Biblical Basis of Covering in the Shepherding Movement

The major proponents of the “covering” doctrine in modern times mostly trace their roots back to Watchman Nee’s book “Spiritual Authority.” While Nee was a neat and insightful writer, we should keep in mind that the second generation became a cult under his disciple Witness Lee so there must have been some error mixed in there! The Shepherding Movement was the first major group to take up the teaching, but even with the failure of the movement in the 1980′s, it keeps a life of its own. John Bevere’s book Under Cover is the most recent and popular restatement of covering theology. And all throughout the Charismatic church this kind of mentality lurks around.

When you are in a group that teaches submission and authority or “covering”, the Scriptural support seems overwhelming throughout the Bible. First there is the shocking instance of Korah’s Rebellion in Numbers 16 ends with the Earth opening up and swallowing them alive! Miriam and Aaron rebel against Moses authority and Miriam is struck with leprosy. David refuses to “touch the Lord’s anointed” in his long trials with Saul, and the Scripture is hard on Absalom who rebels against his father. The teaching follows that we need to treat unjust authority like Saul in the same way that David did. We want to be Davids not Absaloms right?

Jesus himself says that “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” He praises the Roman centurion in Matthew 8:9-10 after he says “For I too am a man under authority.” The logic goes that if Jesus was submitted to leadership, how much more should we be submitted to leadership?

Then in Paul we find that “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.” and that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God.” Our pastors are authorities set up by God, and so if we resist them, we are resisting God himself. And finally looking in to 1 Cor 11, we find a hierarchy setup: “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” You need to get into line with the submitted order of the universe. God is a God of order after all right? Finally in Hebrews 13:17 we get a direct command “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls”

These are just some of the explicit examples. Once you take up the authority worldview, you will find it throughout the Scripture. The foibles of the Patriarchs for example can be explained in terms of their relationship to authority. This teaching must be true then right? Those who teach this doctrine are correct in identifying a Scriptural pattern of authority and order. Both the interpretation and application of this pattern are wrong, however.

First of all, the Bible does not teach unquestioning obedience to leaders. In fact, the Bible is full of examples of God calling his people to confront unrighteous leadership. Jesus is the foremost. He was basically put to death for his confrontation with the Pharisees. They were the duly established authority of the time. He called them “snakes”, “hypocrites” and a “brood of vipers.” Essentially he was confronting authorities which were in disobedience to God, to re-establish God’s proper authority over all. If Jesus is our example in this as in everything else we should be ready to have a show down with authorities that are in disobedience to God. The apostles took this to heart. In Acts 4:19 and 5:29 when ordered by the duly establish authority to obey, they say “We must obey God rather than men.” There could hardly be a clearer Scriptural precedent. If someone is telling you to do something that you believe is wrong, do not do it!

The Old Testament examples are misconstrued as well. Moses was ruling a theocratic Kingdom, speaking to God face to face, and receiving the Ten Commandments. Which of your leaders do you think possesses the same kind of authority as Moses did? David’s refusal to kill Saul does not detract from the fact that he was not submitting to or obeying Saul. He fled from Saul. In fact, he makes one of his famous statement “I will not touch the Lord’s anointed” statements when Saul finds him in a cave where he had run to. Had he submitted to Saul completely, there would have been no King David, because Saul would have succeeded in killing him. And what about the other examples? Jehu is anointed by God to wipe out the ruling dynasty. So are basically all of the judges.

Finally, let’s look at the only Scripture in the New Testament which really talks about “covering” in an explicit way: 1 Corinthians 11. The hierarchy that is setup there, far from supporting submission relationships is one of the strongest statements against it. In verse 7 it says that “a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God” If we really believe that this passage is about a hierarchy of personal submission, which is questionable, then this passage is teaching that the man should not submit to other men, because the “head of man is Christ.”

What is the author of Hebrews really teaching us when he tells us to “obey your leaders and submit to them,” then? The elders of Christ’s church are the defenders of the flock. They are set in place to defend us, and they take many blows from the enemy in their effort to protect us. Becoming an elder means you are willing to take this heavy responsibility on. We must respect their God-given authority to run the church. If you are not an elder in the church, then it is not your job to lead the church. If you start leading the church without authority to do so, you are in rebellion. This is far different from saying that elders have the right to tell you what you must believe, or what you must do. They have the right to lead the church, and if you participate in that church, you have the responsibility to follow their leadership. If you can not follow, then you can find another church. Most churches that teach “covering” however will try to make you feel as bad as possible for leaving, and usually do not have real elders, just one powerful leader and people that derive their authority from him. In this way they are dangerously similar to cults. Unhealthy church leadership always extends beyond the church and into your private life. By praising you when you do or believe what they say, and condemning you when you do not, they exert authority that they have not been given. It is your responsibility to take back the authority that God gave you over your own life. Anyone who tries to rule your conscience but you is out of line!

Because of the hierarchical worldview of these leaders, they will see anything that is not submitted to their system as being in rebellion. Whether it is another church, a para-church group, or just an individual. If they are not in a hierarchy of submission, then they are not “under cover.” Do not let this keep you from obeying God. Just like every system set up by the enemy, it gains its power from fear and intimidation. If they can scare you into thinking you are in rebellion then you will stay regardless of what kind of terrible things happen to you. Eventually you will either start to behave the way they want you to, or you will become a wreck.

A Charismatic View of Evangelical History

It’s very difficult for most of us to understand the church context we exist in because we live in a time where boundaries have been blurred. However, our past tells us a lot about who we are and should be, so it’s important that we understand it. This is made more difficult by the fact that, if they do understand it, few Charismatics want to talk about the history that made them who they are because of some excesses that have cropped up. So you have to go on a treasure hunt. After nearly a decade of fellowshipping between various branches of evangelicalism and reviewing our history, I feel like I understand the various pieces which weave into the fabric of the Charismatic movement.

There are many ways to tell the Charismatic story, which could include the Full Gospel Businessmen, the Jesus Movement, The Vineyard, and others, but at the 10,000 foot level what were the seminal moments and movements that make us who we are and distinct from others? Below I’ve drawn a picture.

The first thing to see here is that Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism were once part of the same large evangelical holiness movement, which around the turn of the century was fairly united under the leadership of D.L Moody and his disciple R.A. Torrey. When Azusa Street hit, all of that changed, however. The movement was broken into two parts: those who embraced the tongues and those who didn’t. Those who did not were the original “Fundamentalists.” They fought hard against the liberals for the inerrancy of Scripture and other cardinal doctrines of the faith. They were mostly dispensationalists.

By the 1940′s many within the Fundamentalist movement were dissatisfied with with the spirit of Fundamentalism. It had some very separatist, anti-intellectual, and edgy components. When Billy Graham came along after WWII, a new moment began, and under the leadership of men like H.J. Ockenga, a new brand was born: Evangelicalism. This was to become just the opposite — inclusive, intellectual, and softer. The Evangelicals became the mainstream and launched a host of ministries, seminaries, and ultimately a new moment in America.

At the same time, on the other side of the railroad tracks, the tongue speakers were launching a worldwide movement, so that 100 years later, there are hundreds of millions all over the world. Azusa street was a deep and powerful revival that shook the Earth — some say literally — the great San Francisco earthquake began just days later. Pentecostalism did not keep the fire indefinitely, however, and by the 30′s people were beginning to wonder where the original power had gone.

God answered this question in dramatic fashion through the ministry of William Branham. A man with an incredible Bible-style prophetic gift, he stirred up what ultimately became the Healing Revival of the 50′s and the Latter Rain. It was the Latter Rain which was to distinguish Charismatics from Pentecostals, however. It brought new emphases: a victorious eschatology, laying on of hands for impartation, five-fold ecclesiology, and most of all personal prophecy. The Pentecostals, especially the Assemblies of God, rejected this new move and to this day these idea separate Pentecostals and Charismatics.

Some extreme doctrines began to dominate the Latter Rain, however, and this gave the impetus for a number of cultish movements, which gave the movement such a bad name, that few dare associate with it by name. One stream of the Latter Rain went on to form a second movement known as the “Shepherding Movement.” Responding to the needs presented by the vast numbers of hippies getting saved in the Jesus Movement, 5 leading ministers began teaching on principles of authority. This eventually led to some major abuses, and more cultish groups. Although there was great error and destruction mixed into the movement, I believe God did have an original purpose in it, and it was not just a demonic scheme. What strained out formed the basis of most modern “apostolic” groups.

Part XIII – A Tree and a Tower

In the devil’s first attempt to set up his kingdom on earth, what does he build? A tower. A tower in Babylon (Babel). Now, in modern parlance, a tower is usually thought of as a vertical structure like the Sears Tower, but the ancients did not possess the technology to build tower’s of this kind very high, so if they wanted to build a something tall, they built what we would today call a pyramid. It is not surprise then, that in Egypt, the type of evil in the Old Testament, and of power in the ancient world, they would build massive pyramids. Most likely they were continuing the pattern passed down from their ancestors in the Babel experience. It is no surprise then too that we find this pyramid imagery associated with various demonically inspired groups.

Looking at this “tower” what can we learn about the structure of the devil’s Kingdom? Ever heard the term “pyramid scheme”? In a pyramid scheme, the people at the top benefit from the people at the bottom, in successive layers of financial gain and deception. Such systems are really not businesses, they are wealth transfer systems, where the people at the top take money from the people at the bottom, and the people in the middle get a cut for making it happen. What is remarkable is that every demonic system works just like this. There is only one stone atop the great pyramid (at least originally), yet the base covers 13 acres! As a system, then many many people can be controlled and exploited by a single individual, ultimately, spiritually, the devil. Thus the devil is always trying to set up systems like this.

What do we find God’s Kingdom compared to by Contrast? A close look at Mark 4:30-32 shows that Jesus is not just comparing the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed, but also to the tree or bush that grows from it. In fact throughout the Bible trees, and tree-like images are used when discussing the Kingdom of God. In the beginning, the Tree of Life is the centerpiece of the garden of Eden, and in the end the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations (Rev 22:2). Jesus uses the fig tree as an image in explaining God’s dealings with Israel. In Romans 11, Paul’s extensive discussion of Israel and the church is all based around the metaphor of an olive tree. I believe, then that the tree is the structural foil to the pyramid.

Looking at the elm pictured above it is interesting how a tree is basically the opposite of the pyramid. A massive trunk supports a multitude of small branches and leaves. At the top it is wider than it is at the bottom. In a pyramid, the rulership is expressed from the top down, with each higher stone having only contact with the stones immediately above it, so that only those at the very top have any contact with the capstone. In a tree, however, all are connected. They are connected through the life that is in the tree. This is the spirit of Jesus saying “I am the vine, you are the branches,” (John 15:5). We are all in him, and connected to him, therefore it is possible to organize in a way that is impossible for the dead and dying world. The lifeless stones can only be top down, but because of the life in the tree, it is possible to be all be in agreement and fellowship because of the life (Jesus) in the tree.

Instead of stacked stones, there are dependent branches. A large branch, has many smaller branches which depend on it, and the smaller branches have leaves. Those that are strong support those that are weak, and all are in fellowship, not through fear but through mutual love.

The Shepherding Movement

This is one of the most important and most controversial chapters in the recent history of the church. If you are charismatic, then whether you know it or not, your church and movement were impacted by either accepting or rejecting Shepherding teachings.

Here is the basic context. At the height of the cultural revolution of the 1960s, some hippies started getting saved. Soon, through the powerful anointing on Lonnie Frisbee and the organizational skills of Chuck Smith, this became a major movement now known as the Jesus People or Jesus Movement. The Spirit of God literally swept the youth of the nation from coast to coast as kids who had left their parents for “freedom” found it wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be.

In this context, a group of older, more experienced charismatic ministers came together to bring a corrective. The occasion of their meeting was a moral failure of a ministry in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Believing themselves to be equally vulnerable to moral failure apart from better accountability they mutually submitted themselves to one another. When this happened, they described themselves as having a supernatural experience binding their ministries together for life. Initially the group was made of Derek Prince, Don Basham, Bob Mumford, and Charles Simpson. Eventually, former Branham campaign manager Ern Baxter was added to the group, and they became known as “The Fort Lauderdale Five.”

The five very talented men immediately began to teach on authority, submission and discipleship. Although there were a number of important doctrines, the central doctrine—the one that reshaped the church—was that every person must be submitted to another person (Shepherd/Pastor/Discipler), and that all of your major life decisions should be submitted to this person. Effectively, if unintentionally, this put the individual in the position of having two masters– Jesus and a personal shepherd. With time the personal shepherd gains more power, as Jesus gets less. And in time, this creates a system where those who have unquestioning obedience to man are promoted. All kinds of ungodly things came in through these doors. Several books have been written detailing the kinds of abuse suffered as a result. The scary thing about the whole system is that it started out with the intent of promoting accountability, and eventually enslaved people.

When someone says “Who is your covering?” They are asking the basic Shepherding question. Ironically, Jesus was asked this same question by the Pharisees: “By what authority do you do these things?” His ministry was not submitted to them, and they didn’t like that so they tried to shut him down, but the work of the Spirit was the validation of His ministry. Paul deals with the issue more theologically when he says “the head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” The covering for a man of God is Christ himself, and the covering for a (married) woman is her husband.

The second dangerous doctrine had to do with “Covenant” relationships or “Spiritual Family.” If being absolutely submitted to another person was an imprisonment, then the covenant relationship was the iron padlock on the door. The idea here is that when you enter into these discipleship relationships, they are permanent, and more broadly that your association with a specific group of believers is permanent. You were in a “Covenant” and if you left the relationship or the fellowship group, you were breaking a covenant. This quickly becomes a very dangerous situation: no matter how terrible your experience becomes with a group or person, you can not leave, and if you do, you believe that you’ve broken a covenant with God, so to get right with God you’d have to go back to the abuse! You slowly become enmeshed with the other members of the group and separated from the outside world. Your “spiritual family” becomes more important than your natural family or other believers you’ve had relationship with. You slowly become more and more isolated and more and more dependent upon the group or leader. At a certain point if your leaders do not check the pattern, it becomes a full fledged cult. Normally, however this pattern is held in tension with Biblical expectations so these groups rarely become true cults, while still exhibiting cult-like features. Scary.

After a couple of years, the fruit of these doctrines became obvious to those outside of the movement such as Jack Hayford, Pat Robertson, Demos Sharkarian and others, and they confronted the “Five” in the infamous “Shootout at the Curtis Hotel,” in 1975. The result was that the Five issued an “apology” which did not really represent repentance on their part. They rejected the excesses of some who had followed their teachings to their logical conclusions, without accepting that the doctrines they were teaching had been the direct cause.  Their persistence created a split in the charismatic movement between those who accepted the authority teaching, and those who did not.

This split is still evident today but under different names. No one dares be associated with the “Shepherding Movement” by name because it was so discredited.  But many still believe in the basic principles to some degree or another, and find support in classic authors such as Watchman Nee. The “Prophetic” stream of the church became the branch of the church that did not accept authority teachings, and the “Apostolic” branch became that which did. The tragedy is that the basic observations of the Five were correct (i.e. need for discipleship, accountability) but their solution of hierarchical personal submission was not. Therefore the “prophetic” stream still tends to reflect the lack of authority that the rebellious hippies brought into the church through the Jesus Movement. Chaos in the meeting is welcomed and even praised as spiritual, and generally everyone does their own thing, hears from God totally in isolation, etc. On the other hand, those with the Shepherding heritage value “order” over all else. While they speak in tongues and claim to be charismatic, often in practice, the gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy are not welcomed, because order is valued over the moving of the Spirit.  Or prophecy can only come through an established authority in the church hierarchy.

In summary, the Shepherds were right right to raise the issue of authority, but they were wrong about submission to other men. Christ is Lord of all, and each should be in submission to Him by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  Because we need order and peace, we should submit to those who lead ministries over us just like we would to our bosses at work.  But this is far different from owing them allegiance in our personal or spiritual lives. And when we come to the place where following them violates our conscience, it’s time to move on.

Part XIV – What is a Cult?

The term “cult” is one of those words that gets filled with meanings that vary widely depending on who is using it and in what context. Although some have used the term as simply a way of labeling those on the fringes, I believe that there are important sociological and spiritual patterns that form a true cult.

First off, let me say that being in a cult is not about doctrine, and it’s not even exclusively religious in nature. Being in a cult is about being robbed of personal freedom and morality by a demonic system. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a cult is simply a manifestation of the devil’s Kingdom on earth. The devil will try to set them up wherever he can and make them as large as possible. Therefore the the demonic patterns described by the word “cult” apply regardless of scale.

• The cult could be national: Both Communism and Nazism were cults which robbed entire regions of personal freedom and morality.
• The cult could be a relgious group within a free society.
• Abusive/Dysfunctional families are microcosms of a cult. Personal abuse lacks many of the larger sociological elements of cults, the basic psychology of fear is the same.

The goal of any of these situations is to isolate, control, and destroy people, and the same psychological levers are used to make it happen. Here are some features that I see as indicative:

• A militant corporate goal. The physical establishment of the “Kingdom” is a key uniting feature. Even political cults are based on some kind of millennial vision. Hitler wanted to restore the German people and purge the earth from what he saw as everything impure. Communism was to free the workers around the world.
• Elitism. The cult believes they they are the best of any comparable group because they are the ones who are really pursuing the pure vision that no one else is. Religiously this leads to doubting the salvation of other more mainstream groups and eventually moves from thinking they are just the BEST to thinking that they are the ONLY group with the truth.
• “Enemies” — associated with its elitism and corporate goal, every cult must have enemies. These enemies are often phantoms of the imagination of the leadership, and when they are not, they are enemies created by the sinful behavior of the leaders. These “enemies” serve as the explanation for bad things that happen, as well as why everyone must stick closer and closer together and only obey the leader.
• It’s own historiography. The cult will have its own version of history to support both it’s future goal and its elite status. The radical fundamentalist Baptists for example have a story which explains why they are the only true church.
• Exaltation of a single person. Within a cult, although it may start around an ideal, a single person always gets more and more power, and this power is used to implement the other aspects.
• No Freedom of Speech. In a cult there are always things you are not allowed to say or talk about. Sometimes pastors use sermons on “gossip” to shut down the freedom of speech of the parishoners. A pastor has a sin and it has been discovered, so rather than repent, he admonishes the people not to gossip. In the meantime he gossips by gathering all of his allies together to support him and attack those who are bothered by the situation. If they accept it, it sets up a culture where people are not comfortable with telling the truth.
• Inability to leave. This develops over time. Sometimes the barrier is physical, but often times it is mostly psychological: If you leave you will lose your salvation, your family relationships, your friends, etc.
• Summary Excommunication. Those who they cannot keep silent or who refuse to obey must be either killed or disfellowshiped immediately. So basically the plan is to keep you from leaving, and if you cause trouble take you out.

Many Christian groups that are not cults exhibit some degree of this behavior in the early and milder stages. If you are in a position to influence the direction away from these tendencies you should do so before things get worse, otherwise take it as a warning and get out. There are always several groups of people associated with the cult:

• The committed. The core of the cult is those who have no morality except advancement of the cult. This minority is what makes it work.
• The promoters. Unlike the committed, the promoters are not “in on” the sin in the system, and unlike the compromisers, they are not particularly bothered by what is going on. Instead they are tied in because of relationship. They “trust” and “believe in” the leader or leaders in the committed circle and that is enough for them to basically be blind to anything that occurs. When a victim raises their hand, the promoters basically rally to the defense of the committed almost in spite of any evidence that can be presented.
• The compromisers. This is a group who sees flaws with the cult but are still proponents because of what they see as the good things about it. These people can be some of the most dangerous because they form an important link between the committed, and the victims.
• The validators. These are people outside the system who are used or manipulated by the committed to legitimize the activity of the cult. They are not exposed to all of the problems but are deceived by the leaders into thinking everything is OK. They might be brought into participate in some way or just referenced as a sympathetic voice.
• The victims. Every cult has victims. The system is designed such that the victims cannot speak out. Their testimony may be discredited, or their abuse is legitimized, or they are just reduced to non-human status.
• The escapees. These people have managed to escape the power of the cult and are calling it out for what it is. They fight it from the outside. They can come from either the compromisers or the victim groups originally. Compromisers reach a point where they “see the light,” and victims reach a point where they have had enough. When a committed person defects it is almost always to take over the cult or start a new one.
• “Persecutors” — The often imaginary people who are “out to get” the cult because they have some kind of “agenda.”

Basically the way the devil takes people out is by isolating them. Start with the weak, and blame them for their faults. They “deserve it” for some reason. In the process everyone else in the system becomes more corrupt. Deceive, Isolate, and Destroy.

My wife made an interesting point too about how this happens invisibly The deeper you are in the cult (the higher on the list) the more layers you are aware of. The people at the bottom tend to see everyone above them on the list as a monolithic group. The people near the top tend to realize that there are other groups less committed than themselves.

Hallmarks of unhealthy “Heavy” Shepherding

None of these by itself is enough to really be sure, but any one is probably enough to raise questions.

1. People ask you who your “covering” is. Or they brag about who theirs is, and how it’s ok for them to do what they do because they’re “covered.” Sometimes couched in the language of “sending out” too, although that on its own is probably ok.

2. People talk about who their discipler is, or their personal pastor. They meet with them weekly and submit their life decisions to them. Feedback from the personal pastor is more important than it should be. Usually that personal pastor has a personal pastor too, and so forth until it gets to the senior pastor/apostle.

3. “Making disciples” is stressed as not just getting people saved but accumulating people for you to pastor.

4. Your church is part of an apostolic network that covers their elders’ sins instead of holding them accountable for them. Or, their accountability does not fit the seriousness of the crime—pastors with moral failures are restored in months’ time, or perhaps shuffled to a new position.

5. Your own church elders (in the local church) are absent or virtually powerless. The real power is in the senior leaders above you, and they’re a tight clique.

6. Sermons are preached on the virtues of obedience and submission. Watchman Nee is quoted, or others who promote spiritual authority as a key aspect of the pastor’s role. Obedience and submission to God is used as the prooftext for obedience and submission to man.

7. You are encouraged to stick out times of personal misery. “Desert” or “wilderness” times are used as the excuse for your dryness, and sermons on Jacob suffering under Laban, or Joseph under Potiphar are used as metaphorical justifications for why you have to stick something awful out. This is an excuse to get you to stay instead of leave. The justify the harshness of their system on you instead of recognizing that maybe it is not good.

8. Sermons on gossip, or private admonitions about others gossiping, are used to prevent you from talking about your sufferings to others. Especially if you are being mistreated by your discipler or senior pastor, speaking against him/her is seen as high treason. You feel like you have nowhere to turn, nowhere to vent.

9. Your parents and friends are worried about you. They may even be unsaved, so you are quick to dismiss their concern or disapproval. But even unsaved loved ones have a discernment about a controlling system that you may not have if you have been suckered. Consider their opinions on how it has changed your identity (apart from their theological concerns, perhaps). Or especially if your parents are believers, take even more time to consider. Shepherding systems encourage you to be skeptical of your parents and friends because they seem them as not under spiritual authority—they have no right to bring up concerns.

10. Giving is manipulated. Probably not explicitly, such as by televangelists or pockets of the black church. But all the same, there is always pressure to “never outgive God.” You feel like yoru giving is part of showing your allegiance; the more you give, the more committed you are. And while the leadership always seems to get their perks for free (retreats, babysitting, personal gifts, a car…), you are always encouraged to sacrifice for the church’s “vision.” You may even be subtlely pressured to do something outrageous like empty your kids’ college fund, contribute your retirement, sacrifice your bonus/pay raise, … Common sense things like taking a donation for the homeless in your town is never done. The pastor is overcompensated and the rest of the team is undercompensated.  You may even be pressured to get a promotion for the church, start your own business, or turn proceeds from your current business over to church control somehow so they can benefit.

11. Raising support but your normal church doesn’t support you. You’ve never received one of those love offerings. You get no “love”!

12. Triumphalism, postmillenial vision for the church’s takeover. You have to do it. Your church has to rule. You have to the people group who does it.

13. “Spiritual family” or “Covenant Relationships” There is no way to leave this thing without feeling less spiritual than everyone else or perhaps doubting your salvation.

14. Hype and Exclusivism. Your church is the only one on the cutting edge.  You are the Joshua generation or “dread warriors” (your church stream, specifically).  Your church has their own everything, including their conferences, bible school, grad school, fellowship, sororities/fraternities, etc.  Many churches of course have their own institutions, but a real shepherding church makes you feel like you stepped into the “unsaved” or “less cool” thing just by attending another stream’s thing.  Outside ministries/resources are hardly ever recommended.  Talk of ecumenicism might come from the lips, but you’ll never see your pastor truly receiving anything from a pastor outside his own stream.

15. People treat you in ways that in your heart you feel like “I never thought Christians could act this way.”

16.  Burnout is a key red flag, especially if you are under thirty or single.  Because serving is seen as spirituality, and top leaders get all kinds of perks while underpaying you, you feel “privileged” or “chosen” on your way to becoming a workhorse.  Often, the church secretaries are the first to be enslaved, and usually secretly because they’d feel embarrassed to complain.

17.  The Carrot.  If you finally do decide to leave, and your leadership doesn’t want you to because you offer some service or value, they will offer you “a carrot” so you won’t leave… usually a promotion or a shot at your own leadership in a new place.  By doing this, they hope to offer you some space or sovereignty to convince you to stay.  In reality, the control will only increase if you move further up the leadership chain, and your morals will be compromised at some point (as you start doing things their way), which will make your conscience loathe to leave.

18.  Anyone from the outside who starts influencing you will be dubbed “Jezebel.”  This often happens in the context of marriage, if you find someone outside the movement you want to marry.  they see this person as a threat because they know marrying outside the church might cause you to leave, to join your spouse’s church.  but this can also happen in the context of a mother or family member who might be influencing you to leave or teaching you something threatening to shepherding doctrine.

19.  Conformity wins the day.  Your church has its own favorite lingo, jokes, dress patterns, hangouts, worship songs, etc.  While many businesses and associations like to build comraderie, you get a sense in your church, that the more conforming you are in these “unimportant” areas, the more in-group you are.   You may even get leaders personally complimenting you as you become more party line.

20.  Shady things occurring in tax breaks, naming of the  corporate entity (including name changes), audits, offerings, write-offs, benefits, reimbursements, shifting money around, etc.  Often times the things are small or semi-private, but your conscience is troubled by lack of integrity or openness about money.  Pastors may offer to let you see “the books” if you want–or sometimes very vague budget numbers are presented to the church–but you have a sense that details are cooked.  Somebody may have been burned here and there, like buying something expensive for the church that was technically theirs to own, but the church has it and uses it as if it’s not.

21.  There is a prophet (or several) that you hear from on occasion, or are referred to reverently from the pulpit.  When this prophet visits or has a word for your church, it is a huge deal—sometimes your local leaders only get a special exposure to this man from on high, so they can get special words too.  Many times the theme of these messages are to stay, to stick it out, that you’ve been suffering quietly. Lay prophecy is discouraged or dismissed.

22.  Those who are cheeky enough to leave the church are gossiped about.  Stories may be made up which distort the truth and the person’s character deficiencies.  Oftentimes, the first people to leave a controlling church actually do have trouble with authority and so rumors about their not fitting in, or their unsubmissiveness, seem justified.  But the other side of the story is never told while the “rebellious” ones who left were probably onto something!

23.  If you are brave enough to leave yourself, you may be privy to some of these rumors but feel unable to fight them.  People may shun you, or the rumors may be hurtful enough to keep you embarrassed or overwhelmed.  The leaders themselves may immediately write you off totally—even though they’d praised you for years—or conversely they may pursue you (privately) even months after you’ve left.   It depends on the counsel they’re getting from their superiors (to whom they are definitely discussing your details).  They may even do both… write you off to the congregation while secretly pursuing you/bothering you on their own time.

Apostolic Movements

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a term used by Peter Wagner to describe current trends in church movements, particularly with regard to a “5-fold” ministry and church polity. These NAR movements are supposed to be led through relationships instead of structures, and generally follow the Ephesians 4:10 pattern.

This concept first emerged as part of the Latter Rain movement. The Latter Rainers had the original revelation of the “5-fold” but this began to develop in unhealthy ways as the theology of special “sons” who had special authority to lay hands on people to impart gifts developed.

The second incarnation of the doctrine came in the Shepherding movement, where leaders of church were given a less wispy Spiritual kind of authority, and a much more formal authority over the individual believer. This ended up just as badly or worse than the original Latter Rain ideal.

The NAR is the latest attempt. Graham Cooke in his interview with the Elijah List suggests that the NAR is making the same mistakes over again. By focusing on church leadership instead of empowering the laity empires can be built, but the Kingdom itself suffers because the people are not built. I’m not against apostolic networks at all, but just the leader focused mentality that has fueled them. In fact, I think that the original Latter Rain ideal of the 5-fold was revelatory and is needed, but that we haven’t really captured the true spirit and humility of the men who started the New Testament church.

I think the idea of an NAR is on the way out, but the idea of the 5-fold is here to stay. One of the funny things about apostolic networks is that there is no official listing of them. I’m sure the inside leaders of these movements know who is who, but the average person only knows their own. So I’m just going to start compiling a list of ones I know about.

Shepherding Influenced Networks
I would generally avoid these movements with the possible exception of Dove. Depending on how deep they are in the Shepherding it’s probably not very healthy for you to be there. Regardless, it’s important to understand those with Shepherding as a significant part of their history, and therefore understanding of what a network is about, and what Christian experience is.

• Every Nation — (Formerly known as Morning Star International). I was trained in this movement, but am no longer a part. It is in many ways successor to Maranatha Campus Ministries. (A few churches were also brought in from His People in Africa). When I joined in 1998, EN was called Morning Star and had a radical flavored campus ministry. The radical atmosphere was a good thing to be around, but unfortunately some of the bad practices from Maranatha and the Shepherding Movement theology never fully went away.  There was a big meltdown around 5 years ago during which I left, and I think they have moderated a bit more since then, but I still would not go back.
• Dove Christian Fellowship — Leb by Larry Kreider. This one I think is more family oriented and less aggressive. I’ve met Larry, he’s is a wonderful, humble guy. Reading the site more closely you can see that they were influenced by the Shepherding movement and went through some wilderness years, but here is one of the few groups to actually apologize and be continually transparent which is certainly a mark of real change. I would never have guess Larry came out of Shepherding based on our interaction.
• Victory Churches International - Canadian NAR type group led by founder. Now expanding to US. Talk about Covenant relationships, probably indicates Shepherding history. Also would guess mild word of faith influence.
• Bethany Cell Church Network — Bethany Cell Church Network. Follows the G12 principles, which have some of the hierarchical Shepherding errors baked in. It’s a shame because some great churches and people have been associated with this group in the past.
• Praise Chapel. - Led by Larry Neville. This was an offshoot of Wayman Mitchell’s “Potter’s House.” (or CFM). Although it was supposed to be a reformist movement it seems that the reforms only went so far. They do not appear to be as deep in the shepherding doctrine as CFM, they definitely have some abused former members out there complaining about them.
• New Covenant Ministries International – (NCMI) South Aftrican Apostolic movement started by Dudley Daniel. There are a number of disgruntled members, showing this is likely heavily shepherding influenced as well. Rob Rufus the prophetic voice who has had some involvement with New Frontiers movement came from here originally.
• Sovereign Grace Ministries — aka SGM. This used to be People of Destiny International, which was Larry Tomczak and CJ Mahaney.   Recently they have taken a new direction which is hard core Calvinist and also more heavy handed leadership approach which has left a lot of members burned, including Larry Tomczak himself(!) who has now left.   There is a major site up now with people hurt under this change, and at this point I would consider it to be the most actively dangerous of the groups listed here.

Latter Rain Influenced Networks

Although the shepherding movement was influenced by the Latter Rain, not all of the Latter Rain embraced the Shepherding movement.  These two networks are more directly descended from the Latter Rain

• Christian International Apostolic Network — This is Bill Hamon’s Group. It has a prophetic flavor. I attended the New England regional conference a few months ago. They really incorporated prophetic spirituality into the church in a way I found healing. Jim Davis is the current leader.
• Kingdom Community Network — aka Congress, WBN, Elijah Centre. Led by Dr. Noel Woodroffe, a black leader from Trinidad.   He must be fairly influential.  I  had a very pleasant exchange with Davie Copp, pastor of City at the Cross, one of the key churches, which was also one of the original Latter Rain churches.  Davie made clear that they do not and have never embraced the Shepherding movement or doctrine, but also explained that they have a view of authority which has some similarities.  The fact that he took the time to talk with me was a very good sign, and if it were solely based on my interaction with him, I’d like to be able to recommend their network, but the queries I receive from around the world, and the testimonies on FactNet are concerning.   The general principle I hold for everyone is that if where you are is not promoting your spiritual health, then leave and find a place that is.

Miscellaneous Networks

• Church on the Rock International – Looks like 300 or so churches in the US, led by someone named Dr. Lawrence Kennedy. Upcoming conferences includes T.D. Jakes, Matthew Barnett, and Joni Lamb.
• Grace Churches — Founded by Michael Fletcher. This one is more strongly Reformed in doctrine. Home Church
• International Network of Five Fold Ministries.
• Faith Christian Fellowship
• Association of Related Churches
• Evangel Fellowship International – Houston Miles
• World Harvest Church Ministerial Fellowship

Kansas City Prophetic Influenced US Networks

• The Rain Network I think I overheard someone talking about this while at The Call. Cal Pierce of the “other” John G. Lake healing room ministries is part of this group.
• The River — Bill Johnson does not have a network per se, although he has iGlobalLegacy. This is where he recommends you go if you want a network. He is on the board, but it’s currently a small CA thing, with charismatic/prophetic overtones.
• Harvest International Ministries — Led by Che Ahn, who I believe came out of the Vineyard. Campus Church Networks, is not exactly an apostolic movement that is connected to HIM.
• Partners in Harvest – Partners in Harvest network, outgrowth of the Toronto revival.
• Apostolic Network of Global Awakening — Randy Clark’s Group. I don’t know how much it qualifies as a true network of churches though.
• Fellowship of Connected Churches and Ministries – Dudley Hall

UK/Commonwealth Networks
The Apostolic movement in Britain started from the House Church Network, which was the British equivalent of the Shepherding Movement, and was founded first by 7 key leaders, and then later an additional 7. These men went on to become the foundation stones of the now burgeoning Charismatic movement in Britain. British Charismatics are different than American Charismatics. They are more Calvinistic across the board, they reject Word/Faith pretty much completely, and do not seem to have the same degree of authority problems in American churches, although I’m not completely sure.   There is a book by William Kay that gives the fuller and better picture of these networks.   The book is reviewed here.  In addition, you can find full treatment on the wiki under British New Church Movement:

• Salt and Light. Led by Barney Coombs (UK)
• The Ground Level. Led by Stuart Bell (UK)
• Ministries Without Borders split from Covenant Ministries International, under the leadership of Keri Jones
• New Frontiers — This is a British movement led by Terry Virgo. Influenced by the thought of the late Arthur Wallis. They seem to be very successful in the UK especially. Seems very solid on the Word. In general what I would call “British evangelical charismatic”
• Pioneer Network Led by Gerald Coates. That’s all I know     Per the comments below, I’ve been informed that New Community is part of this.
• New Community. Arose from the ashes of C.Net/Cornerstone which was led by Tony Morton. Graham Cooke was associated.
• Christian City Churches International. – Australian church planting movement. Their first US church is in Atlanta. I think this is the “Other” Austrailian mega-church.
• Household of Faith – Small South African Movement.
• Multiply Network, Jesus Army.
• New Day International
• Five fold Ministies International

Fellowships
These groups typically emerged out of the early phase of the Latter Rain/Healing revival. The do not propose to be apostolic networks in the same sense that the NAR groups do, providing more of a confederation model. The are however more Charismatic than the Pentecostal denominations.

• Elim Fellowship — Mike Cavanaugh is one of the key guys here. I was familiar with him from his limited contact with Every Nation. They apparently are going through a generational transition from wise senior statesmen to middle aged men. This may lead to a renewed energy and direction. Bob Mumford was originally with Elim, and now that he’s out of the Shepherding movement, he has renewed his ties to Elim.
• World Ministry Fellowship — My friend attended one of these churches. Seemed to be a pretty non-descript Charismatic group. Randy Bozarth is associated.
• The Full Gospel Fellowship — I attended a church that was a part of this fellowship. Full name is Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministries International (FGFCMI) Led by older men. Was founded by Gordon Lindsey in parallel to the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International. (FGBMFI). They are obviously easily confused.
• Ministers Fellowship International — Led by Dick Iverson. This is probably the most mature of the apostolic movements. Most of these guys have been flowing together since the Latter Rain days, some 50 years ago. Includes Frank Damazio, and famous Bible teacher Kevin J. Conner.
• WCICC — This seems to be an indigenous group that has gotten reach in the US. A friend of mine is credentialed there for possible Chaplaincy

There are others that I’ve stumbled across, but if there is no web site with a list of churches and leaders, conferences, etc, then I’m skeptical about the size/reach, etc of these groups. Some of these are

• ATNI,
• Arise the Nations International, AMI,
• Apostolic Christian Network – My friend met the leader’s brother on the plane. Apparently they have a huge number of churches in Brazil
• Apostolic Missions International (Cannistraci).
• Harvest Breakthrough Network (Bakalov).
• Emerging Church Network.
• Missional Church Network.
• Missional International Church Network.
• Church Foundation Network (Sumrall).
• Breakthrough Apostolic Ministries.
• Blended Church Network – A network specifically aimed at building racially reconciled networks (Hagan).
• Network of Christian Churches (Watson).
• Christian Renewal Internationa(Cruickshank).
• Morningstar Ministries Fellowship International — A small network in northern New England. We have visited there.
• Rock Ministerial Family Fellowship – Bishop John Gimenez
• Vanguard International – Founded by Dick Benjamin. Includes Jay Zinn of Davidson, NC

There are also a number of Evangelical Church networks in the game. Check out this page.

I’m starting to feel that I may have uncovered the major apostolic networks. A lot of the ones in the paragraph at the end are ministries around a single individual rather than a team, and it’s questionable if they will survive that person’s ministry, or if they will ever really take off. One thing becomes quite clear from examining them — you must have a team of strong men of God flowing together to build a real apostolic network. A single person does not make an apostolic network.

Here is the link where you can find all of the old school Pentecostal Denominations

Submission and Abuse

Abuse is just that: abuse. It is a horrible violation of God’s law and character. One only has to read a testimony of an abused child to know that this is the case. We know that while we are in the days of mercy toward sinners, such crimes will not go unpunished forever, and those who commit them and do not repent will encounter divine and eternal justice. The most horrible thing about abuse is not even the act, however, it is what the abuse does to the abusee psychologically. It warps their views of good and evil, their view of authority, and a lot of other things at the core of their identity. This is why the unthinkable happens — the abusee becomes an abuser.

Often part of the abuse is to designed to convince you of the rightness of what is being done to you, and many abusees begin to believe it. When you believe it, you become either a permanent abusee, or a future abuser, or both. In many more cases than we would like to admit, the abusee actually has some degree of choice to exit the cycle. When participating in the abuse this choice does not really seem real, or it would be excercised. There tremendous fear of some kind placed on the person to keep them from excercising it. In abusive religious systems, it’s usually associated with the loss of one’s salvation. With children it’s especially bad because they have no sense of personal autonomy or choice. In terror, and for seeming lack of options, people submit to abuse.
Therefore, people either submit to abuse because of fear or because they believe it is some how needed, or deserved. These are the doors to the exits of the abusive cycle. If you are terrified of leaving, begin to plot your escape, and at your best chance, make a break for it. There may be great risk involved, but the risk is worth getting your soul back. If you believe that the abuse was needed or deserved, you need healing, and you need to repent. As a way of coping you’ve said to youself “this must be necessary because so and so is such a good person, they would never hurt me” but in reality they are hurting you. When you come to grips with the fact that they were not a good person, and they did actually hurt you and it was completely wrong and unjustified, you’ll begin to close the door on the cycle.

Sometimes we particpate in a form of submission in human relationships that does not classify as abuse but takes on some of its unhealthy dynamics. For example, a well intentioned man desiring to lead his home well, and help his wife toward godliness, may in fact override her will and not even know it because she is deferring rather than trying to argue in what she knows is a difficult battle. Slowly her sense of herself begins to erode as he starts to exercise more and more initiative and she exercises less and less. Eventually this will blow up. He will be shocked because he thought all along that she was on board with the decisions they were making “together,” when in reality, she was not expressing her will. Who is at fault? In reality, they both are. Of course the man is responsible for overriding her will, even if it was unintentional. But it was the responsibility of the woman to let her voice and preference be heard. This is difficult because it will cause conflict especially at first, by not expressing herself, it takes on the dynamics of abuse, even though both parties are acting in good faith and there is no abuser — The woman’s identity is suffocated by the man’s.