My appeal to oppose the ICOC and its discipling

One of the ex-ICOC churches that I was in made big changes in 2003 and dismantled the structures and leadership of the past -and it was an initiative of the leaders. From what I hear, they are faced with rejoining the ICOC cooperative and their plan for unity, so this is my appeal and reasoning for them to not join in again and not accept one-on-one discipling.

As I’ve written before, my argument is that we went off the rails regarding doctrine because we went way to far in discipling (meaing one-on-one discipling). It was never a feature of the New Testament church, and yet we claimed to be restoring NT Christianity.  We made discipling essential to our church practice, and from it we developed a system that allowed far too much control and abuse. We know this. We know the many testimonies. We know the lack of justice in a tightly controlled system. Consider proverbs 26:11 “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” Of course people will promise things are different, but once again people can use the system to creep up again.

I know discipling started out with good intentions -a way to insure young Christians get personal training, and of course this is an admirable thing. Ironically, down the line when discipling was part of doctrine will still often neglected young Christians in the haste to get more studies, baptisms and maintain the insane schedules we were under. And it became the dangerous part of our church culture. It was THE means of control. I still refer to Henry Krieite’s statements about discipling(http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/hkriete.htm#ourcorruptedhierarchy). It taught gradually to rely on the system, on one’s discipler’s advice and that of the bible talk leaders,  rather than teaching disciples to take responsibility for their own lives and make their own mistakes.  It became a crutch for many.

If you’ve been a Christian for more than a year, and if you’re educated, why do you need discipling? Why do you need the green light to date? Why do you need to be denied the chance to date because your discipler disagrees? Is it really his (or her) responsibility? If you can’t take responsibility for that then what about when you have a family, your job, your kids? Of course you can, and it’s not an appointed discipler’s place to have that sought of influence in your life -especially if the discipler has no counselling or religious qualifications.

Consider Galations again, like 2:4 ” This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” Freedom in Christ is a good thing. I remember after the changes made in 2003, it was a relief to hear the truth being said. There was a lot of slack from those who were very embittered, and I don’t think many of them are interested in Christianity now. But for some of us, who had responded to the gospel and faith, it was a relief. For years we had been a slave to a system. I think that is obvious. I mentioned in a past post the circus of evangelism under the system. And there was control of dating, harsh rebuking sessions, coercion under the guise of “taking advice”, fear of leaving the group because we were taught it meant loss of salvation. I believe you don’t want to slip into this culture again.

If you spent years in that system, but now have freedom, married with teenage kids, do you really think it is wise to let your kids be part of a similar system? Which is better, you disciple your kids, or they have their own discipler?

If you’re really wise to the mistakes of our past ICOC culture -it wasn’t so much just “mistakes”. Underneath the rhetoric were power struggles – we know this, and they were the rules of any political movement: winners and losers. To be a winner, you play the system -the right alliances, saying the right things, conformity etc… If you get to the top, you made it to a privileged inner circle. Sure, some leaders were doing their best and sincere, but if we know Kip Mckean was seen to be holding on to power, didn’t he teach others to play by the same rules? And wasn’t it often the guys with a conscience who dared to question get into trouble? But of course, that was hard to judge, because there was control of information.

The apostles were at the end of the procession. If they were around today, we would admire them, but probably not envy him. But that was why they were trustworthy, and they pleaded to those they converted to not be duped by the cunning and craftiness of men. I suspect some of the “winners” from the past system want to be winners again, and they know how to play the game. Is Kip Mckean sincere? Maybe he thinks he is. Who knows? But look past the rhetoric to human nature. And I dare say it’s the dark side of human nature that is  Orwellian in nature. The propaganda -whether via websites, videos, speeches, testimonies etc…

Of course I have my arguments and reasoning, but do your own research and questioning -don’t let them do the thinking for you. Get back to what Christianity is about: we responded to the gospel, repented and got baptised. We strive to be righteous in daily living: purity, honesty, giving to our local fellowship and those around us, serving. We are imperfect, we mess up but confess. We strive to be different to the world in the way of immorality, drunkeness, swear words, drugs, smoking, swindling -in actions rather than just being self righteous and judgmental. Consider Romans 2:

6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”^[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.”

I refer to this on an individual level -our personal righteousness. If you don’t join the ICOC, but do right by God, then you’re righteous and be confident in that. It’s not about which movement you’re part of. Don’t let people coerce you, is what I mean. (I’m not using this verse to call anyone evil, I’m just saying we should personally seek to live our lives righteously regardless of politics). It’s just very simple.

Don’t let people imply the church is dead, or not “healthy” because it’s not growing etc… The ICOC can grow, Mormans can grow, Scientology can grow -doesn’t mean it’s healthy in truth and spirit. It also says God doesn’t show favoritism -no matter who you’re alined with. People can leave a movement because of it’s unpopular truth -so then it’s shrinking right? Does that make those remaining any less righteous? It can also mean their faith is tested and true!

About the “plan for united Cooperation”

As indicated before I thought I’d give my own commentary on the ICOC’s plan in the following document:

http://www.disciplestoday.org/joomla/images/file/APlanForUnitedCooperation20060311.pdf

In the actual document I couldn’t find a reference to one-on-one discipling, just “mutual discipling”, “mature discipling” and “Dynamic one-another relationships at a regional level” ( I guess that means leaders of different congregations having relationships). From my understanding some churches have full one-on-one discipling, some have as optional while others are not obliged to implement it. I will say, in the past a lot of abuse occurred because in most cases it wasn’t “mutual discipling”, it was a discipler and a disciple –a leader and a follow concerned, and abuse could occur when the discipler exercised control to the point of being unscriptural.

Much of the document sounds fair enough regarding Christian beliefs. It talks a lot about humility, and of course, Christians should be humble. It lays out 7 ways to be “completely humble” including forgiving in order to be forgiven, to confess one’s own sins without reference to or blaming others, and humility to accept others when their opinions differ. It then goes over shared beliefs including a Christian’s eternal purpose, Jesus being the cornerstone of our faith, the bible being the inspired word of God. It also goes over salvation, earthly mission, motivation, holiness and personal discipleship.

But one of the problems I’ve experienced is the lofty talk in sermons that went on in the culture of the previous ICOC, and the duplicity in what was going on in reality. People know how to say the right things. In fact, that’s how some survived the politics, while others who stood up got sidelined or provoked and shamed. You’ve got to test the actions. There was one congregation where I witnessed sincerity and honesty in dealing with the past. The leaders confessed and apologised, and most of them gave up/lost their jobs. They put their money where their mouth was.

Yet some of those leaders shared that there was no such acknowledgement or apology from their leaders (usually from overseas), many of whom are part of the ICOC cooperative. Of course I’m not at liberty to divulge any names, but this is what I’ve witnessed. And talk is cheap, where people learn how to say the right things. Even since the great shake up and the Henry Kriete letter, people know how to say “okay, there were mistakes, but let’s get back together. It’s time for humility” – but some of them didn’t offer their head on the chopping block in demonstrating real repentance (and lose their jobs).
Another thing about using the word “humility” –it can have a double meaning. People can use it as a form of coercion via implications. As if to say, “look, we’re leading, we’re doing it, if you don’t get behind us, are you really “humble”? If you differ in opinions (doing it different to us), are you really “humble”. Of course it’s not stated, and not necessarily conscience, but down the line it can become part of a culture of coercion.

In the “Concluding Vision” at the end, there is the mention of “the fire to test us”, “the storm” and how “the devil took advantage of the moment” which seems to imply everything was OK up until the “storm”. -I’m guessing regarding Henry Kriete’s “Honest to God” and the turmoil of around 2003- but I would argue the problems had been going on far many years, and “the storm” was just the bubble bursting. In Henry’s letter he details the harshness of authority, the legalism, insensitivity and coercion to name a few. He mentions that the problems were systematic in the culture.  (http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/hkriete.htm#intro)

Also in this same section, there’s kind of a tactic of flattery -”tens of thousands of saints have …remained true to Christ’s name…” “most older leaders have owned their mistakes, publicly repented and remain among us serving diligently…” Kind of as if to say “you guys are good, and part of the team, join us”. Being that as it may, that’s no reason to sign up because the mistakes of the past are serious, and if not properly address, prone to be repeated. You may be a Christian who’s persevered, publicly repented, serving diligently -good. Do it under a leadership that’s trustworthy.

And I still can’t help but get the feeling that the attitude is “We were doing fine until those troublemakers came along”. Never mind the fact that maybe they were saying the truth, and there are some that won’t forgive them for that.  It’s easy to play this game. Those who dared to speak the truth basically are punished in they way they’re implied as unfaithful and rebellious. Those who stayed silent or supported the system are, in a sense, being praised.

Sure, there are some who are trouble makers -sometimes they’re subversive ringleaders, sometimes they’re leaders who hold on to power. There are also silent, diligent supporters and followers, but there are also the cowardly, easily coerced into not opposing a corrupt system because it’s safer that way (we’ve probably all been guilty of that in the past). However, I thinks it’s glaringly obvious there were serious problems in the system and they had been going on for a long time and I believe “Honest to God” said what had to be said.

There is an admittance that in the past there was a “reliance on accountability and too much focus on numbers and statistics”, and a calling to “cross-centered” mission, which says basically churches aren’t really growing anymore, and that numerical growth is still important for “maturity”.

Yeah, but this is an understatement. Many of us spent years in the evangelistic circus, daily harassing people in the hope to get a phone number -and if you got a phone number you were stoked. Not to mention the “religious blaster”, where if you met someone else who claimed to be a Christian, you’d pull out your questions: “So, do you study the bible every day? Do you share your faith? Do you live according to the bible”, at which point an argument would develop, and the person would storm off. Then the evening of follow-up phone calls -”come to church”, “let’s meet for coffee”, “let’s study the bible”. Then it was Sunday, and you’d hope to desperation your flimsy follow-up contact would materialize at the cafe on time before church, and if they didn’t, you’d go to the service feeling like a loser, and hope your lack of visiters for the past month would not be brought up in a D-group.

This may seem a little harsh of me, but I’m not blaming anyone so much, but this is the culture we were swept up in. This was our life for years -this is the mind-job we have to deal with, and it’s not what the gospel of Christ is about. And underneath it we often had this thought, “is this person really going to be happy being sucked into this system? ” To start saying that churches aren’t growing now, and therefore must be spiritually stagnant, is just perpetuating the same problem.  If we’ve been repeatedly taught a system that was flawed, are we just to start trying to “save the world” again or feel guilty because the church isn’t growing?

I have to admit, before I go out evangelising again, I’m going to have to feel sure that I’m not just pulling another sucker into the system. You have to ask, is this “sharing faith” or is this “recruitment”. Is this building up a church, or building up someone’s little empire?

And I’ll make another point. From what I observed under this circus, it was the “middle management” who became the backbone, and often under the worst pressure. One example, a working intern I new of, (who is probably as far away from the ICOC as humanly possible now), newly married, had everyday of the week scheduled plus he worked a full-time job: church Sunday, leaders meeting Sunday night, D-time Monday night, evangelism Tuesday night, House church Wednesday night, Bible-talk Thursday night, evangelism Friday night, double date Saturday night etc etc… And it was the bible-talk leaders who got rebuked. And often it was the bible-talk leaders who kept on “falling away”.

But this was the culture that developed, along with the boasting “We are the kingdom of God”. But there has to be sincerity. “Love must be sincere”.

Finally, the unity plan has this sentence in the concluding paragraph:

“Every person wants unity in his or her family. But not everyone is always willing to humble himself, focus on and repent of his own sin, and completely forgive just as freely as he has been forgiven.”

Of course Christians need to be forgiving in their relationships -yes, we need to have a forgiving attitude to people and leaders in the past -after all, we were in it together, we were blinded together, we did it to each other, but that doesn’t mean sign up again. And I don’t like the implication that if you’re not part of the “team” (and being part of “unity”), you’re not humble. The reader has to judge for him/herself double meanings:  “humble” or “self-effacing”. “Unity” or “Conformity”. Being “supportive to a system” (if it’s good) or “being exploited” again.

Recent developments

Recently I looked up some of the developments regarding the ICOC and significant names such as Kip Mckean, and Henry Kriete. As I share in my blog my views and ideas about moving in my faith I’m interested to see what else is happening. I will say from outset that I feel more inclined to what I’ve read regarding Henry Kriete, although it’s hard to get up-to-date info.

I’ve read through the ICOC plan for united cooperation and feel inclined not to support it at all. (It can be found on the “Disciples Today” website: http://www.disciplestoday.org/joomla/images/file/APlanForUnitedCooperation20060311.pdf) There are several reasons for this and the first one is that in one of the congregations from the ICOC (I’ve been in several around the world) I witnessed psychological and emotional manipulation via the one-on-one discipling system. It was something deliberate and could be done only by people without a conscience. It was only certain people, some leaders ,while others I still feel that their faith and intentions are genuine. However, a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough. And this church is very much a part of the “ICOC cooperative” as they now referred to. I also got advice from an ex-ICOC evangelist who serves a small congregation: if you ever come across the ICOC, just flee (no it wasn’t Henry Kriete). In my next blog post I’ll have a look at the plan in more detail.

I looked at the City of Angels website and Kip Mckean’s latest article (http://www.caicc.net/083108.php) where he claims to try to bring clarity through definitions of many terms such as “disciple” and “Kingdom of God”. Interesting his clarification of “Church Universal” where he now includes (and to quote )“the Mainline Churches of Christ, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), the Sold-out Discipling Movement and unknown to many in these fellowships, the conservative “Christian Churches” and even in some with denominational names, such as “Missionary Baptists.”
One could say this represents a change from the old days, where it was implied that the mainline Church of Christ were too lukewarm etc… But again, I’m not confident regarding the one-on-one discipling issue, and I’ve read too many lofty articles to feel a sense of trust.

Regarding Henry Kriete, all I could find was a blog entry copying a letter he’d written. It seems to be around mid 2005, so it’s pretty outdated. (http://pinakidion.org/archives/whatever-happened-to-henry-kriete) If the source is correct then he accepted a position in a local congregation. I guess it’s the sense of not getting into the games of rhetoric and lofty claims that appeal to me. Just serve.

The rhetoric going on, whether it’s ICOC or the Sold Out Discipling movement just scares me. And there is power involved, and power corrupts. I read stuff going on –one moment ICOC leaders are getting together to voice their condemnation of Kip Mckean, the next moment someone is buddy-buddy again with a sister church of his. It’s hard to know who’s sincere, or is it just about political maneuvering?

Just a Product of the System?

No matter what religious institution we come from or are a part of, I believe it’s important to ask yourself: “Am I just a product of the system, or do I have my own convictions?” It sounds simple enough, but it’s something I feel looking back on my own experience that it’s a crucial question to ask, and you never know when you’re convictions and beliefs will be tested.

I should say it’s a given that we’re all influenced by society, by whatever social groups we’re part of as well as friends and family around us but discerning what we believe and why we believe is a part of the maturing process and it’s a safeguard against being sucked into the sort of politics that can turn ugly. I might add, I believe this can apply to anything: religion, politics, academic beliefs, martial arts -any institution built around a set of serious beliefs.

 

Just towing the line can feel safe but what happens if you’re being led up the garden path? What happens if you suddenly see through the leaders who you thought were the ants pants? What happens if you become a victom in political struggles of the group? (You may happen to make another member feel threatened etc…) What happens if the group dwindles away after enjoying success, or the top dog turns out to be a fake? How will you deal with these things and how will they affect your core beliefs?

 

Here are some of my own ideas on the signs of becoming a “product of the system”. Of course you may think of others:

 

-You just learn the cliches to be accepted rather than do your own homework on your own beliefs. (It’s easier to just be politically correct within the group, do you do your own study in your own time?)

 

-You stay in the group because it meets your social needs rather than being in the group because of your beliefs while enjoying fellowship with like-minded people.

 

-You’re smitten by personalities in leadership rather than making an educated judgment about leaders as to why you support them (and being aware of both their strengths and weaknesses). You may even be caught up in a cult of personality. 

 

These are things that may not be easy to discern when you’re in a group or joining, and they’re things I’ve thought of with 20/20 hindsight, because I’m definitely guilty of being a product. Often we learn the hard way, but I’ve also thought of some ideas on how to safe guard against being a product of the system:

 

-As previously mentioned, do your homework. Research and read. Be discerning. You can be open, but don’t be gullible or susceptible to salesmen techniques. If you’re going to buy an expensive item, you do your homework, compare features and prices, look at the quality and how it will meet your needs. Often with a political or religious group, they may have been proactive in inviting you -don’t just be passive, do you’re homework, because in effect they are asking you to invest time and money in their group (whether a church, a martial arts group or a political party) and over time that could cost you much more than buying a computer or a car, not to mention the emotional cost involved.

 

-If you’re in a group, be willing to take time out, whether it’s a week or a month. You may be criticised for lack of commitment or something, but if you feel you’re being swept away, I think you need time out to focus on what you believe and why you believe it. You may feel you need perspective and objectivity, but how can you obtain that unless you have time out? Hopefully you can come to a good arrangement where the group leader is understanding.

 

(Side note for me having been in the ICOC, this could be a kind of a touchy issue. The belief was that being away from the group was like an ember away from the fire, if it was away too long then it might die out. Furthermore, there are temptations in the “world” and there was a lot of persuasive literature opposing the ICOC’s beliefs and practices, so for young Christians it was often discouraged if they would be away from the group too long. The adverse affect of this was that it could put enormous pressure on people, making them feel claustrophobic, and it’s probably one reason why so many people left anyway. Hopefully, whatever church or group you’re part of, it’s not going to be a major issue.)

 

-Don’t let your beliefs be tied to leadership or the stability of the group. I guess this takes an understanding that all systems and leaders will have flaws -it may be something you need to remind yourself again and again. In my experience in the ICOC in the early days, looking up to personalities like Kip McKean and World Sector Leaders verged on idolitary. In many ways they were inspiring people at the time, but if you get carried away you go down a dangerous line of thinking. You fail to see the merits of Christians outside the group, and you fail to see you’re own pride and arrogance by being part of the group. You hang on to every word of every sermon preached by these leaders and though you won’t say it out loud, you think they’re infallible. And then when it turns out they’re flawed or the group system falls apart, where will you’re beliefs be? Will you feel you’ve wasted your time, money and effort?

 

Perhaps a practical exercise is to ask yourself: “If this group or this leader falls (is exposed in wrong-doing, loses his or her belief, just quits etc…) will it affect what I believe? Will I still feel like I’ve learnt a lot? Will I still feel like I’ve benefited? Or will I feel like I’ve invested in a company and the shares have gone bust?

 

(I know I’ve used my experience in the ICOC as an example, but this post isn’t focused on ICOC or ex-ICOC or SOD churches in their present situation. It seems now that every church has its unique condition and issues. But this is what I’ve learnt, and I feel that despite mistakes I’ve made and times I have been lead up the garden path, I still have my beliefs in Christianity and the bible and that’s what’s important.)

 

Also, a side note about Christianity in general. I believe that protection of the gospel is about teaching Christians to base their beliefs on the gospel (and not the group). Hebrews 6:14 says “But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” It’s not enough to just become a Christian and be part of the group. Growing in conviction means distinguishing good from evil. In the basics this may sound easy -killing is evil, giving to the poor is good… but when caught up in church politics, it’s not so easy to distinguish good from evil. It’s not so easy to distinguish who’s being critical and rebellious, and who’s opposing a leader because they’re contrary to what is right. But if you’re just a product of the system, how will you be able to make these kinds of judgments? You’ll be the reed tossed and turned in the wind…

 

Last note: you are responsible for your own life. No leader, preacher, instructor etc is going to personally take responsibility for your life and how you spend your time and money.

Pitfalls of Religion: Monopoly of Salvation

I mentioned in my last post the idea of the “monopoly of salvation”, and so I thought this time I’ll give my own thoughts and experience having spent around thirteen years in the ICOC (International Churches of Christ).

When I first studied the bible all those years ago I was amazed at how impacting the bible could be. It really changed my life for the better. Even though I’d believed in God I hadn’t changed in my life previously. Furthermore I was really impacted by the fellowship and camaraderie with fellow Christians in our bible talk on campus.

However, it was from these good things that our views on salvation and the church being the only true church began -perhaps because we got too confident too soon. There were several lines of reasoning that lead us to coming to this issue:

The first one was that we were “doing it”: the evangelising, the daily prayers and bible study, confessing and challenging sin in our lives and discipling. We believed that the Christian religious world had become luke-warm but we were the ones striving to be fired up. (And of course, a lot of the religious world is luke-warm and hypocritical which is why there are so many revivals and new born movements in Christianity). We’d say, “maybe there is some other church out there doing it, but so far we haven’t seen it”.

Another line of reasoning was to look at doctrines and creeds of other churches and use a process of elimination. It would go something like this: “The Catholics teach such and such so they’re wrong, the protestants teach such and such so there wrong, and other churches have extra scripture so their wrongs…” and we would eliminate them all until we were down to us: the only ones “restoring New Testament Christianity in today’s generation.”

The other main line of reasoning was the idea that in each city all disciples/Christians should be united. There should be one church -and this is how the ICOC was structured as it grew. After all, Jesus had prayed for unity.

So, by 2003 it seemed things had gone wrong, and many churches had internal issues to deal with. The “One True Church” belief was questioned and suddenly things weren’t so cut and dried. So, what can we make of it?

In my opinion one thing was that perhaps we took our fellowship, our leadership and the One True Church belief for granted and basically failed to heed the warnings in the bible, or to take it seriously. We assumed we were just “the Kingdom”. From this came more dangerous assumptions:

Because we believed we were the one true church it became implied that salvation was tied to the organisation and leadership. In a sense people would feel secure just be being in the church rather than taking responsibility in following God’s word. This could lead to compromising righteousness and feeling favoured just by being in the group. The adverse affect is of course, when someone leaves the group it is believed they’re leaving God by default, and will lose salvation. (Maybe the person leaving decides this is wrong, but there’s the stigma attached and the stress from the loss of friendships etc…)

Of course, the preaching didn’t go like this. Leaders would preach that “you’re not saved just by being in the ICOC”, but we did believe we were the only true church, so that by implication, that’s the effect a monopoly of salvation will have on people.

This whole experience in my mind has raised some significant issues. Unity is something to be aspired to by Christians, but it’s not hard to see in the Christian world just how splintered things are. But with the exclusiveness of the ICOC in its unity came adverse affects. The enormous pressure of believing everyone outside the group is lost, while everyone in the group is saved. The feelings of loss and heartache when many “fall away”, and sometimes suddenly. The pressures on individuals when they join if family members employ exit counsellors or exert enormous pressure again.

In many ways we felt we were making a stand, but looking back we have to ask ourselves what was “genuine” and what was just politics and the culture of, well, for want of a better word, a cult.

Things that have helped me are some scriptures that I can share. Romans 2:6-11 talks about how we reap what we sow, and “God does not show favouritism”. I believe the ICOC started out with good intentions and biblical ideals, but when things went pear-shaped spiritually (long before 2003) it was a big mistake to just assume we were okay. Also, the warnings in Hebrews 6 about falling away also act as a wake-up call: no one is immune. Being a christian is a long haul both on a personal level and a congregation level.

Furthermore, a church can start out good, but be lead astray. Paul warned the Ephesians in Acts 20:29-30: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” -and that’s where the monopoly of salvation is such a powerful and deadly force in church politics.

For me, in the post-ICOC era, I feel a need to just learn more from the bible, strive to take responsibility for my own actions and be more prudent in deciding which fellowship to join. Over a whole lifetime one may be in several different churches at different times. When churches come and go, rise, fall, split and change -how can any one fellowship really hold a monopoly on salvation?

Moral Warfare

I guess politics and church politics can have something in common: to try and make your opposition or enemy seem like the “bad guy”, thus automatically making yourself seem like the “good guy”… This isn’t necessarily wrong – in two-way debates in democratic politics it’s accepted that there’s this kind of strategy going on. And if leaders in these debates have a certain amount of integrity, then they have a certain amount of moral authority -but if leaders are found to be lying then they may loose moral authority.

I like to watch Australian politics on TV in a show call “Question Time” which looks at debates going on in parliament. The good thing about it is both parties get a chance to speak -usually the opposition will question the government in power and the leaders involved will defend their policies or actions.

In fundamentalist religion however things are not so much on an even playing field. Sometimes beneath the surface you can sense there is a battle going on: a battle for people’s hearts and minds -their belief system and their support for the leadership. It is a kind of “moral warfare” -some leaders seem to engage in it with some truth and integrity, some leaders get disillusioned and opt out all together, and some leaders become unscrupulous and deceitful in this kind of moral warfare.

Coming from the ICOC of course there’s been controversy of some of the main players such as Kip Mckean, other leaders in the present ICOC and others who have completely disowned it. I’m not so much interested in who’s right or wrong in this entry, but rather drawing attention to the fact there is a battle going on.

Some of the tactics in moral warfare can involve things like character slurs (or character assassination) but often not directly. In sermons, articles or speeches the opponents may not be mentioned by name but alluded to as “bitter” or “emotional” etc… It becomes incorporated into the kind of propaganda machine and analogies, anecdotes and bible verses will often be geared towards this.

Another aspect of moral warfare in religious groups is where the group claims a monopoly on salvation (one of the issues of the ICOC previously, though I don’t think it’s claimed so much anymore). Whether leaders and people have good intentions or not, the monopoly on salvation can automatically drain any potential opponents within a group of moral authority -if they’re questioning things they can be labelled “critical”, if they leave in disgust they can be labelled “fall-aways”.

It’s not to say opponents are in the right necessarily, but without checks and balances and a sense of openess an oppressive leadership has a grip in power in these terms of moral warfare. They can get the congregation on their side, even isolate potential critics and resort to what I call “moral bullying”. Making them seem like the “bad guy”, or the “bitter guy” or the “emotional guy” etc…

I’ll probably look at this in more detail later…Personally I find it interesting how things have changed a lot in the post-ICOC era. Some former “persecutors” are now having fellowship with top former leaders of ICOC fellowships, and I think many of us are able to see through much of the rhetoric in the present day because we’re familiar with it, and the subtle tactics that are used.

Later I’ll try and talk more on my personal feelings about the monopoly of salvation because I think the bible is clear about how to live a righteous life. Sure you want to be part of a good church, but we’re judged on our own thoughts, words and deeds, not on the organisation we’re in. And I think claiming a monopoly of salvation can cause much damage, whether intentional or not.

verses and topics

One of the things I like to do when reading the bible is keep a notebook handy and write down interesting verses in topics. The topics can be on anything that interests me or that I feel is important, whether its things like “love”, “wisdom” and “integrity” or more practical things like”saving money”. Sometimes I’ll have a topic with its opposite, like “generosity vs stinginess”. I’ll share some scripture I have from the above topics in my notebook:

“Discretion will protect you and understanding will guard you” Proverbs 2:11 for wisdom.

“Dishonest money dwindles away but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.” Proverbs 13:11 on saving money (and business ethics).

“One man gives freely, yet gains even more: another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty”. Proverbs 11:24 on generosity vs a stingy heart.

These are just examples from surveying proverbs, which is one of my favorite books.

I’m also considering doing a kind of series about “The pitfalls of religion” using some scriptures I’ve accumulating in my studies. This will not be directly referring to the ICOC or any particular church organisation, rather looking at human nature and power play that can go on in religious and ideological movements and groups. The purpose is not to criticise but rather help average people be more aware of the dangers and pitfalls and I’ve discovered it’s the same old story that the bible warns about, whether it’s corrupt kings, false prophets or the craftiness of teachings blowing each way warned about in the New Testament.

From security to confusion and then onwards.

I was in the ICOC for over 10 years and back then we were taught everything in black and white. We felt secure there was one God, one church, one baptism. We were sure who was lost and who was saved. We were confident in one-on-one discipling. We knew we had to be on top of visiters, follow-ups, regular contributions and special contributions. We swollowed everything hook, line and sinker that came on KNN (Kingdom News Net) or that we read in “Shining like stars”. We endured the heavy D-groups, the rebukes for not bringing a visiter for 2 months, accepting advise in dating and the heavy schedule. We were certain we were putting the bible in practice, that were held to one standard while all other churches were just religious (maybe there was a church out there doing it, but we hadn’t seen it yet…) We new that all the criticism out there against us was just Satan having a go at us, or bitter people who wanted to tear us down. And we were sure that everyone in leadership was chosen by God, and that we should just get behind them.

But of course, all that changed, or was in the process of changing, round the time of Henry Kriete’s letter. Suddenly things that were suppressed came to light and many things were thrown into question. There was a sense of upheaval, perhaps liberating for some and painful for others. Many realised that we were also guilty of the very things we’d critised the religious world for -being legalistic and hypocritical. In many ways the church propoganda had been teaching people to rely on the church culture and leadership rather than simply on the gospel. There had been much abuse going on within the system, and few checks and balances against abuse -thus people leaving the ICOC in droves. (And yet some churches didn’t change much at all).

Now this is the lesson I’m learning in my post-ICOC world: it is up to me to solidify my faith again and gain convictions from the bible again. If the ICOC made itself the basis of my faith, then it was no faith at all because it’s not based on the gospel -but I’ve decided I’m not going to let any bad experiences steal my faith. My faith is based on the gospel. What that means in concrete terms is going over and coming to my own conclusions on what I believe, such as one-on-one discipling, tithing and the many other things taught from the ICOC. To not do this leaves me vulnerable again to the many politics of different churches going on at the moment or to just give up on my faith altogether.

So, recently reading back over some of the letters in the NT, I’ve seen in a way it’s the same old story -there was no easy Christianity then and there isn’t one now. There is no infallible fellowship…One major fault of the ICOC was to have us believe it was easy -that the ICOC was this infallible package of salvation. Just stay in and follow like one of the spokes in the wheel -leave and you lose your salvation. We used to think being in the ICOC had all the answers. Big mistake.

Now I see the first step for me is accepting that there are no easy answers. I’ve made my first decision about one-on-one discipling and therefore I’ll have no part of the ICOC revival if it’s trying to bring the same system in. The answer is not looking back. The answer isn’t to go back to some comfortable ICOC umbrella just so everything feels familar and falls into place. It’s time for old Christians and those who spent the years in the ICOC to accept that the way forward isn’t some simple package, that there are many mistakes we need to learn from, that the  elements of faith, conscience and love are what’s needed.

And also, wisdom especially. I believe that’s what wisdom is about -telling the difference between what’s right and wrong when things are blurry, and the politics and propaganda are thick and thorny. Not just making judgments based on the surface, but seeking to go beneath the surface. To find ways to tell who’s sincere and who’s dodgy. The bible constantly reminds us of the cunning and craftiness of men and you can’t take things for granted outside a fellowship or within a fellowship.

Opposition to one-on-one discipling

I’m starting this blog by simply explaining my opposition to one-on-one discipling. Since the Henry Kriete letter I know a lot of churches have changed -some totally abandoned this discipling system, others didn’t, and others let it be optional for members. I also know that for those who’ve been through the mechanisms of the ICOC discipling system that everyone has had their own experiences and their own story to tell -some found it abusive while others found it helpful.

Anyway, here are my convictions:

Firstly, I feel though it may have been helpful for some, it can open up ways for exploitation by unscrupulous leaders. I use 2 Corinthians11:20 as a reference which talks about false leader’s exploitation and taking advantage of a congregation -if one of Paul the Apostle’s churches was prone to this, then any congregation is prone. I also feel that it’s obvious to say, the control of one-on-one discipling is totally contrary to the principles of freedom such as talked about in Galatians 5 and led to a lot of abuse and unnecessary control over members. In fact it’s probably the most significant factor in giving the ICOC the reputation as a spiritually repressive cult.

An example of how it can be abused is where decisions can be made about a member between his discipler and a leader without the member being present or having any say in the matter. It can even open up a kind of slander behind the scenes, such as “well, this bro isn’t doing well spiritually right now, I don’t think he should date this sister”… or whatever personal details may be discussed.

Furthermore, though the ICOC claimed to be restoring New Testament Christianity, I can find no such system of each member having their own discipler or personal mentor in the pages of the New Testament. This may seem kind of obvious, but it came to be a kind of prerequisite in the ICOC culture as a Christian church -the belief that if a church doesn’t have one-on-one discipling it is not a New Testament church. I guess the justification for it went along the lines of “Speak where the bible is silent” (and pointing to how Jesus led his 12 apostles and the 72 etc), but if it’s considered essential for a church and the gospel (where it’s not even conceived of in the New Testament) then surely it’s become a heresy. In a sense it’s “going beyong what is written”.

Now because of the danger of abuse and the thousands of testimonies against it, I’ve decided to take a strong view against it, even though now it’s not a prerequisite in some churches under the ICOC banner (but it is prerequisite in some churches). From reading across the net I also get the feeling some leaders want to bring it back in and encourage it to be restored to congregations.

There’s one more aspect of one-on-one discipling that makes it disagreeable in my mind, and that is it fostered a kind of dependence to the point of not taking responsibility for one’s life. Under the culture of the ICOC asking advice from one’s discipler often became asking permission.

I’m not against Christians leaders training Christians and young Christians needing to learn but when one-on-one discipling gets so instilled in the culture to the point of controling and manipulating even mature members then it’s just no biblical.

I’m not a member of any church at the moment (I’m in Sydney but I’m not sure if I’ll be here permanently) and I feel there is a bit of confusion in the post ICOC -I hear of people drawing lines in the sand asking “which side are you on” so to speak. Well, I’m on the anti-one-on-one discipling side.