The ‘Covering Doctrine.’ A Debilitating Lie?

A wise man once said: “Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man. Any man who is afraid to have his doctrine investigated is not only a coward but a hypocrite.” While doctrines come and go, it is our sacred responsibility to examine every doctrine to determine if it is true or false.

T.D. Jakes says that God eternally exists in three manifestations, not three persons. Greg Boyd says God knows some aspects of the future, but that other future events are outside of his knowledge. Creflo Dollar says that because we are created in the image of God, we are little gods. Mormonism says God revealed new scripture to Joseph Smith that supersedes the Bible. Roman Catholicism says we are justified by faith, but not by faith alone. This world is a murky madness of true and false. For every doctrine we know to be true, there seems to be a hundred pretenders.

No wonder, then, that John tells us to “test the spirits” and Paul says, “test everything” (1 John 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

So what exactly is the “Covering Doctrine” and why is it so widely accepted, without understanding? Simply put, it’s the doctrine that claims all Christians must be under the authority (covering) of a church leader or mother organization to act with ‘authority,’ be protected from the attacks of the devil, or receive God’s blessings. Here’s the problem! Upon investigation I discovered that this doctrine originated from the shepherding movement of the 70’s which was really rooted in the cultural revolution of the 60’s, and utterly failed a short time afterwards.

The face of the shepherding movement, along with it’s overblown ‘covering doctrine’ was Bob Mumford. The doctrine began when four well-known Charismatic teachers, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, and Don Basham, along with Ern Baxter and John Poole, “formed the organization that would be ‘the center of one of the most violent controversies (i.e., the Discipleship/Shepherding controversy) in Protestant charismatic history. While both Charles Simpson and Bob Mumford have made public statements disavowing the movement, or at least distancing themselves from it, the movements ideologies sadly live on today in some groups.

Although in 1989 Mumford said:

Accountability, personal training under the guidance of another, and effective pastoral care are needed biblical concepts. True spiritual maturity will require that they be preserved. These biblical realities must also carry the limits indicated by the New Testament. However, to my personal pain and chagrin, these particular emphases very easily lent themselves to an unhealthy submission resulting in perverse and unbiblical obedience to human leaders. Many of these abuses occurred within the sphere of my own responsibility.

It rears its head every now and then and comes from the felt idea that certain Christian movements, parachurch organizations, and even missionaries are too loose and that there’s not enough accountability, credibility, or control ‘over them.’ In the past few months I’ve heard the question “Who’s your covering?” a few too many times, shockingly . Other versions of the question are;

“Under what authority do you minister here?”

or

“Who do you answer to?”

It’s as if legitimate ministry can only be determined by “the right answer” to those questions. Answering those sorts of questions in a cavalier way, for example, “Jesus/God is my authority (covering),” is thought to be rebellious, of poor attitude, or having an inclination towards disobedience. If continued, it usually results in one being forced out from under that covering or “umbrella of protection” for the ‘destruction of the flesh so that the soul might be saved’ which is really code talk for trying to justify religious abuse.

It’s one of my favorite exchanges in scripture when the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders (still lurking around every corner) approached Jesus saying:

“By what authority are you doing these things?” and they also asked, “And who gave you authority to do this?” Jesus replied,

“I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism — was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

They responded, “We don’t know,” because either way their answer would have obliterated their ill conceived covering doctrine, (Mark 11:27–33)

It was one of the most disassembling questions, doctrinally speaking, of Jesus’ ministry. It was also one of the wisest of all possible answers He could have given to those challenging Him.

Given mankind’s propensity to form hierarchical systems and structures which are diametrically opposed to Jesus’ teachings in Luke 22:25–26, Matthew 20:25 and Mark 10:42, I have purposed to dissect these 7 misguided teachings of the doctrine;

• Covering encourages accountability.
• Covering procures legitimacy.
• Covering provides safety.
• Covering encourages fidelity
• Covering transfers authority
• Covering ordains ministry
• Covering leads to prosperity

These are just some of the teachings that have been birthed from the fundamentally flawed principles within the movement. Sin is redefined as disobedience to God’s ‘delegated’ authorities. Grace is filtered through fickle feelings of generosity in others (those who cover), and is often mitigated without objective reasoning. Obedience to the Lord requires obedience to God’s delegated authorities and across all realms such as employers, church leaders, and civil authorities. Bucking any leadership in any way ‘puts you outside of the covering.’

Further, rebellion against God’s delegated authority is rebellion against God Himself. Rebellion to authority opens one up to the demonic realm and results in being deceived. People should live by the principle of obedience rather than by discernment and objective reasoning. People should always obey authority [usually the prophet, a growing phenomenon here in South Africa] unless they are clearly instructed to violate scripture [but he is the final interpreter of scripture, so…] ‘Spiritual authority and blessing flows to those who suffer under authority.’ God does not judge people on the fruit of their life but on how faithfully they followed authority. And, those outside the local church and the covering of its leaders are at serious risk of spiritual attack. While these principles may contain nuggets or even smaller bits of truth here and there, they are none the less widely misinterpreted and misapplied.*

The doctrine itself is one of the key catalyzers of the destructive prosperity gospel and ultimately kills ministry and mission. I’d like to ask you a few questions:

1. What truths might there be in the covering doctrine? Point out a few?

2. How would you answer the question, “Who’s your covering?”

Here’s another problem, the minute a believer shows signs of having something important to share with the wider Body of Christ, suddenly all and sundry are interested primarily in that one important question: “Who are you covered by?” It all sounds pretty reasonable except for one problem — it’s NOT FOUND in scripture. In fact, the early church was taught to rely on the inner anointing to discern the spiritual source of potential ministers. (1 John 2:20; 1 John 4:1)

Are you, like many others, living your Christian life under the shadow of this fear that without “covering” you dare not minister, preach, pray or do a myriad of other things you’re called to do by the Spirit of God, because you will somehow be ministering without protection?

The purpose of this article is to shed some light on this issue based on scriptural truth. We need to understand that this need to be covered by a perceived spiritual authority, and the scriptural instruction to submit ourselves to God’s delegated authorities, are NOT necessarily one and the same thing.

Furthermore, New Testament authority as demonstrated by Jesus and the first apostles, is servanthood-authority, upholding, strengthening, reinforcing and overseeing the Body from BENEATH, not DOMINEERING, CONTROLLING and RULING from ABOVE. Therefore, it is vital in examining this issue that we begin from a correct understanding of Biblical submission and Biblical authority.

Jesus CHOSE to submit Himself, He CHOSE to humble Himself, He CHOSE to obey. This is the key to Biblical submission, and the model laid down for us by both the Father and the Son

Submission is firstly a choice; a choice that can only ever be made by the giver. Biblical submission can never be demanded or forced. That kind of relationship is subservience, not submission. Jesus chose to subject Himself to the Father, but the Father “so loved the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son.” Sacrificial giving and sacrificial submission are married to each other. In the Spirit, you cannot have one without the other. If you try, you will invariably end up with control, dependence and abuse rather than humility, interdependence and grace.

The New Testament concept of submission, or subjection, is one of a totally voluntary attitude of giving, of yielding one’s preference and deferring to another.

Let’s apply Tim Challies method of putting a doctrine to the test and I will let you the reader decide…

Test 1: The Test of Origin

The first test is the test of origin. Sound doctrine originates with God; false doctrine originates with someone or something created by God. The Apostle Paul went to great lengths to convince the church in Galatia that the gospel he taught was not his own, but God’s — (Galatians 1:11–12).

Test 2: The Test of Authority

The second test is the test of authority. Sound doctrine grounds its authority within the Bible; false doctrine grounds its authority outside the Bible. The Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible, sufficient, complete, and authoritative revelation of himself to humanity. Doctrines that originate in the mind of God are recorded in the Word of God. There is a clear and necessary correlation between origin and authority, between God and his Word.

Test 3: The Test of Consistency

The third test is the test of consistency. Sound doctrine is consistent with the whole of Scripture; false doctrine is inconsistent with some parts of Scripture. There is a sameness or familiarity to true doctrine and a strangeness or unfamiliarity to false doctrine. The man who wrote the letter to the Hebrews warned his congregation about “diverse and strange teachings,” while Paul warned Timothy about accepting “different doctrine” (Hebrews 13:9; 1 Timothy 1:3, 6:3). Both meant to emphasize that doctrine must always be compared to the established, accepted body of truth.

Test 4: The Test of Spiritual Growth

The fourth test is the test of spiritual growth. Sound doctrine is beneficial for spiritual health; false doctrine leads to spiritual weakness. After instructing Timothy, Paul told him, “If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained [“nourished”] in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed” (1 Timothy 4:6).

At this point we simply take all of the evidence from the four tests and make a conclusion about the quality of the doctrine in question. The task of the doctor is to evaluate a patient to declare him fit or unfit. The patient is fit when his whole body is functioning properly, free of disease. The task of the Christian is to evaluate every doctrine to declare it fit or unfit.

If therefore our theology is maimed (with bits missing) or diseased (with bits distorted), it is not ‘sound’ or ‘healthy’.” Doctrine that passes the three tests is sound doctrine. It is pure and undefiled, true according to God’s unfailing standard of truth.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Please drop your comments below and #LetsTalk