Submission and Covering

The way some leaders interpret “submission and covering” is often provocative—if not outright inflammatory to those under their authority. The issue is difficult to confront because leaders can endorse the idea that God has divinely placed people below them, and that continued spiritual protection depends on submission to their leadership. This is a deeply dysfunctional view. It replaces Christ with an authoritarian hierarchy that institutionalises power in individuals, ignoring the biblical mandate that submission applies to all believers equally.

This distortion leads inevitably to apathy and spiritual poverty, reducing the believer’s role to that of a passive spectator in God’s purposes. This is arguably the case in many Churches today. Unlike some commentators who suggest the biblical case for “spiritual covering” is minimal, I contend that—if interpreted as hierarchical control—there is no biblical precedent for it at all. It’s a false doctrine, driven by institutional pride. It’s easily tested because it defaults to spiritual abuse when challenged—the exact opposite of what we would expect in a functioning body ministry.

How does it present itself? Typically, it’s taught that God established a rigid hierarchy in which each Christian must be accountable to someone above them. In return for this submission, the person above provides spiritual “covering” or protection. Refusing to submit is framed as rebellion, making one unteachable, backslidden, or even apostate. Acceptance in the Church becomes conditional, and submission is viewed as the plumbline by which one's faith, character, and teachability are measured.

This has little to do with biblical headship (see Headship Commentary) and far more in common with institutionalised religious Marxism. It’s presented as a caring, parental oversight, but the goal is always the same—obedience. By contrast, the New Testament defines covering as something we receive from Christ under the redeeming authority of salvation. It is He alone who shields us from the wrath of both Satan and God—another conversation.

Scripture instructs us to submit to secular governing authorities, to one another, to Elders, and to the authority of spiritual gifts, most of which are aspects of mutual submission within the body. The metaphor of the human body is frequently used to describe the assembly of God’s people, where each part is distinct in function but equal in value. The parts that seem less important are deemed most vital (1 Cor 12:22-25).

Elders are granted oversight authority, and believers are encouraged, but not mandated to submit to this function. However, this function is limited in scope—it does not extend to personal and spiritual control of The Body. Moreover, oversight is not beyond critique. Elders too, are required to submit to ministries and spiritual gifts they do not possess.

Unfortunately, the authority and meaning of biblical words have evolved. Today, Elders often function more like deacons—selected for administrative acumen, availability, and compatibility, rather than spiritual maturity and gifting. This results in uniformity rather than diversity. I don’t say this as a compliment. Semantic drift has distorted how we view the function of both Elders and Pastors by changing the meaning of the words, and turning them into institutional figures rather than spiritual examples (see: The Semantic Drift of Worship).

Biblical submission is never about institutional rank or personal authority. It is about the assembly recognising God’s anointing—the presence of His Spirit in someone’s calling or gift. We submit to that, not to the individual per se. This submission is always voluntary and contingent on actions and fruit that align with tenor of Scripture.

The line is crossed when function exceeds its biblical authority, while projecting the idea of divinely established calling. The Bible never uses the term “covering” in a context that usurps Christ or supports absolute control. Accountability is to God alone (Matt 12:36; Rom 14:12), and no man is given unqualified dominion over the assembly. Those with authority must function within the role of a servant. Yet, many Churches operate more like secular institutions than spiritual communities, often unaware that their assumptions about submission and covering undermine spiritual maturity.

Submission must be earned, not demanded. For example, a Prophet may have a prophetic calling, but until that gift is recognised by those in the Church, he isn’t received in that role. Legalism has crept in through institutionalisation, and subtle deviations from biblical practice remain embedded across all denominations—each one a distant echo of the early Christian assembly.

This is evident in the many Christians who tolerate and even expect Elders and Pastors to be the “vision carriers” and “final authorities.” In doing so, they unwittingly replace Christ as the Head. It’s not unlike the Israelites demanding a king in 1 Samuel 8—they rejected God’s headship, preferring a human intermediary. That rejection might explain why many are spiritually immature, and the Church is in decline—it's unable to function as the body of Christ because the individual parts have lost any sense of adventure, and are relegated to serving the needs of the institution itself.

Many Christians today are expected to justify their submission by becoming official members of a local Church, agreeing to its leadership, its doctrine, and its Mission and vision statements. Only then can they have a voice. This is utterly absurd and contrary to the biblical model. According to Mark 9:38-41, such gatekeeping is a false doctrine. Fellowship should be extended on one basis alone—the evidence of a changed life and God’s presence. This is quantified by “extending the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9), not formal alignment with an institution. To require submission to human authority as the prerequisite for community is to provoke the sin of idolatry. It places the authority of the Church over God. We see this in the Papacy, in self-proclaimed “apostolic networks,” and among high-profile Church leaders who presume near divine authority over others. But the New Testament paints a very different picture.

Paul, for instance, was saved on the Damascus Road. Three days later, he was preaching in the synagogues, without institutional approval. He explicitly rejected the idea that he needed anyone’s permission, even that of the Apostles. His ministry was justified by Christ alone, and his fruit bore witness to the authenticity of his calling. He was released—not because of hierarchy, but because the Apostles recognised the authority of Christ, in him (Acts 11:22-25; Lk 22:29-32).

I’ve personally witnessed how autocracy is used to malign believers. In one case, a group started a simple prayer meeting without their Church's approval. It was non-denominational and open to all believers. This wasn’t rebellion—it was body ministry. But they were rejected and publicly criticised for not being “under the covering.” If that logic had applied to Paul, he would never have been accepted by the Church either. It took Barnabas—someone with spiritual discernment—to recognise Paul’s transformation and vouch for him (Acts 9:26-31).

The doctrine of submission and covering, as practised in many Churches today, is a distortion. It’s hierarchical, institutional, and unbiblical. It replaces Christ’s “Headship” with human control and undermines the mutuality of spiritual function. Worse still, it fosters idolatry by demanding obedience to Man in the name of God.