The problem with spiritual covering

In Pentecostal circles, the concept of spiritual covering is well established. The idea goes like this. God has established authority and it comes with a set chain of command. Submit to the chain of command (the leader God has put above you) and God’s blessing will flow.

Congregations are expected to submit to the pastor on the basis of authority. Wives are expected to submit to husbands on the basis of authority. Mid-level leaders submit to higher level leaders. Senior pastors submit to apostolic leaders. And so on.

The premise is that by submitting to a leader, you are submitting to God-ordained authority and therefore God himself. To be unsubmitted is dangerous and sinful. Questions like, ‘who are they under?’ surface to ascertain the chain of command.

Are we just ignoring chunks of the Bible?

Scriptures on submission are well documented and it is not my goal to avoid these. What I challenge in this article is how we apply said scriptures. We’ll look at some of the blind spots in interpretation as well as common sense application. My problem with spiritual covering as described is that it can create a culture without true accountability or healthy challenge. Sadly, it can also facilitate spiritual abuse. Of course it’s important to say that not all churches that teach on spiritual covering find themselves in the extremes. But that doesn’t make it good theology.

Let’s start by examining an important tool we ought to employ when reading the Bible: tension. Whenever we find one idea, we often find what might be perceived as the very opposite of that idea. It is in holding both ideas in tension that we arrive at the truth. Whenever we hold to one side too strongly (and therefore the other too weakly), we error.

This tension is evident in the teachings of Jesus himself. For example, Jesus instructs his disciples to be peacemakers (Matthew 5). He also promises to leave us with peace (John 16). And yet he also explains that he has come not to bring peace but division (Luke 12). Does this make us question the validity of scripture? Is Jesus confused? No, he simply expects his listeners to be able to intelligently hold two seemingly opposite ideas in tension.

We could go on and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of examples could be shared. The point is this. You cannot just take one scripture in isolation without allowing it to sit in the context of the original culture and language and the rest of scripture. In other words, scripture must interpret scripture.

Context matters when it comes to submission

So let’s turn to submission. Whilst we clearly get instructions for believers to submit to leaders (interestingly enough it’s plural not singular), we also get instructions for believers to submit to one another. Leaders are also challenged not to use their power to dominate but to serve. Similarly with marriage, wives are instructed to submit to their husbands but husbands are also instructed to lay down their lives for their wives, in the same way that Jesus did for us. If you take one in isolation, you end up in error. If you hold both in tension, you end up with the truth.

The idea of being under a leader fits well with one take of scripture. But without the necessary nuance and tension, we arrive at something very different from what the New Testament describes. Submitting to leaders does not mean blind compliance. It also does not mean you are not allowed to challenge or correct your leaders. This isn’t sinful. It’s healthy and the best leaders will welcome such behaviour.

This is exactly why James explains that teachers will be judged with greater strictness (James 3). And why Paul instructs Timothy to listen to witnesses that raise complaints about sinful leaders (1 Timothy 5). None of this can be possible if we believe that the leader God has placed above us cannot be questioned. But that’s exactly what the concept of spiritual covering leads to.

The blessing of Christ is enough

By teaching that blessing is attached to alignment (and therefore submission) of a leader above you, we create a culture that is reluctant to challenge or disagree. Because who wants to challenge the one from whom blessing flows? Paul writes in Ephesians 1 that every spiritual blessing is ours in Christ Jesus. It’s already received and there’s nothing we can do to add to it. The concept of spiritual covering tries to add to the finished work of Christ and instead leads us back to the fear of man.

There are two final points we should mention. Firstly, that despite my rejection of the concept of spiritual covering as it pertains to submitting to a single leader, the concepts of submission and authority itself are still worthy of exploration. I believe a biblical view of submission is not about hierarchy but instead about community. There is a huge benefit in rubbing shoulders with others and laying down our lives for the good of others. This sort of submission (which still retains a sense of self and agency) is hugely productive and creates healthy human beings. The issue is that we have twisted submission to be about hierarchy and therefore exempted certain members of the community from embracing it.

Spiritual covering doesn’t actually work

Secondly, the concept of spiritual covering breaks down in real life. Consider the proposed chain of command. Church member submits to group leader. Group leader submits to assistant pastor (let’s keep it short for the purposes of example). Assistant pastor submits to senior pastor. So who does the senior pastor submit to? There are only two real options. One is that they don’t submit to anyone but directly to God. This seems awfully convenient. Who gets to decide that and why does the importance of submission suddenly disappear here? This creates a separate class of clergy which goes against the biblical description of the saints as a kingdom of priests. Jesus has become our high priest and intermediary, having given his life once and for all as a sacrifice. The New Testament makes clear that each believer can now commune directly with God and is covered directly by the blood of Jesus. Why should the leader of a church have this privilege and an average saint not? This holds no logical consistency as an argument.

The other option is that the person at the top of the organisation is in some way submitting to other church leaders. We might think of this as a council of church leaders who mutually submit to one another. All well and good. But consider how this completely removes the concept of spiritual covering (as it pertains to hierarchy). In other words, if a senior leader is suitably covered spiritually through community, why wouldn’t that be sufficient for any Christian? What if we simply brought this way of thinking down to the ‘lower’ echelons of the church?

A vision for a New Testament church

Imagine a community with members who willingly submit to one another. With gifted members who are called out to lead in various ways but who understand they are still part of the body and equal in hierarchy with all other members. Hilariously, this is actually the model for the New Testament church. This is what we read about in Acts and described throughout the letters of Paul and so on. We have no need for additional teaching on hierarchical spiritual covering because the New Testament itself doesn’t teach this idea. Proponents of spiritual covering undermine the very conviction they claim to profess.

Finally let me share the common sense reality of a chain of command that possesses no corrective qualities of accountability and challenge. It will inevitably corrupt because sin is in the heart of every man (my own included). I believe our church is healthy and becoming more and more like what Jesus described. But my confidence in that reality is not based on my own goodness or ability to lead, but the leadership of Jesus himself at work in us as a team. When one person is in charge, things will always go wrong. Power will corrupt and abuse will ensue.

I realise this statement is shocking and I am not saying that all proponents of hierarchical spiritual covering are sinful. But simply examine history itself. I can promise you that the best leaders (including the ones you know today) that avoid corruption, do so by inviting challenge and correction from those around them. A culture of hierarchy produces exactly the opposite.