The Shepherding Movement: A Summary

18 min readNov 30, 2019

How do we commit to each other’s growth in Christ? For all believers, this is a critical question to the functional life of a Christian. It is not easily solved, and often fraught with mistakes and blunders along the way. Such is the plaguing problem of discipleship. At times, there can be fad solutions to these issues, which come with some benefits, and while well intended are often marked by lopsided application of Biblical truths to the life believers helping believers be growing disciples.

In The Shepherding Movement: Controversy and Charismatic Ecclesiology, S. David Moore recounts a critical moment within the Charismatic Restoration world of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. This movement offers critical insights into how Charismatics at the time we’re thinking through discipleship, pastoral care, leadership, and spiritual authority, perennial issues to any Christian, regardless of being a charismatic or not.

This article presents a summary of the Shepherding movement, from the academic work of S. David Moore’s work is provided largely, if not exclusively in quotations from his book. I have not recounted much of the historical dynamics of the controversies that arose, but only those elements which point towards defining and illuminating the theological teachings of the movement, their leadership and cultural philosophy, and interesting nuggets along the way. Obviously, this is a subjective report, so if you want more, buy the book.

In no way do I intend to undermine the sales of Moore’s book. However, given that when I purchased it for $7, and that it’s now selling second hand for $50 with no mention of another printing in the works, I thought its material could be helpful for some. It is for that sole purpose that I quote so extensively.

The History of the Shepherding Movement

For the sake of time and space, the Shepherding Movement refers to a discipleship structure and network, based around a few central ideas, lead by five teachers, in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The need for this discipleship structure and network was in large part a response to the dynamics of the Charismatic movement of the time. Charismatics were largely dispersed among churches, and were generally seen as a truly transdenominational work of the Spirit. They saw themselves as a part of God’s renewing work among his people by engaging believers with a fresh outpouring of the Spirit, spread through multiple Protestant churches, as well as Roman Catholic communities. Therefore, they were, in effect, “a people spread among a people” who needed attending, support and care. Therefore, the Shepherding Movement (SM) arose at a time when Charismatics were loosely associated, largely independent, and in need of discipleship and organization to help them grow in Christ and join the Spirit’s work. The reason the term “movement” is used, is that despite ultimately looking and talking like a denomination (which is what ultimately caused some of their biggest controversies), Charismatics at the time were largely allergic to the idea of becoming an institution.

To quote Wikipedia for brevity:

It began when four well-known Charismatic teachers, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, and Don Basham, along with Ern Baxter and John Poole, “formed the organization that would be ‘the center of one of the most violent controversies (i.e., the Discipleship/Shepherding controversy) in Protestant charismatic history,’ Christian Growth Ministries (CGM), headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.”

It focuses around the teaching ministries of Charles Simpson, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham and Ern Baxter, who were drawn together and mutually submitted to each other for the sake of their own discipleship and ministries. They were known as the “Ft. Lauderdale Five”. What Moore’s book does is describe how they came together, what their theological distinctives were, and how eventual controversy lead them to go their separate ways. The SM was not some small collection of churches, but was in effect, the largest influencer in the Charismatic Renewal in the 70’s and 80's.

David Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia estimates around 100,000 people being associated with the movement. The SM’s magazine, New Wine, distributed to “over 110,000 in 1976, and at its peak was distributed in 140 nations… What makes this even more significant is that more than 50 percent of New Wine’s readership were [church] leaders. In addition, the five teachers distributed their own newsletters, tapes, and books over the years of their association. Statistics for the five-year period from 1979–1984 show a distribution of 4,500,000 magazines, 1,000,000 newsletters, 600,000 cassette tapes, and 250,000 books… [At the] 1977 Kanssas City Conference on Charismatic Renewal in the Christian churches [the Shepherding Movement had] over 12,000 in attendance” (Moore, 6–7).

The structure of the SM was, in effect, a pyramid scheme for discipleship. A Christian submitted themselves to a shepherd, who took on responsibility for their whole-life discipleship. Additionally, a disciple would tithe to their shepherd directly. A shepherd would generally have no more than 5–10 men (or family units) under his care. This shepherd was under the care of his own shepherd — so on as so forth, with the top 5 leaders of the SM at the top, who “mutually submitted to each other”. While not intended (it was modeled after the picture of Jesus with his 12), it was clearly a pyramid scheme focused on discipleship.

While I do not intend to recount the history, I will note events that illustrate points, but will primarily focus on their theology and teaching. To quote Moore, “The history of the Shepherding controversy illustrates how difficult it is to appropriately confront other leaders and how challenging it is for other leaders to hear and respond to critics’ charges” (Moore, 5).

“Troubled by the cultural revolution they were observing all around, many began to look for a return to a biblical certainty characteristic of conservative Christianity, believing the moral absolutes of the Bible provided meaning an order for their lives. A more biblically conservative view gave them a framework to interpret and make sense of the difficult times” (Moore, 19).
“By 1973, one-third of all North Americans were consciously feeling an intense need for mutuality and community, and by 1980 nearly one-half of North Americans felt that way. The Shepherding movement’s emphasis on house church and cell groups tapped into this social trend… the Shepherding movement would become the ‘the most extensive expression of the house church movement in the United States’. This growth was not in consequence of a passing fad, but because the movement created ecclesiastical structures that were ‘a direct response to problems inherent in a complex mass society’” (Moore, 20–21).
“The distinctive teachings of the Shepherding movement were shaped more by Charles Simpson than by any of the other teachers. It was Simpson who practiced them before the others — though without the same terminology — and continues leading the movement today (2003). As the movement matured and developed, Simpson became the de facto leader of the other four teachers. These five very different men were drawn together because they were like-minded in their concern for the spiritual maturity of the Charismatic believers. They had respected one another’s ministries…” (Moore, 41).

Key concepts to Shepherding Movement

“They believed ‘that submission to spiritual authority provides the greatest spiritual protection anywhere available for Christian ministers and teachers’” (Moore, 42).
“The teachers of the Shepherding movement were deeply troubled by other weaknesses they saw. They believed that there had been male abdication of spiritual leadership in the home and a general dissolution of the biblical modeled family unit. They were concerned over the lack of discernment regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts and a disregard for the need of personal character. In the Charismatic movement, there was a kind of ‘charismania’, in which believers were caught up in an experienced-based mentality’ regarding their faith” (Moore, 42).
“Significantly, many of the young people and leaders that first attached themselves to the Shepherding movement were in some manner a part of the Jesus movement” (Moore, 43).
One of the more critical quotes: “Their analysis of the condition of the Charismatic Renewal and broader Christianity is especially important to understanding the Shepherding movement’s self-concept. They saw themselves seeking to be ‘men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do’ (1 Chron. 12.30 NIV). They felt they were perceiving the issues facing the church and giving leadership in response to prophetic insight. Bob Mumford often referred to what he called a ‘now word’ or a ‘preceding word’. His idea was that God was speaking contemporaneously to his people to give them guidance by emphasizing certain essential truths or teachings. The teachings that were to become their trademark on authority, submission, discipleship, Shepherding care, and the kingdom of God were seen as ‘living-edge truths’ to confront and guide their generation. This perception began more and more to drive their association as they sought more effectively to teach Charismatics how to mature their relationship with Christ. They sought to use conferences, video, audiotapes, television, books, and New Wine Magazine to bring healthy teaching to Charismatics” (Moore, 44).
“Concepts on discipleship, authority, and submission seemed to address directly the ‘individualism and lack of spiritual discipline’ among the segment of the renewal they ‘were ministering to most often’. These teachings on authority and submission were new for the four and to independent Charismatics, since they all, according to Simpson, ‘were skeptical of authority because we associated [authority] with dead churches and abuse’” (Moore, 47).
“Recognizing a need for guidelines to help mediate future disputes within the renewal, a ‘code of ethics’ was drawn up at the 1971 Seattle meeting. The ‘document, entitled “Ethics for Christian Leaders”, was drafted and solemnly agreed upon, although there was no formal signing of the document’. The document called for criticisms and complaints against any fellow leader or his ministry to be handled according to the Matthew 18 guidelines, by first going privately to the person ‘to establish the true facts’…” (Moore, 49).
For Simpson, covering was “protection provided by submitting oneself to God’s delegated authority in the home, church, and civil government” (Moore, 55).
Prince “emphasized the roles of apostles and prophets as present-day ministries” (Moore, 55).
Mumford taught a series of messages entitled “Sheep and Shepherds” wherein he said, “You need to find a shepherd… You make a commitment to him, he makes a commitment to you… If you don’t have someone to whom you can go and say brother I want you to shepherd me… you better find one in God and find him soon.” For Mumford and Simpson, the key to making pastoral care work was the formation of a definite, one-to-one, personal relationship between each person and a shepherd leader” (Moore, 55–56).
“To be involved in church meant to have a vital relationship, first with a shepherd, and then with other believers” (Moore, 57).
“They believed covenant relationships were one more answer to the problem of independence among Charismatics. It was not a biblical option to walk alone; believers were to be vitally connected to shepherds and fellow Christians and to learn to demonstrate commitment, loyalty, and accountability and service within the community life” (Moore, 57).
Prince “stated that he did not recommend that people go to seminary, but instead advocated a mentoring model for ministry training… He taught that the elders of the local church are ultimately the final authority in local church affairs and that apostolic ministry must be invited in by the local presbytery of elders” (Moore, 63).

Distinctive Teaching of the Shepherding Movement

“The movement’s ecclesiology was driving by what the leaders thought was a God-directed response to the times and, consequently, was not systematic” (Moore, 68).

The Kingdom of God

Mumford: “When we speak of authority, we mean simply God’s order, not authoritarianism. Submission, authority, and discipleship, as I understand and teach them, are the uncomplicated an basic ingredients necessary for the practical outworking of the Lordship of Christ in the life of every believer” (Moore, 71).
The delegated authorities in the church serve to mediate God’s rule through their exercise of spiritual authority. By submitting to delegated authority, believers were submitting to Christ” (Moore, 71).

Ecclesiology

“[T]hey acknowledged the invisible, universal Church, but stressed the visible and local nature of the church as its essential character” (Moore, 71).

Discipleship

Mumford believed discipleship “was a very fundamental and vital ongoing relationship which brings maturity to the believer in every phase of his life. The Christian life is not simply knowledge to be learned, classes to be attended, etc., but rather a life-style which is primarily imparted and passed on by sharing closely with others who know the Way. This is the relationship that the ‘youngest brother’ Timothy had with Paul. We believe the Lord is leading us to ‘grow up’ or mature some disciples so that they will be capable of discipling and bringing others to a similar degree of maturity. As the older Christian teaches the younger, he is able to watch over his live, and often to prescribe what is needed for his continued growth and maturity. These prescriptions may come in the form of books to read, tapes to listen to, teaches to sit under, and various other input into one’s life. It also involved feedback, oversight concerning his life-style, where he goes and what he does. It is my conviction that discipleship should be an ongoing part of every Christian’s experience. The circumstances may vary, but what we want to transmit is not information or procedures, but a way of life. The life of Christ flowing between two persons is a manifestation of discipleship” (Moore, 73).

Shepherding

“Every believer was to have a personal, definite, and committed relationship with a shepherd” (Moore, 73–4).
“Contrary to charges of critics, the shepherd-sheep relationship never carried any soteriological dimension. The movement’s leaders never questioned that salvation and entry into the universal, invisible church was through anything but faith in Christ, who alone was ‘the Door’. They did believe that participation in [a] local church necessitated a personal commitment to a shepherd who served as ‘a door’, caring for the sheep on Jesus’ behalf” (Moore, 74).
“The movement taught that submission to a shepherd provided spiritual ‘covering’ by being in right relationship to God’s delegated authority in the church. The shepherd assumed responsibility for the well-being of his sheep. This responsibility included not just their spiritual well-being, but for their full development emotionally, educationally, financially, vocationally, and socially. Submitting to a shepherd necessarily involved a thoughtful recognition of ‘those whom God has placed over us and required a deeper level of transparency and openness’ than many in the Charismatic Renewal were accustomed to” (Moore, 74).
Mumford: “Submission means that we intend to share our lives and decisions as openly as possible. This means that major decisions, such as occupational changes, large financial expenditures, schedule changes, and other matters that affect us personally, as well as the group to which we are related, will be open to the group before they are finalized… Categorically, let me say: The group or the shepherd does not make any ultimate determination as to whether the individual can or cannot make the decision, but they give feedback, guidance, and counsel which is expected to be seriously considered before action is taken… [There] is a need to embrace true biblical and balanced authority if the Lordship of Christ is to become practical and applicable in this critical hour of world history” (Moore, 75).
“Many of the movement’s early followers were young people who wanted and needed the discipline the shepherding relationship brought with its concept of authority and submission. Shepherds were to lead their sheep and provide practical guidance on etiquette, personal dress, management, budgeting, and basic home, yard, and automobile care. Moreover, shepherds were to assist ‘people in their financial difficulties, family complications, or similar intricate personal problems. To do so effectively requires an adequate degree of biblical authority’, Mumford wrote” (Moore, 75).
“Functionally, for a person to be a committed part of one of their churches required this definite commitment to a shepherd. Consequently, one was either ‘in or out’, based on one’s willingness to be pastored personally” (Moore, 75).

Covenant relationship

“They saw covenant relationship as the solid ground for permanent and stability within a disintegrating culture. A believer’s relationship to God was firmly rooted in God’s covenant love, demonstrated by Christ’s sacrificial death. Consequently, believes were to commit themselves with the same king of self-sacrificial love and loyalty to their leaders and fellow believers. Covenant was the ‘cohesive substance of kingdom life as given by Jesus Christ’. Christ and his relationship with the Twelve, Mumford wrote, was an example for today’s church: ‘It was this foundational of a covenant relationship between Christ and His disciples which was a foundation poured for the whole new society. It is the nature of covenant and our loyalty to that covenant that gives Christ’s work permanency in a fluctuating and impermanent world. Thus I began to understand that the covenant and the covenantal relationship is the ark of safety in our degenerate society” (Moore, 76).
“Practically, covenant mean ‘abandoning the option to quit’ in relationships. It meant one assumed ‘unlimited liability’ in relationships by helping a brother or sister at one’s own expense if necessary” (Moore, 77).
“The Shepherding movement saw itself as developing a king of spiritual army. It emphasized the need for discipline, rank, and commitment. It used the term ‘spiritual fatherhood’ to stress the goal of establishing nurturing relationships that carried true spiritual authority. A believer was encouraged to find fatherhood in his or her shepherd. It taught that other lateral relationships with fellow believers in the house church or cell group resulted from the relationship a disciple made with the shepherd or spiritual father. In other words, the primary connection with the group was first to the shepherd, and spiritual family was a by-product. Jesus had called together a diverse group of disciples who had then to learn to love each other, and so it was for the sheep who submitted to a shepherd” (Moore, 78).
“The Shepherding movement stressed the importance of serving one’s shepherd as foundational to developing for ministry. Believers were to prove faithful in serving another man’s ministry before receiving their own” (Moore, 78).

Other distinctives

Emphasis on male leadership
Family relationships
Submission for all spiritual leaders (v. lone rangers)
Translocal spiritual authority

“The five teachers believed ecclesiastical authority was all too often external and without spiritual reality, where true spiritual authority was relational and life-changing” (Moore, 80).

Personal tithing to your shepherd
Evangelism (Note: Very little emphasis here.)

Observations from their crisis and separation

“Nevertheless, the movement’s leaders did not believe they were a denominational organization. It is noteworthy that the movement never formally organized itself like a legal corporation of churches. It was always a voluntary association of churches that never kept or maintained a formal roster of affiliated churches. Each associated church or cluster of churches incorporated independently. The leaders were correct in saying that the movement was held together by a network of personal relationships” (Moore, 84).
“While the five men never referred to themselves as apostles, many of their constituents saw them as such” (Moore, 85).
“Bob Mumford wrote to Kahlman in October and expressed his dismay about her treatment of him” (Moore, 111).
“Hayford criticized the hasty judgement of some toward the five teachers, but also expressed concerns over the movement’s failure, in his view, to thoroughly answer critics’ charges ‘regardless of how groundless’ they may be. Hayford said, ‘A self-righteously indignant stance which refuses to dignify the charges with a reply only serves to fortify the stance of the accusers’” (Moore, 112).
“Mumford wanted to go further in the statement and acknowledge more fully their own mistakes and extremes, but Simpson disagreed. Simpson felt that, while there had indeed been problems resulting from their teachings, the five men had a responsibility to their committed followers who had paid a high price to be associated with them. Simpson did not want to appease the movement’s antagonists and thereby shake their follower’s confidence” (Moore, 118).
“The Shepherding leaders believed their attackers were acting unscripturally by airing unsubstantiated rumors and allegations and refusing to engage in meaningful dialogue. The movement’s teachers were angered, since they felt they were making substantial efforts at healing the first… This all contributed to a perception among the movement’s leaders that they were being persecuted for their God-directed teachings. They also believed that, because these teachings were a part of God’s restoration of New Testament Christianity, Satan was resisting them through the controversy. These perceptions in the fact of controversy only reinforced their commitment to the teachings of Shepherding, discipleship, and covenant relationship. In many ways, the conduct of their critics, which they perceived as being unethical, may have contributed to an unwillingness to listen to the legitimate concerns of their opponents” (Moore, 124).
“For Simpson and his leaders, the Covenant Life Conference in Mobile over the 4 July 1979 weekend was very significant” (Moore, 144).
“In 1981, a broader national and international leadership council was created that included the five teachers and several leadership, all of whom came form the regional councils. In the end, their attempt to decentralize seemed only to lead to more centralized government” (Moore, 146).
“The Shepherding movement placed a strong emphasis on music and worship” (Moore, 146).
“Mumford acknowledged a deficiency in evangelistic activity among their churches. They discussed the impression outsiders had, that anyone not doing what the movement taught was missing God” (Moore, 148).
“The very things they taught created a propensity toward an abuse of spiritual authority, especially among young immature leaders, or leaders who lacked character and integrity” (Moore, 149).
“A Covenant Community: A community of God’s redeemed people: bound together in covenant love, submitted to compassionate authority and rulership, manifesting peace, holiness, and family fidelity expressed through revered fatherhood, cherished woman and motherhood with secure and obedient children. A community where loving correction and instruction produce healthy growth and maturity; where dedication to excellence produces the finest results in arts, crafts, trades and commerce, providing prosperity and abundance for all its members. A community of faith, worship, praise and selfless ministry, manifesting individually and corporately the fits and fruit of the Holy Spirit. A community where all life is inspired and directed by the Spirit of Jesus Christ and is lived to his glory as a witness and testimony to the world” (Moore, 150).
“The Shepherding movement identified with the Anabatist emphasis on the visible, believing community, comprised of those whose conduct is distinctly different from the world. Moreover, they identified with the Radical Reformers’ rejection and persecution as heretics for truths they deemed faithful to the New Testament” (Moore, 153).
“In a December 1976 meeting in Naples, Florida, Mumford and the others actually decided to split up. They gathered again a month later in Naples, and Simpson appealed for a continuing association, feeling that disbanding would hurt too many people who were committed to their leadership. Simpson agreed to be the leader within the group of five at the request of the others” (Moore, 161).
“Unofficial alliances were formed with Bob Weiner’s Maranatha Campus Ministries and Larry Tomczak’s People of Destiny. Also a loose alliance had been established with Christian reconstructionist R.J. Rushdooney” (Moore 164).
“Surprisingly, Prince’s exit was hardly mentioned publicly within the movement” (Moore, 166).
“Simpson also sought to adjust problems in the movement’s pastoral structures. He admitted that, while never intended, they had created a kind of pyramidal structure that locked people into relationships. Their long standing teaching that to be a part of the church one had to be joined personally to a pastor had created a significant problem. If the one-on-one pastoral relationship broke down, then so did the person’s relationship to the church. Moreover, if a translocal relationship broke down, a whole church was often cut off from the movement. Simpson was not sure it was biblical for entire groups of people to be dependent on individual relationships. They began to moderate their approach, by encouraging commitment not only to a pastor but also to the church as a whole” (Moore, 176).
“Simpson’s network and a few other groups are what remains of the influential and highly visible expression of the Charismatic Renewal. Those groups that have taken up the movement’s mantle continue to wrestle with the tension between an organic relational emphasis and the need for structure and organization” (Moore, 184).
“Though they were still active in some ecumenical activities, they felt persecuted by many Charismatic leaders and took a ‘we work with our own’ attitude” (Moore, 185).

Moore’s final reflections

Historical reasons for the rise and fall of the Shepherding Movement

The Shepherding movement was a renewal that was driven by a theologically informed, restorationist idealism.
Despite its deep roots in the ecumenical soil of Charismatic Renewal, the Shepherding movement became a local church-centered movement.
The Shepherding movement was a house church movement.
The Shepherding movement was a pastoral care movement.
The Shepherding movement emphasized non-professional leadership and non-traditional leadership training.
The Shepherding movement’s exercise of authority was hierarchical. “Followers were not encouraged to an unquestioning, blind obedience to their shepherd but to an informal trusting obedience that was an outflow of a close caring relationship. The exercise of spiritual authority was well intentioned and seen as a means to bring health and maturity to people. Still, the emphasis on hierarchically oriented submission to God’s delegated authorities led to many cases of improper control and abusive authority throughout the movement” (Moore, 182).
The Shepherding movement emphasized the relational organic nature of the church.

Why did the Shepherding movement fail?

The movement simply grew too fast and exceeded its ability to produce trained and qualified leaders for the task.
The movement’s leaders failed to recognize the downside of an authoritarian approach.
The movement’s ideology forced the five teachers into apostolic and pastoral roles for which they were not called or prepared.
Their view of covenant limited the options of the five teachers. “They believed covenant meant abandoning the option to quit… Their emphasis on loyalty also caused them to tolerate problems in key leaders” (Moore, 187).
The enormous pressures of the controversy exacerbates internal and personal struggles.
The movement did not develop an adequate church polity to deal with their Charismatic and institutional tensions.
The movement’s emphasis on authority, submission, and servanthood had a way of silencing dissent.
Finally, it simply was impossible to keep five strong, independently successful leaders together.

At barely 200 pages, it’s worth the read.

What I’ve put together here is largely a quotation summary of Moore’s work, focusing more on the teachings and practices of the Shepherding Movement. I did not get into the details of the controversies surrounding them. If those dynamics interest you — and they are interesting (e.g. Pat Robertson is a key player…) — then I would highly recommend you buy the book.