Descoperirea acoperitorii sau ...

THE PROBLEM OF THE UNVEILED WOMEN IN I CORINTHIANS 11:2-16 IN LIGHT OF THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF I CORINTHIANS 8-11 Russ Dudrey, Champlin, Minnesota Four r!"#$#%&r#!'( First, an overall perspective: I will examine a difficult text, I Cor 11:2-1 , which touches on !ender roles within "od#s purpose in creation$ %i&licists must &e!in with this 'ind of text when we !rapple with contemporary pro&lems re!ardin! !ender$ (o our study is not merely an exercise in %i&lical literary and social history) it is an effort to hear and &elieve the word of "od in order to live in the modern world faithfully &y its instruction$ I do not 'now how else to !ain the mind of Christ on contemporary pro&lems--I do not !et revelations or see visions, and this is the only %i&le I have$ *ot all will a!ree with my social-historical analysis, &ut I hope all will a!ree that we are called to feed our souls with the word of "od, wal' in his li!ht, and &ear his ima!e faithfully$ Second, on the text-critical issue: + few scholars ar!ue that 11:2-1 is an interpolation$ ,ro&a&ly motivated &y a social a!enda and certainly con-ectural and unsupported &y any scrap of M( evidence, this view has &een treated ade.uately &y others$ 11:2-1 is ,aul#s own text) rather than a non-,auline interpolation, may we call it a !enuine ,auline non-interpolation/ Third, a specific matter of interpretation: I must compare and contrast my view of 11:2-1 with those of Ric' 0ster on the one hand and +ntoinette Clar' 1ire on the other$ Dr$ 0ster#s seminal article, 21hen Men 1ore 3eils to 1orship2 has &rou!ht *4 scholars up short$ 5e demonstrates that the pro&lem ,aul addresses in 11:6-7a is the practice of some of the men of the Corinthian con!re!ation of veilin! themselves in worship--!oin! 2capite velato2--a pattern well-attested in the Roman world$ 5is view is definitive: he has the archaeolo!ical, epi!raphic, numismatic, and literary evidence to prove his case, and he has solved the pu88le of 11:6-7a$ I partially disa!ree in my historical reconstruction of the situation$ I do not &elieve the sacral veilin! of the Corinthian men is the only pro&lem of 11:2-1 : I have to thin' the Corinthian women had a pro&lem too, the attempt to assert their li&erty &y castin! aside their head-coverin!s in the Christian assem&ly$ Dr$ 0ster 'nows the text addresses the unveilin! of the Christian women, &ut he does not !rant that they had attempted a re&ellion$ 1ith 1ire I thin' they had, and that they failed$ 4his I would ar!ue on two &ases$ +9 4he latter half of the passa!e, 11:7&-1 , moves to the topic of women#s coverin!s and drops the veilin! of the men entirely--so that one must feel that the concern a&out the women is not merely theoretical$ %9 4he contrast &etween 11:2-1 and 11:17-22, where a&uses at

the :ord#s ta&le continue, shows that in 11:2-1 one pro&lem has &een solved, &ut the pro&lem of the ritual veilin! of the men remains unsolved$ (o I differ from Dr$ 0ster &y viewin! the historical focus of 11:2-1 as a matter, not of either the veilin! of the men or the unveilin! of the women, &ut of &oth the veilin! of the men and the unveilin! of the women$ I will ar!ue that ,aul#s real concern resolves down not simply to what the practices are, &ut to what dynamics have driven these pro&lems$ 1ith Dr$ 0ster and a!ainst 1ire I do not see a prototypical feminist re&ellion at Corinth$ 1ire#s is amon! the &est &oo's I have read on I Cor, &ut I must differ from her historical reconstruction on two ma-or points: +9 In I Cor I do not see the &attle-lines drawn &etween the !enders) rather, I see evidence of li&ertinism in &oth sexes which, when the women assert theirs, their hus&ands put down$ %9 I do not view ,aul as the Christian theolo!ian of miso!yny, the one who silenced the women) I &elieve the su&ordination of women was universal in the world of the *4, and that ,aul upheld the existin! norms$ In upholdin! those norms ,aul also encoura!ed such a transformation of personality amon! Christians, &oth male and female, that the issue of su&ordination fades in importance$ It was not ,aul who silenced the Corinthian women, it was their hus&ands) ,aul only a!rees with their insistence on wifely su&ordination and uses it to ar!ue that the men as well as the women should not misuse their Christian li&erty$ Fourth, the nature of the women#s pro&lem: the difficulty of the discussion of women#s and men#s hair as a 2coverin!2 ;11:16f) cf$ 11:<f9 allows some commentators to ar!ue that the women#s practice is not removin! their veils, &ut un&indin! their hair as in the ecstatic worship of Dionysus or in ritual mournin! visi&le often in +ttic vase paintin!s and discussed in a num&er of "ree' and :atin texts$ 5owever, &oth the context and the semantics of 11:2-1 ma'e clear that the old view is ri!ht$ 4he men are !oin! veiled, ;textual 2with head covered,2 11:69, in sacral settin!s, as Dr$ 0ster demonstrates$ 4he ver& for this ;11:79) the same ver& and its co!nates descri&e the women#s practice ;11:<9) ;11: 9) ;11:1=9$ 4he voca&ulary is the same for each !ender$ 4hus Dr$ 0ster#s wor' esta&lishes what &oth the men and the women are doin!$ *ow to my ar!ument$ My thesis is that the literary structure of I Cor >-11 clarifies ,aul#s perspective on the difficulties he addresses in 11:2-1 surroundin! the &ehavior of the women$ My ar!ument will move in four narrowin! circles, then &roaden out to discuss the implications$ - ?irst I will show that I Cor >-11 is a structural unit) - then I will ar!ue that it is a dou&le rin! composition in the pattern +%+%+) - then I will ma'e a case that the position of 11:2-1 within the rin! composition demonstrates that ,aul presumes his audience a!rees with his perspective--which, once !ranted, forces us to reevaluate what instruction we are to ta'e from the passa!e) - then I will discuss the meanin! of the passa!e$

- ?inally I will apply the results to contemporary concerns$ I) F#r'*+ *,! '*ru-*ur&" u%#*. of I Cor >-11$ Despite much confusion amon! the commentators, who show an almost universal tendency to separate chapter 11 ;or 11:2-=69 from chapters >-1@, the case for the literary unity of chapters >-11 is clear$ +9 ,aul#s use of the discourse mar'er 2*ow concernin!2 ;7:1,2<) >:1) 12:1) 1 :19, delineates the natural divisions of the second half of the letter$ %9 4he topic of sacred foods in two different pa!an settin!s ;chapters > and 1@9 shades into the Christian sacred meal, the :ord#s (upper ;1@:17-22 and 11:17-=69) this &rid!es to!ether all the topics discussed in I Cor >-11$ C9 ,aul#s pattern of rin! composition is evident here as elsewhere in I Cor: he &roaches one su&-ect, moves to an apparently unrelated second su&-ect, then returns to the ori!inal su&-ect--and one reali8es that ,aul has interspersed the apparently unrelated material to apply it fruitfully to the ori!inal topic$ II) S!-o%/+ I Cor 8-11 #' #*'!"0 & /ou1"! r#%2 -o$ o'#*#o% #% *,! &**!r% ABABA, with Christian li&erty and the eatin! of sacred foods as the unifyin! concerns throu!hout$ 4he three A sections are all or!ani8ed around various pro&lems in the eatin! of sacred foods$ - A1, chapter >, addresses the pro&lem of Christians eatin! foods consecrated and slau!htered to pa!an idols) the rationale is that Christian 'nowled!e allows them this li&erty ;>:1-6,7,Aff9$ - A2, chapter 1@, addresses the pro&lem of Christians eatin! sacred meals in pa!an temples, which were cultural centers of ;male9 social and commercial activity) the rationale is 2+ll thin!s are lawful2 ;1@:2=) cf$ 1@:2Af9$ - A3, 11:17-=6, addresses the pro&lem of Christians eatin! the sacred meal of Besus--supposedly in fellowship with Besus, &ut not in fellowship with all his people$ 4he two B sections interspersed within the structure &oth deal with freedom, li&erty, and ri!hts: - B1, chapter A, descri&es ,aul#s apostolic authority, his li&erty, his powers and ri!hts--all of which he !ives up in service to the church) - B2, 11:2-1 , confronts the pro&lem of Christian women who in the name of Christian li&erty are seen as attemptin! to overthrow the cultural and social restraints upon them$ 4hus the structure is ABABA: pro&lems re!ardin! the eatin! of sacred foods counterpointed &y two examples of Christians who either !ive up their ri!hts, as did ,aul, or assert them, as the women had done$ 4he outline of >-11 thus loo's li'e this: - A1 4he pro&lem of Christians eatin! sacred foods consecrated to pa!an idols ;Chapter >9$ 4he rationale: 'nowled!e, li&erty, authority, and ri!hts ;vv$ 1-=, Aff9$

- B1 ,aul#s apostolic ri!hts, authority, and li&erty, of which he does not ma'e use ;Chapter A9$ - A2 4he pro&lem of eatin! sacred meals in pa!an temples ;Chapter 1@9$ 4he rationale: 2+ll thin!s are lawful2 ;v$ 2=9$ - B2 4he pro&lem of Christian women exercisin! their li&erty to overthrow cultural and social restraints upon them ;11:2-1 9$ - A3 4he pro&lem of eatin! the sacred meal of Besus unworthily, not in fellowship with the Christian &ody as a whole ;11:17-=69$ I thin' the first two points, the literary unity and the rin! composition of I Cor >-11, are undenia&le$ III) T,! *,#r/ o#%*, my explanation why ,aul chooses to discuss the case of the women where he does in his ar!ument, is more de&ata&le$ I 1!"#!4! P&u" -,oo'!' 5o$!%6' 4!#"' as the centerpiece of a rin! structure for the same reason he chooses other examples for centerpieces of his rin! structures: 1!-&u'! 0or *,! $&7or#*. o0 ,#' r!&/!r' 5,&* ,! $&8!' o0 *,! !9&$ "! 5#"" 1! '!"0!4#/!%*". *ru!( Consider how others of ,aul#s rin! compositions wor'$ +9 I Cor 7 is a rin! structure addressin! pro&lems re!ardin! celi&acy for spiritual purposes, which include the desire of some married Christians to 'eep their marria!es sexless or to renounce marria!e alto!ether ;7:1-1 9, and the attempt of the ri!oristic advocates of celi&acy to for&id any and all second marria!e and prevent fathers from contractin! first marria!e for their maiden dau!hters ;7:2<-=<, 7:= -=>9$ Into the midst of these .uestions ,aul intersperses the apparent non se.uitur of 7:17-26 advisin! slaves to 2a&ide2 in whatever condition they were when called to Christ$ 4his does fit: the advice to 2a&ide2 extends to married Christians and unmarried Christians$ ,aul uses what in the ancient world was the selfevident truth that slaves should &e su&missive, o&edient, and orderly to carry his point that Christians should a&ide content within their existin! social conditions$ %9 4he rin! structure of I Cor 12-16 wor's the same way$ I Cor 12 raises the pro&lems caused &y the pve/Cat//o/, the 2spiritual people$2 ,aul only raises the pro&lems in chapter 12) then he moves to chapter 1=, his paean on Christian love--a!ain an apparent non se.uitur$ 4hen in chapter 16 he returns to the spiritual people#s chaotic use and a&use of their spiritual !ifts, to which he now responds with cautions and controls$ 4he real control is self-evidently visi&le in the centerpiece of the rin! composition: Christian love, which must drive Christians to wor' only to up&uild "od#s people$ In each case, I Cor 7 and I Cor 12-16, we can say that ,aul places the self-evident truth in the center of the rin! composition not for its own sa'e &ut to apply it to the issues at hand$ C9 I &elieve that the same is true in the rin! composition of I Cor >-11, and that this must affect our evaluation how to apply the teachin! on the role of women that we hear in 11:2-1 $ ,aul#s auto&io!raphical example in chapter A

of havin! apostolic ri!hts and li&erties which he chooses for the sa'e of others to renounce rather than assert is self-evident: all his Corinthian readers should a!ree that ,aul is doin! a !ood thin!$ 4hat, I ar!ue, is the perspective needed to understand how ,aul addresses the insu&ordinate women of 11:2-1 ;who are amon! those he advises to 2%e imitators of me2 in 11:19: for ,aul#s readers, whom he addresses 22 times as 2&rothers2, i$e$ the male leaders of the Corinthian con!re!ation--for ,aul#s readers the insu&ordination of the women is selfevidently wron!, and ,aul#s point that they should &e su&ordinate is selfevidently ri!ht$ +ny male in the ancient world would have a!reed, as would most if not all females--the household unit was the social world, not only of Christians, &ut of non-Christians$ %ut ,aul#s point here is not simply to reaffirm the structures of society--if that is all he does, then he merely demonstrates a firm !rasp upon the o&vious$ Rather his point is that the same Christian men who a!ree that their women should not &e insu&ordinate in the name of their Christian ri!hts, Christian freedom, Christian 'nowled!e--these same Christian men have created the conditions of re&ellion &y their own insu&ordination and re&ellion$ 4hey have misused their Christian 'nowled!e, freedom, and ri!hts &y eatin! meats con-secrated to idols, &y participatin! in meals at the pa!an temples, and &y rationali8in! sexual immorality$ If their women#s re&ellion is self-evidently wron! to them, they must see in that a mirror of their own re&ellion$ IV( W,&* 11:2-16 &-*u&"". '&.' #' %o* &"" *,&* ,&r/, despite the confusions over whether the women are !oin! unveiled or with their hair un&ound, how the sacral veilin! of the men fits in, how the man is the ima!e and !lory of "od &ut the wife is the !lory of her hus&and, what the an!els have to do with the need for women to !o covered, etc$ 4he primary thrust of the passa!e is clear: *,! u1"#- 1!,&4#or o0 5#4!' #% *,! C,r#'*#&% &''!$1". ',ou"/ /!$o%'*r&*! *,!#r 'u1$#''#4!%!'' *o *,!#r ,u'1&%/' &%/ *,!#r r!' !-* 0or *,!$: o*,!r5#'!+ *,!. ',&$! *,!$ u1"#-".( *ow to examine the passa!e in more detail$ 19 ,aul &e!ins &y praisin! the Corinthian men for holdin! fast to the traditions handed down to them ;11:29$ In the next &reath ;11:6-7a9 he will correct them re!ardin! their practice of veilin! themselves in worship$ Clearly they hold to the tradition correctly in some other re!ard--namely in the topic raised in 11:=, the su&ordination of women$ 4hey have it strai!ht that hus&ands stand as heads over their wives, -ust as Christ stands head over them$ 4he contrast &etween ;11:29 and ;11:179 and ;11:229 ar!ues that the Corinthians have fou!ht and won the &attle over the unveilin! of the women, whereas the veilin! of the men remains a pro&lem$ Reconstructin! the historical situation one may su!!est that certain 2Corinthian women prophets2 did indeed attempt to assert their li&eration in Christ, &ut that ;pace 1ire9 the men of the con!re!ation successfully cur&ed their re&ellion$ ,aul con!ratulates the men on doin! the ri!ht thin!) he then &uilds his response to the men#s own pro&lem of self-assertion in the name of Christian li&erty on that premise$ 29 Meantime ,aul ta'es issue with the men#s practice of the Roman custom of sacral veilin! ;11:6-7a9$ 5is ar!ument: +9 4he practice dishonors their head, Christ, in the converse of

the way that their wives !oin! unveiled dishonors their heads, their hus&ands$ 1ives who !o unveiled, the Corinthian men will all a!ree, mi!ht as well !o shaven &ald--the shame is the same ;11:6ff9$ %9 Men are the ima!e and !lory of "od) therefore they ou!ht not to efface that ima!e with a veil ;11:7a9$ =9 ,aul ar!ues the converse in the case of the wives ;11:7&-1<9$ 4he underlyin! assumption is that married women wear veils as the sym&ol that they are under the authority of a hus&and$ 5ere a!ain ,aul#s entire male audience cannot &ut a!ree with his views$ +9 1ives are the !lory of their hus&ands, which means that their conduct in pu&lic assem&ly reflects directly upon their hus&ands# honor$ 4herefore they should !o veiled in the assem&ly to demonstrate the culturally-accepted sym&ol of their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia ;11:7&9$ %9 "od &uilt this principle of hierarchy into the created order: woman is from man, not man from woman) +dam was created first, and Dve was ta'en from him ;11:>f9$ 4his means wives are su&ordinate, and their su&ordination re.uires them to wear the veil as its sym&ol 2&ecause of the an!els2 present in the Christian assem&ly ;11:1@9$ C9 5owever, ,aul .ualifies his hierarchism with the note that after creation the order is the interdependence of man and woman, and &oth must &e su&ordinate to "od ;11:11f9$ D9 4he underlyin! principle is one the Corinthians can -ud!e for themselves--for ,aul 'nows they will all a!ree: the woman who prays or prophesies in the assem&ly must of course wear the sym&ol of her pudicitia ;11:1=9$ 4his, he 'nows, they will see as only 2fittin!2$ 5ere ,aul ar!ues from moral decorum, from the pu&lic sense of honor and shame$ Recall the Roman practice of sacral veilin!: so stron! was this cultural ethos that the Corinthian men were !oin! capite velato in the Christian assem&ly$ ,aul wants the men not to do so, &ut he 'nows all will a!ree that the women should, at least when they ta'e the pu&lic role of prayin! or prophesyin!$ 4he practice of ritual veilin! stren!thens ,aul#s ar!ument that the women should stay decently veiled at all times in the Christian assem&ly$ D9 +s a last illustration, ta'e the culturally-accepted view of lon! hair: everyone will a!ree that women should wear lon! hair and men should not ;11:16f9$ 4his ,aul premises on 2nature2$ +ll ar!uments from pro-!ay scholarship aside, for ,aul to ar!ue from 2nature2 means he views this as a truth that is self-evident &ecause it is inherent in "od#s created order$ *atural order shows a!ain that women should wear a coverin! in pu&lic assem&ly, while men should not$

?9 ,ullin! it all to!ether, ,aul appeals to &oth his own stance and to accepted usa!e amon! all the churches ;11:1 9$ 5e asserts--no dou&t truthfully--that all the churches of "od will a!ree with these cultural practices and the values they represent, thou!h he reco!ni8es that some may want to dispute the matter$ I% 'u$$&r., I &elieve the passa!e presumes that the women of the con!re!ation have attempted a re&ellion$ In the settin! of the church#s assem&lies, in the name of their Christian li&erty they have thrown off their veils, the sym&ols that they are under the authority of their hus&ands and are not availa&le to any other man$ 4he men of the con!re!ation have put down that re&ellion$ ?or this ,aul con!ratulates them, &ut in his masterful opportunistic techni.ue he demonstrates that it is the men#s own assertion of their ri!hts and li&erties--as they have asserted, 2+ll thin!s are lawful2 ; :12, 1@:2=9--that !ave rise to the women#s re&ellion$ 4he men can see clearly enou!h that their women should not act as if they were not under the authority of their hus&ands: &ut the men must apply a similar standard to themselves, for they too are under authority, the lordship of Christ$ In fairness to them we should as' what motivated the women to put aside their veils$ +rchaeolo!y has put to rest the old view that in castin! off their veils the women were identifyin! themselves with the thousand of priestess-prostitutes of +phrodite 'nown from (tra&o$ (tra&o#s report is fanciful and descri&es 0ld Corinth &efore its destruction under :ucius Mummius in 16 %$C$ 4here is no evidence that the cult of +phrodite re-covered sufficiently to &e a dominant presence in Roman Corinth$ ,erhaps the most co!ent explanation is that in removin! their veils the women were attemptin! to remove, not the si!n of their su&ordination, &ut the si!n of their !ender$ In this case their intention was not to &e insu&ordinate so much as it was to reconstitute the church as an asexual society--as indeed was visi&ly attempted in later Christianity$ 0n this view the drivin! force is neither licentiousness nor prototypical Christian feminism, &ut ascetic idealism and moral earnestness--the same phenomena visi&le in I Cor 7$ 5owever, the old view that it was li&ertinism is not entirely off the mar': the women#s defense of their practice will have depended upon their 2li&erty2 to do so, and--however wron!ly--it will have opened them to the pu&lic perception of &ein! immoral$ ,aul responds from the order of creation, from natural order, from social usa!e and from the accepted practice of the churches that they cannot remove themselves from the sphere of their !ender$ 4hey must wear the sym&ol, not only of their pudicitia, &ut of their !ender$ V( L&'*+ & 5or/ ,o5 1#1"#-#'*' ',ou"/ & ". *,! #%'*ru-*#o% o0 *,! &''&2! 5,!% '!!% #% *,#' "#2,*$ +s in any of our disputes, so in our dispute over women#s issues: one touchstone has to &e honesty) another, intellectual tolerance$ 1e must &e tolerant enou!h of ideas and policies with which we disa!ree that we can ta'e them on without havin! to distort or misrepresent them, and ta'e them on in their stron!est forms &y their worthiest representatives$ I have to respect (chEssler ?ioren8a, who has done us the favor of crystalli8in! the feminist case with !reat clarity and force: "A feminist theological hermeneutics having as its canon the liberation of women from oppressive patriarchal texts, structures, institutions, and values maintains that--if the Bible is not to continue as a tool for the patriarchal

oppression of women--only those traditions and texts that critically break through patriarchal culture and 'plausibility structures' have the theological authority of revelation." 4hese words do the invalua&le service of forcin! this issue and clarifyin! what is at sta'e$ In (chEssler ?ioren8a#s view the entire %i&le is patriarchal and androcentric, and as such has &een 1estern culture#s most powerful tool in the oppression of women$ 4he Christian reli!ion is so powerful that it cannot &e a&andoned) therefore it must &e coopted$ 4his must &e done &y reconstitutin! it$ 4he %i&le must &e viewed not as a mythic archetype, &ut as a prototype) that is, it cannot &e ta'en as normative &ut must &e reappropriated and adapted for the new li&erationist situation, always reshaped &y the normative criterion of the li&eration of women$ 5ere is where can never agree with her unless and until I am willin! to shift to an entirely different paradi!m$ I &$ & 1#1"#-#'*: I 1!2#% 1. '!!8#%2 *ru*, 0ro$ Go/6' r!4!"&*#o% o0 ,#' $#%/ &%/ ,!&r* #% *,! B#1"!( (he is a feminist: she &e!ins with feminist analysis of the oppressiveness of the patriarchy and criti.ues the patriarchal scriptures throu!h that filter$ 5er canon, her standard, is feminist ideolo!y$ ,erhaps no emphasis is needed how prominently ,aul#s attitudes toward !ender issues fi!ure into contemporary discussions, or how central 11:2-1 is in the evaluation of ,aul#s patriarchalism, androcentrism, and miso!yny$ In fact, feminist interpreters universally view 11:2-1 as a pivotal text in the development of the Christian patriarchy$ In (chEssler ?ioren8a#s reconstruction of Christian ori!ins ;followed &y 1ire, D$R$ MacDonald, M$F$ MacDonald, and many others9, the ori!inal messa!e of Besus was e!alitarian) earliest Christianity was characteri8ed &y the discipleship of e.uals and the re-ection of patriarchy$ Darly in his own ministry ,aul held the same e!alitarianism, crystalli8ed in "al$ =:2>, 24here is neither $ $ $ male nor female$2 In this he echoed the words of Besus on ma'in! the male and the female one ;the famous :o!ion 22 of the "ospel of 4homas is ta'en to represent a pre-,auline tradition, perhaps a !enuine word of the historical Besus9$ 5owever, when he saw the pro&lems arisin! in his churches when women asserted their status as co-e.uals, ,aul reacted &y reformulatin! his position to control their self-assertion: and 11:2-1 ;with 16:==ff9 is precisely the text where this is seen$ In other words, here we are loo'in! at the 'ey text for the &e!innin!s of the institutionali8ation of Christian patriarchy$ (chEssler ?ioren8a, 1ire and others see 2the Corinthian women prophets2--i$e$ prototypical Christian feminists--in 11:2-1 ) they see an ideali8ed picture in earliest Christianity when women were e.ually !ifted and e.ually expressive in Christian worship$ (imilarly (cro!!s, ?ee, and many others see 2eschatolo!ical women2 in ,aul#s Corinth: women whose Christian faith li&erates them from the old social order to live the life of the a!e to come in their present existence$ 4hey read the situation underlyin! the passa!e as a charter for the social li&eration of Christian women) ironically, they see ,aul strainin! to repress the excesses of the women$ If my ar!ument is ri!ht, then ta'in! 11:2-1 as a ma!na charta for Christian feminism turns the text upside down, thou!h neither should the text &e ta'en as charterin! an oppressive patriarchal rule: &oth readin!s retro-ect modern concerns onto a text whose thrust aims elsewhere$ 0n my readin! 11:2-1 is merely &% #""u'*r&*#o% *,&* 5#4!' ',ou"/ ,o%or *,!#r ,u'1&%/' 1. *,!#r u1"#- 1!,&4#or--a point &oth welcome and self-evidently

true to ,aul and his ;male9 readers, who live in a culture driven &y concerns of honor and shame$ 11:2-1 says that Christian wives who pu&licly and wilfully assert their li&eration in Christ &y castin! aside the cultural sym&ol that they !ive themselves exclusively to their hus&ands &rin! shame upon &oth their hus&ands and their :ord$ 1hat ,aul illustrates, here ne!atively, is the lar!er .uestion of chapters >-11: *,&* C,r#'*#&%' 5,o #% '!"0#', 5#"0u"%!'' &''!r* *,!#r r#2,*' &%/ "#1!r*#!'+ -&r!"!'' 5,&* r!0"!-*#o% *,!. -&'* u o% *,! -,ur-,+ ,ur* *,! 1o/. o0 C,r#'*$ 4he path of love is the path of up&uildin! the church: willin! self-sacrifice, which includes the sacrifice of one#s ri!hts$ ?rom ,aul#s perspective any discussion of the Christian#s ri!hts must entail discussion also of his or her responsi&ilities, her or his opportunities to sacrifice self-interest for the sa'e of others$ ,erhaps I should la&el my analysis of ,aul#s views on !ender roles as a minority report, or a report from the losin! side$ I am a non-feminist) I still &elieve that &oth ,aul and "enesis are ri!ht to see the order of creation as hierarchical$ %i&licism drives me to &elieve that "od intends wives to &e su&missive to their hus&ands, to honor and respect them--thou!h it drives me &eyond that to &elieve that "od intends for hus&ands to reciprocate in mutual self-sacrifice$ 4he transformin! wor' of Christ ma'es the relationship reciprocal$ %oth the male and the female sides of "od#s intention for !ender roles reflect the ima!o dei: in these matters we &ear the ima!e of "od$ I see only two alternatives: either the ima!e of "od is ;as feminist interpreters insist9 !enderless, or it is !endered) either our &earin! of the ima!e of "od should &e unisex, or it should &e male and female$ ,aul ta'es "enesis in the latter way$ 5e ar!ues from the order of creation that maleness is the ima!e and !lory of "od, and femaleness the !lory of man ;11:79$ I /o %o* *&8! *,#' *o $!&% *,&* &"" 0!$&"!' ',ou"/ 1! 'u1or/#%&*! *o &"" $&"!'+ 1u* I /o *&8! #* *o $!&% *,&* P&u" 1!"#!4!' *,&* 5#*,#% *,! '*ru-*ur! o0 *,! 0&$#". 5#4!' &r! *o 1! 'u1or/#%&*! *o *,!#r ,u'1&%/'( Fes, ,aul &uilds reciprocity into marria!e$ *onetheless ,aul is a hierarchist--in "erd 4heissen#s phrase, ,aul holds to a 2love patriarchalism2--and he &elieves that "enesis is hierarchist &ecause he &elieves "od is$ 5e premises this on the order of creation, which means he does not view this as historically particular, situation-specific, 2cultural,2 and therefore relative, as is often ar!ued$ 5e says that 24he head of every man is Christ, the head of GeveryH woman is her hus&and, and the head of Christ is "od2 ;11:=9) he &elieves that the church everywhere must reflect "od#s order of creation, not o&literate it, in its pu&lic worship$ I fear that not only in the &road stream of +merican culture, &ut also in the ma-ority of +merican churches, the assumptions drivin! !ender feminism and li&erationism and individual ri!htsism may have won the day$ ,erhaps no reminder is needed that the conventional wisdom now a!rees with radical feminism in ma'in! ,aul the evil !enius of Christian patriarchy: the miso!ynist ,aul too' the ori!inally non-sexist, profoundly e!alitarian vision of Besus and perverted it for his sexist concerns--so, e$!$, in the wor's of Mary Daly and in the popular press$ 1here do you find people who still &elieve that our hi!hest callin! in life is to die to ourselves, to lay down our lives in willin! self-sacrifice, to spend and &e spent in lovin! and servin! and self-!ivin!/ 1here do you find people who still &elieve that marria!e and motherhood are entirely honora&le, that the nurture of children is one of "od#s hi!hest vocations,

and that it is mothers who do this &est/ 1here do you find parents who still teach these thin!s to their dau!hters, or their sons/ 1here do you find marria!es that mirror the holy love of Christ--wives who respect and honor their hus&ands, and yes, su&mit to them) hus&ands who lay down their lives in willin! self-!ivin! for their wives, lovin! them as Christ loved his church/ 1here do you find children who !row up seein! clear models of !odly womanhood and !odly manhood and who learn from their parents to desire "od/ If not amon! "od#s people, then where/ %ut even in the church I worry that we are losin! the pursuit of holiness in our !ender roles) I worry that our children will see increasin!ly fewer men who reflect a masculine ima!e of "od and increasin!ly fewer women who reflect a feminine ima!e of "od$ 1e are !oin! to have to decide whether we &elieve ,aul$ Dither ,aul is wron! &ecause he is sexist and culture-&ound, so that his words can &e relativi8ed and historici8ed, or he is ri!ht that "od created !ender, and !ender roles, as part of the !oodness of creation$ 4his involves the .uestions not only whether "od intends for wives to &e su&missive to their hus&ands, &ut further whether he intends for his people to &ear his ima!e in masculine or feminine ways$ If ,aul is ri!ht, then our loss of manly and womanly !endered models of !odliness represents not merely the passin! away of old traditions or the restructurin! of culture-&ound social structures: it represents the a&andonment of our created purpose to 'now "od and &ear his ima!e clearly and faithfully$