I Corinthians 11:2-16
Luke 6:17-26
The Rev. Dr. Dennis B. Calhoun
You may be wondering why in the world I chose as one of our scripture lessons for this morning this passage from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians which deals with the obscure and, frankly, rather sexist sounding issue of the veiling of women during worship. Good question. I found myself wondering the same thing as I read several scholarly commentaries, wondering what I’d gotten myself into.
But here’s how it happened. I hope that by the time I finish my story, you’ll be able to appreciate why I find this quaint and perplexing text so very compelling as I try to understand and know how to act on a moral issue of increasing urgency in our time and place in history.
First the story. Then the moral issue. And, I pray, through it all, the witness of scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, so that we might find the freedom to unveil ourselves in the grace of God.
Many of us UCC clergy in Connecticut subscribe to an Internet discussion forum that touches on all sorts of topics. This past week there was lots of discussion about the soon-to-be-released film by Mel Gibson called “The Passion.” The movie has been creating quite a stir lately, and was responsible for the face of Christ appearing on the cover of the current issue of Newsweek. You’ve probably heard the controversy over the film. Evangelical Protestants and traditionalist Roman Catholics, including the Pope, are hailing it as work of profound religious devotion and a powerful tool for Christian evangelism. But others, particularly mainline Protestants and Jews, are concerned about the film’s implications about who was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. There are fears that that the film will reinforce long-standing anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior.
The on-line clergy discussion was lively and impassioned at times this week. You probably know that many UCC clergy tend to be “moderate” to “liberal” on social and theological issues, but there are also a number of “conservative” and “evangelical” and even some “fundamentalist” clergy serving Congregational churches in Connecticut. These labels can be inaccurate and misleading, but they can also be helpful in understanding differing views on an issue.
Not surprisingly, the discussion about Mel Gibson’s portrayal of the passion of Christ seemed divided along theological lines, the conservatives sounding enthusiastic, the liberals voicing concern. But as the week went by, I began to wonder if the conversation carried echoes of another very divisive issue which has been all over the news: the question of same-sex marriage.
Now I’m generally a “lurker” in these on-line forums, which means that I read them, but don’t usually post comments. But when the discussion turns to the question of the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, or their full inclusion in the church, I find it difficult to stay silent. On the surface, the discussion was about the Mel Gibson movie. But I began to wonder if the deeper issue of our openness to opposing views had slipped in. A self-described theological conservative had written that, “it seems to me that ‘open and affirming’ [the writer put the phrase in quotation marks] is a very discriminating attitude… [The writer continued, addressing no one in particular] Your responses…in this forum come across as very self-righteous and judgmental…”
That’s when I jumped in. Wondering if the question of attitudes toward gay and lesbian people was emerging from the background, I wrote that “it saddens me to think that when people raise thoughtful questions from an opposing point of view, they are characterized as self-righteous and judgmental…” I continued, “…as for whether or not participants in this conversation are open and affirming, my experience has been that when that phrase is placed in quotation marks it is generally front-loaded with passion about something altogether different than the life of Christ…” What I was trying to say was that I suspect our divisions run deeper than how to respond to a movie none of us has seen yet. What I really wanted to say is “let’s not talk just about ‘The Passion.’ Let’s talk about our passion as people of faith on opposite sides of another issue who are sincerely trying to understand what it means to be faithful to the witness of scripture and the person of Christ with respect to how we regard people who are not heterosexual.”
Even though I didn’t put it that way, the point got across. The next posting came from a clergyman who is outspoken and clear about his conservative theological perspective. But what he wrote in response to my comment inspired me and touched me deeply. He said:
“I remember when I was a young Christian being fascinated with Paul’s debate with the Corinthians over the issue of women wearing veils. What a non-issue for us today, but in Paul’s day it was a topic filled with passion. If I understand correctly (and I may not), the issue was that young single women were removing their veils as an expression of their freedom in Christ. The problem was that, culturally, the veil symbolized who they belonged to – that is, under whose protection they lived. The only women of their day that walked around without veils were prostitutes. The controversy began by Paul preaching freedom in Christ. What was he to do? Paul responded on the side of unity and asked the women to put their veils back on. What fascinates me about this account is that Paul, the apostle of grace, found others had followed the freedom found in God’s grace in directions that he himself could not follow.”
He went on, but let me stop here. The point is I would never have thought to preach on this obscure and perplexing text from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, had it not been for the way it was invoked by this theological conservative with whom I often disagree. Here, our disagreement was eclipsed by what was for me a new insight into the scripture and my own bias. I attribute that to God’s amazing grace. It was a needed reminder to me that if we are willing to engage the views of those with whom we disagree, we just might find a word from God on the lips of those we have grown accustomed to seeing as our opponents. Imagine that! As a result, I went off-line for more conversation with two pastoral colleagues that, despite our differences, I have come to respect for their passion and faith.
Now, to be sure, I wasn’t entirely convinced by my colleague’s interpretation of this passage about the veiling of women in the early church. I did some reading of my own and discovered there are several compelling interpretations of this text. But that seems almost beside the point. Whatever else I learned this week, I developed a deeper appreciation for this short passage from First Corinthians that has been hotly debated by scholars through the years. Interestingly, it has been left out of our Revised Common Lectionary, perhaps because it seems to have little to say to us. At first hearing all this talk seems too arcane and culturally-conditioned to have anything to teach us beyond what we already know: namely, that the early church must be seen in the context of the patriarchal culture from which it sprang. The veiling of women in Semitic cultures and all that it stood for may seem strange if not downright repugnant to our contemporary Western sensibilities. So why linger over this admonition from Paul which seems to be saying to the women in the Corinthian church, “Well, even though you may have freedom in Christ to unveil yourselves, in order to avoid divisions, it would be better for you to just go along with the old traditions.”
I, for one, find that reasoning troublesome. If we let the threat of “divisions” guide us in determining whether and how to act when religious faith and cultural traditions collide, we might still be mired in the evils of human slavery or any number of other abhorrent social arrangements. No, I am not ready to accept the view that avoiding divisions is always more important than experiencing and expressing the freedom of our new life in Christ. But it seems to me there’s still another point to be drawn from all of this.
So let me come to the point: it seems to me that this lesson from scripture along with my experience this week was about God’s grace, not just our freedom in Christ.
This pastoral colleague, this brother in Christ, with whom I might disagree over the Mel Gibson movie and the issue of same-sex marriages or civil unions, put the matter of God’s grace in terms with which I could not be in stronger agreement. His are words I wish I had written. He wrote:
“I long for God’s grace, I preach God’s grace, and yet I find that there are some places where others have gone with that grace that I cannot follow. This is a painful reality for me. It reveals to me my limits, my cultural bias, and my fears. …As [Christians] we have all been called to serve God’s people in Christ’s name. That service will be directed by our cultural upbringing, religious experiences, training, and ideological leanings. Because of this, none of us will serve in the same way or hold the same opinions. Each and every one of us will find others holding opinions that we just can not get our minds around. …The wonder of it all, YES, the WONDER OF IT ALL is that God is still with us and reaches out to us with His love through us all. God is greater than I am. God can go places where I cannot follow.”
My colleague is right: some people will find that their freedom in Christ will take them in directions that some others cannot follow. The question of how loving couples of the same sex can express their love and solemnize their commitment is a particularly timely example. Just as most Christians have set aside the idea of veiling women in worship, there are those of us who believe the time has come to set aside old fears and prejudices about gay and lesbian people. The freedom that is ours in Christ has led some Christians to join the call for a reexamination, even a redefinition of some of our very oldest and most revered traditions, like the institution of marriage. Other Christians have and will continue to respond with dismay and fear and even alarm. The point is, as my colleague so aptly put it: some people will find that their freedom in Christ will take them in directions that some others cannot follow. But that’s not the whole of it. Our freedom in Christ, however far it takes us, is only part of the story. The rest of the story is about the grace of God. In fact, that’s the best part of the story: the amazing grace of God!
After reading the email message posted by this theologically conservative colleague whom I’ve never actually met, I wrote him to say this:
“You have in the past offered opinions with which I strongly disagree, even as I have admired the courage of your conviction. But your last posting, in addition to being gracious and humble, was filled with what I believe to be the genuine love of Christ and grace of God. Thank you for sharing your inspiration, which felt truly open and affirming – without those bothersome quotation marks!”
So that’s the story of how I decided to preach on this obscure text from First Corinthians about the veiling of women in worship. It is a text we may be tempted to set aside because it seems obscure and culturally out of place.
But I started this morning by claiming I found this text very compelling as I try my best to understand a moral issue of increasing urgency in our time and place in history. So let me close by saying why.
Friends, listen. The veiling of women in worship may seem like a non-issue to us today. But Paul worried that the division that was growing in the church around this and other questions was threatening to undermine the gospel of Christ. He worked to resolve the conflicts that had broken out before they could destroy the church. Paul adopted a posture much like that of Jesus in our gospel reading for this morning: a compassionate healer and teacher who comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable with the promise that the sufferings and persecutions and misunderstandings of the present time will be overturned when the reign of God is finally ushered in. Paul sought in love to heal a bitterly divided church.
But the possibility of division within the church need not constrain the Church of Jesus Christ from addressing the great moral issues of our day. Healing is not a preemptive act. Avoiding the moral challenges of our time out of some fear of that we might be divided betrays a failure of trust in the healing grace of God. We underestimate God’s grace when we act as though we must avoid potential divisions that might arise as we explore the meaning of our freedom in Christ. Avoiding conflict may have the effect of diminishing our experience of the grace of God by not giving God’s grace a chance to work when and where it is needed most.
The question of whether or not gay and lesbian people ought to have the right to marry has been placed before us with new urgency. In San Francisco, hundreds of same-sex couples have exercised their right to have a civil wedding since Friday, when the mayor removed all references to a person’s gender on the application for a marriage license. Earlier in the week the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts clarified its ruling that it is unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from marriage; very shortly couples from our neighboring state will exercise that right. Meanwhile, here in Connecticut our legislature is faced with a so-called “defense of marriage resolution” which would make it illegal for same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities of their heterosexual sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers. This is not a question that will not be resolved anytime soon. It is being debated in courts and legislatures around the country. And it is also being debated in many churches. There are passions around this issue that already have and will continue to divide people of faith. But God’s grace will be present in the midst of all this, if we can allow ourselves to be open to it.
Last October the question of same-sex marriage came before the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ. It was tabled so we would have time to consider it thoughtfully and prayerfully. I believe the time has come for us to take up the conversation in earnest here in our church. What about you? Are we willing to unveil ourselves, risking division as we explore the meaning of our freedom in Christ, relying on the grace of God? I believe we are. But I want to hear from you.
Friends, let us trust the grace of God in this and all things.
Amen.
The Rev. Dr. Dennis B. Calhoun
Senior Minister
Middlebury Congregational Church, UCC
February 15, 2004
