Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Bercot’s head-covering example (1 Corinthians 11) targets a common explanation: “uncovered women were prostitutes,” which he calls “completely made-up” and unsupported by Paul or early Christian writers—what does that reveal about how quickly Christians will accept invented background stories when a command is “extremely unpopular” today?

Another way to ask: What does this example show about how quickly Christians accept made-up background stories when a Bible command is very unpopular today?

Direct Answer Bercot’s example suggests Christians can become eager to accept unsupported “background” explanations when they help remove the force of an unpopular command. When a teaching clashes with modern preferences, people may prefer a convenient story over what Scripture actually says.

Support from Transcript:

He calls head covering “an extremely unpopular practice in today’s church,” so “the norm is for a speaker or a commentator to invent some reason why a sister shouldn’t cover her head.”
He quotes the popular claim: “the only women… with their head not covered were prostitutes,” so Paul wanted to avoid scandal.
He later rejects it as unsupported: “Paul doesn’t state that as being his reason… He never says anything about that.”
He adds that “no commentator has ever produced any evidence” for the prostitute claim.
He says “the early Christian writers certainly know nothing about such a claim,” and concludes it is “a completely made-up claim,” yet “widely accepted” because “it fits what people want to hear today.”

Discussion Follow-ups What other commands do Christians tend to explain away with speculative stories? How can your group create a habit of asking, “Where is the evidence, and where does the text say that?”

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10