Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 3
Renee says her church warned her that the woman who embraced head covering was “really strange” and advised separation; what does that reveal about how modern churches define “acceptable” obedience, and how might early Christians have responded to believers who took Paul’s practices literally?
Another way to ask: Renee’s church said the woman who wore a head covering was “really strange” and told people to stay away from her. What does that say about what churches call “acceptable” obedience, and how might early Christians have reacted to people who followed Paul’s instructions very literally?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests Renee’s church treated literal obedience to a neglected text as “strange,” implying that “acceptable” obedience is often defined by group comfort, not by Scripture’s plain meaning; she also argues early church voices treated veiling as normal, not fringe.
- She says the woman “left the church because she followed those truths,” including “modesty and head covering.”
- Renee reports: “Our church actually advised us to stay away, that that’s a real strange thing she’s after.”
- That advice functioned as a boundary marker: it kept Renee aligned with the community’s norms rather than reexamining 1 Corinthians 11.
- Renee later argues the practice was historically widespread: “Up until 150 years ago, this was a no-brainer.”
- She cites early/older authorities approving it (e.g., “Tertullian,” “Clement,” “Augustine”) and mentions Linus teaching “by direction of the blessed Peter…a woman must veil her head to come into the church.”