Five Things We Will Learn
- What the Shepherding Movement was—and why it began.
- How a biblical desire for accountability drifted into control.
- The key biblical principles that were misunderstood or misapplied.
- What Scripture actually teaches about shepherding and submission.
- How today’s Church can recover the heart of discipleship without domination.
Introduction: What We Can Learn, What Went Right, and Why It Went Wrong
My purpose in writing this article is to bring history out of the shadows and let it speak for itself—to untangle what really took place, to source every fact carefully, and to help us discern both the wisdom and the warning that this era offers.
I had the privilege of knowing Charles Simpson, one of the original leaders of the movement and the man who opened his personal archives to S. David Moore, whose book The Shepherding Movement: Controversy and Charismatic Ecclesiology remains the most balanced study of the subject.
Not only did I know Charles personally, I also had the honor of hosting the most comprehensive interview he ever gave on the Charismatic Renewal Movement and on his own perspective of what later came to be called “the Shepherding Movement.” In that conversation, Simpson reflected not merely on what failed, but on what was birthed by God, what was learned through the process, and why some of those lessons were misapplied.
This article follows that same spirit: to understand what was right, to diagnose what went wrong, and to recover what was truly biblical.
If we can learn from the past, we can walk with greater clarity into the future—embracing what was biblical and fruitful, and letting go of what was not. As we turn to Scripture and to the recollections of Simpson and his colleagues, we ask not, “Who was to blame?” but, “What can we now understand—and how can we shepherd without control?”
From Voluntary Submission to Enforced Subjection
The Fort Lauderdale Five—Don Basham, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, and Charles Simpson—saw the need for accountability amid the exuberant independence of the Charismatic Renewal. Simpson later recalled, “We weren’t smart enough to plan a movement—we were just teachers responding to a real hunger for order and character.”
The impulse was sound. Hebrews 13:17 calls believers to respect leaders who “watch over your souls.” The early aim was to encourage voluntary submission within loving, discipling relationships. Yet, as Moore observes, that relational principle hardened into systemic control: shepherds began making life decisions for others—vocational, marital, even geographical.
Simpson acknowledged the drift: “Authority must always be under authority; otherwise it becomes tyranny.” Their pastoral intent was genuine, but without adequate theological guardrails, voluntary care could mutate into paternalistic rule.
Substituting Delegated Authority for the Direct Lordship of Christ
Simpson’s teaching stressed that true authority is received, not assumed—it is exercised only by those first submitted to Christ. Moore’s research shows how the movement’s chain-of-command model sometimes displaced that direct relationship: believers felt they needed human approval to act on divine leading.
Scripture, however, insists,
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)
When oversight obstructs rather than illuminates the believer’s access to the Shepherd, it becomes interposition. Simpson summarized the corrective well: “Authority is real, but it must always lead people through us to Him, never to us instead of Him.”
Replacing Fellowship with Covenantal Control
Both Moore and Simpson describe the early covenant vision as beautifully biblical—a desire to mirror the fellowship of Acts 2:42. In practice, however, some covenants degenerated into instruments of loyalty.
Simpson traced this shift to the fear of fragmentation: “We had seen revivals explode and collapse; we wanted relationships that would last. But what begins in love can end in law if humility is lost.”
Paul’s reminder still applies:
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor 3:17)
Moore calls this the moment when “covenant turned contractual.” The lesson: covenant must remain a bond of affection, not a mechanism of control.
Elevating Human Structure Above the Priesthood of All Believers
The Five sought order in chaos, but structure soon outpaced Spirit. Simpson’s decades with home groups taught him that methods don’t mature people—relationships do. The pyramid of oversight may have seemed efficient, yet it risked overshadowing the New Testament image of the body, not a bureaucracy (1 Cor 12:12; 1 Pet 2:9).
Moore documents how “lines of authority” became mistaken for spiritual vitality. Simpson later said, “We built scaffolding faster than we built character.” The correction is not to despise structure, but to subordinate it to the life of the Spirit and the priesthood of all believers.
Confusing Spiritual Covering with Spiritual Control
Perhaps the most controversial doctrine was spiritual covering—meant to ensure protection and accountability but often reinterpreted as dependence and permission. Moore chronicles how “covering” became the movement’s most divisive word; Simpson preferred “spiritual relationship.”
True covering, he argued, is divine, not delegated: “You can’t live under a man’s umbrella and expect the rain of God. We cover one another through love, prayer, and integrity.” Psalm 91:1 reminds us that our ultimate shelter is “under the shadow of the Almighty,” not merely under human oversight.
Summary: What We Learn from What Went Right—and Why It Went Wrong
| Biblical Truth | Shepherding Intention | Why It Drifted |
| Submission to leaders | Discipleship and care | Structure overtook relationship |
| Spiritual covering | Protection and accountability | Became dependence and permission |
| Covenant community | Relational strength | Turned into binding loyalty |
| Body ministry | Shared life and gifts | Became hierarchical management |
| Obedience to Christ | Christ-centered life | Became leader-centered discipleship |
The Shepherding leaders began with a biblical vision—to nurture integrity, discipleship, and relational accountability. As Moore concludes, “Their motives were sincere, their theology partial, and their practices inconsistent with the freedom they desired to promote.” Simpson would agree: “The problem wasn’t authority itself; it was unaccountable authority—the lack of character to handle what God had entrusted.”
Redemptive Lessons for Today
Despite its controversies, the movement’s intentions were noble. It confronted the need for deeper character, authentic community, and spiritual fathers and mothers in an age of fragmentation.
For today’s Church, the answer is not to reject authority but to redeem it through humility and mutual submission. Simpson’s enduring counsel remains relevant: “If we stay teachable and accountable, revival can last; if we try to control it, it dies.”
Paul urged believers to grow “up in all things into Him who is the Head — Christ” (Eph 4:15). That is the balance: authority expressed through servanthood, discipleship formed through love, and leadership exercised under the Lordship of Jesus alone.
May we, having learned from what went right and why it went wrong, build communities where shepherds lead by serving, disciples grow through relationship, and the freedom of the Spirit remains the atmosphere of true accountability.
(Historical and theological references drawn from Charles Simpson’s 2025 interview transcripts on the Charismatic Renewal Movement and S. David Moore, The Shepherding Movement: Controversy and Charismatic Ecclesiology, T&T Clark International, 2003.)