Reasons Paul Should Have Been A Woman

In the shower this morning I got to thinking along these lines, and determined there would have been some definite benefits to Paul (the Bible letter-writer guy) having been female. Here are a few:

1. Theories about the writer of the book of Hebrews being Paul, or being female, wouldn't be at odds.

2. Debates about whether women could be preachers would be nonexistent.

3. Here's the main one I want to talk about: Paul might not have written about circumcision, but instead brought up virginity in the letter to the Romans. This might have saved a lot of strife over the last couple thousand years.
     And it makes sense. Paul goes off in the second chapter on how circumcision is worthless if you're not going to keep all the old law, and that what Christians need to focus on instead is the state of their heart. It's a brilliant section of scripture, that letter to Romans, and well worth a read.
     I'd hold that you can substitute in (female) "virginity" for "circumcision" and leave the meaning unchanged.

• Both are basically worried about the state of a little flap on your genitals.
• Both are concepts relating to legalistic holiness, usually more from the point of view of parents than of the children involved.
• Both are easily thought of in terms of chastity, which IS a virtue, one which Paul upholds even while completely demolishing the supposed requirement of circumcision. What matters, Paul holds, is whether or not you have faith and dedicate your heart to God, not whether or not you're circumcised.
• Both are irreversible.
• Both are often used to sort out the "right sort" of people from the "wrong sort."

     Now, I did mention parents there, which I'm sure raised red flags for tons of people. Anyone familiar with Christian circles knows that circumcision of children is still very popular, despite the discussion in Romans, and again in Galatians. Nowadays, parents will also cite "health" concerns, which is all well and good, but there remains a sense in which the parents are doing it as a further way of dedicating the child to God (in addition to baptism, if they do that). They see it as helping their kids be "holy" (ie, not be as inclined to masturbate or seek out sex). This, of course, is wrong on tons of levels, and represents a complete misunderstanding of Paul, biology, and faith itself. Parents who want this for their kids need to seriously examine their motivations.

     Similarly, parents are often very protective of their daughters' virginity. I'm not saying things would be completely different if Paul had brought up virginity (he does in 1st Corinthians, though there it's also a shorthand for dedication to God, not as a biological thing). Circumcision, as I said, is still widely practiced in Christian circles, so maybe we'd likewise still have "Purity Balls," stupid analogies based on cookies, etc. even if virginity was specifically declared worthless in the Bible. But with circumcision, it's nice to be able to point to a passage in Scripture and say, "look, if you're Christian, you really don't need to be worried about this," when really I think it should apply to both concepts. Parents should encourage their kids to be chaste (in addition to kind, humble, patient, temperate, and so on). But worrying overly much (or teaching them to worry overly much) about their virginity is just plain harmful and un-Christian. 

     "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6) 

4. Discussions on head-coverings might have included style suggestions.  :-p