Discussion Questions

Finny argues that feminist readings of passages like 1 Corinthians 11 have functioned as a “beachhead” to undermine the authority of Scripture; where have you seen yourself “interpolating a more culturally palatable meaning” into hard texts, and what does that reveal about what you believe God is like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When have you changed the meaning of a hard Bible passage so it fits today’s culture better? What does that show about what you think God is like?

He claims egalitarians have “skewered” complementarians for inconsistency—treating 1 Timothy 2 as creation-rooted and transcultural while treating 1 Corinthians 11 as merely cultural; what do you think makes Christians want to keep one “creation-based” command and explain away another, and how do you decide when that impulse is faithfulness versus self-protection? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do you think Christians are tempted to treat one “creation-based” command as for all time but explain another one away as just cultural? How do you tell if you’re being faithful or just protecting yourself?

The lesson insists, “We strive for consistency… we don’t want to be in no man’s land,” and even suggests egalitarians can appear “a little more consistent” than complementarians; what would real interpretive consistency cost you personally (reputation, comfort, church fit), and what might it require you to re-evaluate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you tried to be fully consistent in how you interpret Scripture, what might it cost you (comfort, reputation, fitting in at church)? What beliefs or assumptions might you need to rethink?

Finny highlights that Paul calls head coverings a “tradition” (paradosis) that he “brought… from the outside,” not a Corinthian custom; what does this suggest about how God intends apostolic traditions to function in the church, and how does that challenge the modern instinct to treat “tradition” as automatically suspicious? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Paul calls head coverings a tradition he passed on, what does that say about how God wants apostolic traditions to work in the church? How does that challenge the idea that “tradition” is always a bad thing?

He argues the practice was countercultural in the first century (including men covering their heads in the surrounding world), and also grounds it in the Trinity and creation order; what does it imply about God’s wisdom and intentions if obedience sometimes makes Christians look strange both then and now? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If obeying God made Christians look strange in the first century and can still look strange today, what might that say about God’s wisdom? How does that affect how you think about obedience?

Finny uses 1 Corinthians 1:2 (“with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ”) to argue Paul’s audience is global, not “highly provincial”; how should that opening verse shape the way you weigh “local context” arguments, and what parts of your faith do you quietly treat as local preferences rather than worldwide Christian obligation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If 1 Corinthians is written for believers “in every place,” how should that affect arguments that a command was only for one local culture? What parts of your faith do you treat like personal or local preferences instead of something for all Christians?

The lesson connects Satan’s strategy (“God is not reasonable… doesn’t have your interests at heart”) with the internal reaction, “This is too extreme… too hard… crazy”; when you feel that kind of resistance to a command, how do you discern whether it’s wise caution, fear of man, or distrust of God’s goodness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When a command feels “too extreme” or “too hard,” how do you tell if that feeling is wise caution, fear of what people think, or not trusting God is good? What helps you sort that out?

Finny claims 1 Corinthians 11 is not about church meetings because 1 Corinthians 14 requires women to be silent “in church,” while 1 Corinthians 11 has women praying and prophesying; if he’s right that chapter 11 is about “ordinary life” (homes, meals, daily settings), what changes about the weight and scope of the command, and what objections rise up in you when it moves beyond Sunday services? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If 1 Corinthians 11 is about everyday life and not just church services, how does that change how serious and wide-reaching the command is? What pushback do you feel when it applies beyond Sundays?

He “knocks down” the idea that the covering is long hair by appealing to the Greek (katakalyptō in v.4), Esther 6:12 (Haman “with his head covered”), Plutarch, and the different word peribolaion in v.15; what does this deep dive into language and early sources expose about our confidence in English translations and headings, and how willing are you to let careful exegesis overturn a view you inherited? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Finny’s focus on Greek words and early sources show about the limits of English translations and section headings? How open are you to changing a view you grew up with if careful Bible study points another way?

Finny ties Matthew 8’s centurion (“I also am a man under authority”) to the claim that “submission generates power,” then links that to Acts 2’s Spirit poured out on “sons and daughters” and to women praying/prophesying within God’s order; how does this redefine power, authority, and “freedom” compared to modern evangelical instincts, and what concrete habits or choices would need to change if you truly believed the highest power is “a submissive type of power”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that “submission generates power” change what you think power, authority, and freedom are? If you really believed that, what specific habits or choices in your life would need to change?