I think you’re missing the point of a lot of Paul’s discussion of sex and gender. I don’t think he’s uncomfortable with sex, it’s just that he doesn’t appear to believe that our sexuality is the most important thing about us- what is most important is growing into the image of Christ, and our sexual desires should be subordinate to that aim.

It seems quite clear from all of Paul’s writing that he expected Christ to return within his lifetime, or shortly thereafter. He felt that time was desperately short to grow the churches and bring as many into the flock as could be before that day arrived. Personal relationships, marriages, raising families, getting involved in more recreational sexual activities, all these things wasted valuable time!

But 2000 years have gone by and Christ has not yet returned (in a literal sense), and if we were to continue to live in a strict sense of avoidance of these things, the church would have gone the way of the Shakers a long, long time ago. So how do we interpret this today? Time is still valuable, still precious, and the hour is near at hand in both a literal and figurative sense. But are we all called to a strict asceticism? Probably not? I don’t know. If so, this runs pretty strongly counter to the church’s traditional interpretation of Genesis’ call to multiply and subdue the earth.

I got the impression that Henry was suggesting that the church’s traditional interpretation that Paul was identifying specific forbidden practices was problematic, rather that he was warning us against the distractions that intimacy (and marriage and families) can present to our call to carry out the work of the church, as you also seem to believe. Maybe I misunderstood you both.

Your statement on Paul’s attitude to women is also rather sweeping. Paul says that women should be silent in church in 1 Corinthians 14, but in chapter 11 he is discussing how they are to be dressed when praying and prophesying- don’t know about you, but I’d have thought both of those might involve speaking aloud. It’s far more likely that he is asking the women not to talk amongst themselves during parts of the service

Why is that “far more likely”? If the issue was that women were unlikely to understand the sermon, why not simply suggest they stay home and ask their husband about it when he got back? Much simpler, no?

Could we not interpret Paul’s combined statements to women about their behavior in church to mean that it would be best if they simply remained silent, but if they are in fact called to prophesy that they should protect their modesty while doing so?

but the injunction for women to submit to their husbands is always accompanied by the command for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church- a love which is humble, subservient and sacrificial. Submission cuts both ways.

I’ve never been a big fan of this defense for Paul’s statements here about husbands and wives. It seems like a way for modern christians who are uncomfortable in a post-lib feminist world with the notion of women submitting to their husbands to avoid the clear implications of Paul’s words. If he really meant it to cut both ways as a truly equal two way street, why did he so deliberately use very different words to describe the behavior he expected? Submitting and loving are very different things. If the intent of these verses was simply to demand mutual respect and submission to the best interests of the couple rather than the self, I think he’d have just said that. Paul isn’t exactly known for beating around the bush.

Boy we’re way off topic now :)

~jhimm
—
it’s smarter to be lucky
than
it’s lucky to be smart.