Covering. Now what was that again?

I was listening to a preacher the other day who used the word 'covering' in the sense of protecting someone from error. It took me back to the days when I believed that. We used to ask people when we met them, maybe for the first time, 'Where do you get your covering from?' and they would either mention the name of some apostle or other, or, alternatively, look a little uncomfortable and 'admit' that they hadn't the privelege of such a security. We would then, either a) extol the virtues of 'our' apostle or b) tut-tut and warn them of the imminent danger they were in of apostasy or worse.

The using of the word today astonished me, as I had genuinely thought that we had outgrown such thinking. The preacher, I think, would have seen his covering from his denomination. Most institutionalised churches see it that way. At least there is a 'safety' in an organisation covering you as opposed to an individual.

Where did it come from, this concept of covering (which I admit, I embraced 30 odd years ago)? Well, not from the Bible, that's for sure. I remembered one of our elders, who was a man who loved the scriptures, admitting that it was a concept difficult to prove from the scriptures, but it was, nevertheless, a 'good thing'. I blush as I recall accepting such an arguement for embracing a belief that was so significant at the time.

There is no Biblical basis for 'covering' by one individual or organisation over another. The very thought encourages an heirarchal view of church - a 'clergy' and 'laity' concept which is a complete nonsense, and totally discredited by even the most basic understanding of the work of Christ on the cross. Our security, in every possible way, depends on our relationship with Jesus. He and He alone is our complete security in every walk of life and every area of our existence both in time and in eternity.

Frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way, or by any other person.