CJ Mahaney |
Former members of Sovereign
Grace Ministries (SGM, formerly called “People of Destiny” or
PDI) recently filed
a class action lawsuit against the church system and individuals
within it, seeking justice for the myriad of abuses they suffered as
the church tried to cover up many incidences of both physical and
sexual abuse.
As people ask how so many ministers could repeatedly participate in such cruel activities, it seemed to be a good time to revisit the history of the Shepherding Discipleship Movement (henceforth abbreviated here as “Shepherding”), Evangelical Christianity's attempt at ecclesiocentricity (making church activity central to the church member's life so that specific events of their personal life become subject to governance by church leaders).
As people ask how so many ministers could repeatedly participate in such cruel activities, it seemed to be a good time to revisit the history of the Shepherding Discipleship Movement (henceforth abbreviated here as “Shepherding”), Evangelical Christianity's attempt at ecclesiocentricity (making church activity central to the church member's life so that specific events of their personal life become subject to governance by church leaders).
SGM may have changed their name from
PDI, but they could neither change the history of the genesis of
their core belief system nor the hidden
curriculum governing how their Shepherding system operates. The
virtuous end of the “peace and togetherness” of the greater
congregation (along with the comfort of its leaders) continues to
drive the life of the group. The leaders of the group believe that
the illusion of peace somehow justifies the great injustice suffered
by the group's own little ones and their families who are sacrificed
on its altars in the worship of this all-encompassing ideal.
The History that Shaped Shepherding
To understand the Shepherding
Discipleship Movement, one must first appreciate the society that
helped to shape its development and why it became a welcomed answer
to many difficult problems.
The Baby Boom generation began to flood
the world of adults in the 1960s, fueling the many societal changes
that the decade birthed. Young people wanted to cast off the way
their parents had feigned perfect, wholesome lives – the way their
parents' generation largely coped with the struggles of life
following World War II. The “Boomers” coped very differently
with the many difficult struggles of their own day including their
own era's Korean and the Vietnam Wars. They often chose less
wholesome alternatives than their parents did. All of these factors
created the need for a cohesive idealism that couldn't be derived
from the general culture as it had in generations past. A
previous post explores in greater depth these many social factors
that also created a need for these budding adults to become a part of
something greater than themselves, part of the zeitgeist of their
age, an idealistic cause that served a common good.
The concerns of youth soon became a
focus for the Evangelical church. If the culture of young people met
life with rebellion, the church would have to become the bastion of
the very opposite through a renewed focus on the Christian's duty to
respect and obey authority. The Charismatic Renewal intensified this
concern when it swept in midway through the decade. Episcopalians
and Lutherans who first experienced the phenomenon started worshiping
together with people from all different Christian denominations, as
many of them started the same spontaneous speaking in tongues, too.
(Read a bit more about the
history HERE.)
Even Catholics <
insert sarcastic gasp for worried Protestants>
experienced the widespread phenomenon, and many
from different denominations would gather to worship together for
many years to come, often sharing doctrines with one another. This
drive for “love and togetherness,” the Christian version of the
trend in larger secular culture, actually threatened
many in leadership in the Protestant Evangelical church. Many
denominations began to grow rapidly as the new experience of the
Charismata (supernatural spiritual gifts) breathed new life into the
dead orthodoxy of the previous generation. Church leaders feared
that people, especially new recruits, would forsake sound doctrine
along with the neglect of duty to church authorities. They
were afraid that Christendom would be carried away by the ecstasy
of a subjective, experiential, “anything goes” type of new
religion, forgetting and forsaking sound doctrine as well as proper
conduct.
The Original Model of Shepherding
Some of those who were in leadership
within Evangelicalism sought to rise to these challenges by
consolidating the power and authority of the Church. They sold this
ideal to the youth of the day through their new conception of the
First Century Church as the true, first model of genuine love and
togetherness. The culture of young adults readily accepted this
approach because it seemed to match this same secular ideal of their
whole generation so strongly. The church preached that they already
had the cures for all of the ills of society in this early church
model. Their “one heart, one soul” sales pitch, God's very own
special commune of real love, came right out of the Book of Acts. In
some circles, this became known as the Covenant Movement, for
Christians were in covenant with one another when they entered this
mystical union with the Body of Christ. They understood their
interpretation of the “'all things common' unity” as the means by
which everyone could cooperate to advance the Great Commission.
As largely dispensationalist, the evangelical churches that embraced this concept also primarily embraced the idea that theirs would be the generation to witness the Second Coming of Christ. Many interpreted this togetherness and blurring of denominational boundaries a sign of the end times – that Christ was finally preparing His Church through revival, transforming her to truly be holy, blameless, radiant, and without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27).
As largely dispensationalist, the evangelical churches that embraced this concept also primarily embraced the idea that theirs would be the generation to witness the Second Coming of Christ. Many interpreted this togetherness and blurring of denominational boundaries a sign of the end times – that Christ was finally preparing His Church through revival, transforming her to truly be holy, blameless, radiant, and without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27).
And all that believed were together, and had all things common. (Acts 2:44)
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (Acts 4:32)
Shepherding's Methods
But how did this sector of the church
seek to go about establishing this order? Different groups did it in
different ways, but the core ideals became embedded in the hidden
curriculum of many evangelical groups that were influenced by the
Charismatic Renewal. Whether people followed the practice of formal
accountability partners (assigned mentor overseers as was formalized
by Christian Growth Ministries), or whether they just enforced the
demand for suppressing conflict with a focus on having an older
mentor in the faith, these imperatives became a significant influence
and a driving force within Evangelical circles.
Along with the interdenominational
meetings, the rise in new parachurch organizations became the means
by which the ideals of shepherding were propagated. I believe that
these parachurch groups also helped to more strongly establish
Shepherding principles, as they could suddenly afford to use
deregulated media through cassette tapes of sermons and limited
television time, whereas before, only radio was available to them.
(These factors also laid the foundation for the new phenomenon of the
televangelist.) It seems rather simple in our current day of digital
ease, but affordable cassette players and tapes which were previously
unavailable to most everyone revolutionized parachurch ministry
during this time. Prior to the late Sixties, one had to obtain reel
to reel tapes or phonograph records to listen to a sermon recording,
and making such recordings tended to be quite costly. Technology
helped to further the cause and “spread the word.”
The primary means of limiting and
controlling conflict came through the concept of the chain of command
which many churches shaped through the cell
group system, a technique that mega
churches would also embrace. If you did not have a specific
overseer assigned to you, your cell group leader would serve as your
spiritual “covering.” What resulted? Rather than a spontaneous
unity flowing from the change in individuals' hearts under the
direction of the Holy Spirit, uniformity was achieved through human
systems of control – the traditions of men. One cannot be truly
and legitimately involved in the life of the Shepherding
church apart from cell group participation. With hierarchical
structure established, submission to authority and chain of command
became the glue that would hold the created (artificial) sense of
unity together among the Shepherding minded, usually without anyone
realizing that a system of control had been established.
As David Henke observes in his
description of the characteristics of spiritually abusive
systems, such groups pursue and focus on a peripheral aspect of the
Christian message – eventually to the exclusion of the primary
message of central doctrine. These shifts seem subtle, because
Shepherding never abandoned the primary goal of sharing Christ and
“equipping the saints” for Christian life, or at least not in
theory. The Great Commission remained a strong motivator – the
understood reason for the Renewal. Doctrinal statements remained
unchanged in most churches, but Shepherding placed more
emphasis on the methods of achieving their purpose of unity
than they did on the purpose of the Christian life or basic doctrine.
In this sense, Shepherding made an idol out of the virtues of
submission and good Christian stewardship through largely unwritten
rules of proper conduct, and all other elements of faith became
subtly secondary. As the submission ideal of the group itself became
prominent, so the individual began to serve the group as opposed to
the group providing benefit to individuals, a model wherein
leadership serves the member. The end began to formally
justify the means.
Subtly Spiraling Error
Doctrines soon shifted to accommodate
this imperative of the unity and the“well-being” of Evangelical
groupss. Leaders became willing to maintain this illusion of unity
at any cost, believing that they were doing so in service to their
congregations and for God's highest ideal. They were ushering in the
Kingdom. Certainly, the Bible supports dutiful stewardship and sober
submission to legitimate authority, but when those imperatives became
the primary onus of every message preached, both doctrines and
practice changed. Remember that the real goal was the same kind of
one mind and one heart unity that sprang up spontaneously in the
first months after Jesus ascended, ushered in by the very first
incidence of widespread glossolalia (tongues) in the Bible.
[Consider this... Even the First Century Church could not maintain
this level of unity long term. The other epistles in the New
Testament attest to many conflicts wherein Christians were not of one
mind, facing many controversies. Trying to achieve this in the 1970s
was chasing a fantasy, as I believe history attests.]
Click to hear R Zacharias |
Then came the doctrines that religious leaders and overseers were the mouthpiece of God and God's effective authority over them, and God himself had divinely imposed these leaders. (I believe that this concept also paved the way for many Dispensationalists to find Calvinism palatable. The demanding doctrines which challenged freewillism eventually force followers to the logical conclusions of predestination/predeterminism.) Serving and obeying any leader became tantamount to perfect service and submission to God Himself. (Note that service to leaders became an imperative as well.) Individuals who questioned leaders or failed to yield unqualified submission to God's earthly representatives were deemed willful, one of the worst sins a person in Shepherding could commit. The “independent spirit” was seen as a tremendous evil. Dissidents would likely be removed to some degree, either within the group by exclusion from activities/benefits or by shuning by the group altogether.
From the
Watchman Fellowship
website noting the ICC
Boston Movement Profile (emphasis
mine):
In
a series of articles distributed to the membership of the Boston
Church, Elder Al Baird wrote. . . "Let us begin our discussion
of submission by talking about what it is not. (1) Submission is not
agreeing. When one agrees with the decision that he is called to
submit to, he does not really have to submit in any way. By
definition, submission is doing something one has been asked to do
that he would not do if he had his own way. (2) Submission is
not just outward obedience. It includes that, but also involves
obedience from the heart. It is a wholehearted giving-up of one's
own desires. (3) Submission is not conditional. We submit
to authority, not because the one in authority deserves it, but
because the authority comes from God; therefore, we are in reality
submitting to God.”
Following behind this submission
imperative came the doctrines to assuage the problems one encounters
in life when the individual displaces his critical thinking and
decision making, assigning them to the group dogma or direction. We
all make mistakes, and whether we make them of our own accord or we
make them because another imperfect person made a poor choice for us,
we end up suffering from those mistakes. The suppression of one's
reasonable basic needs and personality traits (that contrast with the
group ideal) also comes at a high cost, psychologically, emotionally,
and sometimes physically. Some justification for these high costs
many paid had to be created to satisfy reasonable doubt. Suffering
became a newly embraced, venerated virtue, even becoming the
super-spiritual sign of the high cost of achieving unity. Especially
concerning conflicts, the truly spiritual could expect to suffer a
type on martyrdom for the common good of the larger group. People
would soon train themselves to “throw themselves under the bus”
to prevent any criticism of the whole cause of Christ itself,
as conflict was seen as a form of blasphemy through disgrace. These
contrived doctrines helped to enforce the imperatives.
Larry
Pile summarizes the primary problems (and systems of control)
used within Shepherding in this way:
- Scripture Twisting (function of Loading the Language, Unbalanced)
- Autocratic Leadership (function of Sacred Science, Authoritarianism)
- Isolationism (function of Milieu Control, Demand for Purity, Image Consciousness, Perfectionistic)
- Spiritual Elitism (function of Demand for Purity, Mystical Manipulation, Doctrine over Person, Dispensing of Existence, Perfectionistic)
- Regimentation of Life (function of Milieu Control, Mystical Manipulation, Cult of Confession, Doctrine Over Person, Authoritarianism, Image Consciousness)
- Disallowance of Dissent (function of Milieu Control, Sacred Science, Suppressing of Criticism)
- Traumatic Departure (function of Dispensing of Existence, Milieu Control)
[Though captured in Pile's list I would
pull out and specifically add aggressive
discipline of children and young adults
by the breaking
of the spirit. Not all but too many groups break the spirit of
their followers through not only psychological/emotional and
spiritual abuse, but also through often violent,
authoritarian, corporal punishment practices that trigger a type of
moral
disengagement by demonizing dissent, even in a child. The SGM
lawsuit certainly highlights this problem. This practice is a
sub-category of the submission/suffering imperative that is required
of all group members.]
The Limits of Spiritual Abuse
The truth is that Shepherding never
really solved any problems but just required followers to never talk
about their conflicts. “Iron
sharpening iron” had to be curtailed, dealt with sharply behind
closed doors only. Subordinate followers had to drip with “ooey
gooey love” (as I've heard more than one leader describe it), and
to truly be in unity, one had to let that sticky love “cover” the
sins of others who were given liberty to continue hurting them.
Conflicts that couldn't be ignored had to be managed in a particular
way as well, subject to rules that would prevent the process of
private confrontation from seeming like dissent. Henke's
model describes this through the distinctive of Suppressing
Criticism and of Image
Consciousness. Eventually, this became the perfect storm that
leadership could use to abuse their own liberties for their own
advantage, because their judgment (and their “needs”) were seen
as God's divine will, the Sacred
Science. And these factors also set up the system that would
necessitate a new form of church discipline, the Dispensing
of Existence.
The Apostle Paul tells us that human
behavior is rather predictable, and when we attempt to do things by
man's means, we end up with the predictable “works
of the flesh.” I believe that because of predictable human
nature, when used to control a group of people, the works of the
flesh end up looking rather predictable as well. Whether you prefer
Henke's
description of Spiritual Abuse or Lifton's
description of Thought Reform/Mind Control, when man lets the end
justify the means by which he does things and does so by his own
imposed methods of control, these predictable patterns result. It
certainly happened with Shepherding and the churches that followed
it. Human nature being rather predictable, certain measures work
very well, and the Shepherding movement capitalized on them. Add a
bit of propaganda
and informal logical fallacy into the mix, and you have a high
demand religious group, be it a church, parachurch group, a political
group, or even a system of multi-level marketing. It can even affect
one-on-one
relationships which use the same dynamics, as the effects of
spiritual abuse on a churchgoer has much in common with Battered
Woman Syndrome.
The Four
General Characteristics of Battered
Woman Syndrome:
(To apply to a
spiritually abusive Evangelical group, substitute “churchgoer”
for “woman,” “Shepherding pastor” for “abuser,” and
“family” for “children”.)
- The woman believes it’s her fault.
- The woman’s inability to place the responsibility of the violence elsewhere.
- The woman fears for her life and/or her children’s lives.
- The woman has the belief that the abuser is omnipresent and
omniscient.
Quoting from a previous post, All
About Authority: The Popularity of Submission Doctrine (in blue type):
So what started
out as a greater good with a virtuous end that followed Biblical
language and principle became a trap for many of these groups that
allowed idealistic ends to justify the means they pursued to achieve
their desired goals. But it is interesting to note how pervasive the
zeitgeist of the day proved to be, for it saturated nearly all
evangelical Christianity with the desire to
- distinguish their faith as somewhat unique from to the work of God within previous eras within the Church,
- realize the unity demonstrated by the Church as described in the Book of Acts,
- reach the whole world for Christ within just one generation,
- take dominion over the earth to usher in the Second Coming of Jesus,
- promote the virtue of submission to distinguish the church from the secular culture.
I believe that 40
years later, we are coming to terms with the fruit of these zealous
efforts and often misdirected foci that the previous generation
developed as our legacy. Unfortunately, the previous generation often
failed to recognize the skewed nature of some of their ideals,
leaving the inconsistencies for *our generation* to
reconcile (*whatever generations have followed the after the
era of the first wave of Baby Boomers who came of age in the
mid-sixties).
The Supposed End of Shepherding
(Excerpt from Shepherding:
Many Variations on a Theme in blue type)
CGM disbanded
after people in nearly every shepherding group began to experience
serious problems because of spiritual abuse. Christians were emerging
from these churches and parachurch groups with symptoms identical to
people who were exiting any other non-Christian cult like a Moonies
or Hare Krishnas. In 1975, Pat Robertson strongly denounced the
movement, saying that “the only difference between
shepherding and Jonestown was 'Kool Aide.'” Exiting members were
being hospitalized in psychiatric wards, and I’ve spoken
personally with exit counselors who attended to many of these
survivors. Pile, a former member of the Great Commission group, notes
in his article, The
Other Side of Discipleship,
that:
The
movement began to disintegrate in 1986 when its magazine, New
Wine, folded due to steady loss of revenue. In the latter years
of the 1980s, Baxter, Basham, and Mumford officially “released”
their disciples from their previous pyramidal authority structure –
Prince had already severed his formal ties with the others in 1983.
Yet even with Mumford’s public statement of apology – and in
spite of Buckingham’s obituary of the “discipleship era” –
the abuse of discipleship and spiritual authority continues unabated
by other men and women in other churches and movements.
Originally in the
CGM system of Shepherding, each person was assigned to another
person, and married couples were assigned to married couples. When
Mumford finally repented, I believe that all the denominations that
followed the practice merely stopped the one-over-one, personal
pastoring relationships only, shifting to a more informal “mentoring”
concept. However, like so many groups that did not follow the formal
structure of CGM, they did not repent of the authoritarian rule, the
shunning, or pronunciation of curses that groups often issue to
members as they exited their groups (leaving the protective
“covering” of their spiritual mentors or authorities).
More modern variations of shepherding generally include accountability to the leaders of cell groups that meet during the week (transferring paternalistic oversight from personal mentor to cell group leader or an elder). The practice of confession cell groups encourages believers to perceive themselves from a perspective of shame (facilitating manipulation) over their ongoing sins which they never seem to transcend rather than perceiving themselves as overcomers in Christ. As a consequence, cell groups stay informed about the problems of their cell group participants, generally collecting and reporting that information to leadership under the guise of offering very specific help and support to the sheep.
More modern variations of shepherding generally include accountability to the leaders of cell groups that meet during the week (transferring paternalistic oversight from personal mentor to cell group leader or an elder). The practice of confession cell groups encourages believers to perceive themselves from a perspective of shame (facilitating manipulation) over their ongoing sins which they never seem to transcend rather than perceiving themselves as overcomers in Christ. As a consequence, cell groups stay informed about the problems of their cell group participants, generally collecting and reporting that information to leadership under the guise of offering very specific help and support to the sheep.
Just like SGM abandoned the title of
People of Destiny, many churches dropped the formal practice of
Shepherding's “accountability partners”, but they abandoned
nothing else. They kept most of the systems of control in place.
And as Philip
Zimbardo's lifetime of work has demonstrated, exiting the group
and practice remains terribly difficult, part of what enhances
ongoing compliance with the belief system today.
How Could They Do It? Martyrs for
the Cause
The recent actions of CJ Mahaney
provide a good example of how leaders within Shepherding can
completely lose perspective, allowing the virtuous end of the system
to justify the means used to maintain it. In Shepherding, the
paramount goal is that of maintaining the fantasy of a post-Pentecost
unity, of one heart, one mind, and having all things common. People
sit in wonder, trying to fathom the actions of men like Mahaney. How
could a loving pastor believe that it was right to cover up sexual
assaults and to protect abusers?
CJ Mahaney's son, quoting his father,
recently
published a blog post that was highly critical of Lance
Armstrong's use of performance enhancing measures, all while
Mahaney is being accused of many of the same errors, arrogance, and
deception. Good people ask how a minister could be so blind to his
own shortcomings? And what seems worse: using drugs and lying to
win a title, or aiding and abetting child molesters, then
shaming/punishing the victims and their families? Neither action is
justifiable, but what action hurts more people and hurts them more
deeply? (Mahaney and son would have been better to say something
more like this, given CJ's own personal testimony before coming
to faith in Christ and his reputation for self-deprecating humility.)
I believe that to understand the irony
and total loss of perspective and self-awareness demonstrated by
Mahaney, one must consider this imperative of unity demanded by the
principles of Shepherding. Set aside your own beliefs and
perspective for a moment, and pretend that the illusion of a
contrived, Upper Room unity was the most important objective within
your church. Consider that you also had no ethical, moral, or
religious problems with the systems of control that Larry Pile lists
as the primary problems with the practice of Shepherding. Now
pretend that you are faced with a sex scandal. Throw in there an
understanding of complementarianism which supports male privilege and
scapegoats women, assuming that the primary victims of the sexual
abuse at the church were all little girls. Consider also that women
become something of an analogous Suffering
Servant of Isaiah 53 because women are supposed to be subordinate
to men, according to the semi-arian
theology of complementarian belief. (Concern for the interests
and preferences of men is a priority within SGM, and as buddy John
Piper teaches, women are at fault for the entry of sin into the world
to start with. They're usually the root cause of sin somehow.)
I think that CJ's actions are quite
understandable, given all of these factors. Imagine the following.
By acting to keep matters quiet, he's serving the greatest good of
maintaining the one accord of the church. He's protecting the Name
of Christ itself from mockery because he's covering sins with love.
The greater sin is not sexual misconduct but is rather sowing discord
in the Body of Christ. Those who fail to abide by the measures of
control that maintain the sense of mystical unity commit an even
great sin than sexual assault because they challenge the most
precious directive of the church. He's also the “servant” of the
Body, so he takes upon himself the hard task of breaking some of the
rules, something he likely sees as laying down of his his life and
honor to preserve the community. Remember that Henke points out that
spiritually abusive groups become unbalanced by majoring on minor
doctrines, and everything else becomes secondary to unity in
Shepherding.
It is very likely that CJ sees himself
as a martyr to a great extent, or this might be what he tells
himself. In the process, he lays the wounded little ones up on the
altar to sacrifice to the virtue of unity, that idol of their
distorted fantasy about love and togetherness. CJ very likely
believes that he's thrown himself under the bus to save the
collective. I believe that's why he's able to do what he's done so
many times when he's effectively exonerated sexual predators within
his church. It's why he can openly condemn others without seeing the
irony of his statements and actions. Perspective is everything.
The Ongoing Legacy of Shepherding
The practice of Shepherding is not
limited to Sovereign Grace Ministries. Geoffrey
Botkin who is now affiliated with Vision Forum followed the Great
Commission Ministries group since he was recruited on his college
campus in the mid-seventies. They dynamics of both his past and
current groups differ little. Bill
Gothard still propagates his extensive teachings, documenting
some of Shepherding's hidden curriculum, the generally unwritten
rules governing how high demand groups operate. (Shepherding is
alive and well within many homeschooling affiliated religious
groups.) We also see similar authoritarian practices in Mark
Driscoll's Mars Hill movement (read more HERE
and HERE).
The churches that Charles
Simpson helped to plant during the days of his traveling ministry
still thrive throughout the US, maintained long after Simpson's
group, Christian
Growth Ministries, claimed to have denounced the practice of
Shepherding. (Like SGM, they only dropped the titles and some of the
formal practices but continue to worship the same ideals,
subordinating the central message of Christianity to the togetherness
ideal.) Some even note the this same influence that Simpson
and SGM share with one another. Rousas
J. Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation used to participate with
Simpson's group and even contributed many articles to their magazine,
New Wine,
lasting influences that remain significant for many.
Maranatha
Campus Ministry, affiliates of Elim
Bible Institute, the International
Church of Christ, and many others also followed the principles,
long after leaders supposedly renounced the practices of the
movement. The Full
Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministers International,
founded by Gordon Lindsey, also observed the rules of Shepherding in
their nationwide network of Calvary Temple churches, especially
during the thick of the early days of the Charismatic
Renewal. William
Branham gave Lindsey as well as the Kansas
City Prophets their start in ministry, groups also plagued by
these same manipulative, spiritually abusive practices. Shepherding
and the principles by which it operates continue
to thrive within Evangelicalism, especially within independent
churches that are not a part of larger denominations.
Please pray for these individuals in leadership over these organizations, because they become more deeply entrenched in the system which makes it infinitely harder to get out of them or to renounce these practices and beliefs. A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin, and while the
private individual who walks away from a high demand group has a
tremendously difficult time, the leaders of these groups have an even
harder task. They've got to be willing to do their recovery process
before the entire world – the world before which they once preached
with such assurance. They've pledged their names and their holy
honor in support of the scandalous system, and they must have great
integrity to even begin to be able to come clean in private first.
They've invested more in the process and teachings than most rank and
file members have. Pray for them. Despite all of the exploitation
for which they are responsible, they must also find sufficient
strength to recant the aberrant beliefs and practices to which they
were once devoted. Few find the strength to do it. They're too
afraid of looking like fools, so they are reluctant to change. They
become slaves to the image consciousness and their own pride. Pray
for them. They need it.
Read more about
Shepherding:
Offsite
Charismatic
Captivation (Lambert)
The Other Side of Discipleship (Pile)
A Dominion Experiment (Arnaud)
The Roots of Shepherding (Vinzant)
Discipleship Page (Apologetics Index)
Discipling Dilemma (Yeakley)
Wikipedia on the Shepherding Movement
The Shepherding Movement (Coleman)
Shepherding/Discipleship Movement Survivor’s Blog
The Other Side of Discipleship (Pile)
A Dominion Experiment (Arnaud)
The Roots of Shepherding (Vinzant)
Discipleship Page (Apologetics Index)
Discipling Dilemma (Yeakley)
Wikipedia on the Shepherding Movement
The Shepherding Movement (Coleman)
Shepherding/Discipleship Movement Survivor’s Blog