Denominational coverings

I met a fascinating preacher the other day. He prayed for both me and my wife and I felt something like I had not felt in a very long time. A wonderful experience. During our conversation though he mentioned the covering of his particular denomination and how a group who splintered off from his church didn't even want a denominational covering which he refered to as being very dangerous. I winced a little at his use of the word covering.

Is it a good idea to have an affiliation with a larger body of believers from which to help keep you in certain boundries and have some sort of system of accountability?

I would say that is a good thing to have in deed.

However, many church denominations have taken it a step further and tried to apply a reference in Scripture as a divine sanction for denominational or pastoral oversight. I remember talking to a sweet church of God lady who's pastor had recently retired and she was fretting because as she put it..."she had lost her covering"...it was apparent she felt lost as a goose without her pastor overseeing her. I appreciate having a pastor or evena denomination who helps and encourages people in their walk and helps warn them about dangers and pitfalls they might not see on their own or deceptions they might not be aware of.

Using a Biblical mandate however to legislate a hierarchical rule over churches and people in the name of "a covering" is a complete misuse of the meaning when it is used in Scripture. It was actually a cultural superstition where they feared if women prayed without a covering on their head that angels, (mentioned in the book of Enoch) might be tempted to come down and have sexual relations with them. Rather than tempt the angels they instructed their women not to pray without a covering. Paul, respectful of their beliefs and superstitions (this particular belief being very widespread and accepted within Jewish culture) instructed them to follow their rules and customs. Preachers have extrapolated from this passage and read all sorts of things into it over the years.

While I understood and appreciated the preachers POV on the issue and I didn't offer an alternative explanation or even mention it, I thought I would mention here.

Any thoughts on the use of the word "covering?"

psalms 91 said:

Any preacher needs a covering. For much more than oversight. How I understand it is that it is there for help for oversight, for coming together with belkiefs that are the same but most importantly for insurance coverages, protection from takeover, etc. There are many reasons why having a fellowship of like minded churchs is good. Also the by laws and constitution of the church can go a long way to rpeventing unpleasent things as well. For instance the pastor has the right to shut all offivces down within the church if there are adverse things going on that are not right. Another provision can be that if the church dissolves then everything has to go to other churches, be surprised how that can prevent a takeover.

Click to expand...

If you will notice, I never said the concept was a bad idea, but rather that the Scriptures concerning a "covering" should not be used to or read into meaning that it is referring to denominations or even pastors. It can be ascertained from Scripture that denominational oversight is in keeping with the New Testament model for the church, but using the heavy terminology of "a covering" is a misuse and misunderstanding of what it actually meant.

This is an article I just saw that has to do with this subject.

Some churches like Ga. pastor's thin on safeguards - Yahoo! News