Discussion Questions
The speaker describes “headship” as an “upward submission” to Christ rather than “lording over” a wife; how does that definition reframe what authority is supposed to look like in marriage and in the church, and where do you see modern Christian instincts resisting that framing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “headship” means submitting up to Christ instead of bossing a wife around, how does that change what authority should look like in marriage and church? Where do you see Christians today pushing back against that idea?
In his “eye/ear/body” illustration (David as scholar vs. Patrick as Harkin House minister), what assumptions is the speaker making about God’s wisdom in assigning different gifts and roles, and how does that analogy pressure our current habit of treating roles as interchangeable as long as someone is “willing”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the “eye/ear/body” example, what does the speaker assume about God giving different gifts and roles on purpose? How does that challenge the idea that any role can be swapped as long as someone is willing?
When the speaker and his wife first encountered 1 Corinthians 11 through reading whole books at once (David Pawson’s method), what did reading it that way expose that a verse-by-verse or “headings and study Bible notes” approach might have hidden? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What did reading all of 1 Corinthians 11 at once help them notice that a verse-by-verse reading or study Bible notes might miss? Why does the bigger context matter here?
The turning-point objection from the Chinese sister was, “If the covering is long hair… why would they cut it off?”—how does that specific logic challenge the common evangelical claim that “her hair is given for a covering” ends the discussion, and what other tensions in the passage did you notice the speaker wrestling with? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the question “If the covering is long hair, why would they cut it off?” challenge the claim that “her hair is given for a covering” settles everything? What other problems in the passage did the speaker struggle with?
The speaker chose to obey before fully understanding (“When you find something that’s a command of God, you obey it even if you don’t understand”); what does this reveal about God’s expectations of His people, and what parts of your own discipleship have you postponed until you felt you had complete clarity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does obeying God before fully understanding say about what God expects from His people? What have you delayed obeying because you wanted total clarity first?
When his wife explained her motive—“Because I want to honor my head,” pointing to her husband—what does that moment reveal about her understanding of obedience as empowerment rather than oppression, and how does it confront the way “submission” is typically portrayed in contemporary church culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When she said, “I want to honor my head,” meaning her husband, how did she see obedience as something good, not harmful? How does that clash with how “submission” is often talked about in churches today?
The speaker claims the practice wasn’t “Anabaptist” but “all Christians… from the beginning… until the mid-20th century,” then piles up evidence (church photo wall 1924–1969, R.C. Sproul’s memory, pastors in the 1930s “allowing” unveiled women); what would it mean for modern evangelicals if the historical default really was universal veiling, and how would that change the burden of proof in today’s debates? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If head covering really was normal for most Christians until the mid-1900s, what would that mean for evangelicals today? How would that change who has to prove their point in today’s arguments?
Several quotes argue the practice disappeared “not because of new interpretive insights, but because of pressure from the world” and links are drawn to feminism and even rising divorce rates; how should a serious Christian evaluate claims of cultural pressure and correlation without making simplistic cause-and-effect arguments, and what evidence would you want to see either way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians judge claims like “the practice stopped because of world pressure,” without jumping to simple cause-and-effect? What kind of evidence would you want to see for or against that claim?
The speaker uses provocative images: 1899 beach modesty vs. today, men’s lust and women’s desire to be looked at as “two sides” that “feed off each other,” and the idea that mass Christian modesty would make the culture “feel naked”; what is uncomfortable or offensive about that diagnosis, and where do you think it accurately exposes how desire, clothing, and attention actually function? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What feels uncomfortable or insulting about the speaker’s ideas about modesty, lust, and wanting attention? Where do you think he is actually right about how clothing, desire, and attention work in real life?
Early Christian voices are cited (Chrysostom: “the whole world hath… received and kept the law,” Tertullian: “not among strangers… but… brotherhood,” Irenaeus reading verse 10 as “a veil… because of the angels”); if early Christians assumed head covering was a trans-local “law” for the churches rather than a Corinth-only custom, what practices today might we be wrongly treating as “cultural,” and what might simple obedience cost you socially in your current church or family setting? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians thought head covering was a rule for all churches, not just Corinth, what things do we today wrongly label as “just cultural”? If you chose simple obedience on a debated issue, what might it cost you socially in your church or family?