28. MUST WOMEN COVER THEIR HEADS?
1 Cor. 11:2-16
Pauline
Chakkalacal
Introduction:
Paul has been labelled a "woman hater"
because of his alleged statements on the role and status of
women. "Maligned on the one hand, exonerated on the other, Paul
himself is lost behind a barrage of claims and counter claims."
Many hold him responsible for negating the freedom won for women by
Jesus and denigrating them to a subservient position. Throughout
the centuries and even today Pauline authority has been invoked to
perpetuate female domestication in the church. In fact Pauline
literature in the New Testament "has formed the battleground upon which
women's issues in the church have been contested."
The apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in
Pauline letters can be understood only when they are viewed from the
socio-cultural and religious milieu of Paul and of his Christian
communities. His Jewish Hellenistic background is to be kept in
mind. This is important because every individual is conditioned
and influenced by his/her environment and education. It would be
naive to think that Paul was free from the influence of a patriarchal
society that considered women as second class citizens.
We will study together 1 Cor. 11:2-16, one of the
key texts known to have been written by Paul.
Should women cover their heads?
In this passage, Paul's main concern is discipline
and order in liturgical assemblies. The focal point here is the
issue of head covering for men and women. Judging from the passage as a
whole we can say that Paul is giving a concrete rule of order: in
worship services, men should leave their heads uncovered, while women
should cover their heads. His bases for issuing such an order are
mainly two:
1. theological argument
(11:2-12)
2. appeals to `reason' (vv. 13-15)
and
`custom'
(v.16).
1. Theological
Argument:
Paul's reference to the creation account in Gen.
2:18-25 is central to the discussion of 1 Cor. 11:2-16. The
structure of the passage reveals Paul's concern to bring out the
distinctive situations of man and woman, while acknowledging the
interdependence of both in God's plan.
Key words in the original Greek text are kephale
(head), katakalypto (cover up), and exousia (authority). We shall
make an attempt to grasp the meaning of these words.
a. Head:
The Greek word kephale like the Hebrew rosh and
English `head', has several figurative meanings. However, it
never connotes `authority,' or `superiority.' Among the range of
meanings which kephale has in ordinary Greek are `origin,' `starting
point,' or `completion.' Paul's use of kephale as `source' or
`origin' agrees with the thrust of his argument in 11:2-16.
In 1 Cor. 11:4,5 and 10 kephale seems to denote
physical head. But v.3 has a metaphorical meaning that would
perhaps cover the three subjects: Christ, man and woman. The
traditional meaning `superior' does not occur in secular Greek. In
Gospels too where the head or master of a household appears, kephale is
not used to designate an authority figure (e.g. Mt. 10:25; 13:52; Lk.
13:25; 14:21). The metaphorical meaning of `source' (cf. Col.
2:19) agrees well with the statements in v.8 and v.12, woman is `from'
man. Thus one's kephale would remain the `source of one's
being.'
The `chain-like' statement in v.3 gives the
impression that Paul is setting up a hierarchy of order:
God-Christ-Man-Woman. A certain measure of subordination is
implied in the fact that the kephale (source) of every woman is the man
(v.3). Paul's thesis here is based on the story of creation in
Gen. 2:21-23 in which Adam is presented as the origin of Eve's
being. This idea is taken up again in vv. 8,12.
b. Head Cover:
To defend his position Paul works out a parallel
between a man who prays with his head covered and a woman who does so
with her head uncovered (vv. 4, 5).
The `why' of the woman's dishonoring her head is
given in v.15. By the fact she has been naturally provided with
long hair, it is appropriate for her to use a veil, if not she may as
well be shorn. Thus an unveiled woman shames her head, and that
of her metaphorical `head': man. The reason is given in v. 7c
where woman is spoken of as the glory of man. Instead, the man
who covers his head obscures the `image and glory of God' which he is
meant to be (vv. 4 and 7b).
Paul's statement about woman being the `glory of
man' (v.7) and not the `glory of God' is "only a recognition of the
temporal sequence of God's creative activity, since her being is
derived from the being of Adam." Despite his apparently confusing
reasoning, Paul does not deny the original intent of Gen 1:26, 28,
which portrays man and woman equally in the image of God and sharing
the God-given authority over the universe.
c. Authority:
The traditional understanding of `authority' v. 10,
in terms of passivity on the part of woman, has made this verse the
most offensive statement of female subordination in the passage.
However, neither in Paul's writings (e.g. 1 Cor.
7:37; 8:9; 9:4; 11:10; 2 Cor. 10:8; Eph. 1:21) nor in the whole
range of Greek literature is exousia used in the sense of the passive
acceptance of authority. The Greek word exousia always refers to
the active exercise of authority with special reference to the legal
capacity of the subject to act freely in his/her own right.
Therefore, `authority' in v.10 cannot refer to a passive authority
whereby the woman submits herself to man's authority. The usage
in 1 Corinthians itself suggests the contrary, viz. the exousia must
refer to the (active) authority, freedom or right to do something (cf.
1 Cor. 9:4-6, 12, 18; 2 Thess 3:9; 2 Cor 10:8) which the
woman herself possesses.
Among the important rights especially relevant here
is the right to pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly.
Paul's instruction on the right attire in the Christian congregation is
based on his idea of Christian authority originating from God and
mediated through Christ. Therefore the woman enjoys her own
authority to pray and prophesy in public. Her headdress should
reflect the manner in which her authority comes. As M.T. Brauch
has shown, by his choice of the word exousia instead of `head
covering,' "Paul seems to suggest that by wearing the covering and thus
conforming in her outward appearance with `nature/custom' the woman has
authority."
In this sense, Paul says that the veil is not a
symbol of woman's subjection to man, but a sign of her being the
`glory' of man. Operative here are the presuppositions and
customs prevalent in Paul's day. In his anxiety to project a
`good image' of the church, he exhorts Christian men and women to
conform themselves to certain practices. With a view to
justifying the common practice of women wearing a veil, Paul "allows
himself to be dragged into the theological speculations that are
typically Jewish, not Christian."
2. Appeal to `reason' and to `custom':
Realizing that his scriptural arguments in favor of
women's head covering are rather weak, Paul now appeals to reason and
custom:
Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with the
head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man
to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it
is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering" (vv.
13-15).
Behind this reasoning is Paul's belief that short
hair is `natural' for a man while long hair is `natural' for a woman,
hence ordained by God.
Fearing that his exhortation might not be followed,
Paul further insists on women's head covering by having recourse to the
existing custom: "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we
recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God" (v.16).
In the ancient world, ladies were expected to cover
their hair, ears and forehead in public, or else they were not
respected as women. Those who wore their hair in a disordered way
presented themselves as loose women. Likewise, the wearing of
long hair by men was associated with homosexuality in Greek
culture. Paul feared that the unveiled women along with the
long-haired men would contribute "to a blurring of sex distinctions - a
literal living out of the Gal. 3:28 ideal in the `over realized' way
typical of the Corinthians."
According to Phillip Sidon, wearing a veil was the
symbol of marriage at that time. Taking off the veil meant a
break in the marriage covenant leading to divorce. As
another scholar points out, in ancient Corinth, for a woman to go
unveiled would be to behave like a prostitute. An unveiled woman
in public would be despised and insulted. Certainly Paul would
not have encouraged a practice that would cause scandal and ridicule of
the young Christian community. Therefore, he constantly urged the
believers to follow a certain code of moral behavior, including the
subjection of wives at meetings. At any rate, what Paul says in
Corinthians 11 is directed to a concrete community in its Hellenistic
setting. He is not stipulating rules for all time.
Leading feminist New Testament scholar Elisabeth
Schussler Fiorenza is of the view that long flowing dishevelled hair
was a sign of the ecstatic prophetic behavior associated with the cult
of Dionysius, Cybele, Pythia, Sibyl and other deities. Unbound
hair was also a characteristic of the cult of Isis, which had a major
center in Corinth. Because of its liberative dimension and
principle of equality, the Isis cult attracted the Corinthians.
Fiorenza concludes that Christian women at Corinth considered their
loose hair as a sign of ecstatic endowment with Spirit-Sophia and of
true prophetic behavior. Paul's apostolic zeal moved him to curb
this pneumatic frenzy, in the interest of building up in the community
an intelligible missionary proclamation, which according to him was the
true sign of the Spirit.
To sum up, Paul's primary concern in 1 Cor. 11:2-16
is order and decorum in places of worship and not a theology of women's
head covering. He is reacting "to a situation of intense and
sometimes unruly enthusiasm. The text is not to be taken as a
textbook of theology, slowly matured and carefully expressed."
His sole preoccupation is the building up of the Christian
community. Hence he is bent on curbing any practice that might
offend Jews or Greeks (10:32), and thereby hinder his gospel
proclamation. In all fairness to Paul, we do well to admit that
the "goal of his argument, then, is not the reinforcement of gender
differences but the order and missionary character of the worshipping
community."
Women ought to question:
Reading Paul and analyzing the contemporary
situation of woman, we would reject many of the socio-economic,
religio-cultural norms, expectations and customs today, because they do
infringe upon the dignity, equality and rights of woman. It is
absurd to find theological reasons to justify customs and norms which
are societal in origin. Therefore, we question: Are Paul's
injunctions to women equally applicable in the cultural climate of our
time? How much should the socio-cultural situation existing in
Paul's day be taken into account and allowed to influence contemporary
interpretation? Have we taken the trouble to learn that several
of Paul's disciplinary declarations are sociological in nature and not
doctrinal?
Our failure to question and challenge the
androcentric and sexist elements in biblical texts has favored the
legitimation of women's low status in Church and society.
Liberation theologian Tissa Balasuriya rightly asserts: "The churches
have tended to be the last refuge of male dominance. They have
given male chauvinism not only a practical expression, but also a
theological and even a quasi-divine legitimation."
In India where women continue to be harassed and
exploited, the so-called `theology of head-covering' further reinforces
female subjugation. It helps the patriarchal system to keep women
under its thumb. The veil has often been assumed to be a sign of
a woman's subjection to her husband. This teaching does not spare
any woman.
Christian women in India have been brain washed into
believing that head covering is an essential dimension of women's
spirituality. It has been presented as a symbol of women's
submission and reverence to God who is worshipped as a patriarch -
absolute ruler, King of Kings, Lord of Lords! Moreover, according to
patriarchal ideology, women are less `dangerous' and `tempting' to the
vulnerable man when veiled.
The distorted portrayal of women in religious and
secular writings has led women to accept the myth of male superiority
and female inferiority. The inequality between women and men in
India is so structured and stereotyped that it has become an essential
part of Indian culture and ethos. Consequently the very
consciousness of women has been domesticated. The vast majority
of women in our country continue to be mute witnesses to or even
willing participants in their own and their daughters’ and
daughters-in-laws’ exploitation and discrimination.
Conclusion:
It is time that women developed feminist
hermeneutical tools for relevant Bible studies. God's word is
liberative and empowering, not enslaving and dehumanizing.
However, it comes to us mediated by human realities: human beings,
languages and thought patterns which are conditioned by their
particular age and culture. Hence we should be cautious so as not
to be victimized by the androcentric and sexist elements in biblical
texts. On the contrary, we should challenge the male-dominated
and culture-bound interpretations which ignore the experiences of women
and legitimize their low status in church and society.
If Paul were alive today, what would he say with
regard to women's roles and status in church and society? Would
he who declared the freedom and oneness of all in Christ Jesus (Gal.
3:26-28), not correct antifeminist theologians and pastors who invoke
his authority in favor of female subordination in the church? I
would think Paul would rewrite those texts dealing with the roles of
women and men in order to admonish contemporary Christians, in
particular the official teachers, to apply the gospel principles and
the liberative values of Jesus in their interpretations. S.
Wesley Ariarajah has done just this in an imaginative and lively
version of what contemporary Paul might say to clarify what he meant
and to chastise those who have distorted his letters.
The church must recapture the original vision and
praxis of Jesus and the liberative thrust of Paul, and move towards the
realization of a community of "discipleship of equals." Only then
shall there be no room for male domination and female domestication in
the church. Instead, mutuality, inclusiveness, participatory
decision-making and co-responsibility will become the hallmarks of its
community. The official church should allow female energies and
leadership skills to enliven and rejuvenate its existence.
It means a change of structure and a change of
mind-set, and an ongoing internal and external conversion. Indeed
this process demands creative criticism, openness, acceptance,
inclusiveness and democracy, all urgent needs of our church and society
today!
Questions for Discussion:
1. A critical reading of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 affirms
clearly and consistently the radical equality and
interdependence of man and woman. Then how
would you explain Paul's instruction to women on
head covering?
2. Covering the head is no more held to be a sign of
modesty or respectability for most sections of women
in India. If so, how significant is Paul's
dictum to us today?
Endnotes:
1. Don Williams, Paul and Women in the Church,
Glendale: Gospel Light, 1977, p. 11.
2. Brendan Byrne, Paul and the Christian Women,
Homebush: St. Paul Publications, 1988, p. XIII.
3. Berkeley and Alvera Michelsen, "What does kephale
mean in the New Testament?” Women, Authority
&
the Bible, ed., by Alvera Mickelsen (Downers
Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), pp.
97-110. See also Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning
of kephale in the Pauline Epistles, in Journal of
Theological Studies, 5, (1954), 211-215.
4. Cf. Schlier's definition of Paul's usage in this
passage: "kephale implies one stands over another in
the sense of being the ground of his being," TDNT
III, p. 679.
5. Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, (Downers
Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1989, p. 145.
6. Ibid., p. 151.
7. John Wijngaards, Did Christ Rule Out Women
Priests? Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1978,
p. 69.
8. Larissa Bonfante & Jaunzems, "Clothing and
Ornament," Civilization of the Ancient
Mediterranean Greece and Rome, Vol. III, ed.
by Michael Grant & Rachel Kitzinger, New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988, pp. 1385-1413, esp.
1410-1411.
9. Murphy-O'Connor, "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians
11:2-16," in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42
(1980), pp. 486-487.
10. Byrne, Paul and the Christian
Women, p. 36.
11. Pastor Andre Dumas as quoted by Mary Daly,
The
Church and the Second Sex, New York: Harper
& Row, 1968, p. 38.
12. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of
Her
A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian
Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1988, p. 22.
13. Ibid., p. 228
14. L. Legrand, "There is Neither Slave nor Free,
Neither Male Nor Female," Indian Theological
Studies, June 1981, p. 159.
15. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 230.
16. Tissa Balasuriya, The Eucharist and Human
Liberation. New York: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 52.
17. Wesley Ariarajah, Did I Betray the Gospel:
The
Letters of Paul and the Place of Women:
Geneva: WCC, 1996.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ariarajah, Wesley, Did I Betray the Gospel: The Letters
of Paul and the Place of Women, Geneva: WCC, 1996.
Balasuriya, Tissa, The Eucharist and Human Liberation.
New York: Orbis Books, 1979.
Brauch, Manfred T. Hard Sayings of Paul, (Downers
Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1989.
Byrne, Brendan, Paul and the Christian Women, Homebush:
St. Paul Publications, 1988.
Daly, Mary, The Church and the Second Sex, New York:
Harper & Row, 1968.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler, In Memory of Her: A Feminist
Theological Reconstruction of Christian
Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1988.
Grant, Michael & Rachel Kitzinger, eds., Civilization of the
Ancient Mediterranean Greece and Rome, Vol. III,
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.
Legrand, L, Indian Theological Studies, June 1981.
Mickelsen, Alvera, ed., Women, Authority & the
Bible,
Inter-Varsity Press, 1986.
O’Connor, Murphy, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980).
Wijngaards, John, Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests?
Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1978.
Williams, Don, Paul and Women in the Church, Glendale:
Gospel Light, 1977.