Warning: This is a very long article about submission and authority, which seems to be central now and then to SI, but may not interest most. I though it was so well done, and so right on, it was worthy of posting....and crosses over into reformed theology, head-coverings, and the Pastoral roles also.
In light of recent discussions about the limits of control a Pastor may have, or for that matter a husband may have, I found it enlightening and welded into holy scripture and doctrine. I think it is the most lengthy article I have ever posted...but I'm sure a few here will enjoy it's thoroughness.....Tom
Who's Your covering?
Eddie L. Hyatt
Breaking Free of Doctrines that Bind & Oppress.
I recently heard that a well-known female Christian leader, who assumed leadership of the church she and her husband founded after he succumbed to cancer, had announced that she was now under the “covering” of a certain well-known male pastor in another city. I was disappointed to hear that she felt the need to have a male “covering,” but it confirmed to me how deeply ingrained the “covering” doctrine is among Pentecostals and Charismatics. This doctrine, of course, purports that God works through delegated authority and everyone must, therefore, be submitted to a human authority, which functions as their covering” or protection. It has been especially applied to women as needing to be under the authority or “covering” of a man.
The problem with this teaching is that it places a human mediator between the believer and God and there is only One Mediator between God and humanity—the Lord Jesus Christ (I Timothy 2:5). This teaching also undermines the Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers by putting an individual or an organization between the believer and Christ. It also diminishes the redemptive work of Christ for it implies that Christian women are not able to relate to God on their own apart from male mediation.
This Teaching is not found in Scripture
In light of its popularity and acceptance, one would think that it would be easy to document this teaching with Scripture. The truth is, however, that it is glaringly absent from Scripture. We never hear of Paul talking about his “covering,” nor do we hear him claiming to be anyone else’s “covering.” Instead, in Galatians 1:1, he speaks of his independence from the Twelve and other Christian leaders, declaring his apostolic calling to be, Not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead. To the Colossian believers who were being led astray by false teachers, Paul reminds them that they are complete, not in Paul, but in Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him (Colossians 2:9-10).
Jesus too is silent about the need for a human “covering.” After cleansing the temple he was confronted by the religious leaders who demanded to know, By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority? They knew he was not ordained or authorized by them, so they wanted Him to explain His right or authority to carry out such an act? In contemporary terminology, they were asking, “Who’s your covering?”
Jesus responded by asking them a question and when they would not answer, he told them he would not tell them the source of His authority (Matthew 21:23-27). Jesus, of course, derived His authority directly from God. The Pharisees and Sadducees, however, could not accept this for they believed, like many preachers today, that God mediated all spiritual authority through the institutions they had established. In their minds, they were the “covering” for all Israel and Jesus was functioning outside their covering.
This Teaching Unheard of Before the 1970s
In light of the Biblical silence about this issue, we must ask how this teaching has gained such a stranglehold on the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. The answer is a historical one and can be traced back to events within the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s-80s.
Before the 1970s the “covering” doctrine was unheard of in the Spirit-filled movement. I grew up in a Pentecostal pastor’s home and never heard the idea of a “covering” ever mentioned or even alluded to in the way it is taught today. It was not until the 1970s when I attended a Bible school that was at the forefront of the Charismatic Renewal that I heard this word “covering” used in the authoritarian sense and particularly applied to women and their need for a male covering (this school actually opposed this teaching at that time). It was through the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s that traditional teachings from the older churches about Spiritual authority being mediated through hierarchical leadership (which is the basis of the “covering” doctrine) were introduced into the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement.
The Charismatic Renewal Became a Bridge
with Doctrinal Traffic Flowing in both Directions
The Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s was a powerful work of the Holy Spirit and was very ecumenical with Catholics, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. participating together in great conferences. Pentecostals, such as David Duplessis, Gordon Lindsay, and Oral Roberts, went out of their way to reach out to those in the older churches and denominations. As a result, many in the older churches experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit and reached back across denominational and theological lines. Bridges were thus built between Pentecostals and those of the older churches.
We must remember, however, that a bridge carries traffic in both directions. And although the Pentecostals were able to carry their message of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the present reality of Spiritual gifts to those in the older churches, they were recipients of traditional teaching coming from the other side about hierarchical leadership and the importance of being submitted to spiritual authority and under its “covering” or protection. They also received traditional teaching from the older churches about why women should be excluded from leadership roles in the church. These were new concepts to Pentecostals for, from the beginning of the revival in 1901, there had been an amazing openness to the gifts of women and a flattened sort of leadership in which leaders were called “brother” and “sister,” but never “father,” “bishop,” or other flattering, hierarchical titles.
Traditional Doctrines Intrude into the Movement
Many Pentecostals as well as the newer independent charismatics seemed awed at being in the presence and dialoguing with priests and theologians from the older denominations. And having little knowledge and training in historical theology, this made some of them (especially those desiring institutional power) susceptible to the traditional doctrines touted by those from the older, traditional churches.
An example of this came out of the Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogues, established in the early 1970s by David Duplessis and involving a number of Roman Catholic theologians and Pentecostal leaders who came together on a regular basis to seek common ground in their traditions. In 1976, after several years of involvement in these Dialogues, three Pentecostal leaders, Earl Paulk, John Meares and Robert McAlister, decided to adopt the Catholic/Episcopal form of church government for their churches. They began wearing clerical collars and made arrangements to have themselves consecrated as bishops. Another participant in the Dialogues, Dr. Jerry Sandidge, says that their decision to adopt traditional offices, titles, clothing, and doctrine was perceived by those on both sides of the Dialogues to be a direct result of the Roman Catholic influence in the Dialogues.[1] These men became very influential in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement and helped promote a Catholic, hierarchical form of leadership that provided the theological basis for the “covering” doctrine. Yes, the traffic runs in both directions on a bridge and this certainly occurred in the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s.
Out of this emphasis on spiritual authority that flowed from the older churches into the Charismatic Renewal, there emerged the Discipleship movement of the 1970s-80s that took the hierarchical “covering” doctrine to its extremes. In this movement it was commonly taught that a woman must always be under the “covering” of a man. If she needed to leave her home to do some shopping and could not get in touch with her husband to obtain his permission, then she must contact another man and get his permission so that she would always be under authority and “covered.” I remember hearing of one Christian man who decided to divorce his wife because he “could not bring her into submission.”
Although the Discipleship movement was eventually discredited, the same authoritarian spirit keeps reappearing dressed in different religious garb and called by different religious names. It is showing up today in places like the apostolic movement with its claims of governmental authority over God’s people, and the convergence movement that seeks to merge traditional high church liturgy and priestly order with the freedom of the Spirit.
The Fallacious Biblical Argument Exposed
The one Scripture that is used more than any other to try and validate the “covering” doctrine is I Corinthians 11:10 which, in the NKJV, reads, For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. If you are reading the NKJV you will notice that the phrase a symbol of is in italics. This is the translators’ way of letting us know that these words have been added and are not in the original Greek text. The same is true of the NIV which has a sign of which is not in the Greek text. In other words, this passage has nothing to do with a symbol or sign of authority as so many have made it out to be.
The Greek text literally reads, For this reason the woman out to have authority on (or over) her head because of the angels. The preposition translated “on” is epi and ordinarily means “over.” This has led some New Testament scholars, such as Dr. Gordon Fee, to conclude that Paul is here saying that the Christian woman ought to have authority over her own head to decide if she wants to wear a covering or not. He, therefore, suggests that a more accurate translation would be, For this reason the woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes.[2]
This entire passage is obviously about a cultural issue in Corinth where the wearing of some sort of head covering or veil is a customary practice. Some have speculated that this passage is related to a situation in the Corinthian culture where only the temple prostitutes of Aphrodite, whose magnificent temple was in Corinth, went about with shaved and uncovered heads. Be that as it may, Paul is addressing the question of whether Christian women must adhere to the cultural norms of the city in which they live. The best interpretation of the passage is that Paul is affirming the right of Christian women in Corinth to decide for themselves if they want to wear a head covering. The passage has nothing to do with being under someone else’s authority
What about the phrase because of the angels? New Testament scholar, Philip Payne, has suggested that the answer lies with I Corinthians 6:3 where Paul says that in the future world the saints will judge angels. Paul’s point would be that the Christian women of Corinth, who would one day judge angels, should be exercising authority now over such insignificant matters as whether to wear a head covering.[3]
God Himself Will be Your Covering
Through Jesus Christ our One Mediator, we can have a personal, intimate relationship with our Creator and know Him as our “covering,” as David spoke of in Psalm 91. Psalm 91:1 reads, He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. Under the shadow is a metaphor or word picture for “a protective covering.” The protective covering is not a pastor, church or denomination. It is, instead, a personal thing between the individual and God. God Himself—El-Shaddai—will be our covering when we live in that secret place—that place of intimacy and fellowship with Him. This passage is clearly saying that the one who dwells continually in a place of personal intimacy with God will live under His protective care and be nourished and sustained by His own life.
Concluding Thoughts
Respect Christian leaders, Christian institutions, and fellow believers, but do not allow anyone to become a mediator between you and God. Maintain the Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:5-6). Remember that the redemptive work of Christ applies equally to both men and women as Paul so aptly states in Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
As a Christian leader, I believe that an attitude of genuine humility and security in our calling will eliminate the need to promote oppressive “covering” doctrines that paralyze the body of Christ. I believe that as believers in general practice a mutual love and respect toward one another, the need and desire for an authoritarian “covering” will dissipate like the morning dew for we will realize that we are all under the covering of Christ and in mutual love we will hold one another accountable and be a protection for one another and for our brothers and sisters around the world.
Who’s your covering? It should be Jesus Christ! It should be God Himself!
By Eddie L. Hyatt