Biblical Basis of Covering in the Shepherding Movement
Posted by thinkingriddles on December 9, 2008
The major proponents of the “covering” doctrine in modern times mostly trace their roots back to Watchman Nee’s book “Spiritual Authority.” While Nee was a neat and insightful writer, we should keep in mind that the second generation became a cult under his disciple Witness Lee so there must have been some error mixed in there! The Shepherding Movement was the first major group to take up the teaching, but even with the failure of the movement in the 1980’s, it keeps a life of its own. John Bevere’s book Under Cover is the most recent and popular restatement of covering theology. And all throughout the Charismatic church this kind of mentality lurks around.
When you are in a group that teaches submission and authority or “covering”, the Scriptural support seems overwhelming throughout the Bible. First there is the shocking instance of Korah’s Rebellion in Numbers 16 ends with the Earth opening up and swallowing them alive! Miriam and Aaron rebel against Moses authority and Miriam is struck with leprosy. David refuses to “touch the Lord’s anointed” in his long trials with Saul, and the Scripture is hard on Absalom who rebels against his father. The teaching follows that we need to treat unjust authority like Saul in the same way that David did. We want to be Davids not Absaloms right?
Jesus himself says that “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” He praises the Roman centurion in Matthew 8:9-10 after he says “For I too am a man under authority.” The logic goes that if Jesus was submitted to leadership, how much more should we be submitted to leadership?
Then in Paul we find that “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.” and that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God.” Our pastors are authorities set up by God, and so if we resist them, we are resisting God himself. And finally looking in to 1 Cor 11, we find a hierarchy setup: “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” You need to get into line with the submitted order of the universe. God is a God of order after all right? Finally in Hebrews 13:17 we get a direct command “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls”
These are just some of the explicit examples. Once you take up the authority worldview, you will find it throughout the Scripture. The foibles of the Patriarchs for example can be explained in terms of their relationship to authority. This teaching must be true then right? Those who teach this doctrine are correct in identifying a Scriptural pattern of authority and order. Both the interpretation and application of this pattern are wrong, however.
First of all, the Bible does not teach unquestioning obedience to leaders. In fact, the Bible is full of examples of God calling his people to confront unrighteous leadership. Jesus is the foremost. He was basically put to death for his confrontation with the Pharisees. They were the duly established authority of the time. He called them “snakes”, “hypocrites” and a “brood of vipers.” Essentially he was confronting authorities which were in disobedience to God, to re-establish God’s proper authority over all. If Jesus is our example in this as in everything else we should be ready to have a show down with authorities that are in disobedience to God. The apostles took this to heart. In Acts 4:19 and 5:29 when ordered by the duly establish authority to obey, they say “We must obey God rather than men.” There could hardly be a clearer Scriptural precedent. If someone is telling you to do something that you believe is wrong, do not do it!
The Old Testament examples are misconstrued as well. Moses was ruling a theocratic Kingdom, speaking to God face to face, and receiving the Ten Commandments. Which of your leaders do you think possesses the same kind of authority as Moses did? David’s refusal to kill Saul does not detract from the fact that he was not submitting to or obeying Saul. He fled from Saul. In fact, he makes one of his famous statement “I will not touch the Lord’s anointed” statements when Saul finds him in a cave where he had run to. Had he submitted to Saul completely, there would have been no King David, because Saul would have succeeded in killing him. And what about the other examples? Jehu is anointed by God to wipe out the ruling dynasty. So are basically all of the judges.
Finally, let’s look at the only Scripture in the New Testament which really talks about “covering” in an explicit way: 1 Corinthians 11. The hierarchy that is setup there, far from supporting submission relationships is one of the strongest statements against it. In verse 7 it says that “a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God” If we really believe that this passage is about a hierarchy of personal submission, which is questionable, then this passage is teaching that the man should not submit to other men, because the “head of man is Christ.”
What is the author of Hebrews really teaching us when he tells us to “obey your leaders and submit to them,” then? The elders of Christ’s church are the defenders of the flock. They are set in place to defend us, and they take many blows from the enemy in their effort to protect us. Becoming an elder means you are willing to take this heavy responsibility on. We must respect their God-given authority to run the church. If you are not an elder in the church, then it is not your job to lead the church. If you start leading the church without authority to do so, you are in rebellion. This is far different from saying that elders have the right to tell you what you must believe, or what you must do. They have the right to lead the church, and if you participate in that church, you have the responsibility to follow their leadership. If you can not follow, then you can find another church. Most churches that teach “covering” however will try to make you feel as bad as possible for leaving, and usually do not have real elders, just one powerful leader and people that derive their authority from him. In this way they are dangerously similar to cults. Unhealthy church leadership always extends beyond the church and into your private life. By praising you when you do or believe what they say, and condemning you when you do not, they exert authority that they have not been given. It is your responsibility to take back the authority that God gave you over your own life. Anyone who tries to rule your conscience but you is out of line!
Because of the hierarchical worldview of these leaders, they will see anything that is not submitted to their system as being in rebellion. Whether it is another church, a para-church group, or just an individual. If they are not in a hierarchy of submission, then they are not “under cover.” Do not let this keep you from obeying God. Just like every system set up by the enemy, it gains its power from fear and intimidation. If they can scare you into thinking you are in rebellion then you will stay regardless of what kind of terrible things happen to you. Eventually you will either start to behave the way they want you to, or you will become a wreck.
beatthedrum said
An interesting post as usually. Clear and concise! (Well nearly)
I have been in a ’shepherding’ church before which was very heavy handed and it stiffled the people in the church as the elder in question tried to force one size fits all onto the church. which then split. I am still in that church with the side that sided for want of a better phrase with the elder. Who has moved on but left a trail of devistation behind him.
However on ‘covering’ I think we need to make sure that whatever we do in the name of our church is covered by the eldership. By which i mean they have agreed to it, and are willing to help / support it.
So for example i am about to start a new mens ministry in our church. I have spoken to the elders in depth about it. They understand where the call has come from for this ministry, they understand its aims and how I plan to work towards them and they are in full support of it and are happy for it to come under their covering IE been seen as a ministry of our church.
If they had said no and they were unhappy about it I would not have gone on and do it. As i Know that this is the church Father has called me to and that i must work within the framework the elders have set up.
The other thing we MUSt be carefull of and aware of is that sometimes Elders see something in our lives that is ungodly, sinfull and evil. They have EVERY right to speak into our sin and we must allow them to do it. Often we do not like this as the elders are touching a sore spot in our lives and we fight against them. We often use words like controlling, interfearing etc to describe their actions but infact they are doing what Father has called them to do. Be loving shepherds of the flock.
Shepherd is a word we should associate with good leadership in the church, unfortunately it has been hijacked and used now as a negative.
A good shepherd (like ouor Jesus) loves the flock and leads the flock. It does not chase around after them but they Follow him out of love and respect.
Anyway thats my 10p worth as we say in the UK.
http://www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com
thinkingriddles said
Drum, Thanks. I agree completely that the elders lead the church and as it relates to the function of the church we need to be submitted to them. No question. I hope that came across in my post.
I think where it gets tricky is when we get into the details of speaking into someone’s life about sin. In general, I think problems arise when someone else takes charge of fixing your character. The Holy Spirit through your conscience has to take that role. Anyone speaking into your life, needs to speak to your conscience, and should err on the side of “hands off.”
beatthedrum said
Hmm how does that relate to Colossians 3:16 and the use of the word admonish
thinkingriddles said
Great point to raise. Maybe I should do a follow-up post on Biblical Correction. Because I definitely see confrontation as a part of a healthy Christian community, in accord with Col 3:16 When I say err on the side of “hands off” what I mean is that when I have an issue with another member of the body, I pray for them, and pray through the issue before I jump in. Sometimes God will deal with it or provide an opportune moment or way for it to be dealt with positively.
What’s important to note about Col 3:16 is the mutuality implied by the entire section. In this passage admonishing is one of the things we are doing communally along with forgiving and singing hymns! It’s not presented here as a hierarchical function which flows only downwards. So in a healthy church the elders create a climate where people feel comfortable speaking to them about something that came up too.
beatthedrum said
Yeah I agree its not just an elders function.
http://www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com
Anon said
I went to a Heavy Sheparding church for 4 years. I got into a fight with one of the elders and he wanted to shame me and ex – communicate me from the church. I sent him 4 e – mails at work 2 of which had swear words in and he told my employer. I may be fired. Okay, Christians shouldn’t swear but who says “elders” now have a right to interfere with your livelihood and try to take that away? The church is part of NCMI. I had suspicions about it being a “cult” now because of this thing at work I know it is.
Len said
‘ Spiritual authority’ This is one of the books that was used as a foundation for the Shepherding movement back in the 80’s.-here are specifics;
Below are a few statements in this book that I don’t see New Testament support for.
Page 22-23 under “First Lesson a Worker Should Learn Is Obey Authority”: We are under men’s authority as well as having men under our authority. This is our position. Even the Lord Jesus on earth was subject not only to God but also to other’s authority… A Christian worker ought to know who is above him. Some do not know who are the authorities above them, hence they do not obey. We should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil; rather should we know who is the authority above us. Once we learn to whom we must be subject, we naturally find our place in the body.
Page 71 under “Be Fearlessly Subject to Delegated Authority”: People will perhaps argue, “What if the authority is wrong?” The answer is, If God dares to entrust His authority to men, then we can dare to obey. Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us, since he has to be responsible directly to God. The obedient needs only to obey; the Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience, rather will He hold the delegated authority responsible for his erroneous act. Insubordination, however, is rebellion, and for this the one under authority must answer to God.
Page 180-181 under “To Be in Authority Often Means Loneliness”: In learning to be in authority we ought to be sanctified before brothers and sisters. Many legitimate things we cannot do and many lawful words we cannot speak. We must be sanctified both in words and in sentiments. According to ourselves we take a certain attitude, but among God’s children we will be sanctified. Even our fellowship with brothers and sisters must have a limit beyond which we will neither be casual nor frivolous. We should rather lose our liberty, we rather will be lonely. Loneliness is the mark of authority… The opposite of holiness is commonness, not sin. To be sanctified is to be different from others….The sparrows fly in flocks, whereas the eagles fly singly….To be in authority requires restraint; one must sanctify himself. Others may but you cannot; others may speak, but you cannot….You may feel lonely and miss the fervor of the crowd; nevertheless, you dare not mingle with the brothers and sisters in joking and jesting. This is the price of authority. Unless we sanctify ourselves like our Lord we are not qualified to be in authority.
Page 182-183 under “To Be in Authority Requires Restraining One’s Affections”: I will show myself holy among those who are near me.”…There is a much severer discipline applied to them than to the people in general…. As has already been mentioned, the opposite of holiness is commonness. Holiness means that others may, but I cannot. What the disciples may do, the Lord does not. What other brothers may do, those in authority cannot do. Even lawful affection needs to be put under control; otherwise death can be the consequence. The people of Israel died because of their sins, but priests may die because of not being sanctified….Those who serve are anointed by God. They should sacrifice their own affections, denying even legitimate ones. All who would maintain God’s authority must know how to oppose their own feelings, how to lay aside the deepest of their affections towards their relatives, friends and loved ones. The demand of God is exacting: unless one lays aside his own affections he cannot serve God. He who is sanctified is God’s servant; he who is not sanctified is a common person.
Page 184 under “Sanctified in Life and Enjoyment”: It is therefore a matter of enjoyment. Others may enjoy, but we cannot. Others may rejoice in pleasures (for wine speaks of rejoicing), but we cannot. People serving God are under discipline that they may be able to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean…. The higher the office, the stricter the demand. The degree of nearness to God becomes the degree of His demand. Of him to whom God entrusts more, the more will He demand. God especially concerned with whether of not His servants have sanctified themselves.
Page 185 under “Authority Is Based on Sanctification”: Authority has its foundation in sanctification… You cannot represent God if you maintain very liberal and loose communication with the people. The higher the authority the greater the separation.
Page 191 under the chapter “The Conditions for Being Delegated Authorities”: To be in authority is costly; such ones need to be sanctified from the rest and be ready for a lonely life…. As soon as one becomes too common, he is dropped from the work. His usefulness is gone, and his authority is lost.
Its about controlling people, legalism, a very dangerious form of fundamentalism
King George 111 used Romans 13 against the colonists in the revolution. Romans 13 was the bases of ‘divine right of kings’ to rebel against them, was to rebel against God, a nifty arrangement. He was told “If Kings rule by divine right, then let them rule in heaven!”-Thomas Jefferson
Watchman nee’s book is a return to the authoritarian legalism of ‘kings,’ dangerous, medieval, scary.
I know who I would agree with, between Watchman Nee, and Jefferson!
I invite comments;
Len
Nathan said
I’m sorry, but this whole covering, authority thing smacks of the roman catholic church’s idea of priesthood. In this concept the priests are professional saints, they are holier than the laity, and as the “spiritual authority” in their parishes they are to be courted and obeyed like some little potentate.
They used to insist on the reservation of the cup (only the priests were allowed to drink the wine) in Holy Communion as a symbol of their superiority, this has since been removed, but I visited a catholic church about a year and a half ago and although the cup was offered to the lay people many of them, more than two-thirds, refused it in deference to the supposed superiority of the priests.
If we are not careful this is what awaits our abuse of the authority which is after all God given. In other words if God hasn’t clearly given the powers these men insist on, don’t even think about it turn heel and run out the door. Then get on your knees and ask Him to guide you. If you can read and understand scripture, and you can humbly and honestly go before the Lord and listen to what He tells you, then you do not need some religious mucky-muck who doesn’t even know your name to be your go-between with God.
Seek Him
thinkingriddles said
8ahtan — is you read my post completely you will fi.d that 3 am not pro-covering either
Nathan said
Thinkingriddles;
I’m sorry my friend if I gave the wrong impression, I read your post and understood it. I was agreeing with your post and responding to some of the fellows above who were complaining (it seemed) about that sort of environment and yet not leaving it.
I was unfortunate enough to go to one of these churches for a long period of time. The deal is if you miss the Sundays when they explain their theory of authority you are left scratching your head when a member (a musician) says something like, “I can’t release another CD of our music because pastor so-and-so says I shouldn’t”. The lay person is personally responsible to God for their own deeds and decisions, therefore I don’t see how anyone else gets to make their decisions for them. I do believe in Godly counsel, but this is way beyond that. I am always amazed when someone thinks the Lord wants them to abandon their free will in favor of some self styled “anointed” person.
This a pernicious problem in the institutional church which I equate with the deeds of the Nicolaitans in the Revelation of St. John, which of course has been a problem in the church for about two thousand years. In the comment above I was trying to put a different angle on the argument against shepherding-covering in a way which most protestant charismatics may not have thought of.
I apologize if I offended you.
Nathan