Covering and Authority

Jana Bishop tells her story of leadership in a church that has bought in to Covering Theology. 

1. The leader must be in control of every aspect at all times.

2. When problems arise, immediately find a guilty party to blame.

3. Don’t make mistakes.

4. Never point out the reality of a situation.

5. Never express your feelings unless they are positive.

6. Don’t ask questions, especially if they are tough ones.

7. Don’t do anything outside your role.

8. Don’t trust anyone.

9. Nothing is more important than giving money to the organization

10. At all costs, keep up the image of the organization or family.

Taken from Toxic Faith page 223.

I’m going over the site and doing some editing.  I focused the content by paring things down to a handful of main points. That page was sloppy.

I’ve been in dialogue with someone else who is doing their own research on Covering Theology.  I hope to link to his findings as soon as he posts them.  It has been fun connecting with others who feel addressing this issue is of huge importance.

There is an interesting facebook that has popped up.  It is called Pentellectuals, for all you charismatics who feel Jesus came to take away your sins and not your mind you might want to check it out.

I’m thinking of expanding the website with more content and publishing it as an e-book.

In many situations where authoritarians are leaders in the church there are often people supporting them.  Some are naive “yes men” that are oblivious to the danger that false teaching represents.  There are usually enablers, people who know better but don’t object because they feel it is more important to “maintain the unity of the body.”  There really is no scripture that directs us to “maintain the unity of the body.” 

In Ephesians 4 we see Paul mentioning unity of the Spirit and unity of the faith.  In only one passage we see a direct appeal to unity with other Christians. 

Rom 15:5  Now may the God of endurance and comfort give you unity with one another in accordance with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6  so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The word translated unity is phroneo.  We see it translated as in varying ways in the following passages:

TNIV : “the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had”
NASB : “be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus”
NLT : “live in complete harmony with each other, as is fitting for followers of Christ Jesus”
NRSV : “live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus”
NIV : “a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus”
ESV : “live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus”

There seems to be a little bit of variance in the translations telling me their is a range of meaning in phroneo.  The gist is the same.  Thayer’s lexicon suggests “have understanding”, “to feel” or “to think.”  It sort of means going in the same direction. 

A key in this verse is the part more literally translated “according to Jesus Christ.”  Baker’s NT Commentary suggests it could be “in accordance to the will of Christ” or “in accordance with the teachings and example of Christ” or both.  My guess would be both, or one would lead to the other.  If you sought to know the will of Christ that would inevitably lead to his life and teachings and Christ’s life and teachings certainly lead us to seek His will.  Which ever number you dial you get to the same place. 

We also see that the source of this unity is God.  Paul is praying that the God of endurance and comfort would provide this unity.  It isn’t established through a structural hierarchy and organizational uniformity.  It certainly isn’t arrived at through fear, coercion or manipulation. 

It is necessary for unity to be in accordance to Christ.  If someone starts bringing destructive false teaching that standard is not being met.  Maintaining unity in a local church is not more important than living in accordance to Christ’s will and teaching. 

We have some examples in scripture where Jesus is directly addressing churches that are tolerating false teaching.

Rev 2:14  But I have a few things against you: You have some people there who follow the teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel so they would eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality.
Rev 2:15  In the same way, there are also some among you who follow the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
Rev 2:16  Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 2:20  But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
Rev 2:21  I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality.
Rev 2:22  Look! I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds.
Rev 2:23  Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve.

There is something very ironic in this.  Covering Theology teaches people put themselves in terrible danger when they fail to submit to authority but some of the sternest words of impending judgment in scripture are prescribed to false teachers.  It seems to be far more dangerous to stay submitted to a false teacher than it is rebel against one.

We also find instruction in 2John.

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting,
2Jn 1:11  because the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds.

Is covering theology as bad as the false teaching mentioned in Revelation 2 or 2John?  Given Paul’s strident and emotional case for freedom as an inherent part of the gospel in Galatians my first thought would be yes.   Christ came to give us freedom (Gal 5:1) and Covering Theology takes it away as well as makes idols out of church leaders. 

It is hard to be sure because we aren’t certain what the doctrine of the Nicolatians was.  We know that some false teaching lead to sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.  The issue addressed in 2John was most likely gnosticism. 

From a biblical perspective it would be hard to make a case for “maintaining unity” in church that has embraced false teaching.  If we tolerate false teachers we become a “partner in their evil work” (2John 1:11 NLT). 

One of the common teachings in Covering Theology is that Christ has delegated his authority to church leaders. They might use the term apostles or 5-fold ministers or whatever. Some proponents of Covering Theology have appealed to Matthew 28 for this.

Mat 28:18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Notice that Jesus doesn’t actually say he has delegated authority to anyone. Later on in the book of revelation Jesus does speak of giving his authority to “the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end.”

Rev 2:24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, all who do not hold to this teaching (who have not learned the so-called “deep secrets of Satan”), to you I say: I do not put any additional burden on you.
Rev 2:25 However, hold on to what you have until I come.
Rev 2:26 And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations —
Rev 2:27 he will rule them with an iron rod
and like clay jars he will break them to pieces,
Rev 2:28 just as I have received the right to rule from my Father — and I will give him the morning star.

If Jesus doesn’t give authority out until the end how can anyone but Him have it now?

While they claim “the Secret” is not enough they affirm the central law of attraction in “the secret”. Here is a list contributors for the DVD.

I added a new quote to the Galatians 5 page from M. James Sawyer’s post:

Years ago, I wrote my Th.M. thesis on the book of Galatians (for those who are interested, I applied the method of Discourse Analysis to the entire books of Galatians. It is posted at: http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=73 ) This was a slow and painstaking analysis that took more than four hundred hours to complete. The point was to trace the argument (the case Paul was building) of Galatians. I discovered something remarkable. Everything stated in Galatians leads up to or flows from Galatians 5:1: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm then and do not be subject to the yoke of slavery.” In chapter 1 he calls down imprecations from heaven on anyone who would corrupt the simple gospel of Christ: “. . . If we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! As we have said before, and now I say again, “if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell!”

Paul was here talking about the simplicity of the gospel which was being compromised by those who wanted to add the Torah (Jewish law with all its ceremonies and particularly circumcision as its sign) but the application is wider. Many teachings have arisen over the centuries that promise protection, provision, perfection and the like. They sound good at the front end, but the results are bondage.

Parchment and Pen offers some detailed analysis of Bevere’s work.  His conclusion:

I want to wind this up by saying that while I find Bevere’s position as taken particularly in the early portion of Under Cover utterly problematic on many levels, and truly dangerous to the spiritual health of the church, in the latter part of the book he tries to qualify some of the positions he has taken early in the book. The problem I see is the qualifications, which are well stated and carefully articulated, cut against the larger broad brush strokes that he has painted from the beginning.

As I said earlier, much of what he says is good. But the framework he uses is one that is the cyanide in the Kool-Aid. While he may not go down this path himself, working out the implicit presuppositions of his teaching, I don’t have to be a prophet to foresee that his followers will. And when they do they will unleash a new torrent of spiritual abuse that effectively undermines the freedom produced by the gospel and enslaves God’s children in chains of bondage. In so doing they will come under the same curse that Paul pronounced upon those who were adding to the gospel Paul proclaimed to the Galatian church.

What I found particularly heartening are his final comments about how Covering Theology adds to the gospel and puts people under a curse.

3Jn 1:9  I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not acknowledge us.  
3Jn 1:10  Therefore, if I come, I will call attention to the deeds he is doing — the bringing of unjustified charges against us with evil words! And not being content with that, he not only refuses to welcome the brothers himself, but hinders the people who want to do so and throws them out of the church! 
3Jn 1:11  Dear friend, do not imitate what is bad but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does what is bad has not seen God.

From the Believers Bible Commentary on verse 9.

Apparently John had written along this line to the church, but his Letter was intercepted by a man named Diotrephes, who had an exaggerated view of his own importance. He was a virtual dictator in the assembly. His sin was pride of place, an inflated ego, and a violent jealousy for what he regarded as his own rights—which he doubtless defended as the autonomy of the local church. Diotrephes had forgotten that Christ is the Head of the church—if he ever knew it! He had forgotten that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar or Representative of Christ in the church. No mere man has the right to take charge, to make decisions, to receive, or to refuse. Such conduct is popery, and God hates it. Doubtless Diotrephes excused his behavior on the ground that he was contending for the truth. But that was, of course, a lie! He was doing untold harm to the truth by refusing the apostle on the pretext of being faithful to God. And not only John, but other brethren as well.

Check it out.