Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
Renee challenges the “Bible times” dismissal by appealing to God’s word that “shall stand forever” and by noting Paul grounds the practice in headship order, creation order, and nature; which of those three foundations feels most confrontational to modern assumptions about identity and equality, and why?
Another way to ask: Renee says head covering isn’t just “Bible times” because Paul connects it to headship order, creation order, and nature. Which of those reasons clashes most with modern ideas about identity and equality, and why?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript most strongly frames “headship order” as confrontational because it directly asserts a hierarchy (God–Christ–man–woman) and demands visible acknowledgment of submission—something Renee says clashed with her feminist assumptions.
- She rejects “Bible times” by quoting Isaiah 40:8, “the word of God shall stand forever,” and 1 Peter 1, “Word of the Lord endureth forever.”
- She says Paul grounds the passage in “three universal orders” that “transcend time, culture, and place.”
- First is “the governmental order of headship…God, then Christ, then man, then woman,” which she calls established “forever.”
- Second is “the creation order” (man created first; woman created of man), which she treats as universal.
- Third is “the natural order,” pointing to sex distinction through hair patterns across cultures.
- She personally identifies headship as her hardest fight: “Being from my feminist background…this was one of the big fights for me.”