The G12 cell-church model and the Shepherding Movement – similarities and differences in discipleship practices

1. Introduction

In the recent years, a new cell-group model became very popular, which more than any other cell-based system before emphasized a top-down authority structure. Most of the churches adapting this G12 system are comparatively young, and mostly located in South-America. In the 1970s, a quasi cell-based movement called the Shepherding Movement came in the spotlight of secular and religious media. Both, the G12 and the Shepherding Movement, have at its core the concern for discipleship. In both cases, the question is how discipleship is achieved and how much authority is exercised thereby. For Christians that still have vivid memory of the Shepherding Movement and its controversies, the G12 movement looks like a re-incarnation of the Shepherding Movement’s authority structure, which was one of the key reason for the movement’s breakdown. The goal of this paper is to examine both movement’s structures and objectives in discipleship practices and evaluate, if and to what extent the worries and warnings of Shepherding “veterans” are justified.  

2. Historic background of the Shepherding Movement

The Sheperding movement, sometimes also called Discipleship Movement, started in the early 1970s with four Christian leaders and teachers, Don Basham, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and Charles Simpson, who joined in commitment to “mutual accountability and submission to help preserve one another’s personal and ministerial integrity.”[1] Later, in 1974, these four were joined by Ern Baxter, and became known as the “Fort Lauderdale Five” by their critics. The emerging Charismatic renewal was an answer to the spiritual hunger of many Christians in the mainline denominations, but presented problems and challenges of its own kind. The five teachers saw a strong need in the areas of individual discipleship, training and accountability, and started to minister in these areas through books, audio tapes and the widely circulated New Wine Magazine. As a result of their publications, and even more their extensive travels as well as the popular leaders and shepherds conferences, many personal relationships to leaders of independent charismatic groups were formed. By 1975, this network had grown to 100,000 adherents and as many as 500 churches.[2] At the core of their teaching was the Kingdom of God, and how this Kingdom’s rule and authority could become reality in the local churches. The most controversy appeared over the teachings of discipleship and personal shepherding practices. Modeled after the example of Jesus and His twelve disciples, they believed that every Christian should be in a discipleship / shepherding relationship to a shepherd / leader.[3] Many of the disciples were “young people who wanted and needed the discipline the shepherding movement brought”[4] Criticism was soon voiced over the intensive demands of submission to a leader and the extent of spiritual authority that was exercised. It affected “not just their spiritual well-being, but […] full development emotionally, educationally, financially, vocationally, and socially.”[5] Other respected leaders in the Charismatic renewal and in Pentecostal churches were alarmed and took measures to weaken the influence of the Shepherding Movement. Attempts to clarify misunderstandings and false accusations were only of limited success. From the mid 1970s on, the movement was ostracized from most organized Charismatic and Pentecostal groups. In the early 1980s, the ongoing controversies lead to a decline in size and influence. The quiet withdrawal of Derek Prince in 1983 marked the beginning of the end. In 1986, the remaining four leaders disbanded and stopped the publication of the New Wine Magazine.

3. The G12 movement

3.1. Development of the G12 movement

The G12 system was developed and popularized in the early 1990s by International Charismatic Mission (ICM) in Bogotá, Columbia, pastored by Cesar and Claudia Castellanos. It was developed as an attempt to improve an existing cell-church model, which has been used since the mid 1980s, but was less successful than expected.[6] The G12 system is an modification to the 5 x 5 cell model used by Paul Yonggi Cho in Korea[7], sometimes also called “Jethro” model[8], because it mirrors the Old Testament system that Moses’ father-in-law Jethro suggested in order to enable more efficient governing of the Israelites.[9] The G12 system is very popular in South-America, but has also been adopted and adapted by churches in North-America, Europe , Africa and Asia.[10]

3.2. Key features of G12

At the core of the G12 system lies a cell-based discipleship structure which is modeled after Jesus and his twelve disciples. The goal is to win people to the Christian faith, disciple them and equip them to be people-winning leaders as well. At the top of the G12 system is the senior leader, who has twelve disciples in his G12 cell. Everyone of these twelve disciples has his own G12 cell with twelve disciples underneath him and so forth. Exponential growth is not only the goal, but expected. The G12 discipleship model follows a simple four-step process: 1) to win people to the faith, 2) to consolidate their faith through basic teachings and counseling, 3) to disciple them, preparing spiritual leaders through more teachings, and 4), to send, releasing a disciple to start their own G12 cell. The whole cycle is expected to be completed fast and with the highest level of commitment. In as little as six months, a new convert is expected to be the leader of their own G12 cell group. The G12 system is a highly time consuming model. Fully integrated leaders are expected to visit up to four cell meetings per week: a G12 cell as disciple, one as the leader, one special cell for evangelism, and in addition, conduct weekly training classes for future G12 cell leaders. On top of that comes the expected involvement in other church ministries and participation in so called “celebration services”.

3.3. Variations of G12

Although MCI and other proponents do not encourage to make any changes to the G12 system.[11], a number a variations have developed. In some cases, the frequency of G12 meetings was changed to bi-weekly.[12] Instead of having homogenous groups, mixed groups are allowed as well. There are also fundamental differences in how the G12 system is seen. Whereas in South-America, it is seen as a method, and even spiritual principle, that will guarantee results, others see it for instance as a leadership development concept based on a cell-group structure.[13] There seems to be two basic camps: one that considers G12 as a sort of franchising that has to be followed strictly the way the originators do it, whereas others pick and chose the parts that seem to work in their culture and context. Overall, the G12 implementations show quite a broad level of adaption with many different flavors and intensities.

4. Similarities

There are a number of similarities between the two movements that make some Christians worry that the G12 movement is headed towards a similar authoritarian system that the Shepherding Movement was 30 years earlier. First of all, we can observe that in both systems, a sincere dissatisfaction with existing structures and practices lead to the exploration of new ideas and methods. In that sense, both can be seen as some form of renewal movement within existing churches.[14] The leaders of the Shepherding Movement were very reluctant to the idea of forming a new denomination. They saw their movement as restorationist to the existing structures and churches, in order to bring renewal and revival. In a similar way, G12 considers itself as a movement bringing life back to stagnating churches by means of new methods that will bring revival and growth within the existing church and denomination. That the “movement’s distinct and focused ecclesial character has been overlooked”[15] might become as true for the G12 movement as it has for the Shepherding Movement in retrospect. In terms of the top-down authority structure that both systems exhibit, Moore’s analysis of the Shepherding Movement is strikingly fitting to the G12 movement. He sees a “descending chain of authority [which] was “hierarchical” and “pyramidal” in practice.”[16] This is based on drawing “the relationship of Jesus to the Twelve as a pattern for the discipling relationship […]. In their view, it had been Jesus’ method, and it was to be theirs as well.”[17] From a teaching and doctrine perspective, the G12 movement takes this to an extreme that was unknown in the Shepherding Movement. Both movements know the struggles of being the victims of their own success. The enormous need for spiritual covering caused exponential growth in the Shepherding Movement. This in turn caused an unceasing lack of mature leaders.[18] Same with the G12 movement, which seeks to grow at rates of doubling members every 6-12 months. In the Sheperding Movement many “young or untested leaders found themselves in positions of authority”[19], which is also a characteristic of the G12 movement, which is mainly popular among younger people. The rapid promotion of new leaders is justified with “time of exposure – the longer the exposure time, the greater the risk. […] [T]he new Christian’s “time of exposure” to offense is cut way back, which automatically results in lesser risk of losing him to the world. Thus, cutting back the time of exposure on the track of maturity serves to catapult growth because it dramatically cuts losses.”[20] While the Shepherding Movement saw some danger in this development, the G12 system sells it as a feature. Related to the problem of maturity is the problem of neglecting the true gifting and calling of a Christian. The Shepherding Movement “forced the five teachers into apostolic and pastoral roles for which they were not called or prepared”[21]. The G12 movement is due to its structure in even greater danger of trying to generate “super Apostles”, who have to function as specialists in all five areas of the fivefold ministry. Every Christian, regardless of calling and gifting, is supposed to become a leader and eventually function in the role of a discipler.[22]

5. Differences

Despite the many similarities, there are a number of significant differences between the two movements. In regards to the denominational and ecclesiogical background, the Shepherding Movement was clearly in a Pentecostal tradition and had its roots emerging Charismatic Renewal in the 1960s. The nature of the Charismatic Renewal made it non-denominational, influencing all mainline denominations at that time. The G12 system was also developed in a Pentecostal background. Cesar Castellanos’ church International Charismatic Mission (ICM) has a distinct Pentecostal and Charismatic background, as do most growing churches in South America. But unlike the Shepherding Movement, the G12 system made its inroads into non-Pentecostal and even evangelical churches.[23] One of the unique outcomes of the Shepherding Movement was the teachings on the Fivefold ministry gifts.[24] In G12, I could not find any importance of it. Rather the opposite is true: since Jesus is seen as the model for discipling people, the tendency is more towards a multi-talented and gifted leadership approach, closer related to the senior pastor leadership model. A substantial difference lies in the purposes and objectives of the two movements. The Shepherding Movement was primarily interested in qualitative and spiritual growth. A great emphasis was put on teaching and training spiritual truths. At the core, it was a pastoral movement, seeking to nurture and guide Christians to maturity. Here, the G12 movement stands in sharp contrast to the Shepherding Movement. Its main goal is quantitative growth, almost at all cost. The underlying approach is much more pragmatic, with a high willingness to change the method to reach one’s goals. At its core, the G12 movement is an evangelistic movement, that utilizes a discipleship approach to achieve multiplication. In terms of geographic dispersal, a contrast can be observed as well. The Shepherding Movement was very much confined to North America, but within there, it was spread out all over the country as an organic, trans-local relationship network.[25] The G12 system on the other hand is spread out all over the world without any official structural relationships. The common ground is the use of the G12 system and its methods, but the different churches adapting the G12 system are independent from each other. Due to its rigid hierarchical system, every G12 church is somewhat confined to a limited geographical area.[26]

6. Evaluation

For several reasons, the G12 movement will, in most cases, not touch churches and people that have previously been involved in the Shepherding Movement. For once, it started much later, mostly with people that are too young to have any personal knowledge or recollection of the Shepherding Movement. In addition, the G12 movement’s distinct focus on church growth and evangelism takes place in a very different context than the charismatic Renewal in the 1960s and 70s. And, after all, 30 years have gone by since the height of the Shepherding controversy, 30 years that brought substantial change to many churches, societies and cultures. In short, the question is: have important lessons been learned ? In retrospect, some see the Shepherding Movement application flawed, but not its doctrines.[27] However, the negative impact is still felt by many pastors who “have spent large amounts of time […] picking up the pieces of broken lives that resulted from distortion of truth by extreme teachings and destructive applications on discipleship, authority and shepherding.”[28] The question that many ask is if there is a real risk that the G12 movement would get out of control and result in similar damage as the Shepherding Movement.

6.1. Risk #1 Control and abuse of authority

Without a doubt, every attempt to disciple people will find itself in the tension between to little and too much authority. The particular lessons from the Shepherding Movement are invaluable and very unique. The G12 system is in real danger of overstepping the boundaries of authority, albeit the best intentions to disciple people and expand the Kingdom of God. The goal of evangelism and growth might all too easy justify the means. This risk is comparatively higher if the leaders of that particular G12 cells are young and inexperienced. Without knowing the past, they might very well be doomed to repeat history. The problem is that a strict hierarchical system causes “almost total inability of followers to challenge leaders.”[29] Unfortunately, the nature of man is corrupt, and so is him exercising power. Lord Acton’s warning “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” holds true for every leader, but becomes worse if there are no organizational checks and balances.

6.2. Risk #2 Growth, but neglect of quality and character

Bob Mumford acknowledged that “the godly theologian Killian McDonald warned […] that the movement had no mechanism to bring leaders, especially young leaders, to maturity.”[30] With the aggressive growth goals of many G12 churches, there is a danger of making compromises in the quality and character when selecting and establishing leaders. My personal experience in a church that “converted” to G12 showed that very easily, people with great gifting and skills will become leaders. The wise principle of not letting gifting supersede character can serve as a challenge and litmus test. Otherwise, someone’s gifting will take them to where their character can’t keep them. Moore’s assessment that “shepherds were seldom professionally trained, but were products of the discipleship and shepherding system”[31] applies to the G12 system as well. In light of that, mistakes and extremes are likely to be iterated and multiplied.

6.3. Risk #3 Unsound teachings and doctrine

Unfortunately, teachings on the G12 system have changed in the recent years towards spiritualizing every detail of the G12 system and method, and presenting it as a principle, rather than a tool or method. Castellanos writes that “[t]he model of the Twelve has always been in the heart of God and its number symbolizes government.” [32] Besides Jesus’ Twelve disciples, only Old Testament examples are quoted when justifying the G12 system as the ultimate and divine leadership model. G12 is elevated to the status of a spiritual law: “Growth is guaranteed if it is approached in faith.”[33] The Shepherding Movement was highly concerned about sound and balanced doctrine, but failed in implementation. Churches adapting these extreme G12 teachings might be setting themselves up for failure from the beginning because there is no sound doctrinal foundation.

6.4. Risk #4 The franchised, incorporated church

Although G12 is presented as not being a scientific formula but an art[34], it is very strongly suggested that every part of the recipe should to be implemented for it to work.[35] As a result, many churches treat G12 as a blueprint and formula, instead of an art. Castellanos even says himself that “the model of Twelve is very specialized, you either embrace it entirely, or you do not, there is no middle ground for compromise.”[36] One of the great dangers of our times in the Western world is that churches conform themselves to the world. This can be seen very clearly in the way churches adapt business philosophies, practices and mindsets that are contrary to Jesus’ command that we should be in, but not of this world. In case of the G12, Joel Comiskey sees the trend of franchising out the G12 system with a “take it or leave it” mentality[37]. In addition, the high esteem for growth, success and productivity might easily disregard the great need for the church to be a safe haven for the wounded, disenfranchised and weak. Unfortunately, in the eyes of a success-oriented organization, the latter have nothing to contribute, but will rather slow down progress.

7. Conclusion

There are several aspects of the G12 movement that make me watchful and cautious. The similarities to the Shepherding Movement’s discipleship practices are too striking to be overlooked and taken lightly. It is not said that the G12 movement will repeat the same mistakes. Too many other variables come into play. Nonetheless, from my personal involvement with the G12 system, I don’t see great concern or awareness among themselves that things could get out of control. It is being said that the perfect church will come the very day we all leave. The truth is that while we are on earth, mistakes and errors are part of the experience and challenge. As with all renewal movements before, the G12 system will be tested and scrutinized, and its early momentum later replaced by more structure and a tendency to preserve. I hope that the G12 movement will not discredit cell-based church models and discipleship programs through excesses and abuses. Hopefully, the overall effect on the Church is positive and beneficial.  

Bibliography

Castellanos D., Cesar. Successful leadership through the government of twelve. Sunny Isles Beach, FL: G12 Publishers, 2002.
Comiskey, Joel. Groups of 12. Houston, TX: Touch Publications, 1999.
Comiskey, Joel. “Concerns about the G12 Movement.” Fall 2002. http://members.tripod.com/celycecomiskey/concerns_about_the_g12_movement.htm (accessed April 22, 2005).
Frame, Randy. “Mumford: Application, Not Doctrine, Was Flawed.” Christianity Today, March 19, 1990.
Frame, Randy. “And Idea Whose Time Has Gone?.” Christianity Today, March 19, 1990.
Malloy, Rocky J. The Jesus System Groups of Twelve. Texas City, TX: Shield of Faith Ministries, 2002.
Moore, David, “The Shepherding Movement: A Case Study in Charismatic Ecclesiology.” Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000).
Moore, S. David. The Shepherding Movement. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003.
Reachout Trust. “A look at G12.” n.d. http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/relatedsubjects/g12.htm (accessed April 22, 2005).

Footnotes

[1] David Moore, “The Shepherding Movement: A Case Study in Charismatic Ecclesiology,” Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 252-3.
[2] Ibid., 253.
[3] Ibid., 261.
[4] Ibid., 263.
[5] S. David Moore, The Shepherding Movement (New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), 74.
[6] Reachout Trust, “A look at G12”, http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/relatedsubjects/g12.htm (accessed April 22, 2005).
[7] Rocky J. Malloy, The Jesus System Groups of Twelve (Texas City, TX: Shield of Faith Ministries, 2002), 115-8.
[8] A comparison of the G12 and the Jethro model can be found here: http://www.cellchurchonline.com/default.cfm?nav=articles&showarticle=jethrog12
[9] Exodus 18
[10] Joel Comiskey, Groups of 12 (Houston, TX: Touch Publications, 1999), 125-151.
[11] “This exclusive thinking is reflected in the quote by José Rivas, senior pastor of IPETRI, an independent Pentecostal Church that represents ICM in Chile, “One of the first things we learned in the vision was: you must adopt; not adapt. We must not forget this premise. To adapt the vision reveals pride, vanity, and self-sufficiency.”, from Joel Comiskey, Concerns about the G12 Movement (2002), http://members.tripod.com/celycecomiskey/concerns_about_the_g12_movement.htm
[12] e.g. icf-zuerich, a G12 based youth church movement in Switzerland. www.icf.ch
[13] Comiskey, Groups of 12, 138.
[14] That the goals of the renewal are diametrically opposed is one of the interesting features in light of so many other similarities See more under 5 Differences.
[15] Moore, “The Shepherding Movement”, Pneuma, 251.
[16] Ibid., 265.
[17] Ibid., 261., see also Malloy, 22-3.
[18] Moore, The Shepherding Movement, 186.
[19] Moore, “The Shepherding Movement”, Pneuma, 265.
[20] Malloy, 53-4.
[21] Moore, The Shepherding Movement, 186.
[22] Cesar Castellanos D., Successful leadership through the government of twelve (Sunny Isles Beach, FL: G12 Publishers, 2002), 120.
[23] E.g. El Amor Viviente (Tegucigalpa, Honduras), evangelical; Republic Church (Quito, Ecuador), C&MA affiliated; Berlin International Church (Berlin, Germany), C&MA affiliated; icf-zuerich (Zuerich, Switzerland), independent evangelical-charismatic.
[24] It is interesting to note that the five leaders were not exactly representing a balance of all five ministry gifts. The teachings on the Fivefold ministry were further developed than actually exercised and implemented.
[25] Moore, Shepherding Movement, 79.
[26] icf-zürich is unique in this respect because it considers itself as a church planting movement. Different G12 “churches” in six countries in Europe are connected through a relational network.
[27] Randy Frame, “Mumford: Application, Not Doctrine, Was Flawed,” Christianity Today, March 19, 1990, 39.
[28] Randy Frame, “And Idea Whose Time Has Gone?,” Christianity Today, March 19, 1990, 40.
[29] Moore, “The Shepherding Movement”, Pneuma, 266.
[30] Frame, 39.
[31] Moore, “The Shepherding Movement”, Pneuma, 264.
[32] Castellanos, Successful leadership, 121.
[33] Ibid., 203.
[34] Malloy, 117.
[35] Ibid., 26.
[36] Castellanos, Successful leadership, 204.
[37] Joel Comiskey, “Concerns about the G12 Movement” (Fall 2002), http://members.tripod.com/celycecomiskey/concerns_about_the_g12_movement.htm (accessed April 22, 2005).

(c) 2005 by Dominik Reinmund