Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Tertullian criticizes women who use turbans, woolen bands, small doilies, or even “any thread whatever” on the crown and “suppose themselves to be covered,” insisting the whole head is “the woman.” What principles about obedience, loopholes, and minimum-compliance does this debate expose in the early church—and in us?

Another way to ask: Tertullian argues that tiny coverings don’t count and that the whole head should be covered. What does this debate teach about obeying fully versus looking for loopholes, both then and now?

Direct Answer The debate exposes a tendency toward minimum-compliance—doing the smallest visible act that technically “counts”—while claiming obedience. Tertullian’s pushback shows early Christians saw the command as real and binding, and the main struggle was how fully and sincerely to carry it out.

Support from Transcript:

Tertullian describes women who “do not veil their heads but bind them up” with “turbans and woolen bands.”
Others use “linen doilies of small dimensions, which do not quite reach the ears.”
He insists “the whole head constitutes the woman,” and the “region of the veil” matches the space covered by hair when unbound.
He criticizes those who “remain uncovered… [and] place a fringe, a tuft, or any thread whatever… and suppose themselves to be covered.”
Bercot interprets this as showing variety in application but shared understanding: “it’s very clear they’re understanding that this was a veil.”

Discussion Follow-ups Where are we tempted to obey in a way that preserves our pride or comfort while technically meeting a rule? What would “wholehearted obedience” look like compared to merely “not getting in trouble”?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10