"Covering"

[Peaceful Dove]

Matt 23:8-12 this is where I referenced that peaceful dove

Thanks, I know that scripture well. LOL

 

[Peaceful Dove]

hey! can one of you more knowledgable people start a thread on the organization of church bodies (like we've been talking about with pastors and elders, etc)

NOT ME! You really wouldn't like mine!!! LOL

 

[Meshavrischika]

NOT ME! You really wouldn't like mine!!! LOL

if you can biblically lay it out (without Tradition) go for it. I'd love to see it.

Just because I'm not catholic doesn't mean I can't discern you're intelligent beyond your catholicism.

 

[EyezOFire]

I think what I am beginning to realize according to the NT is that, the scriptures are eluding more to the function rather than the title, someone may function by pastor-ing, elder-ing, prohecy-ing, oversee-ing. But I'm starting to see Jesus as our only covering not any man, because we arent covered by any mans blood but Jesus's.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

if you can biblically lay it out (without Tradition) go for it. I'd love to see it.

Just because I'm not catholic doesn't mean I can't discern you're intelligent beyond your catholicism.

NOPE, not going there.

But I will be reading what Y'All post.
I am on a learning spree.

 

[LinkH]

I cringe a bit when I hear the word 'covering.' The term as it is typically used is not purely Biblical. Here are some ways the term is used.

1. The church leader you have to obey no matter what. If he tells you to err/sin and you do it, God blames him and not you. [I don't agree with you, but sometimes the concept goes this far.]

2. A pastor or other church leader who tells you what to do.

3. A church leader or church organization that protects you spiritually or legally. (I heard this more in Indonesia.)

I actually heard someone try to argue for 'covering' out of I Corinthians 11. If someone tries to argue for a pastor as a covering out of that passage, here is my response.

"Since I am a man, I don't need a 'covering' then. Women need coverings. And it doesn't make sense for a woman to wear a pastor as a covering. Especially the way some of the pastors around here eat, the woman could break her neck trying to wear a pastor on her head."

My point, above, is that the passage of scripture has nothing to do with a church leader being a covering. I just don't like people making doctrines out of vague terms like this that can be interpreted a number of ways (sometimes harmful) when we can just stick to clear teachings of scripture on these subjects. If we use terms that correspond to Biblical passages, for example, then people can look up the passage and see exactly what the Bible teaches on the issue. With terms like this, you hear teaching that is oft-repeated but does not come directly from scripture.

Another reason I don't like 'covering' talk is because so often people apply it to unbiblical church structures. In the Bible, we see a plurality of elders in a local church. But people apply 'covering' teachers to made-up offices like 'senior pastor' and things like that.

Another conern is that these kind of vague concepts can easily be abused in 'heavy shepherding' contexts.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I may ask a question now and then.

I thought that our true COVERING was the Blood of the Lamb.

The others, pastoral care and authority, husbands care of his family and all were just using that terminology somehow.

I do not remember seeing the word, covering in scripture in these regards.

Will someone correct me or lead me to the scriptures, please???

 

[New_Wineskin]

What is a "covering" ?

"Covering" ( along with other words meaning the same thing ) deals with either leadership of a group or the group itself as being a protecting "force" ( for lack of a better word ) simply by being there .

Where in the NT is there any mention of a covering ?

Not to my knowledge . However , a former group with which I was a member had a several page idea of the doctrine . It would be associated with the idea of being in a covenant with a community of believers . I was going to write "mutual covenant" but there certainly was a heirarchy in place - not just with leadership but having several levels going towards leadership .

Isn't it enough for Christ to be our covering ?

More that enough for me . I can't speak for anyone else .

If the pastor is supposed to be our covering then who's his covering ?

If the denominational headquartes is the covering of the local church/ pastor. Who is their covering ?

That has always been my thought . People usually say that they are held in account equally with other leaders . The problem with that is - if they can be equal and hold each other accountable , so can the lower level to begin with . As usual , those making the rules exclude themselves from the rules . And , they claim to be the ones setting the example .

How long could this list go until it ends with Jesus being the final covering ?

They all end up with a pope - though not willing to admit it .

And if Jesus is big enough to be their covering, why can't he be my covering ?

Exactly !! Great questions .

 

[Meshavrischika]

I was under the impression the elders etc. were to SERVE the church, not control it.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I was under the impression the elders etc. were to SERVE the church, not control it.

That is mine too. But I am still reading and learning.

 

[New_Wineskin]

I was under the impression the elders etc. were to SERVE the church, not control it.

I have heard some of them say that they serve by leading - not lead ( as by example ) by serving .

 

[Meshavrischika]

I have heard some of them say that they serve by leading - not lead ( as by example ) by serving .

hahaha

that's funny. last time I went out to eat the waiter SERVING me didn't tell me what to do or handle my pocket book

 

[New_Wineskin]

hahaha

that's funny. last time I went out to eat the waiter SERVING me didn't tell me what to do or handle my pocket book

Yeah . Many concepts of leadership are like that .

The leaders expect to be paid but expect many to volunteer many hours .

The leaders want paid but are offended if they are looked at as employees *under* the orders of those who pay them . They actually want to be kings ( and queens ) . In that way , they command and even demand a tax from their serfs . But , that takes away from the serving , again .

 

[Meshavrischika]

Yeah . Many concepts of leadership are like that .

The leaders expect to be paid but have many voluteer many hours .

The leaders want paid but are offended if they are looked at as employees *under* the orders of those who pay them . They actually want to be kings ( and queens ) . In that way , they command and even demand a tax from their serfs . But , that takes away from the serving , again .

you're just so cool this week NW.

 

[EyezOFire]

So the way I am seeing this covering thing is that is Jesus at the top and then everyone else below Him and on an equal playing field.. There were not titles but rather functions and neither function was above another. Because I was thinking if the Bible says we are all a Holy Priesthood, then why would we need a "covering".

 

[Deba]

So the way I am seeing this covering thing is that is Jesus at the top and then everyone else below Him and on an equal playing field.. There were not titles but rather functions and neither function was above another. Because I was thinking if the Bible says we are all a Holy Priesthood, then why would we need a "covering".

You are right. But there is instruction to submit to authority.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17

So what is good profitable godly advice can be misapplied and twisted to become satanic, when used to seperate people from Jesus.

 

[JimB]

This Gothard-created “covering” belief has proven itself to be a false and destructive doctrine in the fruit it produced—i.e., the now defunct Shepherding Movement. When control freaks got hold of a theology that supported their desire to control people through authority-submission, it flourished like a weed that sprung up in the night (and perished in the day). The leading teachers, the infamous “Fort Lauderdale Five” (Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Ern Baxter, Charles Simpson, and Don Basham), were, of course, the “authority”, the “covering” for the rest of Christendom, and the rest of us were, as it turned out, to be in “submission” to them. Lesser “shepherds” (coverings) with smaller “flocks,” got to be the big dogs in their little ponds.

And it all started with this Bill Gothard promulgated, skewed-biblical “covering” doctrine, a doctrine that apparently remains in its death-throes and needs to be put out of the misery it causes others.

Over time, this shepherding/covering movement really got ridiculous. People could not make decisions, any decision (from obeying a call to be a missionary to what color drapes to buy for the house), without first clearing it with their shepherd, their “covering,” and getting it approved or disapproved. Congregations became rubber stamps to their pastors. Wives became nothing more than extensions of their husbands. Children became little clones of their parents (ultimately, their fathers>>pastors>>the Five) without the privilege of developing their own natural gifts as God had created them.

Of course, this was great for self-appointed/anointed “shepherds” who got to control everybody. But it was disastrous for many who subjugated their will to men and not God. Within a decade of its inception it had ruined the lives of so many people that it caved-in. Prince and Mumford, recognizing the evils such a covering doctrine caused by appealing to the baser pride of controlling men, eventually publicly recanted and renounced the doctrine. But a residue of it still exists in the vocabulary and beliefs of far too many Christians.

~Jim

Believe in miracles but don’t depend on them.​

 

[BenAdam]

The sad thing is that this has gone on since the Church started. Authoritarianism has always sought to creep in and take hold and destroy the freedom of the Church. You see it especially in the episcopalian form of church government, but I feel that it's most insidious hold is that of the local non-denom/pentecostal church that enforces "covering".

 

[EyezOFire]

You are right. But there is instruction to submit to authority.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17

So what is good profitable godly advice can be misapplied and twisted to become satanic, when used to seperate people from Jesus.

I was reading a book that kinda broke this down in a different light. Here's what it says " In Hebrews 13:17 it is not the usual greek word hupakouo that is usually employed in the NT for obedience. Rather it is the word peitho. Peitho means to persuade or win over. Because the word appears in middle-passive form in Hebrews 13:17, the text ought to be translated "Allow yourself to be persuaded by your leaders. This is an exhortation to give weight to the instruction of workers (and possibly local overseers) It is not an exhortation to obey them mindlessly. It implies persuasive power to convince and to win overrather than to coerce, force or brow beat into submission. In the words of greek scholar W.E.Vine, the obedience suggested in Hebrews 13:17 is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.
Like wise the verb translated submit in this passage is the word hupeiko. It carries the idea of yielding, retiring or withdrawing, as in surrendering after battle.

From the Book Who's Your Covering by Frank Viola

So to allow yourselves to be persuaded.... Very Interesting

 

[lismore]

Actually I was raised in non-Catholic Christian Churches and am very familiar with most terminology.

Hello there

I think in the RCC with priests and the pope, most RCCS would see the RCC equivalent of what they are talking about as being a good thing.

To others it may be a bad thing.

God Bless You