In life before Munnabhai MBBS, the acronym, besides being a medical degree, also stood for “Member of the Big Bottom Society”! During our school days that is what we nicknamed guys with big posteriors.
Why talk of bottoms? The bottom line comes from Cardinal Ivan Dias of Mumbai’s recent appeal for a dress code in churches. I have seen a number of letters in Christian journals supporting the Dress Code (DC). All the “holier than thou” letter writers were male. Since most of the names are familiar (they have been writing for ages) I presume that they are mostly 60 plus. Why are women and youth silent about the DC? And why are prudish old male letter writers targeting women only? Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church a male bastion, that stamped out the feminine divine, as alleged by Dan Brown in “The Da Vinci Code”?
Bottoms or bosoms, when enveloped or developed in tight clothing, that reveal more than they conceal, are obviously quite a steal, when the congregation gets to kneel in church. Then the cardinal’s appeal makes the old men squeal, “It’s the young women who are spoiling the image of the Church. They should be put under wraps – tightly buttoned up”. I wonder who the fathers of these young girls are, if not the same old men?
For centuries Christianity has suppressed women, through a wrong interpretation of sacred scripture, and the cardinal’s DC has given the Male Chauvinist Pigs (MCPs) another handle to browbeat women into submission. Several letter writers have quoted extensively from St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 7 and 11, to justify their viewpoint in the “cover up operation” of women. In what way are these Christian MCPs different from the Mullahs in Deoband issuing fatwas against Muslim women, and the use of the veil? It is only a matter of time before they issue a fatwa to Sania Mirza to wear a burqa when she plays tennis. Why don’t they issue a fatwa to Salman Khan to keep his shirt on, and also not lose his shirt?
All normal men are strongly attracted by a woman’s physical attributes (moveable assets)! Yet they cry foul at the first opportunity. Pharisaic. Jesus’ attitude towards women was refreshingly different. He raised even so-called “fallen women” to a dignified position. When the crowd bayed for the blood of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus challenged the hypocrites by saying, ‘He who has not sinned, let him cast the first stone.” He then proceeded to write on the ground, and the murderous crowd melted away. Have you ever thought what Jesus wrote, that had such an impact? In all probability the woman may have whispered to him the names of the men in the crowd who had slept with her, and Jesus wrote down those names. The self-righteous accusers then hastily withdrew in embarrassment.
I’m not a saint, nor a prude, but there is one thing that gets my hackles up, and that is religious self-righteousness, or moral policing. I also strongly believe that we have no right to preach what we do not practice in our personal lives. It is in this light, and also in the light of scripture and church teachings, that I would like to examine the cardinal’s DC.
Let us first take St Paul’s aforesaid letter to the Corinthians. We need to here remember the adage, “ A TEXT without a CONTEXT is a PRETEXT”. In other words we need to examine the context in which a statement is made. If not, we are in danger of making pretexts – excuses and justifications for our own personal opinions or prejudices.
We need to understand that Corinth was situated very close to Athens in Greece. The Christian converts there were of Greek origin (Hellenistic), and they were still greatly influenced by Greek culture and religion, including religious sanction for free sex. It was in this specific context that Paul was writing. This was in fact the second letter to the Corinthians, (the actual first letter – cf 1Cor 5: 9-13, is lost) so he was probably a little angry and assertive, because his earlier missive went unheeded. Paul was not issuing a fatwa to the universal Church, or for all time. He was merely responding to a specific situation, which cannot therefore be used for sweeping generalisations.
The second driving force was Paul’s mistaken belief in the imminent second coming (Parousia – Kayamat in Islam) of Jesus. It was like a Tsunami warning. Abandon normal life, because of an emergency situation. That is why he mistakenly exhorted the Corinthians, “What I mean, brother, is that the time has become limited, and from now on, those who have wives should live as through they had none … those who have been buying property, as though they had no possessions …because this world as we know it is passing away” (1Cor 7:29-31). Poor Paul. He was way off the mark. Will all those worthy gentlemen, who quote other verses in this same chapter, first adopt celibacy and worldly renunciation, before telling women how to dress?
The third difficulty in quoting St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is his own frank admission, that what he is now saying is his personal opinion, and not revealed by God (1Cor 7:12,25). How then can we build a case based on mere personal opinions, made in a given historical and social context? It is absurd. Let us now examine some of these infamous quotes:
“The head of woman is man… Any man who prays with his head covered shows disrespect for his head… For a woman to pray with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head…If a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too ….For a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God’s glory, but woman is the reflection of man’s glory… If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but when a woman has long hair, it is her glory” (1Cor 1:1-15).
Before MCPs gloat over these excerpts I would reiterate the three factors that influenced Paul – his disappointment with the Corinthians, his mistaken expectation of the Parousia, and his admission of his own “personal opinion”. If the MCPs are still not convinced, let me deliver the punch line. By Paul’s standard, the longhaired Jesus is a “disgrace”! Finally, Paul himself, after waxing eloquent, climbs down to say, “Decide for yourselves …if anyone wants to be contentious, I say that we have no such custom, nor do any of the churches of God” (1Cor 11:13,16).
Paul’s oft quoted letter to the Corinthians, therefore, can in no way be used as the yardstick (pun intended) for women’s clothing, nor for a Dress Code by Cardinals or lesser mortals. How we dress for Church is actually a reflection of what we understand by Church. That in turn is determined by our understanding or experience of Jesus. Our Christology determines our ecclesiology, which in turn defines our dressology. That would be the subject matter for another article.
Before signing off I cannot resist a quote from Canon Law. “Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom” (Can 284). So friends, Dress Codes are not aimed at women alone. Instead of being obsessed with bottoms, let us rather button up and improve our understanding of Christianity and the core values of our faith. A Dress Code will then become redundant.
Leave a Reply