Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
The Daniel-and-China story functions as a credibility test: a serious missionary couple never heard a sermon on head coverings, implying modern silence is abnormal; what does that illustration suggest about how “normal Christianity” is defined—by Scripture, by historical practice, or by what faithful leaders happen to teach?
Another way to ask: He uses the Daniel-in-China story to suggest it’s strange that many churches never teach head coverings. According to that story, what makes something “normal Christianity”—the Bible, church history, or what good leaders teach?

Direct Answer The illustration suggests that what many assume is “normal Christianity” is often defined by what respected leaders teach (and what is culturally safe), not by the full scope of Scripture or historic practice. The speaker uses Daniel’s seriousness to argue that even faithful Christians can inherit a selective silence.

Support from Transcript:

  • Daniel is portrayed as deeply transformed and devoted: converted from violent anger, “winning souls,” then seminary, then “over 10 years…planting churches…in China.”
  • Despite that, he says Daniel heard “hundreds upon hundreds of sermons” from “every preacher…every professor…every public figure,” and “never once a teaching that a woman should cover her head.”
  • The speaker claims this is widespread: “the same reality…in the lives of almost every Christian…at least America.”
  • He explains the mechanism: teachers “tiptoe around” 1 Corinthians 11 because it’s “not okay to preach about this in 2024 American culture.”
  • He later adds a second standard of “normal”: historically, for “the first 1900…years,” these traditions were “preserved and practiced in varying forms,” only recently “wiped off the face of the planet.”
Discussion Follow-ups When Scripture is rarely preached, how do you decide whether silence means “unimportant,” “unclear,” or “costly”?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next