Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

He claims the practice (men uncovered, women covered) was “uniquely Christian,” not Jewish and not pagan, and even ran against surrounding Greco-Roman norms. What does this suggest about the early Christians’ assumptions about being countercultural—and how does that compare with how modern churches decide what is “reasonable” to require?

Another way to ask: If this practice was uniquely Christian and even went against Greco-Roman norms, what does that say about how early Christians expected to stand out? How is that different from how churches today decide what is reasonable to require?

Direct Answer Bercot’s teaching suggests early Christians assumed obedience to apostolic instruction could and should set them apart from surrounding culture, even when it felt “against the culture of the day.” Modern churches, by contrast, often decide what is “reasonable” by what will not offend current culture or congregations.

Support from Transcript:

He argues Roman/Greek art shows unveiled women were common; thus veiling was not demanded by society: “most… show them without a veil.”
He concludes: “the problem wasn’t the culture… Rather, it was a matter of Christianity going against the culture of the day.”
He says no culture required “men must pray… uncovered” and “women… veiled” except the church: “a uniquely Christian practice.”
He refutes a Jewish-origin claim by noting Jewish practice is the opposite: men pray with heads covered (yarmulkes; Aaron’s turban in Exodus 39).
He notes pagan Roman priests “nearly always covered their heads,” also the opposite of Paul’s instruction for men.

Discussion Follow-ups If a practice is distinctly Christian rather than culturally natural, should we expect it to be costly? How do we discern whether we’re obeying Christ or simply mirroring our society’s comfort level?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10