Incrementalism

What is incrementalism? According to the dictionary, incrementalism is "a policy of making changes, especially social changes, by degrees." So, what is incrementalism? It's the process of changing things a little at a time so that no one will notice. It's the fabled "frog in the pot" concept. Make little changes at a time and we'll never notice we're being cooked.

People have an interesting tendency. We tend to think that things have always been as they are now. The Democrats, for instance, will tell you that "For more than 200 years, Democrats have represented the interests of working families, fighting for equal opportunities and justice for all Americans." As it turns out, the Republican Party (you know, those labeled today as racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded) was founded in the 1850's to free the slaves. They sought abolition of slavery. Andrew Johnson, President Lincoln's Vice President, was a former Democrat selected as a compromise to get the votes of Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts to recognize civil rights for freed slaves. But, you can do your own search. I think you'll find that while we may view the Democrats today as those interested in equal opportunities and such, it hasn't always been the case. And that's just one example. Of what? Incrementalism. We think that things have always been the same as they are now, but they aren't.

This is a problem for Christians. Much of what we practice and believe today is traceable not to Scripture, but to culture. Our views on how church is supposed to be, how marriage is supposed to be, how to raise a family, oh, a host of things are more influenced by culture shaped by incrementalism than we realize. We think, "Well, it's how we see it today; it's likely how we've always seen it." And, again, it's not necessarily the case. A couple of easy examples. The concept of arranged marriages in Christianity was a given, not an exception. The concept of a pre-Tribulation Rapture is new, not historical. Contraception, up until the 1950's or so, was universally considered wrong among Christians. And, yet, most of us believe today that marriages must not be arranged, there will certainly be a pre-Trib Rapture, and who could even question the morality of contraception? That's outrageous! And the cause of all this? Incrementalism. Baby steps bit by bit into something radically different that we never saw coming.

The question I'm faced with, then, is this. What do you do when your incrementalism runs into your biblical understanding? That is, if you are used to something, convinced of something, relatively confident of something, and then you read a clear and unavoidable concept in Scripture that denies what you've always held true, which one wins out? Will you shift the meaning of the text to align with the present culture, or will you surrender your present understanding to align with Scripture? I know what you'd like to say, but what is the real answer? So, let's do a test case to see what you do with it.

The text of 1 Corinthians 11 is not vague. It isn't popular, but it isn't vague. It starts with that whole "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" thing. Yuck! Patriarchy. Well, okay, a few of you are still on board. It says it, so let's go with it. But Paul is just using that as the basis for his next zinger. "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" (1 Cor 11:4-5). The text goes on to refer to head coverings as "a symbol of authority" (1 Cor 11:10). Paul references universals here, like the angels and "nature itself". Historically, women wore head coverings of various sorts as symbols of submission. (Note: "Submission" does not equal "inferiority". Don't get confused.) Up through the 19th century the Church understood that it was proper for a woman to wear a head covering especially when involved in matters of worship or prayer. Now we today are much more liberated, much wiser. We've figured out that it had to do with prostitution (although no such reference is made in the text) or long hair (although the text makes no sense in reference to hair as a head covering, considering "if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short" (1 Cor 11:6). "If she won't have long hair, she should have short hair!" Yeah, that's not working.). We're told that it's a cultural thing but can find no cultural link and no historical belief that it was a cultural thing until the incremental steps away from it in the late 1800's until today when we don't give it a passing nod.

So, what is it? Do we say that we've figured it out when all those silly folk from Paul through Augustine through, oh, I don't know, R.C. Sproul understand it to mean just what it says? Do we add on some cultural dimension that isn't there to explain it away? Do we shudder at the thought of burkas for Christians (which, by the way, would be a false dilemma -- no one is going there)? Or is it possible that women have removed the symbol of authority on their heads along with the rise of radical feminism and the denial of the authority of the husband (yeah, try that phrase out in public these days -- "the authority of the husband") and we've allowed it as a product of incremental sin?

Now, like I said, this is a test case to see what you do with it. I offered a text that is opposed to our current way of thinking and asked questions. You decide. But understand that deciding on something that is opposed to your current way of thinking can be a difficult step to take. Don't let that determine what is right or biblical. Rather, let what is right and biblical alter your thinking. If you dare.