BPR Mailing List Digest: 06/11/00

Philologos
BPR Mailing List Digest
June 11, 2000

Digest Home | 2000 | June, 2000

To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - Re: a question
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Rob")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:43:11 +0100

I cannot see the need of "a covering" if you are doing the Lords work. All
of us are called in one way or another to Preach the Gospel. We are all also
a Royal Preast hood, our only need is Christ.
Regards

Rob

South African Bible Belivers Forum

www.delphi.com/kingjames

_________________________
To subscribe to BPR send a message to bpr-list@philologos.org
with the word "subscribe" in the subject. To unsubscribe send a
message to the same address with the word "unsubscribe" in the
subject.

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - Syrian President Assad dies; son Bashar seen as heir
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Moza")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:15:05 -0400

Sunday, June 11, 2000

Syrian President Assad dies; son Bashar seen as heir

Ha'aretz Staff and Agencies

Hafez Assad, Syria's autocratic president who dreamed of Arab unity against
Israel but watched his neighbors one after the other sign deals with the
sworn enemy, died yesterday. The president, who was 69, had been
suffering from heart trouble for some time and was also fighting lymphoma
and kidney failure, according to a Lebanese heart surgeon close to the
family. The surgeon said Assad died of heart failure.

In the first move to clear the ascension of Assad's 34-year-old son Bashar to
the presidency, parliament overwhelmingly voted to amend an article in the
constitution that requires the nation's head of state to be at least 40 years
old. The legislators voted to lower the age to 34.

Assad, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1970, had been grooming
Bashar for future leadership, but the British-educated ophthalmologist has
held no major political office. Bashar had recently been taking a more
prominent role in his father's regime, representing the nation abroad on
official visits. At home, he has been waging an anti-corruption campaign. He
was expected to be brought into the ruling Ba'ath Party leadership at a
congress to open June 17.

In breaking the news to the Syrian public, an announcer on Syria's state-run
television station announced, "Death has taken away from Syria a leader."
The announcer's voice choked as he began to cry.

"This is a day of sadness and sorrow in every home, school, university, farm,
factory and quarry," the announcer continued. "Sadness is in the heart of
every man, woman and child. ... The legacy of his accomplishments and
ideas is a planet that will shine not just on this generation, but also on
coming generations."

"This is a very difficult catastrophe," said taxi driver Mohammed Kurdi. "I
never thought I would see another leader. I thought he was immortal," said
the driver. "His passing spells major political changes in the region.". Israel
learns of death first tPrime Minister Ehud Barak received IDF intelligence
reports yesterday morning of unusual events in Damascus. A few hours later,
well before the official announcement, the prime minister learned from
intelligence agents that President Assad had died. Barak, who also serves
as defense minister, instructed the IDF to take necessary follow-up
measures and to be on increased alert "as is necessitated by such a
situation." He then wrote Israel's official reaction to the death, released by
Jerusalem just a short time after Syria officially announced its president's
passing, making Israel the first country to respond to Assad's death.

"The Israeli government understands the sorrow of the Syrian people over the
passing of President Hafez Assad," said the statement. "Israel worked in the
past to achieve peace and will continue to do so in the future," it continued.
"Israel views with importance quiet along the border, and it hopes Syria will
also act accordingly."

A political source in Jerusalem added,l "As far as we know, Bashar Assad is
a serious man, talented, educated, modern and open to the wide world ... It
may be that what we could not achieve with Assad senior, we will achieve
with the son."

Israel will not step up its forces in the Golan Heights or along the Lebanese
border, despite maneuvers by the Syrian army last night. The Israeli defense
establishment believes that the steps taken by the Syrian army are in
response to Assad's death and are linked to internal matters, and are not
directed in any way toward Israel.

Security sources said last night that it is too soon to estimate the event's
impact on a renewal of talks and the situation in Lebanon. The military
maneuvers are a "technical step, almost automatic in such regimes" and
limited to internal forces in the Damascus area.

Israeli intelligence sources say that Assad died of natural causes, according
to information they received. They believe that Bashar Assad is in control of
the situation; so far, there have been no reports any extreme measures
taken in the wake of Assad's death.

The IDF believes that Bashar Assad's first concern will be to ensure as
smooth a transfer of power as possible. Thus, at least initially, there will be
no attempts to pressure Israel in any way. It is also possible that Syria will
scale down its pressure on Lebanon to take a firm position against Israel and
the UN on the issue of the international border. In contrast, however, it is not
clear how much attention Syria will give to Hezbollah's activities against
Israel. Albright to go to funeral U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is
to represent the United States at Assad's funeral, to be held in Damascus
Tuesday. President Bill Clinton has decided not to attend the funeral in light
of Assad's past, his repeated refusal to reach an agreement with Barak and
the fact that Syria is included on the U.S. government's list of countries that
support terrorism. There is also the fear that the political-military situation in
Syria does not allow a visit by the U.S. president. The U.S. government
hopes to try to use this critical time to forge an initial relationship with
Bashar Assad.

Clinton himself expressed sorrow at Assad's passing yesterday and
announced that he expects to continue to work with Syria to reach a broad
peace agreement in the Middle East. The president offered his condolences
to the Syrian people and said, "We look forward to working with Syria to
achieve the goal of a comprehensive peace." He added that it is too early to
say what will happen in the region, and said that Assad was committed to
the path of peace and that he does not expect Syria to reneg on this
commitment.

"Over the past seven years," the president continued, "I had met him many
times and got to know him very well. We had our differences, but I always
respected him."

The U.S. government will now be pressed to put more pressure on Syria to
respect Lebanon's sovereignty, to stop supporting terrorist groups and to join
the regional peace with Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

Former State Department spokesman James Rubin said that the U.S.
expects a clear change in the Syrian government's attitude if Bashar Assad
comes to power. "Assad opened the door of peace, but refused to go through
it," said Rubin. "With Bashar, it is likely to happen. He - a modern and
developed man - is interested in ending the isolation and securing economic
development for his country, but this cannot happen without peace with
Israel."

The U.S. government stressed yesterday that Assad's death and the change
in leadership will not interrupt, and may perhaps even assist, a Camp David-
type peace summit between Clinton, Barak and Palestinian Authority
Chairman Yasser Arafat next month in Washington.

http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=14&datee=06/11/00&
id=81267

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - Waqf resumes digging on Temple Mount
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Moza")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:19:33 -0400

Sunday, June 11, 2000

Waqf resumes digging on Temple Mount

By Nadav Shragai
Ha'aretz Correspondent

Ignoring an earlier uproar over its archaeological work on the Temple Mount,
the Waqf (Islamic religious trust) has continued to dig up and use heavy
vehicles on the Mount as part of its work on the northern arches of
Solomon's Stables.

Such work was a source of controversy earlier this year when the Waqf
began its work on the stables to widen the entrance gate to the area to
create an emergency exit for the many visitors to Al-Aqsa Mosque. The
Waqf was also accused of dumping large amounts of dirt in the Kidron
stream, and fears were raised that ancient artifacts dating back to the First
and Second Temple eras were being destroyed by the work.

The current spate of work is being carried out without the Antiquities
Authority's supervision, as is required by law. Heavy trucks have also been
seen in the area, despite promises by Public Security Minister Shlomo Ben-
Ami that such vehicles would not be allowed into the area.

A small concrete-block building with a cast-iron roof has also been built near
the eastern face of the Temple Mount. Sources suspect it is being used for
storage.

Preparatory work on the subterranean area has almost been completed, as
has the preparatory work for the large entrance that necessitated the Waqf
digging up the Temple Mount at the northern wall of Solomon's Stables.

Minister for Jerusalem Affairs Haim Ramon met over the weekend with
Antiquities Department head Amir Drori, Jerusalem Police Commander Yair
Yitzhaki and representatives of the Attorney General's Office and the police's
legal adviser to discuss the work. The possibility of adopting a protocol for
dealing with the Waqf, one that is not coordinated with the Antiquities
Authority, was discussed, as was the drawing of "red lines" that Israel will
not allow the Waqf to cross. The Waqf currently wishes to commence other
construction work on the holy site, and this issue was also raised at the
meeting.

Ramon will meet today with representatives from a new nonpolitical public
organization that seeks to put an end to the destruction of antiques buried in
the Temple Mount. Its supporters published an open letter to the prime
minister on Thursday, stating that at the site, "a serious act of irreparable
archaeological vandalism and destruction is being carried out without
archaeological supervision, while abrogating the Antiquities Law and while
the Antiquities Authority remains inactive ... thousands of tons of dirt which
contain a large amount of findings dating back to the First Temple period
have been dumped at municipal dumps and other sites. This archaeological
crime in insufferable."

The letter was signed by people from all over the political spectrum, including
Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olment, former mayor Teddy Kollek, various authors
such as Haim Guri, S. Yizhar and Amos Oz, professors and winners of the
Israel Prize for Archaeology and 82 Knesset members from nearly all
Knesset factions, including the Likud, One Israel, Shas, Shinui and Meretz.

Archaeologist Ilit Mazar says that 6,000 tons of dirt and stones have been
dug out of the holy site. "Every item being destroyed there could be
incredibly important, and only professional archaeologists can decide what to
destroy and what not," she says.

http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=14&datee=06/11/00&
id=81273

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - How Six Day war almost led to Armageddon
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Moza")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:31:46 -0400

How Six Day war almost led to Armageddon

NEW EVIDENCE OF 1967 SOVIET PLAN TO INVADE ISRAEL
SHOWS HOW CLOSE THE WORLD CAME TO NUCLEAR CONFLICT
ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST: SPECIAL REPORT

The Guardian - 10 June 2000
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,330406,00.html
Isabella Ginor in Jerusalem
Saturday June 10, 2000

The morning of June 10 1967 was "a time of great concern and utmost
gravity" in the White House Situation Room, according to Llewellyn
Thompson, a former ambassador to the USSR turned presidential
adviser. A message had just been received over the Moscow-
Washington hotline threatening Soviet military action that would lead to
a nuclear confrontation. New evidence now reveals what action the
Soviets were preparing: a naval landing on Israel's shores to prevent its
total victory in the Six Day War. The Soviet Union had played a central
role in escalating tension in the Middle East and had falsely accused
Israel of massing forces on the Syrian border. For the first time,
Moscow sent much of its Black Sea fleet into the Mediterranean and
backed up the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, when he
blocked Israeli shipping in the Red Sea and demanded the removal of
the United Nations force from Sinai.

In memoirs published recently, Nikita Khrushchev said the USSR's
military command persuaded its political leadership to support these
steps, knowing they were aimed at starting a war to destroy Israel.

On June 5, after Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against its Arab
neighbours, the Soviet prime minister, Alexei Kosygin, had activated the
hotline to Washington for the first time since it was installed following
the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

"I went into my office every morning at seven o'clock," said the then
secretary of defence, Robert S. McNamara. "At 7.15 the telephone
rang. 'Mr Secretary, this is General Smith in the War Room. Kosygin is
on the hotline and wants to talk to [President Lyndon] Johnson...what
should I tell him?' I said: 'Why the hell do you ask me?' He said: 'The
hot line ends at the Pentagon.' It wasn't even a telephone line then but a
teletype, and I didn't even know it ended there."

Mr McNamara called the sergeant standing guard outside Lyndon
Johnson's door and ordered him to wake the president. Within fifteen
minutes they and the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had begun what
became a nearly continuous conference in the Situation Room.

On June 10, according to Kosygin, Israeli forces were heading for the
Syrian capital, Damascus. The US no longer had a manned embassy in
Damascus and - incredibly - had no independent assessment of the
Israeli offensive on the Golan Heights. The director of the CIA, Richard
Helms, was called in, but the best he could do was to try and reach
"friendly powers" which still had missions in Syria.

'A grave catastrophe'

Kosygin's message went on: "A very crucial moment has now arrived
which forces us, if military actions are not stopped in the next few
hours, to adopt an independent decision. We are ready to do this.
However, these actions may bring us into a clash which will lead to a
grave catastrophe ... we purpose [sic] that you demand from Israel that
it unconditionally cease military action... we purpose to warn Israel that if
this is not fulfilled, necessary actions will be taken, including military."

Mr McNamara recalled: "In effect it said: Mr President, if you want war,
you'll get war."

The presidential adviser McGeorge Bundy later remembered that there
had been "considerable discussion about what in fact the Soviets would
be able to do to the Israelis if they did try to carry out their threat. The
Russians' possibilities were really not that impressive."

But now a first hand account from one of the Soviet officers involved
reveals that the Soviets were nonetheless poised to invade Israel. In
June 1967, Yuri Khripunkov was a young gunnery lieutenant on board a
BPK (large anti-submarine ship) of the Soviet navy, part of a large
reinforcement for the Mediterranean flotilla which had arrived from the
Black Sea base of Sevastopol in early May.

In an interview, Mr Khripunkov, now 59 and a respected writer and
educator, said that when Arab-Israeli hostilities broke out, his captain
ordered him to raise and command a 30-man detachment of
"volunteers" for a landing on the Israeli coast.

Similar parties were being assembled on all the 30-odd Soviet vessels in
the Mediterranean: a total of some 1,000 men. "There was also one
BDK with about 40 tanks and maybe a battalion of infantry," Mr
Khripunkov said. His platoon was ordered to penetrate Haifa - Israel's
main commercial harbour and naval base.

Only one of the ship's sailors refused to "volunteer". He was later
transferred off the ship but not otherwise punished. Mr Khripunkov
himself had no hesitations - "I was young and foolish," he said - even
though the seamen were neither trained nor equipped for a commando
raid on land. "What were we supposed to accomplish, with my pistol
and the sailors' AK47s? 'Get in there and see,' they told us. 'Wipe out
the enemy forces'." "It was a different world then. I had a holy faith in it all
- the red flag, my officer's oath. We were going on a sacred mission, the
[Israeli] aggressors had assaulted these poor Arabs and we were going to let
them have it. Today I'm wiser and I probably wouldn't do it."

Mr Khripunkov's account confirms how near the Soviets came to
implementation of a "contingency plan". An officer of the GRU (Soviet
military intelligence) later told a senior American analyst that the
defence minister, Andrei Grechko, and his team wanted to "provide the
progressive Arabs with a unique and historic achievement - the
destruction of Israel" for which "they would remain eternally beholden to
Moscow". Though the Soviets were confident of the Arabs' capability to
defeat Israel, the contingency plan was prepared.

While the landing force would probably have been overcome by Israel, it
might have caused substantial casualties - and might have halted the
Israeli advance. But as Mr Khripunkov points out, the gamble was much
larger: globalising the conflict.

"There would have been no Israel left if we had landed. I've studied
'special weapons', and even without a hydrogen bomb, 10-15 warheads
would have been enough," he said.

Mr Khripunkov and his men were well aware they were little but pawns
in a global power play. "A thousand men was nothing for the USSR," he
said. "They started counting at 5m. Each side wanted to demonstrate
its dominant role _ The US sends in the [Sixth] Fleet. We bring in our
Black Sea squadron. They send in spy planes. We start preparing a
landing in Israel. The Israeli tanks move through Sinai and are ready to
skip over the Suez Canal. What then? We land our force and world war
three begins? We knew it was going to happen, that the whole world
would be destroyed." This was the "grave catastrophe" threatened by
Kosygin.

A member of the Israeli general staff at the time recalls hearing that a
Soviet landing "had been discussed as a theoretic possibility at cabinet
sessions", but there is no evidence that Israel or the US knew the
particulars of the impending operation.

Mr McNamara dismissed the suggestion that, ironically, Israel itself
may have prevented an early warning of this threat when its warplanes
attacked and disabled the American intelligence ship Liberty in the
Mediterranean on June 8, thus probably crippling US capability to
eavesdrop on Soviet ships in the region.

But the ships never landed and Moscow's failure to intervene caused the
Soviets considerable trouble with their other proteges, particularly Cuba.
Immediately after the Six Day War, Kosygin hastened to Havana to placate
Fidel Castro's anxieties and, according to the CIA cable, "informed Castro that the
USSR had been prepared to aid the UAR [United Arab Republic, Egypt's
official name] in the struggle against Israel but Field Marshal Amir [Abdel-Hakim
Amer], chief of the UAR armed forces, told the USSR that the UAR intended to stop
fighting within several days."

Fear of domination

However, the CIA later reported that Amer and a powerful faction in the
Cairo leadership had wanted to prevent total Soviet domination of Egypt.
The Soviets made their threat over the hotline only when Syria too
appeared to be on the verge of defeat. Thompson was "impressed how
much greater Soviet sensibility there was to the plight of the Syrians
than to that of the Egyptians. At the time, the Syrians were the apple of
the Russians' eye".

After Kosygin's menacing message was received, the US under-
secretary of state, Nicholas Katzenbach, was dispatched from the
Situation Room to "call in the Israeli ambassador and put pressure on
the Israelis to accept a ceasefire". The Israelis, presumably informed of
the Soviet threat, did - after completing their conquest of the Golan.

The main taskforce of the Sixth Fleet had been circling in the central
Mediterranean. On June 6, Johnson had remonstrated to Kosygin
because the Soviet media was repeating Nasser's "invented charge that
US carrier aircraft had participated in attacks on Egypt ... you know
where our carriers are".

When the "auxiliary ship" Liberty was attacked, Johnson told Kosygin
that the USS Saratoga was ordered "to dispatch aircraft to investigate".
So on June 10, said Mr McNamara, the fleet "was steaming west,
toward Gibraltar, on a training exercise". Now, following Kosygin's
threat, it was sent into the fray.

"President Johnson and I," said Mr McNamara, "decided to turn the fleet
around and send it back toward Israel, not to join with Israel in an attack on
Syria - not at all - but to be close enough to Israel so, if the Soviets
supported a Syrian attack on Israel, we could come to Israel's defence with
the fleet, prevent Israel from being annihilated."

The story, as filtered down to Mr Khripunkov's crew, was that "Brezhnev
[Leonid, then first secretary of the Communist party] and the president
got on the phones and realised that half an hour after we landed the
world would be in ruins. And that was that."

His ship, which had at last been ordered to head for the Israeli coast,
turned back and the landing was aborted. That day, Moscow severed
diplomatic ties with Israel.

The landing plan remained a potentiality and appears gradually to have
become known to the US and Israel. In February 1968, a CIA cable
spoke of "the first information received regarding Soviet plans to
participate in a limited Arab offensive against Israel ... the Soviets will
actively aid the Arabs in gaining back the territory lost in the June 1967 war."
However, the document, recently declassified in a heavily censored form,
states:
"The Soviets made it very clear that Israel is here to stay and they will not
... facilitate its destruction".

(Isabella Ginor is an Israeli journalist specialising in the former USSR
who arrived in Israel from Russia a few months before the events
described in this story.)

via: Tzemach News Service
June 10, 2000

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - covering (1 of 2)
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("John in NZ")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:36:49 -0500

[Moderator: As John points out, this post is rather long,
so I've taken the liberty to divide it into 2 separate
messages.]

Hi from John,

I do thank you for your responses thus far. I am hoping that this
discussion will continue as thoughts are provoked by the discussion.

I want to apologise at the start for two things:

1.. The length of this tome. But many questions have arisen in my
mind
as a result of this email conversation and I want to address them now
while they are fresh. I am busy for the next 6 days and will not have
time to respond otherwise and the discussion might have died by then
and
it would have been sad to miss the chance to reflect on what has been
said.

2.. Because of the pressure of having to respond today due to other
commitments this week I may not have expressed myself as
diplomatically
as I should. I tend to get a bit polemic. If you should feel offended
at
anything I say later on please accept my apologies now and extend
Christian grace to me.

A background idea to set the scene.

In the theological arena the way things work (as I understand it) is
that someone gets a new idea, way of seeing things, etc, and usually
puts forward that idea in a teaching, book or paper in a magazine.
This
is then critiqued by others, who are then critiqued and so on - often
for years. Finally a more or less agreed position is arrived at and
with
time the agreed position becomes part of the life of the whole church.

For example:

1.. The Nicene Creed - the result of nearly 500 years of heresy and
debate but finally resolved, once and for all, the essential belief
of
the church about Christ.
2.. More recent - the Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism in the
Holy
Spirit. In its original form was rejected and became the matter of
intense debate 100 years ago. But in more recent forms from thinkers
like David Watson, David Pawson, Michael Griffiths and James Dunn, a
more moderate view has emerged which is acceptable to most mainline
Christians. The result is that mainline churches are happy to run
with
the Alpha programme world-wide which, on the Holy Spirit, teaches a
moderate Pentecostal view.

My question about "covering" then needs to be understood in this
light.
I have been, until recently, in a Pentecostal stream where the idea
of
covering was strong. I was always unhappy with it and, as I
indicated,
the experience last week brought the question to my consciousness. So
I
asked you the question and have been appreciative of the responses.
They
are all below - numbered from last to first.

Because I am wanting to treat this as a theological debate and not a
personal debate I have removed all personal references, names, etc,
and
in this response will refer to ideas raised by the number of the
letter
and not by the writer.

For me the question is: Is this new idea of covering actually
scriptural, or does it actually take some scripture verses and build,
like Arias of old, a construct which is in reality foreign to the
tenor
of scripture while using scripture verses to justify it? So the
question
does not boil down to "How do you or I feel about the idea?" but
rather,
"Is it scriptural?" No other question should really concern our minds.

So to some responses and questions about what has been said - but
note I
am not in the least attacking people or questioning people personally
-
it is ideas I am interested in.

The general tenor of responses has been negative to the idea of
covering
- something I suspected would be the case outside of the circles it
is
currently popular in.

My initial reaction comes from the question: If covering was as
important an idea as some say it is why doesn't scripture -
particularly
the NT - make some mention of it? To date little scriptural material
has
been forthcoming in the discussion but I will respond to that as it
is
all I have to work on. As I have said I have actually heard no
teaching
on it but I have only had the idea bandied around where I have been.

What is meant by covering in these circles?

I still don't really know - but in the circles I have been involved
in
it has carried ideas of protection, authority, recognition,
accountability, etc. But the primary idea seems to me to have been
permission - i.e. control. You must be "under the covering" to be
allowed to do something, at least in the spiritual arena. It is this
idea that galls me most. Nothing is allowed that is not approved by
the
"covering".

I acknowledge the ideas of protection, authority, recognition,
accountability have some scriptural base but then the question
arises:
Are these concepts tied scripturally to the concept of
eldership/leadership of the local church?

However to comment on the comments.

In response to 22.

I have done the training for pastoral work but am not at the moment
involved in pastoral work.

1,2&3 are sort of off the question but deserve a comment. True,
Evangelicals have tended to avoid using Acts as a source of doctrine.
But they sometimes do so - as one writer in this list pointed out by
examples from Acts. This was not always true and is not always true
now.
They are usually quite happy to use it as a source of doctrine when
it
suits. The problem is when it does not suit - like when the
traditional
Pentecostal view on the Baptism of the Spirit is mooted. Then it does
not suit and we hear the catch cry, "You can't use Acts as a source
of
doctrine!" Really a rather hypocritical stance, to my way of
thinking. I
do not in the least support the Pentecostal interpretation of Acts
but I
do defend their right to use Acts.

Think for a moment: All of Paul's letters are not "theological" in
our
sense of the word, rather he was trying to explain to them the
meaning
of their experience. The experience was primary, the explanation
secondary. We evangelicals tend to forget this and assume that if we
have right doctrine we are OK even if our experience nowhere near
matches the experience the doctrine is trying to explain. Acts
describes
the experience, the epistles interprets it.

Thus it seems to me that using Acts would be quite justifiable, so
long
as one does not end up with a viewpoint contradicting the epistles
(which I think Pentecostals do. Mind you I would consider myself to
be a
Pentecostal so I am not taking cheap potshots here).

This is an issue interesting in itself and worthy of discussion but
it
is not the issue I have raised so I will leave it here. We may be
able
to return to it if you people are willing to pick it up.

In response to 24.

I respect your testimony, but it doesn't answer the question: Is the
idea of covering scriptural? I appreciate that you feel that you have
been blessed because of submission to a covering, but I would have to
ask, "How do you know?"

Six things could be said:

  1.. Really only God knows, this side of heaven, why we are blessed.
Only he has he the knowledge. It would be a brave man who would say,
"I
am being blessed because ." This would be a claim to divine insight,
a
claim to Godhead really.
  2.. The blessing you are experiencing may be because, as a
Christian,
you operate your business on moral, ethical and Christian principles
which would attract the blessing of God irrespective of covering.
  3.. It does not answer the question: Is covering a scriptural
principle (which obedience to would thus attract God's blessing)?
Rather
it begs the question.
  4.. The sense you have of release may or may not be a result of
coming
under the "covering". It may be instead a psychological reaction to
the
situation now created where you feel that you are not on your own -
there is somehow a shared responsibility and you feel better.
  5.. If, in fact, covering was not a biblical principle, then
ultimately submission to it would not lead to freedom but to a sense
of
bondage. This may not be apparent immediately but may take some time
to
become real. Sin usually takes some time to manifest its fruit, but
manifest it will.
  6.. How does this submission to covering work in practice? Do your
pastors sit on your board meetings and help you make decisions? Or is
it
in practice just a legal fiction?
So while I respect your feelings about the matter to me there is no
proof that your feelings are justified by facts. The initial question
remains.

Further to the question in relation to what 24 says I would say this:

It seems to me that God has ordained three authority structures in
the
world - the family, the church and the state. Each has its own sphere
of
authority and its limitations.

The Family is the most basic - it is prior historically and
scripturally
to the other two and from the family the other two gain their
authority.
In other words their authority is under the family authority. The
state
and the church are made up of the building blocks of the family units.

In the family the husband is head, and he and the wife have joint
responsibility and authority over house and family. As head he is
directly responsible to God through Christ. No other authority can
come
between this authority line without perverting Gods divinely ordained
order. Including church leadership.

In Bible times, and so from a scriptural perspective, work and
business
were part of the family function - not part of state or church.

In light of this I would suggest to 24 that to bring his business
affairs under the covering of his church is actually to pervert the
divine order of things. It is to place a covering there that has no
place there.

It is to abdicate responsibility to others in an areas of life where
God
gives you and your wife the total responsibility and authority. (I
warned you I fought rough!)

However I may be wrong in my understanding of the relative roles of
family, church and state so this is a point that can be debated. But
it
is a good Reformed position and was the basis of the setting up of
the
USA constitution.

I do agree there are many cowboys doing their own thing - some need a
bit more wisdom. But this raises the question of how much freedom in
God
do we really have to be creative and initiate in his kingdom - at the
prompting of the Spirit of course. We will return to this later.

In response to 6 &16.

The question was more than, "Who do you represent?" Because I had
already identified who I was and the international, well-known
organisation I was representing - and presumably had the appointment
and
authority to represent. It was a question about something else -
namely
who (controls) me? (at least as far as I can see that is what they
asked).

Having identified the organisation I was representing to ask me,
"What
right do you have to do this?" would seem to be a superfluous
question
arising out of a basic misunderstanding of something.

In response to 22.

I agree - the popular idea of claiming the protection of the blood is
nothing but a misconception of what the blood does. The blood
establishes our legal forgiveness and authority before God by reason
that it signifies that a death has been paid to answer the claims of
sin. The blood is thus only a weapon in our arsenal in that we can
claim
our forgiveness through it. It is not a sort of "holy water"
symbolically speaking that we can douse buildings, people, mountains,
etc., in.

But the idea of the "covering" of the blood is scriptural. The Hebrew
"atonement" literally means "covering", but as the writer to Hebrews
points out that "covering" no longer applies to us. His argument is
that
the blood of bulls and goats did not actually achieve forgiveness of
sins but only "covered" them, thus they were not actually dealt with
until Christ paid the debt. Our sins thus are not "covered" by the
blood
of Christ, but are forgiven by the blood of Christ, which is quite a
different thing altogether!

But again this is not the idea of covering I was asking about, grand
though it is and one I would dearly love to discuss for hours to
plumb
its depth. Maybe some other time.

In response to 10.

Yes it seems to be a relatively new idea - like since the early 70s
and
seems to have originated with Derek Prince and the group of men he
was
associated with at Fort Lauderdale USA. It doesn't really appear in
literature before then, though it may have been around.

The reference to Ruth and Boaz came to my mind also, but it doesn't
really help this discussion as:

1.. It is in the context of family relations so fits into the
category
we have already mentioned of husband/wife relations.
2.. If we take a typical interpretation here then the picture is of
Boaz (who is Christ typically), covering the one living in death
(Ruth).
So it doesn't help typically either as it refers to salvation not to
church structures.
In response to 7,8&9:

Paul does he really have an idea of covering as we are discussing
here?

  1.. He talks of "letters of recommendation" in 2 Cor, but he is
here
picking up the Jewish and Greek practise of letter of introduction
when
people shifted from one town to another, and hence from one synagogue
to
another. Commentators uniformly refer Paul's words here to this. But
interestingly enough Paul's argument here is that he didn't need such
letters because the Corinthians themselves were his letter. So that
doesn't help us.
  2.. Paul did send his fellow workers out on occasion with letters =
but we have no idea suggested that they were letters of
recommendation.
The only evidence we have points to them being Paul's letters to
churches and individuals, and in them he mentions the bearer of the
letter by way of introduction. We have no example of Paul writing a
letter that he gave to an individual to commend the individual.
  3.. Other ideas of covering in Paul relate to the function of
leaders
in the local church and I will address this soon.

This leaves the idea of eldership, which the other writers have
raised
in one way or another. So to that we will now turn.

  1.. Firstly I would have to say that eldership is an
office/function
that relates only to a local church. The elders have authority in the
local church, but an elder in one church does not have authority in
another church. Thus authority, and hence any sort of covering, is
non-transferable. The elders have an authority in their own local
church, over the affairs of that local church, but scripture does not
give any room for them to extend their authority beyond that sphere.
  2.. I would like to refer back to my previous comments about
family,
church, state and the relative authorities. This would seem to
suggest
that the elders of a local church would not even have authority over
the
individuals and families of the church except in regards to the
affairs
of the local church.
  3.. E. Schweitzer in his book "Church Order in the NT" makes a good
strong case from scripture to indicate that eldership in the NT is
not
an office but a function, thus it is based on gift and character and
actions not on position. Thus a person who is not functioning as an
elder should not be seen to be an elder. This raises the question of
"What is the function of the Elders?" Schweitzer argues elders have
only
got authority in the local church in as far as they are fulfilling a
divinely ordained function. Outside of function there is no
authority.
Schweitzer argues further that the authority of the local church
actually rests in the congregation not the leaders. We might be
reminded
of the words of Jesus that those who want to be great should be
servants
of all.
  4.. This raises the question: what does an elder have the authority
to
do? An interesting question. As far as I can see there are these
areas
of authority:
  1.. Discipline in the local church in areas of morals and doctrine.
1
Cor 7 & etc. Though R Allen in his book on Missionary Principles
argues
strongly that in Paul's letters the authority lies in the
congregation
not the leaders. He argues fairly convincingly that even Paul did not
try to use apostolic authority when dealing with churches because he
recognised that independent authority of the local church. Rather
Paul
appealed, not commanded. I think Allen has a point but he overstates
it
a couple of times.
  2.. Writer 4 in this discussion quotes 1 Peter 3 where leaders in
the
local church clearly have an authority, but if we ask "Authority for
what?" Peter's answer is "to feed the flock, care for the flock, as
examples to the flock." "Lording over it" is expressly forbidden.
  3.. Eph 4 tells us leaders have the authority to "equip the saints
for
the work of the ministry". Implied in that would seem to me to be
ideas
of releasing people into doing things.
  4.. 2 Cor 13:10 tells us leaders have authority "to build up not to
tear down".
  5.. Presumably as a group leaders have the responsibility to
organise
and run the church, it's programmes etc. Unless we want to have a
totally "Spirit led" church with no preparation. Someone has to do it
and that immediately implies leadership and authority to do it.
  6.. As elders have responsibility for the flock (Acts 20:28) they
presumably have the right and responsibility to check up on itinerant
preachers (the category into which I fit in this example). So I don't
question the guy's right to ask the question - only the ideas he had
behind the question.
So a good "covering" would train, equip and release people into
ministry
-, as this is the job the Bible says they are given. At least as far
as
I can see.

4 refers to Acts as a source of the idea - but I am not sure where in
Acts he means. Let's take some examples:

  1.. Philip was driven from Jerusalem by persecution and went north
preaching as he went. As far as we know he had not been given a
commission to do so. In the process he planted a church in Samaria
then
in Antioch - neither of which the apostles agreed with, at least
initially. Then, in between these, he preached to an Ethiopian who,
without any covering or mandate, went and planted a church in
Ethiopia
that still survives today. Who gave Philip authority to preach to
this
guy?
  2.. Aquilla and Priscilla seem to have gathered a bit of a church
around them when Paul found them. Whose authority was that under?
  3.. What about Apollos? Priscilla and Aquilla set him right, but he
was active before then.
  4.. I know on the other side that Paul was sent out by the church
at
Antioch and he reported back to them. But he does not seem to have
taken
advice from them as to where and when he should go.
  5.. Did Paul submit any of his revelations to others for checking?
So Acts is conspicuously short of data for the idea.

As 18 points out Christ did not need cover - in fact he went against
the
"cover" of the day.

So I am, as yet, unconvinced that this idea of cover is valid.
Unfortunately none of the respondents have as yet given me any
Biblical
rationale for it that could be examined. The comments I have made
here
have been largely my own thoughts over the last few days - some of
which
were triggered off by ideas you have sent me, other were not.

At this point I admit that I am leaning towards the view that this
idea
of "cover" is nothing more than a power play. A bit like bureaucratic
control.

It is interesting that in the circles I have heard this idea most it
has
come from men who, off their own bat, went and planted churches
somewhere and were successful. Now they preach "working under cover"
- a
thing they didn't do themselves.

I must leave it here for now but I would appreciate further
discussion.

Do you react to what I have said here? If so, why? What to? Challenge
me
from scripture. I am still forming ideas and so I submit these to you
all for your testing.

John in wintry NZ

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - covering (2 of 2)
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("John in NZ")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:38:04 -0500

Compilation of Emails.

Be careful here. Are you saying that some books of
the Bible are better than others?

The question is not "Better", but Acts is not
generally used as a source of doctrine.
For why you will have to ask a Theologian.
_____________

2.
I still don't understand what you mean here. The whole
Bible is "used as a source of doctrine." What is the
problem with Acts? It's the record of the first 20-30
years of the Church. It records the Ascension, the
Pentecost, the establishment of the Diaconate, the
Conversion of St. Paul, the first use of the word
"Christian", the missionary journeys of St. Paul, the
spread of Christianity into the Roman/Gentile world,
etc., etc. What's wrong with that???
________________

3.
Would anyone care to comment on why Acts is not generally used as a
doctrinal source?
_________________

These are possibly the most reliable Scripture relating to whether
one
need
to go under a covering or not. I do not endorse this teaching. It is
not
Scriptural at all. God has called us into liberty, not under the
headship of
a man, but under the headship of Christ.

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory
that
shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight
thereof,
not
by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready
mind;
Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the
flock." (1 Pet 5:1-3)
______________

5.
Have been reading this discussion with interest.

I tend to agree with ., that on a person level we do need 'covering'
-
but is it someone's 'right' to ask who is covering you? I think it is
a
choice we should make individually and I can understand how . says it
gives him freedom.

This is a bit trivial but how . is using it, it's sort of like having
a
mother (or a Father?) always there to tell you when you're stepping
out
of line.

_______________

But is it someone's 'right' to ask who is covering you?
Could it be they had cause for concern, or were they just using
current
idiom to say "which church/org do you represent?"

________________
7.

WHO IS YOUR COVERING?
A Fresh Look at Leadership, Authority, and Accountability

by Frank A. Viola

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------

To all Christians who are seeking to meet under

the sovereign Headship of Jesus Christ,

with the same simplicity and purity

that marked the first believers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------

CONTENTS

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

1. Leadership Models

2. Traditional Objections

3. Authority and Submission

4. Denominational Covering

5. Apostolic Authority

6. Summary and Conclusion

Bibliography

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------

FOREWORD

Remember the children's story, The Emperor's New Clothes? In it, a
child
verbalized that which the adults already knew but were hesitant to
admit. Frank Viola, in this revealing treatise on "church authority,"
is
like the small boy who finally blurted out, "But the emperor has no
clothes on!"

Most believers probably already suspect that all is not well in Zion,
but they are slow to question the status quo. After all, who wants to
get branded as a troublemaker? The appalling fact of the matter is
that
most systems of church polity are utterly without Scriptural clothing!

So exactly who has authority over whom in the church? Should a pastor
or
even a plurality of elders control a church? What is accountability
all
about? Do denominations afford protection from doctrinal error and
moral
failure? Do we need modern day apostles to tell us what to do? How
does
the spiritual gift of "ruling" fit into things?

When I was a career pastor, I struggled with these issues.
Surprisingly,
none of them were really dealt with during my time in seminary. Once
in
the ministry, I discovered that most of the pastors with whom I
discussed these things had never really thought through them either.
It
was a major paradigm shift for me just to go from believing that
there
should be a single pastor in every church to believing in a plurality
of
elders. As it turned out, that was just the tip of the iceberg--there
is
so much more to this issue of leadership that the number of elders
becomes almost irrelevant.

Frank's exposE9 is both thorough and Biblical. Every relevant passage
dealing with leadership and authority is considered. I promise that
this
book will enrich your understanding of authority in God's kingdom.

May our Lord be pleased to use the truth contained herein to free the
legions of followers and leaders who are trapped in the bondage of
hierarchical church systems. As Jesus said, "the truth shall set you
free."

Steve Atkerson
Atlanta, Georgia

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------

PREFACE

In my last book, Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New
Testament Church, I set forth the fundamental principles that
governed
the practice of the early church and contrasted them with those that
characterize the modern institutional church. The book was favorably
received and has managed to influence the birth of a number of New
Testament-styled churches in this country and abroad.

As expected, some of these fresh and budding testimonies have borne
the
brunt of misunderstanding and opposition from leaders in the
organized
church. In particular, they have generated acute questions regarding
ecclesiastical authority. Namely, they have been asked the same
question
religious leaders asked our Lord centuries ago: "By what authority do
you do these things, and who gave you this authority?" (Matt. 21:23).

Since not much has been written about this question from the
standpoint
of New Testament (NT) assembly life, I felt burdened to tackle the
matter here and now. While some of its content overlaps with that
found
in Rethinking the Wineskin, this book makes more complete my
treatment
of the overall subjects of leadership and authority. Furthermore,
there
is a wide range of new material that I have embarked upon that does
not
appear in the earlier book. Thus, in many respects, I regard this
work
as a companion to Rethinking.

To my mind, the chief value of this book lies in its presentation of
a
fresh model for understanding leadership, authority, and
accountability.
This model, which is both complex and countercultural, is not rooted
in
mere theory. I have seen it work in many contemporary assemblies that
have returned to NT principle for their corporate life. My aim in
writing, therefore, is both practical and theological; it is
constructive rather than controversial. Albeit, because what follows
is
so radically different from traditional understanding, it will
doubtlessly raise eyebrows and perhaps hostility.

With that said, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Hal Miller,
Robert Banks, Russ Lipton, and Chris Smith, cheerfully thanking them
for
their inspiration and influence on this work. I would also like to
thank
my wife Susan as well as Stephanie Bennett, Tim Degrado, Chris Kirk,
Mark Mattison, George Moreshead, Frank Valdez, and The House Church
Discussion List (an on-line Christian community that utilizes the
Internet as a mode for cyber-fellowship) for their critical comments
on
the manuscript.

To the Lord and to His people do I commit this book, with the hope
that
He will use it for the furtherance of His eternal purpose.

Frank A. Viola
Brandon, Florida
January, 1998

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------

INTRODUCTION

"So who is your covering?"

This is the terse query raised by many modern Christians whenever
they
encounter those who assemble outside organized, institutional lines.
But
what is at the heart of this inquiry, and what Biblical basis
undergirds
it? These are the questions that will engage us in this book.

It is my contention that a great deal of confusion and subnormal
Christian behavior is connected with a modern teaching known as
"protective covering." This doctrine, which flies under the flag of
other names, holds that Christians are protected from doctrinal error
and moral failure when they submit themselves to the authority of
another believer or Christian organization. Experience has led me to
believe that the "covering" doctrine is a matter that greatly
troubles
Zion today, and it desperately begs for critical reflection among
God's
people.

In the following pages, I attempt to cut through the fog that
surrounds
the difficult issues attached to the "covering" doctrine, such as
leadership, authority, and accountability. In addition, I seek to
outline a comprehensive model for understanding how genuine spiritual
authority operates in the ekklesia (church).

Is "Covering" Covered in the Bible?

As we venture to examine the popular "covering" teaching, let us
first
explore the term "covering" itself. Surprisingly, the word only
appears
once in the entire NT, and it is used in connection with a woman's
head
covering (a subject which merits its own discussion--1 Cor. 11:15).
While the Old Testament uses the word sparingly, it always uses it to
refer to a piece of natural clothing or an overlay of some sort. It
never uses it in a spiritual way to refer to authority or submission.

Consequently, the first thing we can say about "covering" is that
there
is scant Biblical evidence on which to construct a doctrine upon it.
Yet
despite this fact, countless Christians glibly parrot the
"who-is-your-covering" question and push it as a litmus test to
measure
the authenticity of a church or ministry.

If the Bible is silent with respect to the idea of "covering," what
do
people mean when they ask, "Who is your covering?" Most people (if
pressed) would rephrase the question as: "To what person are you
accountable?" But this raises another sticky point: the Bible never
consigns accountability to human beings. It consigns it exclusively
to
God (Matt. 12:36; 18:23; Luke 16:2; Rom. 3:19; 14:12; 1 Cor. 4:5;
Heb.
4:13; 13:17; 1 Pet. 4:5). Strangely, however, the Biblically sound
answer to this question ("I am accountable to the same person you
are--God") is often a prescription for misunderstanding and a recipe
for
false accusation.

Thus, while the timbre and key of "accountability" may differ from
that
of "covering," the song is often the same. And it is one that does
not
harmonize with the unmistakable singing of Scripture. (Please note
that
there is a healthy form of accountability in the church, which we
will
explore later. But the brand of accountability connected with the
"covering" doctrine lacks Biblical merit.)

Unearthing the Real Question Behind Covering

So let's widen the question a bit. What do people really mean when
they
push the "covering" question? I submit that what they are actually
asking is, "Who controls you?" The common (mis)teaching about
"covering"
really boils down to questions about who controls whom. In fact, the
modern institutional church is built upon this idea of control.

Of course, people rarely recognize that this is at the bottom of the
issue, for it is typically well clothed with Biblical garments. In
the
minds of many Christians, "covering" is merely a protective
mechanism.
Yet if we critically examine the "covering" doctrine, we will
discover
that it is rooted in a one-up/one-down, chain-of-command style of
leadership where those in higher ecclesiastical positions have a
tenuous
hold on those under them. And it is through such top-down control
that
believers are said to be protected from error (a la "covered").

The concept goes something like this: everyone must answer to someone
else who is in a higher ecclesiastical position. In the
garden-variety,
post-war evangelical church, this translates into the "laypeople"
answering to the pastor. In turn, the pastor must answer to a person
who
has more authority.

So the pastor will typically trace his accountability to a
denominational headquarters, to another church (often called the
"mother
church"), or to an influential Christian worker (who is perceived to
have a higher rank in the ecclesiastical pyramid). As a result, the
"laypeople" are said to be "covered" by the pastor, and the pastor is
said to be "covered" by the denomination, the mother church, or the
Christian worker. The fact that people can trace their accountability
to
a higher ecclesiastical authority is the equivalent of being
protected
by that authority (so the thinking goes).

But this line of reasoning generates the following telling questions:
Who covers the mother church? Who covers the denominational
headquarters? And who covers the Christian worker? Some have offered
the
pat answer that God covers these "higher" authorities. But such an
answer begs the question; for why can't God be the covering for the
"laypeople," or even the pastor? Of course, the real problem with the
"God-denomination-clergy-laity" model goes far beyond the incoherent,
pretzel logic to which it leads. The chief problem is that it
violates
the spirit of the NT; for behind the pious rhetoric of "providing
accountability" and "having a covering," there looms a system of
government that is bereft of Biblical support and driven by a spirit
of
control.

____________________

Hello and bless you all.

This time of considering cover at the level of Paul is true. He did
both
instruct and sanction the early church.

This was not an exclusive Jewish group. The followers of Christ and
his
teachings were also Egyptian and Greek as much as that were Jew.

The teachings of Christ cut across all boundaries and areas
attracting
vast numbers from other countries and cultures.

Outstandingly he brought hope to the ladies of the time that they had
a
spirit and purpose every bit as much as any male.

In that teaching and the hope of fulfillment which it truly offers to
the persons of those times it was the ladies who brought their men to
hear the Christ and the message.

Cover was needed by the ladies so that they could in turn site the
words
of Christ to move their men and their culture to the better place for
themselves and their children.

Cover today however is not the same. Cover today is used to hide
untalented persons and theories under when they are weak and lacking
in
the true love of the Christ.

True cover is the hiding place of the ineffectual persons but so are
the
corners of the various corporate churches.

At the end of the day we all must stand in as place of spiritual
commitment and say this is where I am. Cover in itself is meaningless
with out true commitment to the statements and even less without
personal accountability.

God Bless you All right now!

______________________

We do not see the concept of cover until we see Paul come on the scene
with his letters of cover for this and that.
____________________

10.
Now could you explain what you mean by this please. I have been around
as a Christian 45 years and have never heard this covering
before...except Ruth and Boaz, must be a new term.
_______________________

11.

How much of this idea of covering by Paul is directed to an anxious
Jewish audience? Could it be one of Paul's moves of political
appeasement rather than something of deep theological force? In
Corinthians it seems to be used pretty much as a cultural cognate
related
to shame and it seems to be used very simply. The bulk of references
to
it are in the Old Testament and are metaphorical similar to Paul's
use
of
it in Romans. My feeling is that it is not so much a theological
construct related to authority as it is a device Paul uses to make
some
common sense points to a Jewish audience.
__________________

12.

I agree entirely with . - so my apologies if my first response sounded
flippant - I do feel that there is a pressure to conform with ??
whatever
from some quarters, and it is quite easy to dismiss people under the
guise
of this issue of "insufficient covering".

However, even in this, I assume much of what . is saying - that the
Christ follower will automatically make his / her self servant
hearted
and
open to correction - even if less formalised than Peter's
accountability
group of men.
_________________

13.

Hello! Blessings to all of you.

Looking at the issue of cover it is hard not to come in with a few
comments.

First let me say how much I respect all of you and the free flow of
ideas and comments.

This is one way the spirit is served by all of us as we grow in
Christ's
energy.

The concept of needing a corporate church or organization is indeed
comforting for those who are not in fact going to add anything true
to
the body of Christ, or information of value.

Christ did not seek cover. Those who originally followed him did not
have or seek cover.

We do not see the concept of cover until we see Paul come on the
scene
with his letters of cover for this and that.

Ever since those who are week in spirit and weak in conviction have
sought cover as a way of spreading the responsibility for their
actions
both good and bad.

The concept of divine revelation such as happened to Paul and others
gets lost in the corporate church.

In the Organization I am privileged to direct, we allow for any
person
to come forward and tell what the spirit is speaking to them. If it
is
large we will offer a support for them. If it is small we offer
support
and fulfillment for them.

God and his son and our brother the Christ comes to all of us,
females,
males young and old with love and information.

Those who block it are indeed acting at that time as an anti Christ.

We must truly open and love one another with the trust in Christ that
we
in or own way use the

God given gift of discernment and knowledge to sift the information
and
apply it accordingly.

God Blesses you all right now!

____________________

14.

Being part of an organization seems to give credibility for some
reason.
So following the discussion re Benny Hinn etc, to what org do they
belong???? Their own???
____________________

15.

I think the term "covering" is a device that enables people to do
what
ever they feel like while making it sound like their is some
accountablity in place.
_____________________

16.

Is there someone out there who can supply me with the rationale behind
this idea of "covering"?
I have never heard of it, do they just mean "to whom are you
responsible?" "Which church supports you?

____________________

17.

Nice to find someone here and for the sake of discussion I'll bite.

An I don't mind rough dialogue, although we may be in some agreement
here.

"Covering" is not a term I've encountered often or recently. It seems
to
be a term used in a small segment of the vast Christian theological
spectrum and in contexts similar to that which you describe.

I cannot find it in any of my theological word dictionaries, bible
encyclopedias or indices of Restoration Movement bibliographies.

My only recourse, then, is the Bible. Here I find numerous
possibilities, depending on the contexts. In most places, they seem
to
be variations of "concealing" or "hiding" something from sight or
exposure. In some contexts, this is for protection.There are 21
different Hebrew words used as an active verb and 5 variations of the
Greek root "kalupto." (Young's Analytical Concordance).

It may be tedious to examine here all the renditions, but keeping in
mind the ancient and contemporay contexts, I can only surmise that
what
is meant is "Whose protection are you under?"

This seems to me a superfluous question for one Christian enterprise
to
be asking another, for are not all friends and followers of Jesus
Christ
under the Holy Spirit's protection? (cf John 17:15ff)

My two cents worth

Shalom,

___________________

18.

I think a covering is something you're supposed to have if there's a
chance
someone doesn't like something you've said.
Being part of an organization seems to give credibility for some
reason.
_______________

I smile at your e-mail, as it is so genuine.

I appreciate your comments, and I can assure you that when you raised
it, I felt the same type of reaction you are talking about.
However, for me the quote as you gave it seemed to pertain to more
then
just wanting to know about what exactly you might be 'covering'.

I see this situation 2 ways:

1. Whoever you may have contacted in the past, asking this of you, is
reacting... (in my words, for lack of a better way of
explaining)...from
a power position.
They want to know whether you might be 'good enough' to be doing
ministry in their church...sadly most of the time in this instance,
they
are concerned that you might actually do a better sermon/ministry in
their church, than they themselves have given....all this due to this
thing called control/in control/power.
I can not give you any scriptural back up, neither have I had
experience
in this matter.
I am someone who likes to believe that the only place to go for
advise,
is the Bible and God.

The above would be something like when you phone a director/manager
of
any given business, and you ask to speak to the manager/director, and
the reply comes "May I ask what this is in connection with?", before
you
are transferred to given person of your choice.
______________

20.
I live in Mozambique, where I have my own business, and in this
country
it is not just a simple polite request to scan what exactly you want
to
discuss with given manager/director, it is an actual fact here that
if
you don't tell this person in the control seat, what exactly you are
going to discuss with the next person, they ACTUALLY DON'T put you
through, and you end up on the other side very frustrated.
More basic, but nevertheless an answer to your question.

There are so many people in this world trying to share there ideas
with
others....many of whom are doing it for the wrong reason.
There is only one reason why anyone would teach/evangelise/minister,
and
that is for the glory of God.
Anything else, and you are missing the point.
Unfortunately we find so many greedy people today, people greedy for
power, that the message often gets lost.

Anyway, I gotta go, this is just my opinion.
Hope to speak to you again.
Regards.
_________________
21.

Greetings in the name of the Lord.
Would love to dialog on issue of "covering".
Having come "out" of a "full time" (paid staff) ministry position to a
place that many say is "without" covering, would love to share
thoughts.

As far as doctrinal insights on "covering" most I have found are
unscriptural or erroneous at best. I did notice thou that the only
"being" referred to as a "covering" (other than God/Christ) was
Lucifer
in Ez 28 and Is 14. Raises a curious thought , does it not?
____________________

22.

Phrases such as: "praying the blood" to cover someone or something for
protection, "praying a hedge" of protection around someone, or
"claiming"
protection, etc. This kind of "warfare praying" and commanding of God
is...
improper from a biblical perspective since these practices are not
found
in
the Bible and are specifically forbidden.

________________

Are you a trained Pastor. Most people feel that that is important. I
don't.
If you know your Bible, your words should be good enough. Another
word
for
covering to me is "franchise.." Corporate Churches like to franchise
themselves out in order to expand. I have a pretty successful out
reach
ministry on line and I am not so called "trained." I do not have that
piece
of paper to show that I believe as the hierrachy do. I only believe
in
what
the Bible says. I did go to Bible collage and then dropped out as I
did
not
want a label placed on me.

Did the Apostles have a piece of paper to prove who he was. No. The
only
piece of paper we should have to our name is scripture! Do realize
how
many
false teachers are out there that have that so call piece of paper?
Your
piece of paper should be scripture. Your Church should be the Church
(body
of) Christ. And when people listen to you they should like the
Bereans
did,
examine the scriptures to see if you are correct. You should answer
to
no
man except scripture and God. So there is my two cents worth. :-)
_______
24,
Hi All,
Whilst we all serve Christ, there is an element of being an "island to
one-self". Practically, this is dangerous. The devil can, and does,
deceive. We are all easily deceived. Therefore, when one comes under a
'covering' or 'oversight' this simply means that you are making
yourself
accountable to others - people you can trust, who cover you in prayer,
and who can ask the hard questions or challenge you; especially about
our 'blind spots' - make no mistake, we all have them.

For most Christians, the 'covering' or 'oversight' is usually their
Pastor, Elders, cell group leader, etc who serve them. For people like
Itinerant ministers they usually bring themselves accountable to a
local
church, an organisation, or even a group of like-minded pastors from
different churches - the choices are endless. The point is that they
hold themselves accountable to those men and women who can at anytime
challenge them on any aspect of their life, marriage, ministry, etc.
Remember the role of your 'oversight' is one of servantude and not one
of 'lording' it over you.

Having a 'covering' or 'oversight' actually is quite freeing.

My testimony is this:
I am a businessman. Since I allowed my church 'oversight' (Pastor,
elders) and several Christian men (outside of my church, and related
to
business) to be my 'oversight' I have had a tremendous sense of
freedom
to forge ahead in my business. These men, whom I trust implicitly, can
and do ask me any question to do with any aspect of my life (eg am I
"spending enough time with my family", am I "cheating on my tax", "was
that deal honest and honouring to Christ", etc. and not, "was sex with
your wife good last night", okay!). I have given them permission to
ask.
I am accountable to them. These men are committed to 'covering' me in
prayer. I have found that if something is not quite right, the Lord
will
prompt 2 or more of them to call me or to come and see me to ask the
question. When I get 2 or 3 witnesses (who by the way, don't
necessarily
know each other or are in contact with each other) to question the
same
thing, I KNOW this is a challenge from God and I then go before Him
and
deal with the matter. At its conclusion, I will always return to those
who I am accountable to, and let them know what my decision or
response
has been.

I believe that there are too many 'cowboys' out there, islands to
themselves, not allowing themselves to be held accountable. They
invariably fall into error and so do damage to the reputation of
Christ
and His followers. I'm not a theologian or some whiz-bang with
scripture, but I do know that having been set free through Christ, my
decision to have an 'oversight' who is committed to 'covering' me in
prayer has continued to allow me to remain free.

Kind Regards,
______________________

Original Question.

Greetings one and all. I hope there is an all to enter into this
discussion.

I am involved in a teaching ministry which will remain for the
purposes
of this discussion nameless. I am going around churches to see if we
can
take seminars in their church. It is a well known respected
evangelical
international ministry.
Today I was asked by someone "What covering are you working under?"

Now I have heard talk about "covering" for several years now and have
always felt just a little uncomfortable about it. Usually when there
is
something wrong with an idea I feel this sort of discomfort. Usually
this sort of discomfort lurks in the background until some specific
instance raises the question about the idea and I am forced to examine
it. I think I am at this point on "covering". I understand generally
what people are talking about when they talk in this way but today I
felt a strong reaction to the idea altogether. Not that I am
"uncovered"
in the sense that is meant (as far as I understand it). The church I
am
going to endorses my ministry. The international body has accredited
me
to the task, and so on. So I am not reacting because I am operating
out
of order, or off my own bat, or do nto in the sense "covering" is
talked
about, have no "covering."

Rather I feel that the whole concept of covering may be faulty. But I
don't know. I have never actually heard any teaching on it. I can't
think of where it would come from in the Bible (and I have done 11
years
full or part time theological education).

Question: Is there someone out there who can supply me with the
rationale behind this idea of "covering"? My spirit reacts to the idea
- suggesting to me that it is unscriptural, and I have enough to do to
obey scripture without coming under unscriptural ideas.

Can anyone help me? do you have a sermon on it? A bible study? some
references?

Are you willing to get into dialogue on it? I tend to be pretty hard
nosed and want it proven from scripture on any issue and will dissect
things fairly thoroughly to see if they stand up. Dialogue could be
rough (I warn you).

John in chilly NZ.

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - Earthquakes - June 10, 2000
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Moza")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:38:34 -0400

Magnitude 6.0 earthquake near SOUTHEAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
30.52N, 137.76E depth 480.3km Fri Jun 9 23:31:45 2000 GMT

An earthquake has occurred. Following is information provided
by the National Earthquake Information Service of the USGS.
This information is preliminary and subject to correction.

Time: GMT Fri Jun 9 23:31:45 2000
(EDT Fri Jun 9 19:31:45 2000)
(PDT Fri Jun 9 16:31:45 2000)

Magnitude: 6.0, determined using its body wave characteristics
Epicenter: 30.52N, 137.76E (SOUTHEAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN)
Precision: A, where A is fine and D is coarse.
Depth of focus: 480.3km below sea level at the epicenter.

For a map showing this event, please consult the web page
<http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/000609233145.HTML>
--------------------

Magnitude 6.2 earthquake near TAIWAN
23.77N, 121.12E depth 33.0km Sat Jun 10 18:23:28 2000 GMT

An earthquake has occurred. Following is information provided
by the National Earthquake Information Service of the USGS.
This information is preliminary and subject to correction.

Time: GMT Sat Jun 10 18:23:28 2000
(EDT Sat Jun 10 14:23:28 2000)
(PDT Sat Jun 10 11:23:28 2000)

Magnitude: 6.2, determined using its surface wave characteristics
Epicenter: 23.77N, 121.12E (TAIWAN)
Precision: A, where A is fine and D is coarse.
Depth of focus: 33.0km below sea level at the epicenter.

Note that the depth of focus is given as 33.0km, indicating
that the depth was known to be shallow but could not be determined
precisely.

For a map showing this event, please consult the web page
<http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/000610182328.HTML>

Further info can be obtained from the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center at <http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/>
or the USGS home page at <http://www.usgs.gov/>

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

========
To: bpr-list@philologos.org (BPR Mailing List)
Subject: [BPR] - Re: covering (2 of 2)
From: bpr-list@philologos.org("Steve")
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:04:07 -0400 (EDT)

To John in NZ please. Please excuse my ignorance but I've been reading
and reading the emails concerning this " covering " issue. I still don't
understand what it means. Could you please put it in layman terms?
Thankyou! in Jesus, Steve:)

See http://philologos.org/bpr for additional info.

Philologos | Bible Prophecy Research | Online Books | Reference Guide

Please be advised that this domain (Philologos.org) does not endorse 100 per cent any link contained herein. This forum is for the dissemination of pertinent information on an end-times biblical theme which includes many disturbing, unethical, immoral, etc. topics and should be viewed with a mature, discerning eye.