I am a Reformed Protestant. Most of my family is Methodist/Arminian.
I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church. One of our pastors had a dear friend who is an Orthodox Presbyterian (he believes that infant children of covenant member families should be baptized.) This devout man has spoken at our church several times.
Sincere, Bible-believing Christians can come to the same passage of Scripture with prayer and study and reach different conclusions. Disagreement about the meaning of a passage or doctrine does not mean that one person honors Scripture and the other rejects it.
This blog primarily concerns 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and related topics; I’ll use that as an example, although the principle applies in many more areas.
Faithfulness does not guarantee perfect interpretation
Scripture is infallible; readers are not. The Bible cannot lead us into error, but we can certainly lead ourselves there! Each of us brings our history into our reading of God’s Word. We have assumptions, traditions, and experiences that can influence our thinking.
When we approach Scripture with the belief that we already know what it means, we forget that prayer and careful study don’t guarantee perfect understanding of a passage. Godly humility acknowledges that this applies to us, just as much as it applies to those who disagree with us.
Of course, humility doesn’t mean that every interpretation is equally valid. It means being willing to examine our on conclusions as carefully as we examine someone else’s.
Not all disagreements are alike.
There are matters of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and matters of lesser importance.
The familiar framework of “theological triage” divides doctrinal disagreements into three levels. For this article, I’ve added a fourth to distinguish matters of personal conviction and Christian liberty.
|
Level |
Classification |
Examples |
|
1 — Primary |
Essential doctrines of Christianity |
The Trinity, the deity and the person and work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, and humanity's dependence upon God's grace for salvation." |
|
2 — Secondary |
Important doctrines that may affect church fellowship or organization |
Baptism, church government, qualifications for church officers |
|
3 — Tertiary |
Doctrinal disagreements that ordinarily should not divide Christians |
Certain eschatological interpretations, whether head covering is required in worship today |
|
4 — Quaternary |
Matters of Christian liberty, personal conviction, or preference |
Head-covering styles, voluntary covering outside gathered worship, choosing to conceal all one's hair |
Note: These are informal theological categories, not divisions established by Scripture. The fourth category is less widely used than the first three.
Primary issues are foundational; they define the Christian faith and rejecting them places a person outside historical Christian orthodoxy. This primary tier clearly defines orthodox faith yet allows for disagreements and denominational distinctives or other matters.
Secondary issues are important and they can (or should) affect what local congregation you attend and join as a covenant member. These include some of the doctrinal differences among the various traditions of Christianity – I am Reformed Protestant and most of my family is Arminian – I will happily visit their churches and worship with them but our doctrinal differences would affect where I would choose to be a member.
I listed “qualifications for church officers” as an example – this includes whether a congregation believes that only men can hold particular church offices.
- Why this matters: a church that affirms biblical distinctions between men and women in church leadership may be more receptive to the head-covering conversation, even if its leaders do not believe the practice is required today.
Tertiary issues can sometimes have implications for secondary issues. For example, a church may affirm male-only leadership while believing that head covering was a cultural practice that is no longer required. Another congregation with the same understanding of church leadership may believe head covering remains obligatory today.
Even where the congregation does not believe that head covering is a continuing command, a woman should ordinarily be free to wear one without being scolded or labeled as disruptive.
- Why this matters: a woman can wear a head covering in a church that considers this a tertiary issue, without dividing the church.
Quaternary (fourth level) issues are matters that belong to each person. They deserve discussion, but not insult, mocking or dismissal.
- Why this matters: my own pastors consider head coverings a fourth-level issue – a matter of personal conviction. I believe Scripture requires the practice in gathered worship, but they do not share that conclusion.
When my husband expressed concerns about how I would be treated when I wore a covering to church, one of our pastors asked several questions:
- Is this her personal conviction?
- - Are you (husband) pushing her toward this, outside of her personal conviction?
- - Can you assure your pastors that you will not proselytize on this issue? (In other words, I was to answer questions and have conversations, just not campaign for everyone else to adopt the practice.)
After these questions were answered, the elders have both been far more supportive than I would ever have imagined. Two of them have read my book and both have said that they don’t agree, but that it’s well written and I make the arguments well. Before publishing, one said, “go for it.”
We have not resolved our disagreement about 1 Corinthians 11, but we have found room for mutual respect, Christian fellowship, and freedom of conscience.
So What Does This Mean for Head Covering?
Bottom line: these levels of importance distinguish essential doctrines from disagreements over other doctrines, personal convictions, and preference.
Head covering matters because obedience matters. Christians who disagree about its present application are not necessarily rejecting biblical authority.
I believe that 1 Corinthians 11 continues to require women to cover their heads during gathered worship. I also recognize that faithful Christians who love God’s Word have studied the same passage and reached different conclusions.
That doesn’t mean we are all correct. It means that disagreement alone doesn’t tell us if someone is being unfaithful.
From here, there are two directions I'd like to go.
1- Faithful people can read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about whether to wear a head covering.
Consider two women sitting side by side in church. Neither one of them wearing a head covering. The topic might never have reached the first, while the other may have studied it carefully and concluded that the fabric covering was a cultural practice. Outwardly the same, but for different reasons.
2- Faithful people can read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about how to wear a head covering.
Two other women, both wearing a head covering. One understands 1 Corinthians 11 to be about the head, and her hair may show beneath her cover. The other woman has an understanding that her glory (her hair) should be covered in the gathered assembly. Outwardly the same, but they have arrived at their practice differently.
Before we judge an uncovered (or covered) head, perhaps we should seek to understand the “why” beneath it.
