Covenant or Covering?

[A. Carroll Watkins]

Have you ever wandered which is more relevant or scripturally sound..... COVENANT or COVERING? With so many Churches and Ministries being developed today many often seek to either be covered by another ministry or pastor or to be in covenant with other pastors or spiritual leaders for the sake of accountability. Which do you think is best?

[lorenzo neal]

My dear brother, neither is scriptural or necessary for that matter. I don't commend it neither do I condemn it. It is a very modern (only about 40 yrs) concept that developed as preachers withdrew from mainline denominational oversight to personal independent ministries (for various reasons). This led to many ministries operating in highly unethical and in alot of cases unscriptural practices. As more independent churches developed, more people actually decided to develop trendier networks (or IMHO, reformed denominations).

I personally view covenants or coverings as spiritual pyramid schemes. They only exist to make one person wealthier or more controlling over another individual or group of individuals. This concept is nothing more than Independent ministers trying to build something for themselves. Its unscriptural because there is one Body with many members and each member has its own responsibilities; and if carried out with humility and submission to God's will and way it will get accomplished.

The issue of accountablity is very important. Many ministers are not accountable and no covering or covenant will fully make one do so. I am a part of the Methodist connection (including United Methodists, African Methodist, Christian Methodists,etc). We all share the same principles concerning accountability which basically boils down to being scripturally sound, ethically sound, and spiritually sound. Many independent ministers and ministries hook up with larger ministries to feel accountable, but there really isnt any preventative accountablilty for personal or fiscal ethics until the damage has already been done.