Is Orthodoxy more important than Orthopraxy?

Orthopraxy is the application of orthodox beliefs in the form of rituals and customs. Approved practices are all orthopraxic. I’ve been told (and I can’t unsee it now) that most Protestant groups focus on orthodox requirements often at the expense of orthopraxic requirements. # Examples of Mandated Practises commonly ignored **1. Head covering** > **1 Corinthians 11:5, 6**: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:5-6&version=KJV) > **1 Corinthians 11:6**: For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [English Standard Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:6&version=ESV) > **1 Corinthians 11:10** For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2011:10&version=KJV) Two commonly ignored orthopraxic commands of the Bible involve wives. These are not followed by most evangelical denominations. In our Word of Faith denomination, as best I can remember, it is said that the text in 1 Corinthians is in reference to harlots. This is given as the reason why wives do not need to cover their head. **2. Rules on clothing and adornment** > **1 Peter 3:1-3**: Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Pe%203:1-3&version=KJV) > **Mark 15:24**: And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mar%2015:24&version=KJV) In the Word of Faith denomination, many members believe in prosperity. Yet our denomination does not actually have a problem with wearing much gold (as one from the outside might imagine). A watch and a ring are common on the most wealthy. In certain groups, there is a very common tradition of what I characterize as over- or under-dressing not just for church but in all things. I’m not necessarily referring to expensive clothes either. *Why do so many Biblicaly literalist Protestants disregard this verse?* I’m aware of Pentecostal Holiness groups who do not do even wear makeup because of this verse and I’m equally aware that Jesus wore a very nice set of seemingly ordinary clothes and that he now wears a large gold band. **3. Changing practises over time** > **Romans 12:2**: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2012:2&version=KJV) > **1 Corinthians 13:4**: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. [King James Version](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2013:4&version=KJV) *In general, why do Protestant evangelical Bible literalist Christians allow things like venue and peer pressure to override orthopraxic practices as described by the Bible?* In this case I’m referring to the command on love from [1 Corinthians 13:4-7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Co%2013:4-7&version=KJV) which is the orthodox passage that describes orthopraxic commands. There’s an idea, it seems to me, that when I start being paid I should stop making an effort to always follow my beliefs. I do understand that certain actions, such as witnessing, might be deemed to be stealing from your employer’s time, but I see no real reason to explain a lack of compassion. (And even for witnessing, breaks are common.) # Summary 1. Why do so many literalist Protestants disregard the rulings on clothing and adornment in 1 Peter? 2. Why is the command to be loving not followed in business contexts? How can venue, circumstance, and peer pressure override a Biblical commandment? I am well aware of the explanation that the Bible is out of date or out of touch and written for another culture. However, I’m looking for an answer from a literalist perspective which accepts that the Bible is accurate for today as well as yesterday. I’m also already aware of the idea that Christians don’t have to do anything as they’re already going to heaven.