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.
