Discussion Questions

The lesson begins by calling 1 Corinthians 11 a “beachhead” for “low views of Scripture”; what specific interpretive moves around this passage have you personally seen (or used) that quietly treat Scripture as less than inspired and binding? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson calls 1 Corinthians 11 a key place where people lower their view of the Bible. What ways of explaining this passage have you seen (or used) that treat it as not fully inspired or not binding today?

Finny rejects the claim that Paul was mainly addressing first-century prostitution and appeals to Tamar in Genesis as a counterexample; what does that argument assume about how we should use the Old Testament to test popular “cultural background” explanations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says Paul wasn’t mainly talking about first-century prostitution and points to Tamar in Genesis. What does that argument say about how we should use the Old Testament to test “it was just cultural” explanations?

The lesson describes male–female complementarity not as “peanut butter and jelly” but “puzzle pieces,” and compares man–woman to “land and sea” and beauty to “contrast”; what does this suggest about God’s intentions in creating two sexes, and how does it challenge modern Christian instincts to minimize or erase gender distinction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says men and women are meant to fit together like “puzzle pieces,” not be the same. What does that say about why God made two sexes, and how does it push back on the urge to blur gender differences?

Finny accuses conservative evangelicals of hypocrisy for treating 1 Timothy 2 as transcultural (because of creation) but 1 Corinthians 11 as merely cultural (despite creation, Trinity, and angels); what do you think is really driving that difference in interpretation—exegesis, cultural comfort, fear of embarrassment, or something else? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says some people treat 1 Timothy 2 as for all times but 1 Corinthians 11 as only cultural, even though both mention creation. What do you think really causes that difference—Bible interpretation, cultural comfort, fear of looking weird, or something else?

Using Matthew 8 (the centurion), Finny argues that “submission generates power” and calls Jesus’ authority “submissive”; how does that reshape the way you think about authority in God’s character (Father/Son), and what would it demand of husbands and wives if it’s true? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Using the centurion story, Finny says “submission creates power” and even calls Jesus’ authority “submissive.” How does that change how you think about God’s authority (Father and Son), and what would it require of husbands and wives?

Finny warns that many people obsess over the head covering and miss that the passage assumes women “pray and prophesy” and that prophecy is a “highest gift”; in what ways have your church experiences either encouraged or functionally suppressed women’s Spirit-empowered prayer/worship/speech, and what might obedience to Paul actually liberate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says people argue about head coverings but miss that women in the passage pray and prophesy. In your church experience, how have women been encouraged or quietly held back from Spirit-led prayer and speaking, and what might Paul’s teaching actually set free?

The lesson argues that “praying and prophesying” functions as a merism—bookends for the whole spiritual life—and that “sacred and significant moments call for differentiation of the genders”; if Paul intends the principle to cover ordinary life (not only church gatherings), what everyday situations would become “sacred moments” demanding visible gender differentiation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says “praying and prophesying” can mean the whole spiritual life, not just church meetings. If Paul’s point reaches into everyday life, what normal situations would count as “sacred moments” where men and women should look clearly different?

Finny calls 1 Corinthians 11:7 (“woman is the glory of man”) the most offensive verse, then explains “glory” as “honor/pride/treasure” using 1 Thessalonians 2 and Adam’s poetic joy in Genesis 2; where do you feel resistance to that framing, and how might it expose modern assumptions about equality, identity, and what it means to “complete” one another? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says “woman is the glory of man” means she is his honor, pride, and treasure. What parts of that idea do you resist, and what might your reaction reveal about how you think about equality, identity, and “completing” each other?

The lesson claims verse 10 is mistranslated (“symbol of authority”) and should read “power/authority over her head,” tying it to modesty, hair, and guarding against gazes (humans, good angels, demons); what parts of that argument feel compelling or disturbing, and what would you need to be convinced that uncovered hair can legitimately be treated as an issue of modesty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says verse 10 should mean a woman has “authority over her head,” connected to modesty and guarding against wrong attention (people, angels, demons). What feels convincing or troubling about that, and what would you need to believe that uncovered hair can be a modesty issue?

Finny says the early church saw this practice as settled and universal (v.16) and then warns of three traps among practitioners—fashion, shame (tiny “posterior” coverings), and overregulation; if your group tried to obey this passage today, what would repentance look like for each trap (including for men), and how would you tell the difference between glad submission to God and mere cultural performance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says the early church treated this practice as settled, but warns about three dangers: making it fashion, using shame, and over-controlling rules. If your group tried to follow this passage today, what would turning back to God look like in each danger (for men too), and how would you tell real obedience from just putting on a show?