Should Everyone Be Made Welcome at Christian Worship Services?

Something that we Christians should be doing in all sorts of contexts is welcoming people. To welcome is essentially to make people, who are usually outsiders in some sense, aware that we are glad that they are present.

For example, if a foreigner is visiting our country, we should make them feel welcome. Or if someone from outside is visiting our town, the same is true. If a friend or neighbour is dropping round to see us, we should be welcoming in how we show hospitality. And the list could go on.

One other important context in which we should welcome people is at Christian worship services, whether on Sundays or at other times. We want people at services to understand that we are pleased that they are with us.

But this raises a question. Is absolutely everyone welcome at Christian worship services or are there exceptions to this?

People who make no claim to be Christians

Firstly, let’s think about people who make no claim to be Christians. Should they be made to feel welcome?

To begin with, it needs to be said that there are rare occasions when a non-Christian will come along to a Christian service intent on disrupting the event in some way. If someone does this, there is really no option but to treat such a person as unwelcome. We don’t have a choice.

But of course, the vast majority of people coming to a service who make no claim to be Christians don’t come along to cause trouble. They are probably curious about the Christian faith, or curious about what goes on at the service, or both.

We need to be clear, however, that such people are bound to be unrepentant of many sins. So is this a problem? Will it cause spiritual harm to the service if they are present?

The answer to this is basically no. In 1 Corinthians 14:23-24 the apostle Paul refers specifically to non-Christian visitors at Christian worship services:

‘23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all…’ (ESV)

Importantly, there is no suggestion in this passage that Paul views the presence of these non-Christians negatively.

In fact, Paul goes so far as to imply that the Corinthians shouldn’t speak in tongues (without an interpretation, understood) at a worship service so as not to put non-Christian visitors off the faith. In other words, the presence of non-believers at Corinthian services was such a significant thing, that the Corinthian Christians needed to adjust their behaviour accordingly. This strongly implies that people in Corinth who made no claim to being Christians were welcome to join the Corinthian church at its services.

What is more, it should be obvious that there is not the slightest reason for thinking that things should be any different today. Non-Christians who want to join us at worship services on Sundays or at other times should typically be made to feel very welcome, regardless of what sins they may be practising.

People who claim to be Christians

Next, let’s think about people who claim to be Christians. Should they all be made welcome at Christian worship services?

Paul actually spends most of the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians talking about this general issue. And he is very clear. He tells his readers not to associate with people claiming to be Christians who are unrepentant of various sins.

Here is what he says in verses 9-13:

‘9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”’ (ESV)

Note how in v. 13 Paul says that the Corinthians should ‘purge the evil person from among you’. This would obviously have included telling them that they were not welcome at worship services.

And why were the Corinthians supposed exclude people in this way? There are two reasons mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5.

First, doing this was for the good of the sinner who was put out of fellowship. In verses 4-5 Paul says:

‘4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.’ (ESV)

To deliver someone to Satan seems to mean to withdraw fellowship in such a way that the person is exposed to the power of Satan in a way that causes them problems. But the goal of this was a positive one: so that their flesh, i.e., their sinful nature, might be destroyed (to a certain extent), and so that they might be ultimately saved on the day of the Lord, i.e., the Day of Judgment.

A second reason for excluding people who claimed to be Christians from fellowship was for the good of the other Christians in the Corinthian church. In v. 6 Paul asks his readers:

‘Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?’ (ESV)

Leaven is dough that has undergone fermentation, and if leaven is added to a lump of unleavened dough, the whole lump becomes leavened. In this verse Paul is using leaven as a metaphor for moral evil. His point is that just as literal leaven affects unleavened dough that it comes into contact with, so allowing an unrepentant professing Christian in the Corinthian church was likely to cause others to be negatively affected.

It seems likely that the problem Paul most had in mind was the example that would be set, that might lead others in the church in Corinth to fall into sin.

So Paul was clear that people claiming to be Christians, who were unrepentant of certain visible sins, should not be made welcome at Christian worship services. And there is not the slightest reason for thinking that things should be any different today.

Why the difference?

We have seen that people who make no claim to be Christians and who are unrepentant of various sins should be made welcome at Christian worship services. But we have also seen that people claiming to be Christians who are unrepentant shouldn’t be made welcome.

But why is there this difference?

I have already mentioned two reasons why an unrepentant person claiming to be a Christian shouldn’t be made welcome: it is in the sinner’s best interest to be put out of fellowship, and there is the danger that others in the church might copy the sinner’s example.

But what about people who don’t claim a Christian faith. Isn’t there the same danger that people in the church might copy their sins if they are made welcome?

I don’t think there really is, at least not nearly to the same extent. The Christians in a church should understand that non-believing visitors are in no way part of the body of Christ in that location. They are outsiders, and there won’t be such a tendency for the Christians in that church to copy their way of life.

Of course, if and when these people come to faith, they will need to repent of their sins to be allowed into membership.

 

See also:

Christians Need to Be Careful Who They Have Fellowship With

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

What Should the Dress Code Be for Christian Worship Services?

Should Christian Women Cover Their Heads in Corporate Worship?

Should Christians Eat Unleavened Bread at the Lord’s Supper?

At His last meal with His disciples before He was crucified, commonly known as the Last Supper, the Lord Jesus made a point of sharing some bread and wine among them. He also made it clear that this sharing in bread and wine was something that His followers should continue to do in remembrance of Him.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all describe this event. Here is what Paul says about it in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

‘23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ (ESV)

The repeated act of sharing in bread and wine by Christians is described in 1 Corinthians 11:20 as ‘the Lord’s Supper’, and this is how I will refer to it in this article.

In what follows, our focus will be specifically on the bread that Christians eat at the Lord’s Supper.

Those who say that we should use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper

When Christians today eat the Lord’s Supper, leavened bread is usually used, i.e., bread that has undergone fermentation to cause it to rise.

However, there are some Christians who say that this is a mistake. They say that only unleavened bread should be used at the Lord’s Supper, and they argue in this way:

The Last Supper that Jesus ate with His disciples was a Passover meal. At this meal only unleavened bread was eaten. So, when Jesus says that Christians should continue to share bread together at the Lord’s Supper after the pattern of the Last Supper, to properly follow that pattern we need to use unleavened bread.

Besides, in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, when Paul says that Christ is our Passover lamb that has been sacrificed, he mentions unleavened bread positively and leavened bread negatively in the context. This also helps to show that we are supposed to use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper, which was patterned on the Last Supper, which was a Passover meal.

So what should we make of this argument? Does it hold water or are there problems with it?

It is certainly true that when Jesus shared bread among His disciples at the Last Supper it would have been unleavened bread that He used. It was a Passover meal, at which only unleavened bread would have been eaten.

However, I believe that the above argument isn’t actually convincing, as I will explain in what follows.

It is wrong to assume precise correspondence between Last Supper and Lord’s Supper

First, it is too simplistic just to assume that the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper is something that must be carried over to the Lord’s Supper.

All other things being equal, this detail may or may not be something that is necessary at the Lord’s Supper, and evidence for or against would need to be sought (see the rest of this article). But it shouldn’t just be assumed.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 is not about the Lord’s Supper

Second, as far as 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 is concerned, this passage doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. Here is what Paul says:

‘6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ (ESV)

In verses 1-5 and 9-13 of this chapter, Paul talks about how the Corinthians should expel from their congregation people claiming to be Christians who are unrepentant of various sins. Verses 6-8 tie in with this theme.

In v. 6 Paul begins by referring to leaven, i.e., dough that has undergone fermentation. If leaven is added to unleavened dough, the whole lump becomes leavened.

Then in the first part of v. 7 Paul makes it clear that he is using leaven as a metaphor for moral evil, and he tells the Corinthians to get rid of this leaven, which was characteristic of their old way of life but should not exist in their new way of life as followers of Jesus.

Having referred to unleavened dough, this causes Paul in the second part of v. 7 to think about the Jewish Passover sacrifice and meal, and he makes the point that Jesus was the fulfillment of that sacrifice.

Finally, in v. 8 Paul says that Christians should celebrate the Passover festival in a way that avoids malice and evil but embraces sincerity and truth. Importantly, the fact that his references to leaven are used metaphorically shows that his reference to celebrating Passover should also be understood metaphorically. This has nothing to do with literally celebrating the Jewish Passover or the Lord’s Supper. Rather, this ‘celebration’ refers to a lifelong position of taking advantage of the forgiveness and new life that can be found in Jesus Christ.

In short, there is nothing in this passage that suggests that Christians should use unleavened bread when they eat the Lord’s Supper.

Not bothering to refer to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper

Third, there is a strong argument against the idea that unleavened bread is necessary at the Lord’s Supper. This has to do with which Greek word was chosen to refer to the bread at the Last Supper.

There are four places in the New Testament where we are told that at the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples. These are Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 that I quoted above.

In the first century the standard Greek word for bread was artos. This word was used to refer to leavened bread and unleavened bread, and it didn’t specify whether the bread was leavened or unleavened.

However, there was also the word azuma, which referred specifically to unleavened bread.

At the Last Supper only unleavened bread was present, so both words, artos and azuma, would have been appropriate to refer to this bread.

Importantly, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all used the word artos in the passages I mentioned, i.e., the word that didn’t specify whether the bread was leavened or unleavened. They could have used azuma but chose not to. By a simple change of one word for another (azuma in place of artos) all of these authors could have drawn attention to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper, but none of them bothered to do this.

If these authors had thought that it was important to have unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper because the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, why do none of them bother to mention for their readers that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened? And why did the Holy Spirit, who inspired all these authors, not cause them to mention that this bread was unleavened?

To my mind, this is a strong point. If Christians are supposed to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper because unleavened bread was eaten at the Last Supper (as it was), we would expect at least some of the passages that refer to the institution of the Lord’s Supper to mention that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened. But none of them do.

Someone might want to argue that first century readers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians would all have known that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, and that there was therefore no need for any of the authors of these books to mention that.

In reply to this, firstly, it was surely the case that some Gentile Christian readers would not have known that this bread was unleavened. And secondly, quite apart from whether readers knew this or not, we would still expect this to be pointed out if it was theologically significant. 

So the fact that these four passages all pass by the opportunity to highlight that the bread at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was unleavened seems to quite strongly imply that Christians are not required to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper.

Leavened and unleavened bread are both fine

Even if we conclude, as I believe we should, that there is nothing wrong with eating leavened bread at the Lord’s Supper, that of course doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with using unleavened bread instead.

Regardless of whether we use leavened or unleavened bread, sharing in one loaf symbolises the way that we share in the benefits of the death of the Lord for us on the cross.

 

See also:

How Often Should Christians Eat the Lord’s Supper?

Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

What Should the Dress Code Be for Christian Worship Services?

Is It Important for a Christian to Be a Member of a Local Church?

It is not that uncommon to meet people who say that they are Christians but that they don’t get involved in any local church.

Some of these people make no effort to interact with other Christians at all, not even on the internet. Others do things like join church services online but don’t physically go to services or meet with other Christians.

The value of meeting with other Christians

Importantly, the Bible knows nothing of Christians going it alone, and it everywhere assumes that they will physically meet with other believers as and when they are able.

On this topic, Hebrews 10:24-25 is especially relevant, where the author writes:

‘And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.’ (ESV)

This passage is clear about the value of Christians meeting up, presumably to do Christian things together like worship God and pray.

Unless someone is housebound, there seems to be no good reason not to go to church gatherings. And even in the case of someone who is housebound, they should typically have Christian fellowship by receiving other believers into their home.

Joining services on the internet is better than nothing, but it is very inadequate. Meeting online is just no substitute for fellowship in the actual presence of other Christians.

In recent times we saw something similar during the Covid pandemic. Friends and relatives were often separated for long periods of time and met up to video-chat on the internet, but it just wasn’t the same as meeting in the flesh. In the same way, Christian fellowship is just deeper and more meaningful when God’s people are physically together.

Complaining about the state of local churches

Sometimes people who don’t get involved in a local church try to justify this by pointing to what they believe are serious faults in churches in their area.

I have never been convinced by this, and I think these people tend to be very judgmental and have unreasonably high expectations. Often, many of their criticisms of churches are right, but they go too far in the way they rule out all churches in their area as apostate.

I can remember some time ago speaking to a Christian man in Edinburgh who said that he and his wife were not involved in any local church because ‘none of them preach the gospel’. In a city that had literally hundreds of local churches, this was just nonsense. Even if 90 per cent of them were very poor churches – something that may well have been true – that would still have left more than a few to choose from.

The value of having one local church as a home

There are some Christians who do meet up with other believers in their area at church services, prayer meetings, etc., but they aren’t members of any one church. Instead, they get involved in multiple churches without making any one of them their home church.

So what should we make of this?

I think, firstly, it is much better for Christians to be members of a particular local church, to have that as their base, as their home. If these people find themselves in difficulty, it helps to know which church is responsible for helping them. And if they need to be disciplined in some way, again, it helps to know which church is responsible.

But secondly, if someone does have one church as a home, there is certainly nothing wrong with also being involved to a lesser extent in other local churches too. It really makes no sense to think that God’s people in an area should avoid meeting up with other Christians at various times and for various purposes just because the other believers happen to be members of other local churches.

Formal or informal membership?

Another relevant issue is whether membership of a local church should be formal or informal. Should people sign a piece of paper to become a formal member of a local church, or should this all be informal?

I would suggest that making things formal is the better thing to do, for the purposes of church discipline.

If professing Christians in a church are unrepentant of serious sins, they need to be put out of the fellowship, to try to encourage their repentance (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1-5), and it is easier to sort all this out if these people are formal members of that church.

The Bible refers to non-Christians coming along to Christian gatherings (1 Cor 14:23-25). These people would typically be unrepentant of various sins, but they should not be discouraged from visiting.

In a situation where there is informal membership of a church, professing Christians who are unrepentant of serious sins might try to avoid being put out of the fellowship by claiming just to be visitors, hoping to take advantage of any grey areas that exist as regards who exactly is a member of that church. However, if they have formally entered into membership of that church, there would be no way for them to use this ploy.

 

See also:

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

What Should the Dress Code Be for Christian Worship Services?

Denominations and Christian Self-Identity

Is It Ever Right to Be a Secret Christian?

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

There seems to be a trend these days for church services to be aimed in part at entertaining those who are present. Sermons often sound as though they have been crafted not just to teach but also to amuse, and singing praise sometimes gives the impression of being more about having a good time than worshipping the Lord.

When this happens, something has gone badly wrong. It is very important for every Christian to understand clearly that, as far as adults are concerned, being entertained is not what church services should be about. Rather, we meet together to worship God, teach, learn, pray, use our gifts and build relationships with fellow believers.

Not aiming to entertain doesn’t mean aiming not to entertain

Although entertainment should not be the aim, or even an aim, of worship services (apart from what is directed to children, as I will outline below), that doesn’t mean that church leaders should go out of their way to be unentertaining.

For example, there would obviously be no virtue in deliberately trying to make a sermon boring. It would also surely be a mistake to say that a pastor should never, ever make a joke when teaching. And if some amusing story will help make a spiritual point, by all means let it be included. Basically, a Christian teacher should set his sights on teaching his flock without concerning himself over whether what he is saying is entertaining or not.

If something entertaining happens to be relevant, then fine. But church leaders should not be deliberately going out of their way to try to entertain.

Visual aids in teaching are not entertainment

It is also important not to confuse entertainment with having visual aids during teaching. There are some Christians who object to anything that is put up electronically on a screen during a sermon, claiming that this is a form of entertainment.

This objection makes no sense. If you go to a lecture at a university, there will usually be a visual display to accompany the words that are spoken by the lecturer. Clearly, the aim in these lectures is to teach, not entertain. In any case, communication is apparently more effective if it is directed to the eye as well as to the ear. Besides, we would expect universities to know a thing or two about teaching methods, and there is no good reason to think that Christian teaching should use radically different methods from secular teaching.

Sometimes Christians will argue that we shouldn’t use visual aids in teaching today because Jesus didn’t use them in his teaching. However, there are two mistakes here.

Firstly, Jesus obviously didn’t have the electronic equipment that is available to us today, so it is wrong to draw simplistic conclusions about what he would have done if he had had access to the tech that now exists.

Secondly, if we look in the Bible we find that Jesus did actually quite often use visual aids. For example, on one occasion he taught his disciples about humility by washing their feet (John 13:2-15). At another time, again to teach humility, he had a child stand in the middle of those listening to him (Matt 18:1-5). Once when he was asked about taxation, he asked for a coin to use as a visual prop (Mark 12:13-17). He also used a withered fig tree to make a spiritual point (Mark 11:12-14). And the list could go on.

It should be clear enough anyway that visual aids are often helpful for those listening to a Christian teacher. For example, suppose a pastor is teaching about Paul’s and Barnabas’s missionary journey in Acts 13-14. Showing the congregation a map of where these men went can only help the listeners to understand the background and context of these chapters. This is hardly entertainment.

The importance of entertaining children in church services

So far, I have been thinking of entertainment as it relates to adults in church services. When it comes to children, however, things are very different. As far as kids are concerned, I would argue not only that it is OK to aim to entertain them in church services, but that it is essential to have an element of entertainment.

It is very important that Christian children want to come along to church services. If in his or her mind a child connects church with something that is boring or unpleasant, that child is being primed to rebel against the Christian faith when reaching adolescence.

Of course, there is no guarantee that kids who dislike church services will rebel against the faith when they are older. Equally, there is no guarantee that kids who like services will not rebel. But all other things being equal, it has to be more likely that children who dislike going to church services will rebel against Jesus and the Christian faith at a later point in their lives.

When, on a Sunday morning, parents tell their kids that it is time to go to a church service, it is important that they are eager to go. It is a big problem if the typical response is, ‘Oh no! Do I have to?’

This is not a minor issue. It is about how these children are learning to relate to Jesus and Christian things, whether positively or negatively.

Children typically have a very low boredom threshold and poor attention span compared to adults. So they need to be entertained in church services. Of course, they need to be taught as well, and that is even more important. But there has to be an element of entertainment to keep them interested.

I am writing this on a Monday, and just yesterday at our church’s morning service, the kids had a great time running round for a couple of minutes finding cut out shapes of fish, because they were going to learn about Jesus causing the miraculous catch of fish in John 21. This is not a distraction or a waste of time. It is helping these impressionable children to see church services in their minds and emotions as something that they like and are drawn to.

Just as a little side note on this topic, I would suggest that it is a really bad idea to use the label ‘Sunday School’ to refer to the teaching group that kids are part of on a Sunday. If kids hear the word ‘School’, they are likely to be put off, at least to a certain extent. Of course, this group is a school of a sort, but there is no need to call it that.

Summing up

Essentially, then, church services should not be aimed at entertaining the adults who are present but at worshipping God and teaching the flock. If a pastor’s teaching just happens to result in an element of entertainment, that is no problem. But if it doesn’t, that is also no problem.

With children, however, things are different. Of course, they need to be taught to worship and understand the Bible. But care has to be taken that they enjoy coming along to services. If they don’t, this may well be storing up problems for the future.

See also:

Christians Need to Put Everything to the Test 

Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions 

Is It Wrong for Women to Be Church Leaders?

Should Christian Women Cover Their Heads in Public Worship?

Using the Bible as a Filter

In 2 Timothy 3:16 the apostle Paul says something about the purpose of the Bible: 

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, for training in uprightness.’ 

Actually, to be precise, when Paul wrote this he was referring to what we know as the Old Testament. But what he says applies just as much to the New Testament too. 

The Bible as a filter 

One good way of thinking about the Bible is as a filter. 

As we live our lives, we are constantly bombarded by ideas of all sorts. There are ideas that are common in the cultures we live in. And, as Christians, there are ideas that are held by the Christian circles we are part of. 

If we imagine all these ideas coming down a big pipe towards us, the Bible can be pictured as a filter that allows some ideas through and keeps others out. 

Importantly, however, we need to be proactive in letting Scripture work in this way. The Bible’s work of filtration doesn’t just happen automatically. Instead, we will often need to weigh things up, to spend some time thinking about whether various ideas fit with biblical teaching. 

In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Paul tells his readers: 

‘Test everything; hold on to what is good.’ 

Using the Bible as a filter really just means doing what Paul instructs in this verse. It means to make it a habit to think about the values of things in the light of Scripture and to reject anything that doesn’t pass the test. 

Using the values of mainstream Western culture as a filter 

Sadly, there are many professing Christians who get things the wrong way round. Instead of using the Bible as a filter, they use something else to filter out parts of biblical teaching. 

To begin with, there are those who use the values of mainstream Western culture as a filter. 

For example, the Bible has a lot to say about sexual issues and the roles of men and women. And what it teaches on these topics often sharply contradicts mainstream views in modern Western culture. 

Instead of using the Bible as a filter to block out harmful ideas in areas like these, there are many who block out biblical teaching when it doesn’t fit with Western values. 

However, one of the main reasons God has given us the Bible is so that the biases and mistakes of cultural ideas can be filtered out. In moral issues, every culture gets some things right and some things wrong in God’s sight. Scripture is essential for determining whether various ideas are in line with His will. 

Many professing Christians today think they know better than the Bible, whereas in reality they have been deceived. 

Using denominational beliefs as a filter 

There are also many who go wrong by using denominational traditions to filter out biblical teaching. 

No two denominations of the church agree on everything as regards Christian doctrine and practice. I would suggest that anyone who thinks there is a denomination that has got it all right is being very naive. Instead, each denomination has strengths and weaknesses when compared to others. 

That is not to say that overall no denomination is better than any other. Some are much more in line with the will of God than others are. But the idea that any denomination avoids all mistakes is very unrealistic. 

There are, sadly, many Christians who never stop to question the beliefs of their denomination. Instead of using the Bible as a filter to hold denominational ideas up to scrutiny, they do the opposite. Parts of Scripture that contradict, or at least fit awkwardly with, the views of a certain denomination are often just brushed aside. 

Again, one of the main reasons God has given us Scripture is so that mistakes in Christian doctrine or practice can be corrected. If we refuse to allow the ideas of the denominations we are part of to be challenged by carefully examining them in the light of biblical teaching, we are not using the Bible as we should. 

Avoiding idolatry 

Whenever we use something else to filter out biblical teaching, we are guilty of idolatry. We have set up a man-made system of deciding what to accept and reject that is vastly inferior to the one God has provided. At best this will cause problems, at worst it will lead to disaster. 

Instead, what we need to do is humbly accept the filter that God has provided, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. And we need to actively use this filter by constantly weighing things up. 

 

See also: 

Christians Need to Put Everything to the Test 

Beware of Slipping Away from Believing in the Bible 

Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions 

Fighting Temptations to Believe What We Want to Believe

Should Christian Women Cover Their Heads in Corporate Worship?

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the apostle Paul gives instruction on how men and women in the Corinthian church should act in corporate worship, i.e., when they worship together as a group. 

The text is as follows: 

‘2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions just as I delivered them to you.  

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. 

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered.  

7 A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.  

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.  

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.  

16 If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.’ (Christian Standard Bible) 

HEAD COVERINGS 

In this passage one of the main things Paul talks about is head coverings when the Corinthians meet together in worship. He tells them that men shouldn’t pray or prophesy with a covered head, and that women shouldn’t do these things with an uncovered head. 

Today, a majority of Christians think that what Paul says here doesn’t apply to Christians universally in every culture and every century of the church. They say that in the culture of Corinth in the first century it was appropriate for women and men to cover or not cover their heads as Paul teaches. But they claim that this wouldn’t necessarily be the case in a different cultural context. 

By contrast, a minority of Christians claim that Paul’s instruction on head coverings applies universally to all churches in every century. They say that it is a general principle that in corporate worship women should cover their heads and men shouldn’t. 

In what follows, I will do two things. First, I will argue that Paul’s teaching on head coverings does apply universally to all cultures and every century of the church. And second, I will argue that even though this is a universal principle, it is a mistake to implement it without further consideration. 

MEN NOT COVERING THEIR HEADS 

To begin with, then, we need to ask if what Paul says about head coverings in this passage is a universal principle or just one that is dependent on culture. 

We will start by looking at what the passage says about men not covering their heads. The teaching on men is both clearer and shorter than the teaching on women. So it makes sense to begin with this (although I will make some references to women in this section). 

Paul first refers to the issue of men not covering their heads in v. 4, where he states: 

‘Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head.’ 

In v. 3 Paul has just said that Christ is the head of every man, so ‘his head’ at the end of v. 4 is a reference to Christ, and this phrase may also have a secondary reference to the man’s literal head. Therefore, in v. 4 Paul is saying that a man who prays or prophesies with a covered head dishonours Christ and possibly also his own literal head as well. 

In v. 4, Paul doesn’t explain why a man praying or prophesying with a covered head dishonours Christ. However, in v. 7 he gives us a bit more information: 

‘A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God.’ 

The argument of those who take the majority Christian view 

Those who claim that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 about men not covering their heads is something that depends on culture often argue in this way about v. 7: 

When Paul says that a man shouldn’t cover his head because he is God’s image and glory, his point is that men should act like men and not like women. In Corinthian culture, to cover the head in worship was a feminine thing to do. It is wrong for a man to act in a feminine way, so in that culture it was wrong for a man to cover his head. If a man did this effeminate thing, he would be failing to live out being the glory of God and would dishonour Christ (v. 4). This means that in v. 7 Paul is not giving a universal principle about men not covering their heads in corporate worship. Rather, his point is that men should please God by not doing something that the culture they live in finds effeminate. 

There are, however, three big problems with this interpretation. 

Archaeological evidence 

First, there is good archaeological evidence that in Greco-Roman religions of the first century men often did cover their heads in corporate worship. 

This means that in first century Corinth it is doubtful that men who covered their heads during Christian worship would have been seen as doing something feminine. So it seems unlikely that Paul’s concern in this passage is men acting in an effeminate way. 

Too much reading between the lines 

Second, to accept the argument given by those who say that not covering the head was about fitting in with culture, we have to do too much reading between the lines. 

When Paul says, ‘A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God’, it is far more natural to take him to mean simply that being God’s image and glory is the direct reason that a man shouldn’t cover his head. 

Actually, the reference to men being God’s image here seems to be a kind of aside that doesn’t form part of Paul’s argument. At the end of v. 7 he will say, ‘but woman is the glory of man’, where he notably doesn’t say that woman is man’s image and glory. Paul would, of course, have agreed with Genesis 1:27 that men and women are equally in the image of God. So women are as much God’s image as men, yet Paul makes it clear in this passage that women should cover their heads. Therefore, the real reason Paul is giving in v. 7 for why men shouldn’t cover their heads is surely just that they are God’s glory, not also that they are His image. And it is very natural to take him to mean simply that being God’s glory is the direct reason men shouldn’t cover their heads. 

I find it very difficult to believe that the Corinthians would have interpreted him in any other way. This is the interpretation that they would automatically have assumed as they read Paul’s words. To bring in a convoluted argument about culture looks very unnatural and forced, and involves a lot of unnecessary reading between the lines. 

The logic of the passage 

Third, if we understand Paul to be giving a universal principle, it makes perfect sense of the logic of men not covering and women covering their heads. 

As I have already noted, at the end of v. 7 Paul says: ‘woman is the glory of man’. 

This clause is surely shorthand for ‘a woman should cover her head because she is the glory of man’. That would be a parallel to the instruction on men not covering their heads in the first part of v. 7. And in view of how Paul has given parallel teaching on men and women in verses 4-6, we would expect this to continue in v. 7. 

So we should have no hesitation in saying that in v. 7 Paul is teaching two things: 

(1) Men shouldn’t cover their heads because they are God’s glory. 

(2) Women should cover their heads because they are man’s glory. 

What Paul seems quite clearly to mean is that during corporate worship God’s glory should be on display but man’s glory should be hidden. If a man covers his head, something of God’s glory is being hidden, and this isn’t good during a time of corporate worship. But if a woman has an uncovered head, something of man’s glory is on display, and this also isn’t good during a time of corporate worship. 

This seems to be the logic of Paul’s argument, and it has nothing at all to do with cultural ways of dressing. 

Summing up 

For three reasons, then, the idea that Paul’s instruction for men not to cover their heads is a cultural one seems to be incorrect. We do far better to take what he says as a universal principle: 

Men shouldn’t cover their heads in corporate worship because they shouldn’t hide the glory of God (v. 7) and thereby dishonour Christ (v. 4). 

WOMEN COVERING THEIR HEADS 

Let’s move on now to think about women. Does this passage teach that women covering their heads in corporate worship is a universal principle or just something that applies in certain cultures? 

There are good reasons for believing that it is a universal principle. 

The teaching on women corresponds to the teaching on men 

To begin with, in this passage Paul’s instruction on women in many respects corresponds to his instruction on men. In other words, the place of head coverings in the life of women is not a separate issue from the place of head coverings in the life of men. These are parts of one and the same topic. 

So, given, as we have seen, that there are good reasons to think that the instruction to men is a universal one, we would expect the same to be true of the instruction to women. 

Woman as the glory of man 

Secondly, the third reason I gave above for why we should take the teaching about men to be universal also applies to women, as I have already noted: 

When Paul teaches in v. 7 that a woman should cover her head because she is man’s glory, he quite clearly seems to mean that she should keep man’s glory hidden while the focus is on God in worship. And this has nothing to do with culture. 

Nothing in the passage suggests that head coverings are purely cultural 

It is important to note too that no part of verses 2-16 should lead us to think that the principle of women covering their heads is anything other than a universal principle. 

Verse 10 is probably one of the most difficult verses to interpret in the entire Bible, and debate swirls around it. 

Literally, the text in Greek reads: 

‘For this reason, the woman ought to have authority on/over her head, because of the angels.’ 

It is debated whether Paul means that a woman should have a head covering as a symbol of authority on her head (as in the CSB translation that I quoted above), or if he means that a woman should take control over what she does with her head. And it is also debated in what respect the angels are involved. 

Importantly for our purposes, however, there is nothing in this verse which suggests that the principle of women covering their heads is merely a cultural one. Nor does anything else in the passage as a whole point in this direction. 

Summing up 

There are two good reasons, then, for thinking that the principle of women covering their heads in corporate worship is a universal one. And, although there are difficult interpretive issues in this passage, no part of it suggests that this principle is not universal. 

I should say too that I am sure that if women in Western countries today did routinely cover their heads, the number of commentators who claim that Paul’s principle is just a cultural one would be far fewer. I think many have allowed themselves to believe what they want to believe on this topic, instead of allowing Scripture to speak freely. 

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES 

In view of what we have seen, it makes sense to think that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul is giving two universal principles: 

(1) When praying or prophesying in corporate worship, men should not have their heads covered. 

(2) When praying or prophesying in corporate worship, women should have their heads covered. 

Of course, many Christians, myself included, will find this teaching more than a little strange. To think that a bareheaded man will somehow enhance the glory of God in worship, while a bareheaded woman will detract from this, is not what most of us would expect the Bible to teach. 

However, there are a couple of points to make here. 

First, it is much more important for us to know what Scripture teaches than why it teaches it. Knowing why is very helpful and something we should strive for if possible. But it is far more important to know what it is that Scripture tells us to do. 

Second, the Bible as a whole seems to teach that there is something deeply spiritual about male and female. There is a lot of profound reality connected to sexual differences that goes right to the heart of God’s creation of human beings. There is vastly more to this than mere physical differences. That is why, for example, homosexual practice or so-called ‘transgendering’ are such grave evils in God’s sight. 

And when deep truths are involved, there are bound to be things we find mysterious and difficult to understand. 

WHAT SHOULD WE DO TODAY? 

This brings us to thinking about the place of head coverings today. 

In Western countries, of course, it is very rare for Christian men or women to cover their heads in corporate worship. This means that nearly every man follows Paul’s instruction in this passage. But it also means that nearly every woman doesn’t follow what he says. 

In the rest of this article my focus will be on women, since this is where practice conflicts with biblical teaching. We need to ask what God’s will is on this issue. Should women always cover their heads at church services? And how important is this? 

Those who just assume that Paul’s instruction should be implemented 

From what I have read, most Christians who (rightly) accept that Paul’s instruction to women on head coverings is a universal one just assume that Christians should implement this teaching. In their view, the Bible teaches that women should cover their heads in corporate worship, so that’s what women should do, end of story. 

Not so simple 

I believe that things are not so simple. The fact that Scripture teaches a universal principle doesn’t necessarily mean that the principle should always be implemented. 

I am not for a moment suggesting that there are times when we shouldn’t do the will of God. Rather, my point is that just because a universal principle is given in the Bible, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is always God’s will for the principle to be put into effect. Exceptional situations sometimes arise. 

Examples of exceptional situations 

Nearly every Christian would agree that there are some exceptional situations when biblical principles should not be followed. 

For example, the Bible teaches that God has designed sexual relations only for marriage (e.g., Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 7:9; Heb 13:4). This is a universal principle, not one that depends on culture. 

Yet there are exceptional situations when it is surely not a sin for a person to have sex outside marriage. For example, if, tragically, a woman is raped at knifepoint and told that she will be killed unless she cooperates, we shouldn’t hesitate to say that she commits no sin when she does so. 

Similarly, Scripture teaches that people shouldn’t lie (e.g., Eph 4:25; Col 3:9), and this is another universal principle. Yet Scripture also contains several examples of lies that are apparently told in the will of God, in various extreme circumstances (e.g., Exod 1:15-20; 1 Sam 19:11-17; 2 Sam 17:17-20). 

We shouldn’t think that every single universal principle in the Bible must always be followed no matter what. Life is more complicated than that. 

Exceptional situations and head coverings 

It is true that the examples of not following universal principles that I have just given involve extreme situations. Nevertheless, it makes sense to think that there might also sometimes be less extreme situations when it is right not to follow a biblical principle. Some biblical principles are much more important than others. And if a principle is not of first importance, it seems reasonable to believe that even in non-extreme circumstances it might sometimes be God’s will for the principle not to be followed. 

As a general rule, the more often a topic is referred to in Scripture, the more important it is, and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the only passage that tells Christian women to cover their heads. It therefore makes sense to think that the principle of women covering their heads in corporate worship is not among the most important biblical principles. 

As I ponder this issue, it seems to me that God is probably often content for a woman not to wear a covering. 

If a woman in a Western country chooses to cover her head for corporate worship, she will probably be the only woman at that service who does so. 

However, most of us find it very embarrassing to be dressed differently from everyone around us. So a woman who did this on her own would probably find it a difficult and unpleasant thing to do. And it is likely that this would be her experience time after time. 

Of course, as Christians we need to pick up our crosses every day and follow the Lord (Luke 9:23). Christian discipleship is costly and painful. 

Nevertheless, each of us has a finite amount of strength. Sometimes we need to pick and choose our fights. There is only so much God calls us to endure. 

I find it difficult to believe that it is often the will of God for a woman to cover her head if she gets very embarrassed about doing this. She would probably not look forward to worship services, and, if this happens, it seems to me that more is lost than gained by the covering. I really don’t think that this issue is important enough to warrant a woman going through embarrassment and distress on a regular basis. 

There are plenty of moral issues that are important enough to warrant this, but I find it hard to believe that covering the head is one of them. 

Those who are not embarrassed 

Although most women would find it embarrassing to be the only one covering her head in a worship service, this is not true for every woman. Some are not that bothered by it. In such cases, I think it is good for women to cover their heads. 

Anyway, each Christian woman would need to seek God personally in prayer for insight on how she should act. 

 

See also: 

Equality between Men and Women Does Not Mean Sameness 

Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions

Is It Wrong for Women to Be Church Leaders? 

Answering the Accusations of the LGBTQ Movement