On the article “Anatomy of Recovery” Part I

On my last post I discussed Kip Mckean’s “It’s Obvious” web-article, and this time I’m focusing on an article written by Douglas Authur and published on the ICOC Co-operative website site
(http://www.icocco-op.org/). I feel similar about the ICOC’s latest initiative as I do on Kip Mckean’s new “Sold Out Discipling Movement” in that I oppose one-on-one discipling outright and both these movements either employ it or seem to have a desire to bring it back. My last personal experience on leaving the ICOC 3-4 years ago was that in some congregations there is no desire to change a system that allows control over it’s members which is clearly unbiblical. In fact, I believe there is a desire among some to slyly bring back this system and strengthen it, and I don’t believe that’s God’s will.

So, after reading this article which is fully titled: “The Anatomy of Recovery: A Parable about Ministries” I have several reservations. When religious leaders put up articles with scriptures it goes without saying that the scriptures are good and right and as Christians we’re prompted to consider them and apply them to our lives. But when there’s a “pull” attached or some kind of investment involved on behalf of the religious movement, you have to tread carefully (Of course it’s okay for a church to urg people to come to a service and check it out). A kind of “logic of assumptions” comes into play which I’m going to argue against. My position as stated is that I think individuals and congregations should stay away from the ICOC Co-operative and work on their own spiritualiy and faith and I say this in context of this article because one of the “Signs of Recovery” mentioned towards the end is “Discipling restarted”. The article outlines 5 stages that a congregation may go through to find “recovery” which starts from “Darkness and Denial” and involves basic ideas of a decision to get “well”, a call back to commitment, faith, humility and returning to God.

Regarding the first stage of “Darkness and Denial” it’s an easy enough term to use. Attached is the verse used is Jeremiah 6:13-15, where “all practice deceit” and where they say “‘peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” and a similar verse Ezekiel 13:10-12. The problem is the interpretations. Is “darkness and denial” happening now because a former ICOC congregation is still having trouble finding it’s way, or was it during the years long before 2003 under the tight leadership of Kip Mckean and the World Sector Leaders? A few years ago some ICOC leaders and brothers bonded together to officially challenge Kip Mckean on his divisiveness -and surely some problems that stemmed from his ambitions for growth based on stats and accountability was evident in the years prior to 2003.

So, if an  former ICOC congregation is struggling to find its feet or hasn’t had many baptisms for several years, does that mean it’s in the same spiritual condition as referred to in the above scriptures? Does it mean the leaders are deceitful like the prophets and priests? Are all the members greedy for gain? Are they committing “loathsome conduct”? Is that what the author believes because I think the comparison is a little drastic, in which case I’d argue the scripture is inappropriately used. Or perhaps the implication is “your church is not growing, you must be doing something wrong and you’re self-deceived because you’re not getting help and getting on board with us”.

And finally there’s Revelation 3:14-19. You probably know the one: about being “lukewarm -neither hot or cold”. Now, firstly this verse is a very valid warning for first-world congregations and Christians. We can become over-reliant on wealth in a consumer driven society and become poor in ’spiritual’ wealth. It is a calling to repent, and especially in the “hedonistic West” we need to constantly renew our zeal. But in the former ICOC it came to take on it’s own meaning: when a church isn’t growing it must be lukewarm. And from that stems an obsession on more evangelism, baptisms and studies and fall-aways etc And then comes the errant belief that when a church does have baptisms, studies, growth it must be not “lukewarm” but “fired-up”. We immediately assume it has God’s seal of approval. And down the line this verse became a way to put guilt-trips on churches that weren’t growing.

So I’m a little skeptical when this scripture is brought out again. Is the implication that the solution lies in returning to the ICOC-Cooperative fold?  And in the past this verse has been used in sermons with pressure to make people feel “convicted” (as in a sense of guilt or responsibility) over things they weren’t guilty of. It’s fine if the verses used serve to deal with issues that are in a congregations. There could be a problem with certain types sexual immorality, or some conflict in a church or some bad influence from society etc… But some leaders have been skilled at pulling out these scriptures on the congregation to the degree where they always have to say “I’m convicted”, “I need to go and reflect”, “I must have done something wrong” because not to take on this response would seem prideful and defensive. So every time the scripture on “lukewarmness” is used everyone has to go away feeling like they’re lukewarm, and something’s wrong, and therefore need to evangelize more etc etc…

Now the key scripture used in prompting churches to follow the “road to recovery” is the parable of the sower. It’s a very powerful scripture that talks about how people receive the gospel and their different responses to it, and also about the challenges of the Christian life but again I feel it’s leading to the same implications. If a congregation hasn’t had many baptisms in the last few years, it must be “unfruitful” like the “seed among the thorns”, and therefore need help in the recovery.

The ICOC did grow rapidly and impact a lot of people. It was from members of the ICOC sharing faith that I became a Christian, and countless more. I believe many members were sincere in their devotion to God. BUT, didn’t the deceitfulness of wealth and desire become thorns in the movement? Just as there was “good fruit” in the way of growth, zeal, baptisms, wasn’t there also “bad fruit” in the one-on-one discipling system, unbiblical control of dating couples by the leadership, self glorification and pride in ourselves as a movement? The intense problems in the grass-roots culture I believe still leaves many congregations and members still trying to work things out (because the experience for many was psychological and left a deep impression), and the solution isn’t a simple one to just sign on again and get discipled.

So, mentioned in the article as one warning sign of “darkness and denial” is that a church doesn’t know where it is regarding membership, attendance and baptisms. Sure, it’s important to know, but for many churches who haven’t got nice looking stats -there’ll be a temptation to sign up -even either with the SODM or the ICOC co-op because they’re all claiming a return to fast growth. But maybe there’s a test from God because I don’t see many exhortations in the letters of the New Testament discussing church membership or growth. We know that the church grew dramatically from its inception throughout the book of Acts, but the focus throughout the letters was the gospel. The glory was the gospel, not the growth. And the fruit was often seen in the way people lived their lives, their faith, the heart to give, love, gentleness and self-control, and the spiritual battle was always both within and without, and the influences of heresy. And that’s what I believe ex-icoc congregations need to focus on, separate from the ICOC or the SODM, because I don’t believe there’s any other way to avoid the pitfalls of past ICOC.

To be continued…

On Kip Mckean’s “It’s Obvious”.

I was in the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) for a good 13 years, but left 3-4 years ago despite keeping in contact with some congregations. I thought I’d write some thoughts about what I’ve seen from Kip Mckean’s website about his 2nd anniversery of the new movement “Sold Out Disciple’s Movement” (SODM) in an article titled “It’s Obvious” (http://www.portlandicc.org). First I should state my basic position that one-on-one discipling became a major problem and I believe that the system of discipling became unbiblical as it became essential to the workings of the church. Thus I oppose discipling and shepherding at this point in time, and I can’t see the use of personal disciplers/mentors/shepherds in such a system used in the New Testament.

I found that often when I read an article from an SODM or ICOC site that it helps to jump ahead to find out the real point they’re getting at, then start again from the beginning to see why they use the verses and what they’re leading up to. So jumping ahead a little it seemed to me the main argument of the articel was that the SODM is growing in baptisms, members and restorations, while the ICOC (cooperative) wasn’t or growing or growing as much. Therefore: God is with SODM while not with ICOC – “it’s obvious” because of the growth in the churches.

Using this line of argument is problematic because while the comparisons in the cities that Kip uses to show growth in the SODM the ICOC also has it’s victories in growth and baptisms which you can see on their “hot news” site for example (http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/498).  So then what are we to do? Research all the statistics in all cities and campuses, tally up all baptisms, restorations and members over the past two years, take into consideration ratios and equations that allow the comparing of mission teams, small churches and big churches and weigh then against their “fall-aways” to come up with a final comparison? And then we’ll know who God is with? That’s not so obvious.

I’m not knocking growth. I’m a Christian and encouraged if more people are becoming Christians -but you hope and pray they join a church that has a good foundation on the gospel. The culture of statistics, growth and glory in baptisms I believe is a pitfall for both Kip’s movement and the ICOC. If it goes from more than just being good news to a kind of “golden calf” – something that’s focused on, hoped for, gloried in, it becomes a problem. Then without the growth and baptisms a congregation will feel discouraged and in the doghouse. Growth, baptisms and stats become a kind of “measuring rod” for the health of a church. I don’t believe this was the way the apostles like Paul and Peter measured their churches (as evident in the letters of the New Testament). It was much deeper than that. They new the spirit of a church, the beliefs, outside influences, the tendencies in the culture, their strengths and weaknesses, major sins, the integrity (or lack of) of key figures and they taylored help and solutions to that church.

From my experience for so many years in the ICOC culture, the drive for visitors, studies and baptisms by statistics and follow-up is a major pitfall and stifler of the power of grace that comes from the Cross, and I think there are plenty of other witnesses who shared the same experience. I believe a lot of this came from Kip Mckean’s leadership -and to his credit he’s a very hardworking, influencial, talented leader from what I gather, but my question is: has he learned the lessons of the past, or is he just continuing along the same path? Is he returning like a dog to its vomit, as the proverb goes? This article leaves me with serious doubt.

And there’s another issue which I believe is also relevant to the ICOC and other ambitious Christian organisations and that is the liberal use of biblical references to make one’s church/leadership/argument seem, well, “biblical”. What I mean is, the picking and choosing of lofty references to focus on one’s argument, (contrasting with focusing on a passage to learn from it). So Kip Mckean opens with several references: the cloud and the fire leading the Isrealites through the desert, then the final plague in Egypt of the death of the first born, then the falling of Jericho, then Saul’s jealousy of David and on to the New Testament.

So, what’s the basic point? That it’s obvious when God is with his people, and often miracules of God make it obvious. That’s not deniable. But I don’t believe that adds to his argument, especially when the ICOC can come up with it’s own “obvious” victories in baptisms and growth.

And there’s one biblical reference that Kip Mckean uses which I find just divisive. 1 Kings 18:21  in which he refers to the 450 prophets of Baal and their false teachings, just after he stated that God doesn’t want his people to “waver between two opinions”. Since the whole article discusses contrast between SODM’s growth and some of the ICOC in the same cities, why use this reference? Is he implying they’re idolatrious?  That they’re the “bad guys”, and he and his team are the “good guys” or have God’s stamp of approval. Wasn’t he saying that the ICOC was part of the “Church Universal” in his “Clearing Up the Confusion” article? (http://www.caicc.net/083108.php).

Of course he’s not saying it outright, but he’s implying it by using a reference like this, and if he doesn’t mean to imply it, he shouldn’t use it. Period. Not long ago he gives the thumbs up for being part of the ICOC, and now he’s implying something very different so he can pressure people to “stop wavering between two opinions” (and be part of the A team with him, or the B team -the Baals… But I digress). Isn’t this just way out of context? Or are political events of the Portland story confusing things again?

Now, I’m not going to go through all the other references but I’ll just say that I don’t think they really add anything to his argument in the article, (there is Matthew 28:19-20 about making disciples of all nations -but that doesn’t allow taking an unhealthy focus on growth and baptisms or comparisons.)

There are some things I would like to be made obvious. What is the doctrinal difference between the ICOC and the SODM? How do they address the issues raised in the Henry Kriete’s Honest to God, because I believe they are still valid if they want to avoid repeating past mistakes (or are atleast be sincere in trying). What I often find are references to the same “problems” that Kip raised before when leading the ICOC; “lukewarmness” and “mainline theology”. They’re the kind of “blame dummies” in rhetoric one can use to downgrade competitors and cast a slur on them if they’re not growing.

Sure, lukewarmness on sin is a problem, but I believe that reference has just been over-used, and things are often over-simplified as ambitious religious leaders try to persuade more and more over to their ranks.

And what about other problems of the past ICOC? Like, P-R-I-D-E for example, that stemmed from boasting in numbers and growth. I feel a little dejavu. (And I’m not just blaming the ICOC leaders  – all members became guilty of it as we plugged into the mindset of feeling better than other “religious” people.) And what about the high-pressure accountability that passed down the line from WSLeaders down to grass-roots bible talk leaders in a system that ran roughshod over people’s lives (especially the bible talk leaders). And I’ve already talked about discipling.

I’m not saying that the present SODM and ICOC are like this now, but I’m looking for these issues to be addressed rather than just references to the “Kriete letter” in the litereature of these groups that seem to like to imply his letter was the problem. Was it really? Or did he address the problems?

Anyway, I feel at the present time it’s very wise to stear clear of these groups and to focus on one’s own spiritual life, congregation and faith, for in these things we can grow, change, repent, give, live, love without an ICOC, or a SODM or a discipler, just as the Christians in the first Century did.

Latest comic strip

SIBs

One of the mistakes I think made in the ICOC, (or became a mistake in our mindset), was assuming we knew who was part of “the kingdom” and precisely who was saved, which then lead to viewing people and religion through a filter than “accepted” or “rejected” based on doctrinal position alone. We assume that if someone is part of “our sect” they must be “good”, or acceptable, and if it’s outside of our accepted sphere, they must be “heretics”, “religious”, “hypocrites” etc…

So, I mentioned previously in a post, I believe in making a stand on certain issues, and promoting those issues: so for example, I still believed one should repent and be baptized (submerged in water), and argue that case, but not be judgmental or arrogant towards Christians with different beliefs. Let God do the ultimate judging, but argue the case for what I believe the bible says, and be open to other arguments put forward.

The problem I see with being so assured on who are the real Christians (they should be part of “this” group, and “that” group because they follow the “correct doctrine” of being a Christian) is that you might get it wrong, and looking back from experience it can lead to pride and “exclusiveism”, and on some doctrinal points, we did get it wrong, which leads to the dangerous position that if we condemned so many groups because they weren’t up to par of our “biblical standard”, what happens to us when we’re found to be not up to par? Don’t worry, maybe you can buy “Salvation Insurance Bonds”…

About people asking for money

I was walking back from the shopping centre yesterday when I passed a women in a wheel chair, and she ask to speak to me. Almost instantly I knew she was going to ask me for money, and she did, saying she needed $10 or $20 for food. her appearance didn’t seem to shabby though, she didn’t look poor or destitute, and to be honest I just wanted to be on my way. However, as a Christian, I hesitate to just ignore someone, because if someone really is in need you feel obliged. That’s the Christian maxim: “do unto others as you would have them do to you” right? If I was on the street, would I want to be ignored if I sought help on the street.

The other side of the argument is, of course, that it’s widely believed most people on the street asking for money are deceiving people because they don’t want it for food or bus rides but for alcohol or even drugs. And I’ve seen this myself, literally, when some guy was asking for money near Central Station, and later I walked past to see him and others sitting round with beers. Years ago I aslo bought a street kid a meal in China town to see him only finish a third of it because it was a bit too spicy.

And I must confess, there was something about this women that made me feel she was a fraud, perhaps because I was already too cynical, or perhaps it was the way she spoke. In the end I comprimised and gave her $5 in change, not knowing whether to feel I’ve been had or charitable.

I suppose I could have questioned her more, or even say something like: “I believe about 80% that you’re a fraud”. Then see what her reaction is. If she starts fuming and swearing, I know to walk on. If I sense she’s humble then perhaps give her the money. I dunno…

Lingo

Since coming out of the ICOC I’ve felt sensitive to the way people in groups can use language, because having spent so many years in the organisation you get used to saying and hearing the same phrases and lingo. Every group, clique and society has its own lingo and jargon but the thing to consider is what purpose does it serve? Sure, jargon is useful to describe things that are unique to the group, but one of the problems with religious groups is language and jargon can become a way for people to legitimise themselves as part of the group -and often the sincerity and meaning behind the words can become irrelevant. We of the ICOC even often use to accuse the religious would of the same thing: “He’s just religious, he knows all the right things to say…” But didn’t that become a major problem with the ICOC? We’d feel a little embarrassed for visitors, trying to be “relatable” as possible, but over time they can become used to the jargon as well.

Now I look back, I consider this: What defines me, my faith and deeds, or my ability to speak the lingo? (Not that I need to worry about the lingo anymore because I’m not in an ICOC related church.

Different comic strip

Updating blog

I’m just updating my blogs in terms of links, layout and copyright. You’ll see I’ve licenced the blog and comic strips under a Creative Commons licence which allows people to copy and distribute it for non-commercial purposes and without making changes to it unless by getting permission from the author.

Taking a stand vs arrogance Part 2

I just thought I’d finish from the previous post regarding some of the past mistakes I’ve made and witnessed from my time spent in the old days of the ICOC.

The main thing is the issue of respect as a basis for all people -that’s what pride can damage. When you already think you know something about someone’s religion, when you already decide to see them as a “hypocrite”. And the problem was, once we felt we had the right doctrine and were part of the one church, we fell for some seriously bad assumptions -that we were pretty much righteous, and had more conviction that other churches and denominations.

So a major lesson to learn is, be ready to give credit where credit is due. We see round the world people of other faiths suffering persecution -should that not cause us to question how much we really suffer or pay for our faith?Yet we can still make a stand for our beliefs. We can still reason and argue about why we believe what we believe, and we can evaluate our own deeds, ready to stand corrected if need be. I believe this is a way to show respect to all people while still taking a stand.

Making a stand vs Arrogance

   “Do you read the bible everyday?”

   “Well, I try to …”

   “What about evangelism?”

And so the questions would continue. I was thinking of some of my old times in the ICOC, when we “hit the streets” so to speak. We had great ideals back in those days, and we believed we stood for something. And I think we did do some things right. But how can we learn from our pitfalls?

I believe religious pride and arrogance was one thing that crept into our lives. Your doctrine can be spot on perfect but if pride becomes an issue then there’ll be problems. And that’s why I cringe when I remember the arguments I got into because of the way we used to interrogate people in evangelism. It’s these experiences that must help us to refine a balance and show respect to other beliefs, or churches with slightly different doctrines on several issues, and to focus on the issues, rather than on the names or the individuals involved.

Anyway, I’m out of time, so to be continued…

It’s not about Kip…

I can’t follow who’s with  Kip  and the SOD and who’s with the  united ICOC etc… anyway. Important thing is to  consider your local fellowship and the issues involved…