The Shepherding Movement and Covering Doctrine

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 17, 2021
560
165
43
#1
The Shepherding Movement and Covering Doctrine was popular in the 1970s and 80s. Initially it was good for providing mentoring and protection for younger converts, but soon developed into "power and control" situations by leaders wanting to use their "spiritual authority" to make disciples for themselves. The outcome of it was that multitudes of believers were seriously harmed and many dropped right out of the faith because of the abuse and bullying that came with the "covering". I heard that there is a resurgence of it in some churches, so I have written this to warn people not to be duped into accepting anyone's "authority" to be accountable to them instead of Christ.

The "Covering" doctrine is a total lie, and as Bob Mumford said, "It is not the spirit of the Gospel".
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
#2
Not sure what the covering doctrine is.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#3
The Shepherding Movement and Covering Doctrine was popular in the 1970s and 80s. Initially it was good for providing mentoring and protection for younger converts, but soon developed into "power and control" situations by leaders wanting to use their "spiritual authority" to make disciples for themselves. The outcome of it was that multitudes of believers were seriously harmed and many dropped right out of the faith because of the abuse and bullying that came with the "covering". I heard that there is a resurgence of it in some churches, so I have written this to warn people not to be duped into accepting anyone's "authority" to be accountable to them instead of Christ.

The "Covering" doctrine is a total lie, and as Bob Mumford said, "It is not the spirit of the Gospel".
Some of the Charismatic type churches, or what Wagoner used to call 'Third Wave' churches uses the term 'covering.' I cringe when I hear that. I never liked it because... why not use Biblical terminology... and where is the concept exactly in scripture? I asked one pastor about this when I was in my 20's. He was in the Vineyard. He said it had to do with I Corinthians 11. I'd memorized that when I was younger, and I knew it wasn't. The covering there, some believe, is hair. Some believe it is a veil. If that passage is about the pastor as covering, then men should not have one, and women should wear pastors on their heads. In the South, where I lived at the time, a lot of the pastors were so big that if a woman were to wear one on her head, she'd break her neck.

There are different concepts of 'covering.' One harmful concept was that if your 'covering' told you to do something, you were absolved from guilt if you did the wrong thing, and the 'covering' was responsible before God. I have never heard this taught, I just heard about it being taught by those into 'heavy shepherding' in the '70's or '80's. A lighter version of the teaching is that everyone needs to be in submission to someone or a group of others. That was the idea in the 70's when the movement started. There were five leaders in the Charismatic movement who discipled other leaders.

But downstream in the movement, some of the pastors got very controlling. I read a testimony from a man who said the elders in the church called off all weddings in the church for people wanting to get married. They had to approve spouses and things like that. There had been a Maranatha group in the town I went to college that had closed down a few years before, and I heard about the elders matching people up. The idea of 'covering' and 'submission' turned into church leaders dominating and micromanaging other people's lives. The man I mentioned said that if he'd expressed any interest in wanting to marry to have sex, or asked about any sexual-related topics with his potential spouse, the elders would have forbidden the marriage. (It turns out his wife later had little interest in sex, which was a marriage issue later for him.) It sounded like the elders were trying to take over a role that was for parents in scripture with their influence over who married.

Incidentally, in some Asian cultures, it is normal for leaders, managers and pastors, to try to match up people to marry. Some of this is cultural. Some cultures are more controlling, especially Confucian cultures. But I digress.

The idea that 'everyone has to have a covering' is not in scripture. The idea of submitting to one another and to leaders is. One thing that annoys me about the 'covering' mindset is that some leaders in these movements might not want people doing ministry unless it goes through them and they are in control. So if you want to cook some food and feed the homeless, they might want to have it done under 'their authority.' I have not seen that specifically, but that seems to be the mindset. This sort of thing can stifle believers from living a normal Christian life, using their gifts, blessing others.

Growing up Pentecostal, generally Pentecostal pastors had a less controlling attitude. Some of them wanted to be in control of the building and their own meetings, but if you got invited to give a testimony or preach at another church, they probably would not think you had to ask their permission first or something like that. Pentecostal churches also allowed for someone who got a tongue or interpretation or prophecy to speak it out in the meetings. The Charismatics in the 'covering' type churches might want you to write a prophecy down and pass it up through the church hierarchy. I don't see how that is obedience to the instructions in scripture on how to prophecy in I Corinthians 14. I am not saying they all do that, but that seems to go align with the 'covering' teaching given it's emphasis on everything going through the pastor.

It wasn't just Charismatics (some of them) that went this route. When the shepherding movement was taking off, a 'Church of Christ' down in Florida developed a similar system. They had 'disciplers' having new converts write out a schedule of how they sent their day, and giving the converts a schedule to micromanage their days. This became known as the 'Boston Church of Christ' as it grew in Boston, then the 'International Churches of Christ.' A lot of them had the attitude that they were the one true church. Individuals were under a lot of pressure to bring in numbers of converts. They may have had quotas. I read they had 'breaking sessions' where they tell someone how sinful they are, make them feel miserable about themselves, that sort of thing. I had a boss who was in that movement, and he took people into his office and told them how bad they were, apparently. It wasn't just me. He judged my motives. He didn't know me. It made me angry, and it did not make sense. I finally figured out it was probably a practice form his church, so I looked it up online, asked, and was told about their 'breaking sessions.' There were lots of people in these movements on college campuses when I was in college. Some people would get burnt out and think that since they couldn't live up to the standards of that movement, they could not be Christians.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#4
Correct me if I am wrong but my guess is that is primarily a problem with arminian and synergistic/charismatic circles, where basically everything is up to you and your efforts.
 
Mar 17, 2021
560
165
43
#6
Some of the Charismatic type churches, or what Wagoner used to call 'Third Wave' churches uses the term 'covering.' I cringe when I hear that. I never liked it because... why not use Biblical terminology... and where is the concept exactly in scripture? I asked one pastor about this when I was in my 20's. He was in the Vineyard. He said it had to do with I Corinthians 11. I'd memorized that when I was younger, and I knew it wasn't. The covering there, some believe, is hair. Some believe it is a veil. If that passage is about the pastor as covering, then men should not have one, and women should wear pastors on their heads. In the South, where I lived at the time, a lot of the pastors were so big that if a woman were to wear one on her head, she'd break her neck.

There are different concepts of 'covering.' One harmful concept was that if your 'covering' told you to do something, you were absolved from guilt if you did the wrong thing, and the 'covering' was responsible before God. I have never heard this taught, I just heard about it being taught by those into 'heavy shepherding' in the '70's or '80's. A lighter version of the teaching is that everyone needs to be in submission to someone or a group of others. That was the idea in the 70's when the movement started. There were five leaders in the Charismatic movement who discipled other leaders.

But downstream in the movement, some of the pastors got very controlling. I read a testimony from a man who said the elders in the church called off all weddings in the church for people wanting to get married. They had to approve spouses and things like that. There had been a Maranatha group in the town I went to college that had closed down a few years before, and I heard about the elders matching people up. The idea of 'covering' and 'submission' turned into church leaders dominating and micromanaging other people's lives. The man I mentioned said that if he'd expressed any interest in wanting to marry to have sex, or asked about any sexual-related topics with his potential spouse, the elders would have forbidden the marriage. (It turns out his wife later had little interest in sex, which was a marriage issue later for him.) It sounded like the elders were trying to take over a role that was for parents in scripture with their influence over who married.

Incidentally, in some Asian cultures, it is normal for leaders, managers and pastors, to try to match up people to marry. Some of this is cultural. Some cultures are more controlling, especially Confucian cultures. But I digress.

The idea that 'everyone has to have a covering' is not in scripture. The idea of submitting to one another and to leaders is. One thing that annoys me about the 'covering' mindset is that some leaders in these movements might not want people doing ministry unless it goes through them and they are in control. So if you want to cook some food and feed the homeless, they might want to have it done under 'their authority.' I have not seen that specifically, but that seems to be the mindset. This sort of thing can stifle believers from living a normal Christian life, using their gifts, blessing others.

Growing up Pentecostal, generally Pentecostal pastors had a less controlling attitude. Some of them wanted to be in control of the building and their own meetings, but if you got invited to give a testimony or preach at another church, they probably would not think you had to ask their permission first or something like that. Pentecostal churches also allowed for someone who got a tongue or interpretation or prophecy to speak it out in the meetings. The Charismatics in the 'covering' type churches might want you to write a prophecy down and pass it up through the church hierarchy. I don't see how that is obedience to the instructions in scripture on how to prophecy in I Corinthians 14. I am not saying they all do that, but that seems to go align with the 'covering' teaching given it's emphasis on everything going through the pastor.

It wasn't just Charismatics (some of them) that went this route. When the shepherding movement was taking off, a 'Church of Christ' down in Florida developed a similar system. They had 'disciplers' having new converts write out a schedule of how they sent their day, and giving the converts a schedule to micromanage their days. This became known as the 'Boston Church of Christ' as it grew in Boston, then the 'International Churches of Christ.' A lot of them had the attitude that they were the one true church. Individuals were under a lot of pressure to bring in numbers of converts. They may have had quotas. I read they had 'breaking sessions' where they tell someone how sinful they are, make them feel miserable about themselves, that sort of thing. I had a boss who was in that movement, and he took people into his office and told them how bad they were, apparently. It wasn't just me. He judged my motives. He didn't know me. It made me angry, and it did not make sense. I finally figured out it was probably a practice form his church, so I looked it up online, asked, and was told about their 'breaking sessions.' There were lots of people in these movements on college campuses when I was in college. Some people would get burnt out and think that since they couldn't live up to the standards of that movement, they could not be Christians.
I enjoyed reading your comprehensive post. It provides much good information from your personal experience.

I think that the corrupted, authoritarian "covering" people have departed from the teaching of Christ. According to 2 John 1:9 such people don't have God, and therefore are not saved. Jesus said that He is the Vine and we are to remain in Him and remain in His Word. Those who require accountability to themselves instead of allowing believers to the accountable to Christ are separating themselves from the Vine. Therefore they also are not saved, but are still outside of the Kingdom of God.

Therefore in no way am I ever going to be accountable to unsaved hypocrites.
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#8
Its inevitable given those who believe you can lose your salvation and or ' Lordship salvation '
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#9
I enjoyed reading your comprehensive post. It provides much good information from your personal experience.

I think that the corrupted, authoritarian "covering" people have departed from the teaching of Christ. According to 2 John 1:9 such people don't have God, and therefore are not saved. Jesus said that He is the Vine and we are to remain in Him and remain in His Word. Those who require accountability to themselves instead of allowing believers to the accountable to Christ are separating themselves from the Vine. Therefore they also are not saved, but are still outside of the Kingdom of God.

Therefore in no way am I ever going to be accountable to unsaved hypocrites.
I think your interpretation here may be a bit too extreme. There are preachers and churches that inherited the 'covering' terminology that do not practice the extremes I mentioned. Those were things that have been seen in the heavy shepherding movement as it was later called. There was a big backlash against the controlling behavior in the 1980s, and the leaders that started the movement, for the most part, backed off of it and recanted after seeing how controlling it got 'down stream' in the movement. There was an emphasis on discipleship, and it got out of hand.

Some of my knowledge is based on second hand information. I was a child in Pentecostal churches in the 1980's, not going to a Charismatic church. I have had conversations with people, or one in particular, who was in a church that was into the 'heavy shepherding' thing. Not all Charismatics went that route. Some of the churches use the same terminology without the extreme interpretations or practices.

I do not care for the 'covering' terminology, but there are a lot of churches where this is used without all the features I described. I would not add 'not use covering to describe submission to authority' to the gospel.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#10
Correct me if I am wrong but my guess is that is primarily a problem with arminian and synergistic/charismatic circles, where basically everything is up to you and your efforts.
There is some percentage of Charismatics who would identify themselves as Calvinists, and I have read about a Calvinist group in the shepherding movement.

Religious leaders micromanaging the lives of people in society has happened among groups that profess monergism as all. Most Charismatics probably are not familiar with the term. Reformed people have a lot of theological terminology they use quite a bit. But, I have read in Geneva during the Reformation, many aspects of life were micromanaged, like what plates and silverware to use, what one was allowed to name ones child. Parents wanted to name a child Claude, but this was outlawed and they were compelled to name him Abraham. I am not sure if the city elders-- the historical root of Presbyterian extrabiblical non-clerical elders-- required this, or if it was the clergy that required it.
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#11
Correct me if I am wrong but my guess is that is primarily a problem with arminian and synergistic/charismatic circles, where basically everything is up to you and your efforts.
But if you listen to calvinists like John Macarthur were reminded of how Calvinism has always led to control, legalism, and lordship salvation.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
764
113
39
Australia
#12
Yeah I've heard many times, if you leave our church, you leave our covering....Thanks fearmongerer.
Being hidden in Christ has nothing to do what congregation you attend.
 
Mar 17, 2021
560
165
43
#13
I think your interpretation here may be a bit too extreme. There are preachers and churches that inherited the 'covering' terminology that do not practice the extremes I mentioned. Those were things that have been seen in the heavy shepherding movement as it was later called. There was a big backlash against the controlling behavior in the 1980s, and the leaders that started the movement, for the most part, backed off of it and recanted after seeing how controlling it got 'down stream' in the movement. There was an emphasis on discipleship, and it got out of hand.

Some of my knowledge is based on second hand information. I was a child in Pentecostal churches in the 1980's, not going to a Charismatic church. I have had conversations with people, or one in particular, who was in a church that was into the 'heavy shepherding' thing. Not all Charismatics went that route. Some of the churches use the same terminology without the extreme interpretations or practices.

I do not care for the 'covering' terminology, but there are a lot of churches where this is used without all the features I described. I would not add 'not use covering to describe submission to authority' to the gospel.
There is noting wrong with the shepherding/covering principle as long as it is voluntary and not a requirement for church membership or an active role in the church. Good mentoring is advisory and not authoritarian, and it always respects the direct access that a believer has to Christ. Authoritarian mentoring made a requirement for church membership is a departure from the Gospel and therefore a departure from Christ, and 2 John 1:9 is fairly clear about their standing with God for those who depart from the teaching of Christ.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#14
There is noting wrong with the shepherding/covering principle as long as it is voluntary and not a requirement for church membership or an active role in the church. Good mentoring is advisory and not authoritarian, and it always respects the direct access that a believer has to Christ. Authoritarian mentoring made a requirement for church membership is a departure from the Gospel and therefore a departure from Christ, and 2 John 1:9 is fairly clear about their standing with God for those who depart from the teaching of Christ.
What do you mean by 'church membership?' I cannot find where the Bible says to fill out a membership card and become a member of a local church.

New converts were baptized and started assembling with other believers.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#15
There is some percentage of Charismatics who would identify themselves as Calvinists, and I have read about a Calvinist group in the shepherding movement.

Religious leaders micromanaging the lives of people in society has happened among groups that profess monergism as all. Most Charismatics probably are not familiar with the term. Reformed people have a lot of theological terminology they use quite a bit. But, I have read in Geneva during the Reformation, many aspects of life were micromanaged, like what plates and silverware to use, what one was allowed to name ones child. Parents wanted to name a child Claude, but this was outlawed and they were compelled to name him Abraham. I am not sure if the city elders-- the historical root of Presbyterian extrabiblical non-clerical elders-- required this, or if it was the clergy that required it.
Yes. In Geneva there was some control and quiet a harsh regime as well. i do not fancy all of calvinist history.
 
Mar 17, 2021
560
165
43
#16
What do you mean by 'church membership?' I cannot find where the Bible says to fill out a membership card and become a member of a local church.

New converts were baptized and started assembling with other believers.
I know of church leaders who have told members that if they don't come under their "covering" , "authority" and be accountable to them, they are not part of the Body of Christ. These Shepherding Movement type churches believe that those who join their churches become members of the Body of Christ; making membership of their churches essential to salvation. I was part of a Charismatic church that believed itself to be the true "local church" and put pressure on other churches to come under their banner and those churches that refused were viewed as not part of the "true local church".
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#19
I know of church leaders who have told members that if they don't come under their "covering" , "authority" and be accountable to them, they are not part of the Body of Christ. These Shepherding Movement type churches believe that those who join their churches become members of the Body of Christ; making membership of their churches essential to salvation. I was part of a Charismatic church that believed itself to be the true "local church" and put pressure on other churches to come under their banner and those churches that refused were viewed as not part of the "true local church".
I never heard of that in the Charismatic movement among those I have previously encountered, but the International Churches of Christ seemed to have that vibe.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,081
1,748
113
#20
You read the Bible from Cover to Cover brother :). Then pray for God to help you understand
Where is he going to find 'covering' in the Bible? I Corinthians 11? That is talking about something else.