Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

Bercot says pastors still enforce the “men remove hats” rule but almost never tell women to cover, creating a new rule: men have restrictions, women don’t—so women become a “privileged class.” How does that critique land on you, and what does it suggest about how selectively applying Scripture can invert the very order it claims to honor?

Another way to ask: Bercot says churches still tell men to remove hats but rarely tell women to cover, which makes women the “privileged class.” How do you react to that, and how can picking and choosing what to follow flip the message on its head?

Direct Answer Bercot’s critique suggests selective obedience can create a man-made rule that reverses Paul’s stated purpose—headship and honor—by treating women as exempt while still restricting men. It warns that partial application doesn’t stay neutral; it can teach the opposite of what the passage intends.

Support from Transcript:

He notes churches still apply, “men must pray with their heads uncovered,” telling men to take off hats in church or during prayer.
He gives a personal example: a preacher publicly corrected new believers to remove their caps during a prayer meeting.
He contrasts this with never hearing a preacher tell a woman “to cover her head in church or before prayer.”
He summarizes the modern “rule”: “A man must take off his hat… but a woman doesn’t have to.”
He argues this makes women “a privileged class” and turns “God’s order totally upside down.”

Discussion Follow-ups What selective practices do we defend because they feel “normal,” even if they create inconsistency? If Paul’s concern is dishonor/shame tied to headship, what happens when a church enforces only the part that costs men nothing socially?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10