Does a woman need a spiritual covering?
Oct 27th, 2009 by Cheryl Schatz
Does a woman need a spiritual “covering”?
Submission and authority are a big issue in the church today. Closely tied into the issue of authority is the teaching that women need a spiritual “covering”. Men, we are told, are to be the spiritual “covering” to provide protection and to allow the man to have the accountability. But is a human “covering” a Biblical teaching? There is no New Testament concept of a human “covering” and only one clear human “covering” in the Old Testament.
There was a tradition in the Old Testament of the kinsman redeemer who would “redeem” a widow by marrying the widow of a deceased relative.
Ruth 3:9 He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative.”
Ruth 3:10 Then he said, “May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.
Ruth 3:11 ”Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence.
Ruth 3:12 ”Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.
Ruth 3:13 ”Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning.”
The purpose of the marriage would be the protection and support of the widow who would be lost to the family and likely made destitute because of the the death of her husband. This was a very needed help in that culture where a woman was traditionally unable to make a living for herself. But other than the kinsman redeemer in the Old Testament, there is no human “covering” spoken of in the Bible.
But what about the teaching in the church today that a woman needs a spiritual covering? The term spiritual “covering” is really spiritual “control”. The teaching is that a woman must be under a male spiritual “covering” and if she operates outside of that control she will be spiritually attacked by the devil. This is what supposedly happened to Eve. According to the spiritual covering teaching, the woman was created to be under the authority of her husband (her spiritual covering) and in apparent rebellion against her spiritual authority, she stepped outside of that authority by making a decision without the approval of her husband and this caused her downfall.
Folks, this is a fairy tale. Genesis does not say that a woman must have an authority over top of her to keep her safe as if she was created to be child-like and dependent. God did not tell Adam to rule over Eve to take control of her as her spiritual covering and God did not tell Eve to ask permission from Adam for all of her own decisions. God created both the male and the female to make godly decisions in ruling over His creation. That rulership was not created in the form of a hierarchy. God created two equals who were to rule together.
Complementarians will also state that Adam’s responsibility over Eve was shown when God came to Adam first after the fall happened. However there is no evidence at all by the words that God spoke to the man, that Adam would be held accountable for Eve’s actions. God only talked to Adam about what Adam did. God did not ask Adam to speak for Eve nor did God say that He held Adam accountable for Eve’s actions. In fact if God held Adam accountable for Eve’s sin, then God would not have approached Eve regarding her sin. Adam would have already answered for Eve if he was responsible for everything that she did.
So why did God approach Adam first? It isn’t rocket science to understand that Adam was both created first and had the most knowledge of God. We know that Adam was created first and we know that Paul tells us clearly that Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). Why would God go to the second one created first? Why would He go first to the one who had less experience with God and who had been seriously deceived by the serpent? God’s principle is that to whomever He gives the most to, that person will have the most required from him/her. Adam was the most responsible for his own sin.
Luke 12:48 …From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
Adam as first created and the one who saw some of the creative acts of God would obviously be the first in line to be rquired to give an account of himself. But in no way was Adam required to give an account to God for his wife. The fact that God went to Adam first does not prove that Adam had authority over Eve or that he was responsible for her sin. To reason that way would be to seriously misrepresent the Word of God.
Ask a complementarian to explain the spiritual covering of Adam over Eve in the garden and they can only add to the text instead of pulling the teaching out of the text itself. This is always what happens with a myth.
In fact this teaching of a human needing to have a spiritual “covering” has done great harm to the body of Christ through the Shepherding movement that placed everyone under a spiritual “covering”. The man who was the “covering” was called a Shepherd and the ones who were covered by that Shepherd had to clear their every decision with him. While the movement may have started with sincere desires to protect the flock, when a mere sinful human is placed in a position of complete authority over others who must obey their every word, the stage is set for controlling and abusive behavior.
Jesus dealt with the foundation of the spiritual covering movement contrasting the worldly leadership pattern with body ministry.
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
Matthew 20:26 ”It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
Matthew 20:27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
“Lording over” or “exercising authority” over others is not the way of the Master. Jesus said “It is not this way among you”. Jesus is not just condemning abusive leaders but the entire system itself. Power and authority from a top down hierarchical flow is the worldly way, while true leadership is a servanthood model based on bottom up support. Those who are the greatest, Jesus said, are to be at the bottom in a position of servanthood for the benefit of others.
In God’s kingdom, authority is based on godly character not on strength, position or rank. This is why we are all allowed to have the authority to use our gifts. Authority is in using what we have been given for the service of others (1 Peter 4:10, 11).
One of the flaws of the teaching about spiritual “covering” is that it makes the one under the covering weaker instead of stronger. We are all encouraged to grow up and to make our own decisions as we will all be ruling the world and the angels in the next life (Matthew 6:1-3). If we place ourselves under a “covering” we are relying on someone else’s wisdom instead of growing up to have our own maturity. This doesn’t mean that the wisdom of others isn’t important. We are all needed in the body of Christ and the wisdom and strength of others can really help us. However if we place ourselves under the umbrella of a “covering” and use that “covering” to make our decisions for us, we are opening ourselves up to be spiritually abused and spiritually immature. It is much easier to let someone else make all the decisions rather than go through the difficult steps to learn how to make wise decisions on our own. While children need a protector, adults should grow to the position of being able to think for themselves and be able to make wise and godly decisions on their own without having to seek approval for all that they do. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 14 is for all of us:
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
Some may ask, doesn’t the Bible say that the husband is to be the woman’s head? Doesn’t this mean that her husband is to have authority over her? The picture of the “head” is always an attachment and not an authority of one over the other. The “head” is not an office nor is it a position. It is a relationship. The head is a part of the body and the body is connected to the head. If the “head” meant a “boss” or a higher rank and authority over the wife, then the terminology of lordship authority would have been used. Instead the Bible uses terms for relationship not authority. It is always head “of” not head “over”.
Lastly, Jesus said that we are all brethren in Him and only one is to be our leader and that is the Lord Jesus.
Matthew 23:8 ”But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matthew 23:9 ”Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Matthew 23:10 ”Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:11 ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.
Those who appoint themselves as a spiritual covering over their wives may be tempted to keep her under their own control instead of lifting her up to be a mature, functioning member of the body of Christ with full authority in her own gifts. Staying under a “covering” may be a comfortable place for a woman who has been taught to believe that she bears no responsibility whatsoever as long as she is obeying her “head”. However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions.
It is time that we lay aside the fairy tales of a human spiritual “covering” and get down to our Father’s business of spreading the gospel to all of the world. In the kingdom every warrior counts and all of us are in the battle. We are to be mature, sound in judgment and practiced in wisdom and grace.
This is what I believed for such a long time. I was taught in Evangelical circles that I was supposed to be the “spiritual leader” in my family, and that the pastor and elders were the “spiritual leaders” of the flock. It is so easy to believe because it sounds so good - who could argue that being a spiritual leader is a good thing. The blinders started to fall off when I began asking where my guide-book for being spiritual leader was in scripture. Moreover, I began wondering exactly how this “job” looked in the activities of daily living. When someone would propose that a certain function was the spiritual leader’s, I first turned to scripture to find where such a delegation of duties was outlined. I could never find any biblical teaching to coincide with the human claim. Moreover, every activity that was presented seemed to be universal for all humans, not just a unilaterally male activity. In fact, for many things, it seemed that women were often more gifted than men at doing “x”. At the very least, when I looked at individual marriages, there was no unilateral gender that was better at activity “x”, “y”, or “z”.
So, I have slowly abandoned any trust in the “spiritual leader” teaching. It has freed my wife and I to BOTH lead according to our gifts, and has greatly enhanced the “spiritual” dimension of our marriage and our connectedness to God.
Cheryl - You missed one important aspect of the Genesis teaching that contributes to the spiritual covering mindset. Mark mentioned it in earlier posts. It is the belief that God’s approaching Adam first has significance in who is accountable in the marriage. Although comps will often admit that Eve is accountable for her sin, they see a kind of super-accountability for the husband over the family. They believe Adam’s being questioned first demonstrates that the husband/father is accountable before God for the operation and conduct of the family, even though the individuals are accountable for their individual sin.
Although I’m sure you can easily dismiss such adding to the text, you should not ignore the strong appeal such a position has, especially for many evangelicals now adays who see the decay of the core family as a result of irresponsible and unaccountable husbands and fathers (not necessary a false assessment). Many women, in particular, desire a spiritual leader in their lives and the lives of their children because they, frankly, have been doing ALL the heavy lifting for years - even generations. When presented with a biblical text that appears to support their appeal for the men in their lives to stand up and be accountable, they cheer, not ever once thinking about the other shoe.
I believe this was the primary reason why Promise Keepers had such initial and overwhelming cross gender support. It is very insidious. Men as the spiritual leaders of church and home sounds very, very appealing even to many women. Especially when Jesus is held up as the model. Especially when men have been so AWOL from any spiritual contribution at all. It all sounds so appealing - just like the fruit in the garden.
Oops - one more thing. I didn’t mean that Promise Keepers as a movement is insidious. I meant that the general appeal to be spiritual leader is. Promise Keepers had its good points.
gengwall,
I really appreciate your feedback! Yes, you are right, I missed a very “vital” part that I should have commented on. Interesting that my spam word for this comment is “vital”.
I will work on adding that part perhaps later today or tomorrow as I have time. I will leave up your comment so that people will see that there are people on my blog who provide valuable input and without them I would not have as much balance as I do. Thank you!
Once upon a time, I was going to write a book entitled “Submit Does Not Mean Obey; Head Does Not Mean Boss”. As I reflect more on those concepts, I think the “Head” portion of the title still doesn’t quite get it right because it still leaves open the interpretation that “Head” is some kind of “role” or “job”. I really believe that is where the whole train comes off the rails. As long as people continue to view “headship” in a vocational light, they will continue to apply a vocational paradigm to the rest of the equation. Vocational paradigms are inherently hierarchical, and task oriented. Being “head” becomes a “job” for the husband in which he has to fullfill certain obligations and perform certain tasks, all in relation to his wife, who must inherently have a different “job” because, as we all know, “too many cooks…” I think the challenge, Cheryl, is to finally get us out of this vocational mindset. You have a great start here. And my book title? Well, I’ll have to give that more thought.
I know that we are were taught this and I use the term too, but where did headSHIP come into the picture? The Bible says “head” and “body” not headship and bodyship. Maybe we should write a book about the duties of the bodyship.
Nice post Cheryl (and gengwall)!
Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.
I guess all this is a part of the complementarian extra biblical rule book that is required to live out these “fantasy” beliefs.
Gengwall, I love how you point out that being freed from the complementarian model meant that you were BOTH free to lead according to your gifts. When my wife and I tried to live the comp life we both struggled, but probably I found it the hardest…I was being asked to do things I did not feel equipped to do.
LOL - although I agree with the made up state of the word, “headship” is used to parallel “submission”, not “bodyship”. I make no claims to the appropriateness of such a distinction, just the recognition that that is how people use them. Of course, there ARE plenty of books related to the duties of submission (and headship). Ugh!
Never-the-less, your correction is well noted. “Head” and “Submit” are not parallel in Ephesians 5. The parallels are Head/Body and Submit/Love. Head and Body are not jobs. How do we get everyone to stop making incorrect connections of words? There’s the rub!
“Matthew 23:10 ”Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:11 ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.”
The question I always have for comps using this paradigm is that it leaves single women and widows who do come from a Christian family out of the picture. This has caused many comp and patri leaders to come up with some really odd practices of having women in this situation seek out ’surrogate’ fathers and male figures to be their ’spiritual covering.’
And that whole deal just begs the question - how could an ‘uncovered’ woman ever be certain that she was making a ’spiritually correct’ decision on the right man????????
That’s exactly how it was for us, Dave! The biggest example in our life, and in many couples, was prayer. My wife is simply better gifted as an intercessory prayor than I am. Yet I was always told that I was supposed to lead the family in prayer, lead my wife in prayer, lead, lead, lead. I was never comfortable, and whenever we tried to fit that “spiritual leader” paradigm, our corporate prayer life suffered! But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.
How sad is it that there are truly many, many fellow Christians who would claim both that I am shirking my responsibility and she is usurping my authority because of our approach to family prayer!
Sorry Dave - I only posted my comment because I thought you’d still be asleep and unable to do so. LOL
“But what about the teaching in the church today that a woman needs a spiritual covering? The term spiritual “covering” is really spiritual “control”.”
Indeed.
\”How sad is it that there are truly many, many fellow Christians who would claim both that I am shirking my responsibility and she is usurping my authority because of our approach to family prayer!\”
What gets to me about that is somehow they can’t seem to allow for the husband choosing to “let” “relegate” (take your pick) that responsibility to the wife. No, no.
“One of the flaws of the teaching about spiritual “covering” is that it makes the one under the covering weaker instead of stronger.”
This is a MOST excellent point!!
Of course, to “relegate” the responsibility still assumes it is mine to dispense. No need for the Spirit in such families, I guess. As if it is the husband who gives out the spiritual gifts and decides in what measure each family member receives them. Even if they did allow such a distribution of work, it would be a very scary thing.
“But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.”
When we are under law we are slaves to sin, but when we are under grace we are slaves to righteousness. The comp teaching places men under law (as well as women, obviously!). The law increases sin! I am so glad we are free from this (false) law, as it has helped me contribute more to our marriage than when I was told I had to!
Sorry, Kay…did you say something?…
“No need for the Spirit in such families, I guess. As if it is the husband who gives out the spiritual gifts and decides in what measure each family member receives them.”
Distortion on every level. Can I say “hijacking the Holy Spirit”?
Why is it so scary for them to let each believer walk in the Spirit?
…is He somehow inadequate? or maybe He just doesn’t always do what they think is best.
No,Dave…must have been an echo.
“Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.”
This is incredible. I have heard them both many times and it is sad that some of the younger reformed guys are downright patriarchal. It is such a sin trap for them.
Yes, it does mean ’spiritual control’ which is an oxymoron for humans. It is spiritual abuse because it takes the place of the Holy Spirit.
“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” Matthew 23:10
How difficult is that to understand? Why wouldn’t someone question when what they think Paul is saying is the opposite of Jesus short and simple statement?
Kay, a lot of it is because of the desire for there to be a “leader” and “follower”. We as humans are remarkably comfortable in one-up, one-down situations, especially when we are the “one-up”. We chafe when we’re the “one-down”, and this has been my problem about submission/headship for many years. It reared its head again at Bible study last weekend when one of the women was talking about how, even in a dating situation, we as women need to be watchful and discerning about our dates, to see what kind of “leadership” they take, and if we would be OK submitting to them once married. They were saying things like, “Does he decide where to eat, what movies to see? Does he take the lead in planning outings?” It made it sound like compromise was a dirty word!
The other thing that’s always bothered me is how the whole “leading” in a marriage thing works, especially where there are areas where the wife is stronger than the husband. To take a big and often contentious one: finances. If she’s the stronger mind financially (understands budgeting, makes wise decisions) and he can barely keep his checkbook balanced, should she have to “submit” to him, even if it puts their marriage in financial jeopardy? I would hope not.
This is where I appreciate your work, Cheryl. It can be so easy to attach headship/submission to notions of authority, as if submission were to be the same as mindless subordination. I don’t think the two are the same, at all. Thanks for shedding some light on what has always been a murky subject, especially now as I prepare for my own upcoming marriage. (If someone tries to get me to say “obey” in my wedding vows, I’ll just go get married by a justice of the peace!)
Thanks for the kind comments, Alison!
“When we are under law we are slaves to sin, but when we are under grace we are slaves to righteousness. The comp teaching places men under law (as well as women, obviously!). The law increases sin! I am so glad we are free from this (false) law, as it has helped me contribute more to our marriage than when I was told I had to!”
What could be better than a one-flesh mutually submitting, loving marriage without the purposed power struggles that complementarians deal with so much - as indicated by the amount of teaching and writing they are doing trying to regulate it?
Lin, I think you might agree with me saying that perhaps creating a problem and then having seminars and selling books and movies to solve it is very profitable. Could be some job security involved as well.
I first came across the FACT that the passage talks about head/body and love/submission (not headship and submission!) in Sarah Sumner’s book, Men and Women in the Church. Have any of you read it?
Maybe that is the fundimental question that a comp should be required to answer before continued discussion: “so, fellow Christian, do you believe that Jesus is an insufficient spiritual cover for women?”
“Maybe that is the fundimental question that a comp should be required to answer before continued discussion: “so, fellow Christian, do you believe that Jesus is an insufficient spiritual cover for women?”
Could we follow that with “Who was covering Mary Magdalene on her way to tell the brethren that Jesus had risen?” and “When she reached them, why doesn’t it say which one took over as her ’spiritual covering?
Those who believe that God approaching Adam first means that Adam was a covering for Eve need to explain why God didn’t ask Adam “what has Eve done?”, or at the very least, “what have [the two of] you done?” Each participant was interogated as an individual:
“Who told you (singular) you were naked”
“Did you (singular) eat of the tree”
“What have you (singular, to Eve) done”
Neither was asked nor answered for the other’s actions (although both tried to distract from the issue). If Adam was to answer for the first family, then why wasn’t he asked family oriented question. Moreover, if Adam was to cover Eve, why was he not asked about Eve? And why was Eve asked to answer for herself if Adam covered her? All of this covering nonsense is simply read into the text. Why did God seek Adam first? Could be any number of reasons (I still think it was because Adam was undeceived and therefore the more grevious perpetrator). The only reason not supported in any way based on God’s actual questioning is the reason that Adam was Eve’s cover.
gengwall,
I added the question about God going to Adam first. Thanks again for the suggestion!
Cheryl, you’re very welcome. If only convincing some were easier….(sigh).
My facetious answer to “does a woman need a spiritual covering” is “no more so than a fish needs a bicycle”.
Snarkiness aside, I think the whole idea of spiritual covering is ridiculous on its face, especially when it’s used to dominate or control, as if women were inherently incapable of making their own decisions, much less being held accountable for those decisions. I love what you’ve said here:
“Those who appoint themselves as a spiritual covering over their wives may be tempted to keep her under their own control instead of lifting her up to be a mature, functioning member of the body of Christ with full authority in her own gifts. Staying under a “covering” may be a comfortable place for a woman who has been taught to believe that she bears no responsibility whatsoever as long as she is obeying her “head”. However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions”.
Exactly. I don’t think I could have said it better. If “covering” a woman is merely the shell for keeping her down, then that’s a serious sin–the man is attempting to hinder (quench) the Holy Spirit, something that we’re explicitly told NOT to do. I just don’t get how the comps don’t seem to understand that. The excuse of “I was just following my covering; I didn’t know action X would be wrong!” doesn’t hold water, nor does the idea that Jesus is insufficient spiritual cover for a woman (funny how He’s sufficient for a man, IMO).
Thank you for answering my question! I’ve been on vacation and just now saw this post.
I’ve been reading the Bible since I was a small child and never found any of this stuff about women (or men) needing someone to cover them. To call it a fairy tale is too kind. It is an invention, a lie if you will, made up by people who want to control others.
Study world religions, past and present, and you will find that most really strange ideas usually are inventions by someone who wants some advantage over other people, so they tell the other people that the gods or the holy writings support them and their strange ideas.
This “covering” teaching is an invention, a lie, and often results in spiritual abuse.
Sam,
Absolultely!
The “spiritual covering” attitude is not just applied to women in the controlling atmosphere of certain megachurches. Men in that envoronment are also emasculated, contrary to the party line that emanates from the pulpits. Asking questions is deemed “sinful,” and dissension is dealt with swiftly in the form of “church discipline” which silences all but “yes” men and fosters blind conformity.
Ted,
Welcome to my blog! When questions are deemed sinful and there is an attitude of blind conformity, there is a cult-like attitude going on. These are signs of real red flags to me to watch out.
Yes, Ted.
God says to sinful man. Come let us reason together.
Yet some ‘authorities’ who claim to represent God will not have that. They crave blind devotion. A mindless, voiceless following. Something that God doesn’t even ask for.
Genesis is a Jewish folk story about how the world, and everything in it, were created; I do NOT take Genesis 2 literally, nor do I believe the Creator made men first.
I think Christian males and females need to stop worrying about who needs to do what and just love and serve each other. My husband and I have been doing that for 20 years, and we are happily married. We don\’t get bogged down with rules, except to “love one another,” and to love God with all our heart, soul and mind.
Do you mean you do not believe the creator made humans first or males first?
Christian Wife/Mom,
I think that it does matter what Jesus thinks about the OT and Genesis 2. He quoted from Genesis regarding the creation of the man and the woman so apparently he thought it was a real event and not a Jewish myth. And Jesus is our Creator so He ought to know.
I agree that there shouldn’t be all the “rules” that men put on women, but we do have to have something other than love to go by. After all, most other religions operate on love too but they do not follow Jesus in His life, death and burial. I would just prefer to follow Jesus who can’t be wrong, then any man-made idea which could be wrong. There is too much at stake. It is a life and death matter.
Thanks for popping in and I hope you come back!