9th May, 2008

MICAH TILLMAN

The first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians 11 are enough to weird anybody out. That’s where Paul says husbands are the “head” of their wives, that women were made for men, that women should cover their heads in church because of angels, and so on.

This passage comes so completely out of left field that you have to laugh to keep from going nuts. So I think nowadays we just ignore it. I, at least, never see any veiled women in church. And I’ve never claimed to be the head of my wife. (Who even talks like that anyway?)

Some of my friends have become so frustrated with Paul that they wish he had kept his mouth shut. Part of it has to do with the fact that we were raised in Paul-o-centric churches: lots of theological theory, not much real-life practice.

But then we went off to college and met some professors who reintroduced us to the Gospels. That, I think, was when my friends started to get annoyed.

It’s as if we had been reading the Bible backwards. You start with Revelation, worry about whether the Anti-Christ is going smite you with a Whore of Babylon, and then get stuck in the middle of some Epistle, worrying about 'predestination' and 'works'.

If we even made it that far back, we would definitely do a double-take at 1 Corinthians 11. What in the world were we supposed to do with those first 16 verses?

I’ve found that if I read really slowly, and ask a zillion questions, then Paul starts to make more sense. This is how it goes.

The first thing I notice is that Paul has the nerve tell the Corinthians to imitate him.

But imitate him in what? Being a chauvinist? I flip back to Chapter 9, and see Paul say that, despite his freedom, he enslaves himself to others. He tries to identify with everyone - to let their identities determine his (vv. 19-22).

Paul gives up himself in an attempt to save others. And he’s calling on the Corinthians to do the same.

As I keep reading, I start to get the feeling that Paul is scared the church will stick out like a sore thumb. Or like a cancer to be cut out. Maybe it’s because they’re the new group in town. They act weird. Their leader was an executed rebel. They have meetings. Every week. Who knows what they’re up to?

How could they spread the Gospel if this is how people see them?(1)

So Paul pleads with the Corinthians not to make their city feel threatened. They’ve got to avoid looking like troublemakers (6:1-7) who are out to start a cultural revolution (7:15-24). Instead, they should imitate Paul in trying to make everyone happy (10:32-33; see also Romans 12:17-18).

But why? To increase their chance of saving others.

The more of this I read, the more I realise that Paul isn’t just out to undermine women’s rights. He’s going after everybody’s - even his own (9:12).

He asks the Corinthians, for the good of others, to purposefully give up what is rightfully theirs. And they should do this, not out of weakness, but out of power or freedom (9:25-27; 10:23-33). In choosing the good of others, they show that they have authority over themselves (self-control).

So as I read 1 Corinthians, I see Paul trying to convince the Corinthians to imitate this pattern: show your power/authority through giving up your rights for the good of others. I begin to expect him to say that the women of the Church have the right not to wear a veil (or “covering”), but that if they do not exercise that right, they will both show their power and do good for others.

And that’s just what he does. The problem is that a lot of translations have messed up 11:10. Using the NRSV footnotes, the Boldreys’ commentary, (2) and a basic understanding of the Greek word angelos (“messenger”) however, I discover that 1 Corinthians 11:10 should read: "...[A] woman should have authority over her own head because of the messengers."

Since Paul is concerned with saving outsiders - and therefore not scaring them away - the “messengers” he refers to are most likely the Apostles. It was their job to bring the message to non-believers. (3)

By not exercising their right to wear what they wished, the women of the church at Corinth would avoid giving the Church a “rep.”4 And that, in turn, would make people much more receptive to the messengers.

By giving up one of their rights, they would be paving the way for good to come to others.

But there is so much more to this passage. Why, for instance, is it the women’s right not to wear a veil? And what is Paul doing in the verses which surround v. 10?

It turns out that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 may be simultaneously about hiding a church tradition so as to plot a revolution and about a sincere act of solidarity which turned into a hilarious inside joke. But we’ll have to wait for the next three articles to see how it plays out.

NOTES:

1 See the unfortunately-out-of-print 'Chauvinist or Feminist?: Paul’s View of Women' by Richard and Joyce Boldrey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 55-56. Used copies here (or on eBay?).

2 Chauvinist? 38. Translators also missed a pattern - and thereforemistranslate angelos as “angels” - in 1 Timothy 3:16. There the pattern is three pairs of opposites: (i) flesh vs. spirit, (ii) messengers vs. recipients, (iii) earth vs. heaven.

3 Thanks to Ruth Kitchin Tillman (my wife!) for this suggestion. The less-plausible option would be that “messengers” refers to people sent by city authorities into the Church’s meetings for reconnaissance.

4 Chauvinist? 59-60. Also, notice v. 16, where Paul seems to exclaim, “We don’t do what you outsiders think we do!” But see Part 3 of this series for another reading of v. 16.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, and the curator of the WEeding Awards.

PAUL'S CORINTHIAN 'CHAUVINISM', PART II

16th May, 2008

MICAH TILLMAN

While we were talking about this article series, my wife Ruth said, “You have to tell them why it was the women’s right not to wear veils.”

“And why was that?” I asked.

She responded (but this is a paraphrase, so don’t blame her if I get something wrong): "Because, in Christ we make no distinction between “Jews and Greeks, slaves and free people, men and women.” Outside the church, women evidently had to wear veils. And that would look like a division between the sexes. But in Christ we have the right not to draw such distinctions, to not divide ourselves - we are all one."

That got me thinking about Galatians 2:11-16, where Paul criticises Peter for separating himself from uncircumcised Christians. And then there’s Ephesians 2:11-22, where Paul says Christ has superseded the old law and “broken down the dividing wall” (2:14, NRSV) between “the circumcised” (Jews) and “the uncircumcised” (non-Jews) (Ephesians 2:11; see Galatians 3:29).

I was convinced that Ruth was right, however, when I saw how Paul relates the first two of 1 Corinthians 11’s sections. Paul begins section 1 (vv. 1-16) by telling the Corinthians how well they’ve remembered what he taught them. He then presents section 2 (vv. 17-22) as a kind of mirror image criticism of the Corinthians regarding their divisions.

But they aren’t ethnic, gender, and legal-status divisions (the Corinthians seem to have unity on the “big three”). Rather, they are economic and egocentric.

So, despite having taught them not to let gender be a divisive issue, Paul asks the Corinthians to give up their right to unity.

“But only in the case of veils,” Ruth pointed out.

I agreed. “And for a very specific purpose”: keeping the church from getting a bad name with outsiders who already followed rules about veil-wearing. By following the same rules, the church would make it easier for outsiders to listen to the Gospel. And that would make it more likely that outsiders would be introduced to Paul’s teachings on Christian unity.

So with each new sister or brother added, Corinthian society would be that much closer to focusing on being one in Christ - rather than on which group was following which headgear rules.

In other words, by not exercising one specific right, the women of the church at Corinth were actually setting the stage for a societal change which would make that right non-controversial.

Therefore, Paul’s attempt to get the Corinthians to not look like they were starting a social revolution was for the purpose of...starting a social revolution. It’s just that this revolution would be carried out through inviting people into Christ’s unity.

The scheme’s success, however, would depend on a distinction between teaching and practice - one of the issues, if you remember, which get my friends so frustrated with Paul. The only way the church could absorb society (one person at a time) without becoming society, is if Paul had taught them to see some fundamental truths.

The Corinthians would have to remember that their unity in Christ gave them the right to not draw distinctions within the church - even though they might have to temporarily do the opposite for the good of others. Society’s traditions would gradually change as more and more of its members joined the church. But in the meantime, Paul didn’t want the church to become the society they were trying to change.

The goal of changing the world for the better by acting like the very people you were supposed to be changing (e.g., wearing veils) would only be achieved, therefore, if there were a deep belief inside the Church that how things currently were and how things should be weren’t necessarily the same.

So, whether or not the church would get to fully practice its tradition (“We are all one in Christ”) at the moment, it would have to hand down this tradition from generation to generation until the surrounding society also adopted it. At that point, the issue of scaring people away by not wearing veils would have disappeared.

The challenge would be to keep the act from becoming fact, to keep the church focused on the eternal truth of their unity in Christ, to keep them from turning their temporary division-by-veils (see here for interesting parallels) into something permanent.

But does Paul try to get the Corinthians accustomed to the idea that the traditions he taught them might have to be partially hidden (“not yet fully unveiled”) for the moment?

He does.

In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul talks about what he taught the Corinthians. He mentions “speak[ing] God’s wisdom, secret and hidden” (2:7, NRSV), which is not understood in the world but is only “[spoken] . . . among the mature” (2:6, NRSV). And then in 1 Corinthians 11:2 he says: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you". (NRSV)

But then he writes, “But...”. Paul is about to tell them that, for the good of others, they need to partially postpone (or go against) the very traditions he taught them.

He is basically saying: “You’ve done a great job remembering my lessons. But despite what I said, I need you to do something different on the following point.”

And then he launches into the veil issue.

Unless you see that Paul taught the Corinthians that they are all one in Christ, but is now telling them that (for the good of others) they may not get to completely act like it yet, you won’t be able to understand what Paul is trying to do in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

But we’re not done. We still have to talk about what it is exactly that Paul is doing when he says all those awkward things in verses 3-9 and 11-15. And while were at it, we’ll see how 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 may be one of the most amusing passages in Scripture.

The scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, and the curator of the WEeding Awards.

PAUL'S CORINTHIAN 'CHAUVINISM', PART III

25th May, 2008

MICAH TILLMAN

Here’s what I think happened:

[Warning: Ruth tells me my idea is silly. Even, perhaps, hilarious. And I admit it’s entirely too much fun to not be suspect. But once you see the possibility, I’ll bet you won’t be able to read the passage the same way ever again. So take the following with a grain of salt. It’s just a conjecture. But I think it’s worth it.]

The Corinthians, after learning from Paul to be unified in Christ, had run up against a problem. People outside the church were starting to notice that Christian women often didn’t wear veils. And that meant the church was starting to lose the respect of its community.

With respect on the wane, it was getting more difficult for the church to convince people to join up. But what were they to do? Should they reinstitute rules which divided them along gender lines? Paul had taught them just the opposite!

Then someone got an idea. If a church with unveiled women couldn’t do community outreach - but making some groups do what others didn’t would divide the church - why couldn’t the men show solidarity? Why not have the men wear veils too?!

After all, if everyone wore veils, they could still be unified in Christ, and no one would be able to criticise them for how the women dressed.

I can’t decide what the response must have been. Perhaps there was stunned silence. Or uproarious laughter. Or perhaps there was some serious pondering. They were all novices at this church thing. And they can’t go against Paul by splitting themselves up.

So, maybe, as crazy as it sounded, the solution was for the men to join the women in wearing veils.

But then perhaps someone else raised her hand. “If we’re going back to the rules that outsiders follow, does that mean I have to grow my hair out? I was just getting used to it short; and I’m really liking how much less work it takes at this length.” Several other women probably nodded in agreement.

Then maybe a tentative voice spoke up from the back of the room. “But wouldn’t making rules for the women about their hair, but not for us guys about our hair, also be one of those divisive things Paul told us to avoid?”

Another responded. “Well, we could all follow the same rules on this one too.”

“What? Guys with long hair?”

“That’s no crazier than guys with veils is it?”

Silence.

“I guess not...But couldn’t we write and ask Paul what he thinks?”

They all agree.

Paul receives their letter, in which they’ve asked him several questions (1). As he reads each question he begins to compose an answer.

And then he gets to this one: “Should we men grow out our hair and wear veils so that we don’t divide ourselves from the women? We tried letting everybody do whatever they wanted, but then outsiders started making fun of us. We thought we could still be unified even if the women went back to following the usual rules about veils and hair, so long as the men did the same. Maybe?”

Paul must have grinned. “They are so adorable! They’re doing such a good job remembering what I taught them.” The Corinthians probably seemed like cute little children to him, doing their best to make Daddy proud.

But they’d encountered a genuine problem. How was he going to help them solve it?

He begins to write: [1 Corinthians 11:1] "I think the answer is just to do what I do. [Verse 2] And since you’re already doing a great job of remembering what I taught you, that should be no problem for you. [Verses 3-15] But just in case, here are some reasons it would make sense to go back to doing the traditional things with your hair and veils (just like I try to act like the people I’m with so as to make them feel comfortable). [Verse 16] But don’t let this worry you too much. I’m not establishing a new tradition here. This doesn’t change anything in what I taught you. It’s just temporary."

But now I’m putting words in Paul’s mouth. As if wild conjectures about cross-dressing weren’t bad enough...

So instead of reading my substitute, we should once again approach the text itself. But we’re not quite ready. There are still a few verses we haven’t had the chance to discuss. To prepare us for that, I have a suggestion: Paul, in verses 3-9 and 11-15, is trying to make the idea of giving up their rights easier on the Corinthians. He is trying to present the veil and hair issue in such a way that it would make sense for both the women and men of the church to want to go back to following the local customs.

In addition to providing himself as an example of sacrificial giving, and trying to motivate them with the thought of the good they would be doing for others, Paul is trying to provide the Corinthians with a rationale (with reasons) for giving up their right.

He is helping them understand the issue spiritually (“Imitate an Apostle who imitates Christ!”), emotionally (“Show your power and help others!”), and intellectually (“Let me show you some ways in which this might actually make sense!”).

In other words, Paul is not callous. He doesn’t ask people to do something monumentally difficult without providing several layers of assistance. So whatever Paul says in verses 3-9 and 11-15, and no matter how clumsily he might say it, I think that the above is what he is trying to do.

With that (...and Corinthian cross-dressing...) in mind, therefore, we’ll turn to a short, quasi-verse-by-verse commentary in this series’ final article.

NOTES:

1. I believe this is the usual theory about the epistle’s instigation. See 1 Corinthians 7:1.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, and the curator of the WEeding Awards.

Got a verse or a short passage you'd like us to look at? Just send an email to editor@sightmagazine.com.au.

PAUL'S CORINTHIAN 'CHAUVINISM', PART IV

30th May, 2008

MICAH TILLMAN

In this series I’ve tried to bring some clarity to our encounters with one of Scripture’s most puzzling passages: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. But for fear of getting lost in my reading, I think we should turn to the text itself.

To move us in that direction, I want to offer some final comments on the verses I’ve glossed over.

Verse 3
The phrase, “God is the head of Christ” (NRSV) makes it impossible for me to tell what exactly Paul means here. After all, God and Christ, in Trinitarian theology, are one and the same. And yet this is supposed to be an example of the “head of” relationship which also holds between husband and wife, between Christ and humanity?

Also, the phrase belongs at the beginning of the sequence: “[God is the head of Christ,] Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife...” (NRSV). I think Paul’s shuffling shows that he didn’t consider this passage important enough to require preplanning. He’s just “talking his way through it.” So I’d be wary of taking these verses as a definitive doctrinal treatise.

Verses 4-6
Notice how Paul begins by telling the men to not wear veils. And in their cultural context, what Paul says here was no doubt true. For a woman to not wear a veil, or to cut off her hair, was probably “just-not-done.” And that was the problem. How could a “disgraceful” group of people be worth listening to? Who would want to join them?

Verses 7-9 (1)
First, the word should be “glory,” not “reflection.” (See the footnotes.) It’s the same word in verse 15.

Second, Paul is showing the Corinthians how it could make sense in the Christian tradition to distinguish between male and female dress. In Genesis 1-2, you see that the Man was not good while alone, and that Creation as a whole was only complete (and good) once the Moman was created.

Since the Woman brought a final completion and goodness to humanity, and therefore to Creation, women have a glory that men don’t. The “only thing” men have is that they are the image of God. Women have that and more: they represent the completeness and goodness of God’s Handiwork.

“If you think about it,” Paul is saying, “women have an extra level of gloriousness. It’s how God made them. So if you Corinthians really want to show your unity and solidarity in Christ, maybe the women could tone down their glory to the guys’ level.”

But how? By covering the physical embodiment of their extra glory: their hair (v. 15). Paul is saying, “When I look at you Corinthians, I could see two distinct groups: those who have some glory, and those who have more. But if the more glorious group wore something to hide their extra glory, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.”

So what has Paul done? He has, with a little bit of a wink, helped the Corinthians reframe a practice that worried them as something which:

(1) complimented those who would make the most sacrifice: the women,
(2) affirmed them all in their Christian intellectual tradition,
(3) reminded them of their status as images of God, meant to bring God glory, and
(4) brought them unity, rather than splitting them up.

If I’m right, even though the way he says things may be clumsy, Paul is displaying some real genius.

Verses 11-12
Since we discussed the central verse in this passage in the first article, we skip on to the next two: here Paul pauses to remind the Corinthians once again of their unity and their dependence on God.

Verse 13
Paul then encourages them in thinking for themselves, just as he congratulated them for remembering what he taught (v. 2). When they think about it, Paul says they’ll see they don’t really need his advice: in their city it’s just not “proper” (NRSV) for a woman to not wear a veil - just like it is not proper for a man in our society to wear jeans to a black-tie dinner.

Verses 14-15
First: My wife Ruth tells me that scholars think Paul was bald, and verse 14 is a joke. And given what I see as the ironically amusing nature of the affair (“Outsiders think we’re weird, so should we men be dressing like women?”) I don’t doubt it.

But once again - even with tongue in cheek - Paul is affirming the Corinthians’ ability to think for themselves. They don’t have to stay his little children forever.

Second: That Paul says women already have a " covering” (their hair) - when he’s been arguing that it makes sense for women to adopt an artificial covering - is noteworthy. It says to me that he hadn’t devoted much worrying to the veil/hair issue before the Corinthians brought it up. If he had, he would have planned out his reply, and not thrown in confusing comments like this (or that clause in v. 3).

I think he was just laughing too hard at his bald joke, and at the thought of how much the Corinthians were going to be laughing at themselves.

Did that sound harsh? I’ve been trying to help us be charitable with Paul . . . .

But I don’t think the Doctrine of Inerrancy says the writers of Scripture couldn’t have put things better. Some passages are beautiful, others difficult. But fortunately, you grade Scripture on content, not style.

And while I’ve left hundreds of questions unanswered, and created hundreds more, I hope I’ve shown that the content of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t nearly so bad as we feared.

NOTES:
1 I am indebted here to the Boldreys ( Chauvinism or Feminism?, 35-37). While they analyse the situation in terms of pride, and I analyse it in terms of unity, it was they who clarified for me the connection to Genesis, and showed me that the glory issue actually compliments women.

The scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, and the curator of the WEeding Awards.