Tuesday, July 10, 2007

"SPIRITUAL COVERING OR ACCOUNTABILITY?"

"Spiritual Covering Or Accountability?"
by Keith Giles

A few weeks ago I had an interesting conversation with a member of our Mission House Church about our "Spiritual Covering". It was a great discussion about whether such a concept was even really Biblical or not, and if it was, what would that look like for our House Church?

Our House Church is truly an independent endeavor. My wife and I left our previous church to start the House Church without any official "covering" from any other church or organization. I've been a licensed and ordained minister of the Gospel now for about sixteen years or so, through the Southern Baptist Denomination, although the last ten years or so I had been serving at Vineyard Churches in Orange County.

To be honest, I never really felt a need to research the whole question of spiritual covering because God had called me to step out and launch our house church and there had been no hint that we needed to do this with the "blessing" or "covering" of any other leader or organized church. Now that my friend was asking me this question, I wasn't sure how to respond. I had my own, very strong opinions about the subject already in place, but I decided to at least entertain the subject and ask some of the spiritual advisors in my life what their take on the subject might be.

So, I shot off an email to people like author Dallas Willard ("The Divine Conspiracy"), Todd Hunter (former National Director of Vineyard Churches), Paul Martin (Pastor at Soul Survivor USA and St. James Anglican), David Ruis (worship leader, author, songwriter), and also a few of my own personal mentors. They are former pastors, Chaplains, Seminary Graduates, and lay leaders. I asked them each to share with me their thoughts on the subject of "Spiritual Covering".

Quite honestly, I expected a robust series of heated debates on the concept. Of that list, only two of them had any real bias in favor of house churches. All the rest were either full-time pastors of traditional churches or at least former pastors. What I heard back, unanimously I might add, truly surprised me.

They each agreed with my conviction that "Spiritual Covering" was simply not a Biblical concept as most people understand it.
(*NOTE- Not all of those polled responded. Dallas Willard was too busy to weigh in, and David Ruis was in Europe at the time.)

First let me explain the basic idea behind "Covering" here. Whenever someone, like myself for example, decides to start a church (house church or traditional), it is usually expected that the leader will submit his group to a higher organizational authority in order to protect the leader, and the new church, from doctrinal errors (heresy), and to protect against moral failures within the leadership staff.

This sounds like common sense, and I have to admit that if we were starting a traditional church, I might agree that such a system might be prudent. However, the House Church by design is already a highly accountable group of like-minded people. In the House Church model, it's hard to be anonymous for very long. There is a high level of accountability in our small group. Plus, I do not lecture as the resident Biblical expert in our house church. Everyone, even my two sons who are elementary-age, is free to share scripture and discuss the Bible at length. Because of this, it's much more difficult for heretical ideas to flourish very long. In fact, just a few weeks ago my eleven-year-old son Dylan put me in my place by reading a passage out of Exodus that completely contradicted something I was saying. The Word of God won out and I had to concede my point.

In contrast, the traditional church (especially the larger ones) make it much easier for people to remain anonymous and to wear masks that suggest "everything is alright". A recent coffee meeting with a good friend of mine, who pastors a very large denominational church locally, confirmed this idea. He admitted that he usually hears about "secret sin" in His Body when the marriage is already over, or the surprise pregnancy has already taken place, etc. In our House Church, we encounter things on the front end, not the last gasp.

Each person who responded to my question about "Spiritual Covering" agreed that there was no Biblical foundation for such a teaching, although many churches use this as a way to control their leaders and manage their "flock" by fear.

Simply put, "Any church without spiritual covering is not, because of this fact, in error. However, if any church (with or without spiritual covering), believes or teaches or allows heretical ideas or doctrines or immoral activities to flourish, THEN that church is in error."

I think one of the main things that came out of this larger discussion was the idea that "Accountability" IS Biblical, but "Covering" is artifical, fear-based, man-made, and still not effective in preventing doctrinal heresy or avoiding moral failures in the clergy.

Most of us who have been around for while in the Christian Church can testify that our best systems of accountablity do not prevent adultery, heresy, embezzlement, etc. We've probably all seen good, Godly men and women fall hard. Sometimes the ones who fall are the very last ones we would ever expect to fail in such a way. Nevertheless, they do, and often.

As a pastor, I have personally witnessed such failures over the last sixteen years first-hand and it's never a pretty sight. Why do these things happen? Is there really nothing we can do about it? (That's another article).

Basically, there is a misunderstanding of what "Spiritual Covering" is and what Biblical "Accountability" looks like. I am happy to report that our House Church has "Accountability" by the truck-load. I am accountable to every single person in our group. I am accountable to the Men of the Mission who meet for coffee every-other week, and I am accountable to a handful of other Godly Men whom I am in constant relationship and contact with every day. I am accountable to my wife and to my two sons and to my parents, and yes, even to those of you who read these articles every week. (Because if I did something stupid I would be compelled to write about it).

"Spiritual Covering" is not the same as "Accountability". Todd Hunter had a great quote that I thought really expressed how arbitrary this idea of "Covering" is. He said that if Rick Warren or Chuck Smith (or some other Christian Celebrity with a large, succesful ministry, book, radio show, etc.) were to announce today that they were leaving to start a brand-new house church, no one would dare ask them, "Who is your spiritual covering?" But if you or I (or some other "regular guy") were to hear God's call to start simple house church, then suddenly the question of "Spiritual Covering" arises. Suddenly it's just too dangerous to do this without another, higher spiritual authority looking out for things.

The truth is, when Chuck Smith left the Foursquare denomination to start Calvary Chapel, he had no spiritual covering. When John Wimber left Calvary Chapel to launch the Vineyard Movement, he also had no spiritual covering. Does this mean that, to this very day, these large, international church-planting movements are without a spiritual covering? Yes, it does. Is that a problem? Not if you attend Calvary Chapel or a Vineyard church...and not if you reject the idea of "Covering" anyway.

For that matter, when Martin Luther left the Catholic Church of his day and started a Protestant Reformation, he also had no "Spiritual Covering" either. So, I suppose there is no need to go much further than this.

For me, it boils down to whether or not your are convinced that there is such a thing as "The Priesthood of The Believer" and how you define it. Scripturally, I believe, that every follower of Jesus is qualified to use their God-given spiritual gifts without the approval of a denominational leader or an organization. Basically, there is no need for a spiritual "go-between". We might need accountability, or discipling, or encouragement, or sometimes even rebuke from one another, but it is not necessary that we have a man, or an organization, to stand between us and God.

A few years ago, some friends of mine wanted to start a Bible Study in their apartment. Because the lead pastor of the Church they were attending couldn't be there to oversee the study, they were not allowed to have their Bible Study. That is a prime example of the complete denial of the Priesthood of the Believer because "regular Christians" were not allowed to read the Bible on their own and understand it without the direct oversight of an official Church representative.

We might as well trade in our modern English Bibles for Latin ones and apologize for the Reformation if that is how we feel about things.

I realize that there are good people, sincere followers of Jesus who would disagree with me on this issue. I am not trying to argue or sling mud at anyone. However, it is my very strong opinion (and also, surprisingly, that of those distinguished gentlemen I surveyed earlier this week...smarter men than I, let's admit), that all that is needed for a Church to operate properly is to submit to one another, and to Christ, and to let the Word of God (the Bible) be your guide. The Holy Spirit promised (and I really do believe Him) to lead us into all Truth. We do not need an expert or a professional to tell us we are "safe" or "official".

We are The Body of Christ. We are The Church. The Bible is our Statement of Faith. We are accountable to one another and to The Holy Spirit of God. Jesus if our Head and He will build His Church just as He pleases (1 Cor 12).

"A good man will remain faithful, even with a poor structure of accountability, and a degenerate man will frustrate and resist even the most iron-clad system of accountability," my friend Todd Hunter said to me. I must agree.

Even so, I have seen enough pastors fall into sin and self-deception and pride to know that no one is immune from moral or doctrinal failure. Accountability is essential. We must submit ourselves to God, and to our brothers and sisters in Christ, or we will never avoid the sin which so easily entangles.

Peace,
Keith
http://www.KeithGiles.com
***
MARK THE DATE: "Non-Con '08" - March 14 & 15, 2008
Jackie Pullinger, David Ruis, Cindy Reithmeir, John Thomas, 99 others, and YOU! LOCATION ANNOUNCED SOON! ONLINE REGISTRATION OPENS NEXT MONTH!
More here:
http://www.non-con.com

***
"URGENT!" - My article about an alarming new piece of legislation which could threaten the non-profit status of YOUR CHURCH! Check it out here:
http://www.TheOoze.com

***
MY FIRST BOOK! It should be available online at my main website in about a month now. "The Gospel:For Here Or To Go?" will feature a foreward by author Neil Cole ("Organic Church"). For those of you who purchase the book and want to respond with your own stories, I plan to self-publish a second edition of the book later next year which will include some of your testimonies too. More later...

***
[END TRANSMISSION]

5 comments:

Agent B said...

Yeah - "covering" is truly a crock. Acts 5:29 all the way, baby.

No man made endorsements necessary...

Joel Hickenbottom said...

Hey Steve,

Thanks for sending this to me and thanks for asking others. Obviously, I know you feel strongly about the issue, and like you, I agree there is no found biblical understanding of such things like "thou shalt have covering".

I did want to encourage you to make sure you don't lump every person who seeks to give covering as fear-mongers and control freaks, as well as on the other side, everyone who seeks covering to be satiated with being controlled.

I think there are a lot of people (and myself included at one point) that have never really looked into Scripture to see where these answers lay, only to find that there "spiritual covering" isn't there in the Book. I'm not sure if you know, but the Bridge isn't around anymore and while some of us are meeting at a home or at places within the city, we have wrestled through the question of "covering".

I also know for myself, covering has been synonymous with accountability. Maybe that shouldn't be, but maybe it's just semantics. Either way, that is what I have made it now where there is a simple manner of me networking with friends, some who happen to be other church leaders, and asking them to keep me accountable as my "covering".

I suppose I could be covered in many things: Accountability. Prayer, of course. But also in counsel, guidance, etc. Does this make me a person who loves to have people lording control over me or is it just my desire to be authentic with others?

When the Bridge was closing, my friend Aimee (the only one who had been ordained by the Bridge for missions purposes in the country she was going to, mind you) had a vision while we were in prayer one evening, where she saw the Bridge community and this blanket came down on top of them, which she sense herself interceding for the community.

While, it was her picture, I think it paints a great illustration that she was side by side, in the community, but was the prayers and the Presence that became the "covering" and not the people (with controlling agendas, etc).

Again - it's semantics I'm sure. But I would love someone stand side-by-side with me, to "cover" me in the blanket of prayer, accountability and hopefully, the Presence of God.

Anyway - thanks for putting this out there. I've sent it along to some friends working through similar stuff.

Joel Hickenbottom said...

To bad, I was sending an email to a friend and called yoU Steve, not Keith. Wow.

Arnie Adkison said...

Well done, Keith. I probably don't tell you enough how much I appreciate your writings.

Arnie Adkison said...

Well done, Keith. I probably don't tell you enough that I appreciate your writings.