These texts reveal Paul’s hybridity, but they also have liberating potential for women if taken up because they point to mutual gender relationships.
In sum, although Paul’s views with regard to women stems from his hybridized position and although he privileges women in many ways, he does not seek to transform the social systems of his day. This is further evidenced by his concluding ruling in verse 16, where he asserts his authority as a seal of his argument. Henceforth, the church is to be governed by this hierarchical structure. Paul, in 1 Cor 11-16, therefore presents what, according to Dunn (1998:588), “appears to be an unbending statement of male hierarchy.” In this case, from a postcolonial feminist point of view, it can be argued that the liberating gospel message of Christ, which Paul is promoting in his alternative society, to a large extent remains submerged and subordinated to the cultural/imperial dominating voices with regard to the construction of gender power relations.
In conclusion, I will use the three questions outlined in the introduction which are used by postcolonial feminist hermeneutics to interrogate imperializing texts or texts that are used to justify domination of the ‘other’ (Dube 2000:57; cf. Marchal 2008:45-54), in the light of my findings in the chapter.
“Does this text have a clear stance against imperialism of its time?”
My analysis has shown that the text does not have a clear stance against imperialism of its time because it mimics the empire. It reinforces the imperial and traditional social order by making it into a divine sanction.
“How does this text construct difference: is there dialogue and liberating interdependence or condemnation of all that is foreign?”
This text creates difference. One of the ways in which Paul creates difference in the text is by presenting anti-models. In verse 1, Paul sets himself as a model to be mimicked or imitated by
80Lord Hale in the eighteenth century B.C.E pronounced: “By their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract” (quoted in Dixon 2001: 49).
the Corinthians. Anyone, who deviates from this model, is seen to be different and hence anti- model. This includes the unveiled Corinthian women prophets and the veiled men in the church, whom Paul is persuading to return to his model. Secondly, Paul creates difference by showing gender differentiation in the creation order, which he uses as a divine sanction for the subordinate status of women in a way in which the Genesis text does not. While gender differentiation in the creation accounts leads to equal relationships of mutual gender interdependence, Paul uses this gender differentiation to create gender hierarchy.
On the question of dialogue, I have argued that this text is a conversation between Paul and the Corinthians. Nevertheless, Paul’s strong voice and language that are dominant in the text, show that he is actually far from dialogue. His final ruling in verse 16 that “if anyone is disposed to be contentious-- we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God,” is clear evidence, that Paul has silenced all other voices and is not prepared for any dialogue and interdependence.
The response to the last part of the above question is also negative. There is no condemnation of all that is foreign. This is interesting because, in the beginning of the chapter, we found that Paul was prompted to write 1 Cor by the ‘secular’ or ‘foreign’ practices, which had permeated the church and which he felt were incompatible with the alternative community that he was creating.
However, in this chapter, surprisingly, he has totally embraced what is ‘foreign’ and non- liberating for women from the Roman family structure to construct a hierarchy of unequal gender power relationships in his church.
“Does this text employ gender and divine representations to construct relationships of subordination and domination?”
Paul employs gender and divine representation to construct relationships of subordination and domination in the text in the following ways: firstly, by placing himself as a mediator between the divine (God and Christ) and the community through his call for imitation as he imitates Christ (verse 1), secondly, in his hierarchy, he uses the relationship between God and Christ to sanction unequal gender power relationships between male and female (verse 3), and finally, Paul uses the authority of sacred texts, i.e. the creation accounts in Genesis, to construct gender differentiation.
1 Cor 11:1-16 therefore fits Dube’s definition of imperializing texts, or texts that justify subordination of ‘other’ by claiming divine authority.
In a nutshell, the chapter has revealed how patriarchy, imperialism, gender, and religion have served each other mainly in the Roman Empire, but also in the Greek and Jewish world, and in Christianity, to construct unequal gender power relations at the level of the production of 1 Cor 11:1-16. I therefore concur with Schneiders (1999:182) that:
One cannot assume…in reading the biblical text that it gives us an accurate picture of women in the community of salvation (since Jesus won universal salvation). We get the picture of women that men created, which corresponds to the male understanding of women and their place in society at the time of the writing of these documents.
Having established that the gender power relations constructed in the text, is not a God-given condition of male/female identity and relationships, but a patriarchal construction through the existing social, imperial and legal structures, how was this text taken up by the future church?
We must bear in mind that the future church did not regard this text as a social and imperial construction but as a sacred text which was authoritative in their lives. In the following chapter, I will examine how Paul’s perception of Imago Dei, which he confines to the male gender, was taken up, developed and appropriated in the history of the Christian tradition. However, since Paul constructed his theology of gender upon an existing distorted tradition about gender identity, and since the Church Father who took his theology further also shared the gendered views of philosophers like Aristotle and Philo, the chapter will first briefly historicize gender power relations by tracing it beyond Paul to the ancient world.