Submission and Covering

How Church leaders interpret “submission and covering” can often be provocative and inflammatory for those they have authority over. The issues can be difficult to confront because those who promote these doctrines, often hold positions of authority in the Church, and thus endorse the idea that they have authority over those God has placed below them. They might also claim that those below them must submit to their authority for spiritual covering to continue. This is a dysfunctional view of “authority”, and “covering”, that replaces Christ with a man-made authoritarian hierarchy, that institutionalises power in the hands of individuals, without considering that submission is the mutual responsibility of all Christians. Ultimately, this approach results in apathy and spiritual poverty, and those under this authority remain 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 that in the context of who holds the power, and who it is that covers, none exists. The problem is that it’s a false doctrine entrenched in a spirit of pride, which is idolatry. A false doctrine is easy to test because if it’s challenged it defaults to authoritarian control, the exact opposite of what might be expected from body ministry.

What is the prevailing view of “submission and covering”, and how is it presented to the Church? 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, and in response to submitting, God’s covering or protection is extended. If Christians do not submit to this authority, they might be considered unteachable, perhaps backslidden, and thus in rebellion. Therefore, our willingness to submit becomes the plumbline that determines teachability, defines our level of faith, and decides our character. All three determine acceptance by the Church. At this stage, it must be said that today’s approach to submission and covering has little in common with theology around “Headship”, which I've referred to in previous commentaries (https://headsupchristianity.com/home/part-5-headship). Today's example has more in common with institutionalised religious Marxism because while it's conveyed as a caring, parental-like approach to oversight, it has only one outcome, obedience. Secondly, the New Testament points to covering as that given freely in the redeeming power of Christ, period. This alone, in an eschatological sense, protects us from the wrath of both Satan and God, but that's another discussion.

The Bible teaches us to submit to worldly authorities, to each other, to the authority of Elders, and to spiritual gifts, which essentially is all born-again Christians. What does this mean? The Bible conveys the basis of spiritual order by using the analogy of a human body, where the function and purpose of its many parts are equally necessary, but different in function, thus meriting the same physical and spiritual value. Those functions that appear unimportant are expressly emphasised as the most important.

Elders have been given the authority of “oversight” and we're encouraged to submit to the authority implicit with the function. Therefore, submission does not extend beyond overseeing the affairs of the Church, but this doesn’t imply that oversight is beyond criticism either. In turn, Elders also, are to submit to the authority of gifts and functions they don’t possess. The meaning of “Elder” has changed to where most Elders function more like deacons, with their primary activity being administrative more than anything else. Essentially, most Elders are chosen for their compatibility, and administrative skills, 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 and Pastors have altogether lost the spiritual significance of their biblical counterparts, partly due to the original meaning of Elder and Pastor having been subjected to semantic drift (Refer to commentary on “The Semantic drift of Worship”) where their biblical 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 anointing, or in other words, God’s presence in the talents and gifts we might not possess. We choose, to submit, as long as the fruit of this anointing is consistent with its function in the scriptures. In the Church, Pastors and Elders should likewise be in submission, to the authority of ministries and gifts, they don't possess. The significant difference between secular submission and submission in the church is that God is the authority that empowers the gift, therefore we are submitting to God, not specifically the person concerned. The caveat is where this authority and actions exceed its biblical meaning and function, and exposes a false authority, often nested in pride and idolatry.

The Bible never uses “covering” without a context and never in the sense of who holds absolute power or absolute control. Accountability is always allocated to God alone (Matt 12:36, Rom 14:12). Nowhere in scripture is a man given unbridled control of the church, and those having authority only have it within the framework of a servant. Most Churches function with some degree of submission and covering doctrine, even if they don’t recognise it because in many respects Churches function more like secular institutions. Unfortunately, we often forget that submission is earned not legislated or demanded. For example, a Prophet may well be a Prophet but unless he’s recognised and acknowledged as such, he isn’t a Prophet, at least not one to the Church in question. Excessive legalism is implicit in the creation of the Church as a religious institution, and subtle deviations from biblical doctrine have remained within the practices of all 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, often viewed as the “vision carriers” or the “anointed ones”, who preside over, 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 Christ, as the "Head" of their Christian response. 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 a religious institution), and conduct itself in submission to each other, for the purpose it was designed.

The general direction is that Christians must justify their faith by becoming a registered member of a Church, positioning themselves under the “covering authority” of a person above them, and agreeing with the mission and vision statements of the Church before they can have any say in the affairs of a Church, is a false doctrine (Mk 9:38-41) and completely contradicts the Biblical account of extending the “right hand of fellowship”. It fails to acknowledge the evidence of God’s presence and the fruit of a changed life, as the justification of 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-proclaimed positions, taken by prominent Church 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 anyone, including the Apostles. 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.

As an example, 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 any believer, to meet and pray. Non-denominational, in this case, was not a rejection of their 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.