|
INTRODUCTION
"So who is your covering?"
This is the terse query raised by many modern Christians
whenever they encounter those who assemble outside organized,
institutional lines. But what is at the heart of this inquiry, and
what Biblical basis undergirds it? These are the questions that
will engage us in this book.
It is my contention that a great deal of confusion and
subnormal Christian behavior is connected with a modern teaching
known as "protective covering." This doctrine, which flies under
the flag of other names, holds that Christians are protected from
doctrinal error and moral failure when they submit themselves to
the authority of another believer or Christian organization.
Experience has led me to believe that the "covering" doctrine is a
matter that greatly troubles Zion today, and it desperately begs
for critical reflection among God's people.
In the following pages, I attempt to cut through the fog that
surrounds the difficult issues attached to the "covering"
doctrine, such as leadership, authority, and accountability. In
addition, I seek to outline a comprehensive model for
understanding how genuine spiritual authority operates in the
ekklesia (church).
Is "Covering" Covered in the Bible?
As we venture to examine the popular "covering" teaching, let
us first explore the term "covering" itself. Surprisingly, the
word only appears once in the entire NT, and it is used in
connection with a woman's head covering (a subject which merits
its own discussion--1 Cor. 11:15). While the Old Testament uses
the word sparingly, it always uses it to refer to a piece of
natural clothing or an overlay of some sort. It never uses it in a
spiritual way to refer to authority or submission.
Consequently, the first thing we can say about "covering" is
that there is scant Biblical evidence on which to construct a
doctrine upon it. Yet despite this fact, countless Christians
glibly parrot the "who-is-your-covering" question and push it as a
litmus test to measure the authenticity of a church or ministry.
If the Bible is silent with respect to the idea of "covering,"
what do people mean when they ask, "Who is your covering?" Most
people (if pressed) would rephrase the question as: "To what
person are you accountable?" But this raises another sticky point:
the Bible never consigns accountability to human beings. It
consigns it exclusively to God (Matt. 12:36; 18:23; Luke 16:2;
Rom. 3:19; 14:12; 1 Cor. 4:5; Heb. 4:13; 13:17; 1 Pet. 4:5).
Strangely, however, the Biblically sound answer to this question
("I am accountable to the same person you are--God") is often a
prescription for misunderstanding and a recipe for false
accusation.
Thus, while the timbre and key of "accountability" may differ
from that of "covering," the song is often the same. And it is one
that does not harmonize with the unmistakable singing of
Scripture. (Please note that there is a healthy form of
accountability in the church, which we will explore later. But the
brand of accountability connected with the "covering" doctrine
lacks Biblical merit.)
Unearthing the Real Question Behind Covering
So let's widen the question a bit. What do people really
mean when they push the "covering" question? I submit that what
they are actually asking is, "Who controls you?" The common (mis)teaching
about "covering" really boils down to questions about who controls
whom. In fact, the modern institutional church is built upon this
idea of control.
Of course, people rarely recognize that this is at the bottom
of the issue, for it is typically well clothed with Biblical
garments. In the minds of many Christians, "covering" is merely a
protective mechanism. Yet if we critically examine the "covering"
doctrine, we will discover that it is rooted in a one-up/one-down,
chain-of-command style of leadership where those in higher
ecclesiastical positions have a tenuous hold on those under them.
And it is through such top-down control that believers are said to
be protected from error (a la "covered").
The concept goes something like this: everyone must answer to
someone else who is in a higher ecclesiastical position. In the
garden-variety, post-war evangelical church, this translates into
the "laypeople" answering to the pastor. In turn, the pastor must
answer to a person who has more authority.
So the pastor will typically trace his accountability to a
denominational headquarters, to another church (often called the
"mother church"), or to an influential Christian worker (who is
perceived to have a higher rank in the ecclesiastical pyramid). As
a result, the "laypeople" are said to be "covered" by the pastor,
and the pastor is said to be "covered" by the denomination, the
mother church, or the Christian worker. The fact that people can
trace their accountability to a higher ecclesiastical authority is
the equivalent of being protected by that authority (so the
thinking goes).
But this line of reasoning generates the following telling
questions: Who covers the mother church? Who covers the
denominational headquarters? And who covers the Christian worker?
Some have offered the pat answer that God covers these
"higher" authorities. But such an answer begs the question; for
why can't God be the covering for the "laypeople," or even the
pastor? Of course, the real problem with the
"God-denomination-clergy-laity" model goes far beyond the
incoherent, pretzel logic to which it leads. The chief problem is
that it violates the spirit of the NT; for behind the pious
rhetoric of "providing accountability" and "having a covering,"
there looms a system of government that is bereft of Biblical
support and driven by a spirit of control. |