For many reading this post the term “shepherding movement” will be new or unfamiliar. During May of 2008, while still inside Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF), I had the thought to look up the term and find out more. As I did I could see that it appeared that what was going on at WOFF under the leadership of Jane Whaley looked a lot like the reported abuses during the shepherding movement of years ago. I kept the findings to myself for awhile until the first week of June of 2008. Two hours after telling my thoughts to LB, I was advised through her that Jane Whaley said I was “out of the church”. No, Jane did not call and find out what I had learned or why I thought the WOFF practices were like those of the shepherding movement of years gone by. Why did I not get asked? I am not certain.
In the blog series which tells the events around my exit from WOFF, the scenario is explained in this post: What Thoughts Helped Me Leave WOFF – Part 3 – found here: http://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=1841 . “Part 3” contains two links which explain in brief about the term – shepherding movement. The movement has also been referred to as the “Discipleship Movement”. Before I proceed, let me just acknowledge that my reading on this subject has not made me an expert. Any “expertise” of mine comes from living through my experiences at WOFF and comparing them in light of what the material shows and reports about the practices within the shepherding movement. When I have lived through it, I believe it gives me some right to comment on what I saw and observed. Also, I will be quoting from sources found on websites which contain more material than I can read right now. My quoting of the sources DOES NOT imply a blanket endorsement for all of the material found in these resources. Further reading from these quoted sources is a choice you must make on your own. I have read enough to feel comfortable quoting from the material.
As a very brief recap, there was a group of ministers in Florida called the Fort Lauderdale Five. This group included, Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Don Basham, Derrick Prince and Ern Baxter. Some sources add John Poole to the group. The founding events are reported differently in different sources. Let it be said that from some event, whether a moral failure or a perceived lack of accountability of the church members, this group set out to form a structure to help those who needed help in various ways.
From here I will provide several quotes from Chapter 2 of “Charismatic Captivation” by Steve Lambert, ThD. (Publisher: Real Truth Publications, ISBN 1-887915-00-1 / 308pp.) Chapter 2 can be found here: http://www.slm.org/pubs/samples/ccbook2.html . I have not read the entire book, but, I believe these quotes will help explain pertinent events from the time period. We will also look at several terms which reveal certain practices within the ministry of the Fort Lauderdale Five or Fab Five as the author calls them. In this chapter there is a brief history of the Charismatic Movement and how it spread in the later ‘60s and early ‘70s. This is critical as the shepherding movement as described here began within charismatic churches. WOFF has its roots in the Charismatic Movement. Why? GS and LS, leaders at WOFF, tell how they “received the baptism of the Holy Spirit” during this time as they were in a Baptist Church. Years ago, Jane would teach many Charismatic doctrines and practices. WOFF members “speak in tongues”, adults and children. In recent years, Jane changed her views and teaches that this “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” is not a second experience after salvation. She does still teach speaking in tongues and the Gifts of the Spirit. How do GS and LS explain those experiences now, that Jane has declared them as non-Biblical? We move on.
Of the Fab Five, Lambert writes: “Together these individuals formed the organization that would be “the center of one of the most violent controversies (i.e., the Discipleship/Shepherding controversy) in Protestant charismatic history,”1 Christian Growth Ministries (CGM), headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.” He further explains, “However, it soon surfaced that their particular brand of theology of “maturity” and “church-building” included unproven, unScriptural, and excessive concepts regarding authority, submission to established authority, shepherding, and discipleship, all of which, in their proper perspective and within the bounds of Biblical propriety and Divine intent, are bona fide and important precepts in true Christianity. Central also to the theology of the CGM principals was a notion that every believer, laymen and ministers alike, must have a “personal pastor.” (emphasis added, from Chapter2)
The term “personal pastor” captured my interest. Does Jane teach everyone should have a “personal pastor”? She does not use that term, but, the teaching within WOFF has been phrased like this, “You will never find your place in God until you help someone else find their place in God.” What has been the result in years past? Those wanting to “grow in Jesus” and “walk in their call” found someone needed their help and began to “help them open their heart” and “hear God”. What did this lead to? You tell me. When you told your struggles, immediately up the chain of “authority” it went and Jane or someone else in leadership would “hear God” for you or “with you”. Personal conversations WERE/ARE NEVER personal at WOFF. Anything you told/tell the “minister helping you” is subject to being repeated in Jane’s office and even in front of the whole congregation. I have heard Jane qualify those who could stand on the stage to sing or preach by saying “How many people are you helping?” or “How many people open their heart to you?” “Are you helping anyone walk in the ways of God?” The more followers you had the more likely you would be able to be on stage as “example for the people”. Can you see the pyramid structure here? (Yes, the levels of authority and structure were ever in a state of flux, as leaders could be on top one moment and in Jane’s doghouse the next.) Some times, exceptions would be granted for those who had talent and could sing, like JE. He did not “walk as a minister” as others, but, he had “talent” and at times- money. So, are there “personal pastors” at WOFF? From what I lived through- yes, though they were called “ministers”.
Lambert explains that the shepherding movement began to draw criticism. Here is a quote from a letter from Pat Robertson to Bob Mumford: ““The heat of the controversy can be captured by reading an open letter, dated June 27, 1975, from Pat Robertson to Bob Mumford. Robertson said that in a recent visit to Louisville, Kentucky, he found cultish language like “submission” rather than churches, “shepherds” not pastors, and “relationships” but not Jesus. Robertson traveled to ORU and found a twenty-year-old “shepherd” who drew tithes from fellow students as part of their submission. Robertson, drawing from Juan Carlos Ortiz’s Call to Discipleship, charged the leaders with placing personal revelations (rhema) on par with Scripture. He quoted a devotee as saying, “If God Almighty spoke to me, and I knew for a certainty that it was God speaking, and if my shepherd told me to do the opposite, I would obey my shepherd.”5” (emphasis added, from Chapter2)
Let me say here, that I NEVER saw anyone who would take money away from offerings at WOFF. NO ONE dare do that as it was clear who was in charge of the money. It was clear that Jane Whaley was in charge and to think otherwise was so foolish. The quote showing allegiance to the “shepherd” or personal pastor did not surprise me. I have seen folks at WOFF be so “submitted to God” i.e. the minister in their life, that they would obey even if later it was proven as wrong or not the best choice to make. Yes, “submission to authority” as mentioned in the shepherding movement was and as far as I know- still at WOFF. It may be denied; but, how could Jane keep “people in their place” unless she got them to obey- her.
As Lambert goes on, he tells of others who criticized the shepherding movement. “The litany of known Church-leaders publicly denouncing the Prince-Baxter-Mumford-Simpson- Basham consortium was by no means limited to those cited in the article quoted above, but also included a host of others, e.g.: Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Sevelle, T.L. Osborn, Ken Sumrall, John Osteen, Judson Cornwall, Ralph Mahoney, Charles Trombley, among others. Several books were written to address the error, and a number of ministers disseminated tape series exposing and repudiating the heresy.” As a point of reference, I have sat under or listened to several folks on the list. Kenneth Hagin’s ministry was one that Sam Whaley came out of in Tulsa, OK. Since the Whaley’s came from that ministry, do they believe they are free from the practices of the shepherding movement?
The author goes on tell the evolution and eventual dissolution of certain groups within the movement. He tells of other groups that formed to carry on certain practices. He also gives account of the movement’s founders and what happened to them after the movement was renounced and went “underground”. The whole account makes a very good read though it was published in 2003.
Of all the leaders of the movement, the public statements by Bob Mumford I found very revealing. Lambert quotes Mumford in this passage:
“Then in a subsequent Charisma & Christian Life article published in February, 1990, reportedly after having sought the advice and counsel of Jack Hayford and others, according to the article, Mumford spoke more as one who was genuinely chastened, repentant, and willing to deal with the issue in a more direct fashion, accepting full responsibility for his error. According to the article, Mumford read a statement in November of 1989 “to a gathering of pastors at the Christian Believers United meeting in Ridgecrest, North Carolina,”11 in which he said:
“I repent. I was wrong. I ask for forgiveness,” Mumford said about his involvement in the discipleship movement.
The article went on to say: …Mumford decided that he needed to publicly ‘repent’ of his responsibility in setting up a system where so many people were hurt by misuses of authority. “Some families were split up and lives turned upside down,” says Mumford. “Some of these families are still not back together.”
In his statement, Mumford admitted that he had not heeded earlier warnings about doctrinal error from Hayford and two others. “While it was not my intent to be willful,” he said, “I ignored their input to my own hurt and the injury of others.” …He admitted that there had been an “unhealthy submission resulting in perverse and unbiblical obedience to human leaders.” He took personal responsibility for these abuses, saying that many of them happened under his sphere of leadership.” (from Chapter 2)
These statements by Mumford confirmed for me that the results seen in the Shepherding Movement were the same as seen today from the practices at WOFF. We have listed “personal pastors” and “submission to authority” – to the extreme. About these practices and others; Mumford decided that he needed to publicly ‘repent’ of his responsibility in setting up a system where so many people were hurt by misuses of authority” “Some families were split up and lives turned upside down,” says Mumford. “Some of these families are still not back together.” Can anyone who honestly accounts for the lives of WOFF members past and present – deny the results have been the same? Many WOFF families “are still not back together”. In fact, the family separations and divorces at WOFF continue to increase. Many folks have felt the hurts from the abuse and misuse of authority at WOFF.
So, our title poses a question: Do WOFF Practices Reflect the Shepherding Movement? From the material presented in this post, I think we can say that several WOFF practices do reflect those from the Shepherding Movement of the 70’s and 80’s. In my opinion, we can say the WOFF practices, regardless of when or where Jane began teaching them are so similar to the central practices of the Shepherding movement and the results so much alike that to deny that is tantamount to lying and an obvious effort to deceive. In my opinion, the results from WOFF practices are far worse than anything I have read that resulted from the events in Fort Lauderdale. The next most obvious question for me is “Will Jane ever admit the true results of her practices at WOFF?” Will she ever reach a place of humility as Mumford did and publically repent for “setting up a system where so many people were hurt by misuses of authority”. What would happen to WOFF if she did admit the abuses of “authority”? Only God knows.
In a future post, we will review more of Dr. Lambert’s work as he points out the signs of spiritual abuse. His work reveals many signs of abuse in churches which could also apply to other groups. Comments are welcome.
Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.
Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.
(Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 308.