Submission and Covering
How Church leaders interpret “submission and covering” can often be provocative and inflammatory. It’s also difficult to confront because those who promote these doctrines can hold positions of authority in the Church and endorse their responsibility for those God has placed them in charge of. They might also claim we must submit to the person God has placed above us, the person in whom this authority resides. And this without question. This approach misrepresents biblical teaching about authority, and ‘covering”, by replacing it with a man-made authoritarian hierarchy that institutionalises power in the hands of an individual without any consideration for submission as the mutual responsibility of all Christians to each other, and the body of Christ. Ultimately, this approach encourages apathy and spiritual inertia, and those under this authority can remain spiritually immature and mere spectators to the purposes of God. This is arguably the case in many Churches today, and, unlike some commentators who suggest that very little biblical evidence exists for the idea of "spiritual covering", I would suggest none exists. The systemic problem with a false doctrine is that it often stems from idolatry and challenged it defaults to authoritarian control, the exact opposite of what might be expected from body ministry.
What is the prevailing view of “covering and submission”, and how is it demonstrated in times of disagreement? The idea is that God established a hierarchical line of authority which requires every Christian to be spiritually accountable to a person above them. In turn, this person provides spiritual protection. If Christians do not submit to this authority, they might be considered unteachable, perhaps backslidden, and thus in rebellion. Therefore, our willingness to submit defines our faith, character, spiritual credibility, and acceptance by the Church. At this stage, it must be said that today’s approach to covering and submission has little in common with biblical statements about “Headship” which I've referred to in previous commentaries (https://headsupchristianity.com/home/part-5-headship). Today's example is also contradictory because while it's conveyed as a parental-like approach to caring, it has only one outcome, obedience. Secondly, the New Testament points to covering as defined in the redeeming power of Christ, and this alone protects us from both Satan and God, but that's another discussion.
The Bible teaches us about submitting to worldly authorities, submitting to each other, and submitting to the authority of Elders and spiritual gifts. What does this mean? All this is conveyed under the analogy of a human body where function and purpose are equal but different and have the same spiritual value. Those functions that appear unimportant are expressly emphasised. Elders have been given the authority of “oversight” and we're encouraged to submit to the authority implicit within the function. Here the submission does not extend beyond the function of overseeing the affairs of the Church. In turn, Elders are to submit to the authority of gifts they don’t possess. Today most Elders function like deacons with their primary activity being administrative more than anything else. Essentially, most elders are chosen for their compatibility and administrative acumen which sets them apart from biblical Elders. This is why they all appear the same and generally get along. I'm not saying this as a compliment. Elders have altogether lost the spiritual significance of biblical elders. Further, the original meaning of the terms Elder and Pastor have been subjected to semantic drift where their meaning and authority within the function of body ministry have been exaggerated.
The theology behind submission is far removed from the secular context of power. Submission is instigated by our recognition of God’s presence in the talents and gifts we may not possess. We voluntarily submit because we recognise God’s authority through these gifts. In the Church, Pastors and Elders should likewise be in submission, to the authority of gifts they don't possess. The significant difference between secular submission and the church is that the reason for submission is vested in God’s authority, in that we recognize, and acknowledge, the spiritual component that empowers the gift.
The Bible never uses “covering” without a context, and never in the sense of control or invoking mandatory submission. Accountability is always allocated to God alone (Matt 12:36, Rom 14:12). Nowhere in scripture is a man given control of the church, and those having authority only have it within the framework of serving the body. Most Churches function with some degree of covering and submission doctrine but often fail to appreciate that submission to authority is earned not legislated or demanded. For example, a Prophet may well be a Prophet but unless he is recognised and acknowledged as such, he isn’t a Prophet, at least to that Church. The reason for excessive legalism is rooted in the religious appropriation of Christianity as an institution, and the subtle deviations in doctrine have remained within the practices of all Churches today. All are reproductions of the same original Roman construct. We see this in many areas, and most Christians today unconsciously embrace religious practices that are never questioned. For example, the degree of spiritual authority, we tolerate, encourage, and generally expect of Elders, Pastors and Senior Leaders. They're often viewed as the “vision carriers” or the “anointed ones”, who preside over us, and are frequently seen as the “final authority in the Church”. Many Christians are complicit, or at least conveniently tolerant of this subtle replacement of Jesus, as the "Head" of their Christian responsibility. The naivety is not unlike the Israelites who pleaded with Samuel for a King and in doing so, rejected God. They wanted a man to rule over and make decisions for them. They passed the buck, dropped the ball, refused the authority of God, and paid the price. If ever there was a reason to explain the current decline in the Church it might be seen in its inability to function as the body of Christ, (the "ecclesia", is not the institution of religion), and conduct itself in submission to each other, for the purpose it was designed.
The idea that Christians must justify their faith by coming under the “covering authority” of a person, church, or denomination before we can speak preach or teach, is false doctrine (Mk 9:38-41) and completely contradicts the Biblical account extending the “right hand of fellowship” and recognizing the fruit of a changed life as justification for a believers faith. Churches that require believers to submit to authorities over them are provoking the sin of Idolatry. They usurp the headship of Christ by placing themselves between the believer and God. We might consider the Pope or the self-proclaiming position taken by some prominent leaders.
Paul was saved on the Damascus Road and after 3 days went into Synagogues preaching Jesus as Messiah. There was no authority over him, aside from Christ. He rebuked the notion that he needed the authority of Man. Paul ministered under the covering authority of Jesus Christ, and what HE SAID became the evidence of his faith and the justification of his ministry. Therefore, what he said and did became the fruit by which the church tested him. The church recognized this authority and released him on that basis alone. Our recognition of God’s anointing (Acts 11:22-25, Lk 22:29-32) is the covering authority by which we release any believer.
I’ve seen this doctrine used to malign and publicly reject a group of believers who started a prayer group without the permission of their local church. This group positioned itself as a non-denominational opportunity for believers to meet and pray. Non-denominational, in this case, did not imply a rejection of any church, but the embracing of any person within the body of Christ who wanted to meet and pray. Non-alignment with a church is not a biblical reason for rejection but if it were, then the Apostle Paul may never have been accepted by the Apostles. It required a spiritually sensitive believer to see Paul’s change of heart and the evidence of “Christ in him”. It required Barnabas (Acts 9:26-31) to see past this same fear and trepidation held by the disciples and recognize Paul’s fearless conversion.
