Conflict is conflict. In an imperfect world we will never remove the tension of people disagreeing. Nor should we gloss over the tension, for often our disunity is directly related to our inability to accurately interpret and follow God’s Word. But in the areas where we disagree, we could take some lessons from some members of the Providence RPC in Pittsburgh, Pa.

The subject of head coverings is a non-issue in many congregations. But in the congregations where some women wear head coverings in worship and others do not, it is patently obvious that there are disagreements in biblical interpretation, even among those who diligently search the Scriptures. And the doctrinal standards of the Westminster divines and of the RPCNA don’t provide much specific guidance on the issue. So what is the next step?

Two of the session members of Providence RPC who take very different positions regarding head coverings addressed a women’s Bible study group for a public discussion and debate of the issue. The meeting included addresses from Pastor C.J. Williams and Elder Jerry O’Neill, as well as a question and answer period. The goal of it all was not human triumph but greater light into the Scriptures, a practical way of helping the Reformed church be “always reforming.” The fact that the leaders of the debate were friends and colleagues helped to put it all in the right context for learning and growth.

This is a good example to follow. I would hope that others of us could learn from their example. But I would caution against a one-size-fits-all attitude. A forum like that might be disastrous if it sought to debate a doctrine of the RPCNA, or if the debaters had personal animosity towards one another, or if the issue had the potential to fracture the congregation. The methods for resolving those types of differences must address all aspects of the conflict, and some of those methods are outlined in the doctrinal standards themselves. To have leaders publicly debating an issue while ignoring personal animosity toward one another would he blatant hypocrisy. To debate a church doctrine without recognizing the congregation’s accountability within a denomination and its connection with the historical church would be shortsighted and narrow-minded.

The editors of the Witness know that, no matter how well this issue of head coverings is presented, much more can be said. We hope this will be the beginning of further discussion. And we hope the discussion that follows will be led by the good example that Pastor Williams, Prof. O’Neill, and the women’s Bible study have set for us.