paul was advocating the ordination of women as deacons – especially when there are no further clarifying comments anywhere else in the Scripture.
To take I Timothty 3:11 as an imprimatur for the ordination of female deacons is to do damage to the context of I Timothy 3, for the very next verse (3:12) states that deacons are to be “husbands” and good stewards of “his” family (not “wives” or “her” family).
Again, I would gladly come along side you IF (big IF) the Scriptures were very clear on this. But, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear.
Then we have the old “slippery slope” argument, but that is for a later date.
Comment by Bill Lamkin — August 24, 2007 @ 10:09 am
First, Bill, I appreciate your desire to be driven by Scripture — nothing’s more important than that.
Second, as I say in the original post: ordination is not my fundamental concern. Men and women figuring out how to co-labor for the gospel is — there are a thousand and one ways in which that reality can be better embodied, in my view. And ordination isn’t the first question that should come up … it’s probably the last. In the original post I pointed to several examples of a good dynamic: my concern is that (and your experience may be quite different), I don’t see the Pauline balance lived out especially well in conservative Presbyterian circles (where I minister and teach).
Third, as to “ordination” in general: different ecclesiologies mean different things by the term (just as they mean different things by “minister” or “pastor” or “deacon” for that matter) — “ordination” is an application of biblical principles, a means by which different churches attempt to approximate truth. Paul does not directly raise the question of ordination when it comes to women (either with respect to eldership or the diaconate), so we are left to draw delicate inferences about how his principles should apply. I could respect, for instance, an ecclesiology in which a person — male or female — would have hands laid on them for a teaching ministry while the “teaching and governing authority” of the church remains in the hands of a male presbuterate (or episcopacy) to which that “ordained” person does not belong (E. Earl Ellis interprets Paul along these lines in *Pauline Theology: Ministry & Society)*. But, really, as a friend of mine observes: “… the quick categorizing of the issues makes me realize how few real encounters Christian leaders have had with significant ministry across gender lines. You are so right to recognize ordination as SO beside the point. However, when men and women keep so far apart that we never experience the places we can meet, how impoverished we are.”
Fourth, on deacon ordination: your argument — and in this, in fairness, you are following our tradition — places the burden of proof in an interesting place: the Scriptures aren’t sufficiently clear that we *should* do it. I do submit to the tradition — I’m not on a campaign (despite the length of this reply) — but I think the tradition is wrong on this particular point. I think the burden of proof should be: the Scriptures aren’t sufficiently clear that we *shouldn’t* do it.
Baptists would say to us about baptism of infants exactly what you have said to me about women as deacons: show me where Scripture clearly teaches it, and we’ll do it. In fact, Presbyterians baptize babies on less NT explicit evidential warrant than there is for authorizing women to be church deacons … there is no mention of babies being baptized in Scripture, while Paul speaks of women in the same breath as deacons and even refers to one (Rom 16:1) by the same term he elsewhere uses clearly for the office “deacon” (Php 1:1; 1Tm 3:8ff).
We Presbyterians contend that it is necessary to draw inferences from Scripture based on broader principles and on Scripture’s overall story (thus we, rightly in my view, baptize children of the covenant). I think Pratt, since you hold his way of doing theology in high regard, would have taught that at RTS-J; he certainly did at RTS-O. The question is why we apply Paul’s principial scruples over teaching & governing (i.e., elder/overseer) authority to the office of mercy (i.e., deacon). From the woman of Proverbs 31 to the women who underwrite Jesus’ ministry (Lk 8:1-3) to Tabitha’s “deeds of kindness and charity” (Ac 9:36-43) there is nothing but commendation for women who do the kind of work that Presbyterianism holds to be the work of the diaconate. There’s no reason to think Paul would scruple at ordaining women to that office.
I think it is because we wrongly frame the burden of proof: we demand a reason to allow women to minister in this fashion rather than to do as Paul did: he worked alongside women in ministry until the point emerged at which correction needed to be applied — and the place he drew the line had to do with authoritative teaching and governance, not the ministry of mercy. I think we in the PCA legitimately infer that Paul would scruple over ordination to the teaching and ruling office (even though I am ready to work with evangelicals who disagree), but I do not think our inference that he would exclude women from the office of deacon is legitimate. He may not speak clearly and directly to that office (assuming, for the sake of conversation, that 1Tm 3:11 isn’t clear and direct), but what he does say points towards permission — i.e., calling Phoebe a “deacon” and discussing women in the context of the diaconate without qualifying that he means “their women” (= “wives”).
Fifth, how we carry on conversations like this: I suspect that when Pratt would have discussed his “cone of certainty” he would have cautioned against an injudicious use of terms like “dangerous” and “damaging to the context” when discussing matters that aren’t at the core of certainty. I don’t know — I missed the RTS-J experience — but in the years I have taught with him in Orlando, I’ve sensed such an impetus in his teaching. For good reason did Paul, in my view, leave open some issues about which people appear to have been quite heated and tell them: “Welcome each other … neither judging … nor despising one another” (Rom 14 & 15). I realize that’s a pretty compressed presentation of that section of Romans— but one that we’d do well, myself included, to heed.
Comment by Administrator — August 31, 2007 @ 8:09 am
Dr Kidd:
I hope I’m not ‘double posting.’
To reply to your comments:
Second point: What is there to figure out about women and men co-laboring in ministry? It happens all the time and has been happening for centuries. The Scriptures have defined roles and when the Church follows those directives, there is great ministry. Sure, we can do better, but we certainly don’t have reinvent the wheel.
Third point: Since Paul “doesn’t directly raise the question” of women’s ordination, why do we?
Fourth point: You are right to surmise that I prefer to walk where Scripture is clear rather than dance on uncertainties. Historically, the Church has sided with ‘What does the Scripture say?’ rather than “Let’s do what Scripture does not forbid.” For instance, we don’t ordain children. Yet Jesus gladly welcomed children and commended their faith. In that same vein, Jesus never called a child or woman to be in the 12 and the Church did not select a child or woman to be one of the first deacons (Acts 6).
Very simply, we don’t have the clear warrant from Scripture to pursue the ordination of female diaconates.
A few unclear commendations does not a tenet make.
Blessings – Bill Lamkin
Comment by Bill Lamkin — September 5, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Wow Reggie,
I was grateful to know you, when all i knew ABOUT you was that you liked the color salmon, wore bow-ties/sandals and spoke transparently on Sunday’s of your walk/struggle/joys with the content of scripture. Now I’m honored even more!! Now i feel i know an intellectual/biblical Rock Star:-)
I know what I just wrote might sound trite and simple-minded…but hey…you/what you do/what you say/who you are day to day (which btw is a pretty great/funny/REAL guy who allows himself to grapple difficult texts//who tries not confine himself to the pre-established doctrine/definitions of “who God is” and “who/what He’s called his church to be/how to act/or ordain”, and instead allows for the sometimes painful tension of seeking Him out and wresting with His word in order clarity of His purpose/intent for His people) challenges/encourages me every week.
Thank you for YOU…THANK GOD, MY GRACIOUS LOVING GOD, FOR REGGIE KIDD.
Comment by Chisten Rodgers — September 7, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Reggie,
Thanks for this post. I actually stumbled upon it because I am thinking of reading the Scarlett Letter again. I really appreciate you and your family. May God continue to bless you at RTS. Thank you for the atmosphere of freedom that I have always felt in your home and your classroom. Tell Shari hello.
~Beth
Comment by Beth Young — November 15, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
I’ve just noticed that there is an overture to the PCA GA to erect a study committee on the office of ‘deaconess.’
I find it interesting that we want to expend this time and money based on ONE mention of the word in Romans 16:1.
Why don’t we study the office of church “metal worker”? Metal Workers are mentioned 4 times in the Bible.
Comment by Bill Lamkin — February 25, 2008 @ 5:11 pm