Dark side of Discipling and Shadow Discipling

This post looks at how the one-on-one discipling system (or Joshua-Moses system) can be abused by an unscrupulous and dishonest leader. I am not saying all churches with one-on-one discipling are like this, but I believe some of these ugly aspects can turn up. This is a theoretical portrayal of techniques used -different people are bound to have different experiences. But it may allow people to understand how abuse works or to identify it before being sucked in.

Again, it depends on the integrity, or lack there-of, of the top leader. I’ve posted before about how many people in the ICOC have had an ‘Owellian’ experience. Though I’m not saying ICOC congregations are just like this, and I believe most have changed, but it is a warning of the tendency of such a controlling system and I sense there are some who want to bring it back.

Therefore my position is to warn people not to join ICOC/SODM congregations with one-on-one discipling and to test out other non-affiliated churches who may have similar systems. People can be deceitful and power corrupts. We all know that, but we don’t want to believe it happens in our own backyard.

Access to information

The discipling system allows unbridled access to any and every member’s personal information and life, to the point of a psychological profile. Any strengths and weaknesses, financial difficulties, temptations, tendencies to question, criticize or be difficult can easily be found out via the member’s discipler, who will confide in his discipler and so on up the line to top leadership.

Practical information is also accessible: type of occupation and where they work, family situation, best friends within the church, dating prospects etc… This may be significant to how influential a member may be within and outside the group.

Don’t be surprised if an unscrupulous leader also has knowledge in psychology, either academically or from popular reading. Understanding what makes different types of people tick, how to push their buttons or ‘pressure points’, how to manipulate and coax, how to persuade, how to provoke -these all become important in a system of psychological control. With access to intimate information of member’s lives he can use this to his advantage.

Control and leverage: Individually

In a tight one-on-one discipling (moses-joshua) system it is reasonably easy for a dishonest leader to have leverage, control and angles of manipulation over a member’s life. In fact, with the access to information mentioned above, it is easy to pre-empt any potential threats in the form of questioning or criticizing doctrine or leadership. More importantly, it is easy to pre-empt any ‘opposition candidates’ who may potentially hold sway over large numbers of the group. With the ability to pre-empt so early on any individual’s tendency to question things, there’s little chance that cooperated opposition can come about.

A healthy congregation should desire unity around the gospel. Naturally they want a limit to disputes and arguing that may disrupt the fellowship because they are concerned for the welfare of the whole. But with discipling, the unscrupulous leader can seek to exploit and control, and he can’t succeed if there’s opposition in the camp, can he? (And he won’t succeed like he could if he has the cooperation of international connections in his religious franchise.)

The individual has virtually no power but to conform to the system. If leadership should desire an individual to leave, they can do it in such a way to make it seem as if the individual is leaving on his own accord, as if he’s leaving God (because ’spirituality’ is tied to the system under an unscrupulous leader). They can use subtle provocations or implied (veiled) threats.

In extreme cases this can continue into the realm of psychological manipulation, the power of suggestion and putting temptation in the individual’s path (because they know what his sins and weaknesses are from confession to his discipler). Mixed with an unscrupulous leader’s willingness and ability to deceive, an individual is probably clueless to what’s going on and will find himself “falling away” etc…

For example, should a dishonest and insecure leader want an individual to leave, there are several ways to manipulate and provoke. Overburden with extra responsibilities, set frustrating evangelism goals, be ‘hardline’ in D-time, give challenges not to spend too much time with a friend or potential dating partner in fellowship, give mixed or contradictory advice, give disheartening advise regarding profession and career (when linked to one’s dream), twist scriptures out of context to cause self doubt and hamper self-confidence and the list goes on. After time the individual will leave in frustration, but it will look as if the individual was the problem, not the system.

(This is key, because of the monopoly of salvation. The members must believe that it is vital to remain in the system otherwise they lose salvation, and thus the system can never be faulty. It is possibly where Kip Mckean went off the rails. He had inspired many and made a stand regarding repentance and baptism, and the call to be an active Christian on a daily basis rather than a ‘Sunday Christian’, but his continual propaganda war waged against the influence of the mainline Churches of Christ and the message that not them, but only his ICOC was ’saved’ demonstrates this principle.)

The unscrupulous leader can also maintain a monopoly on language and opinion in his system. If there is any dispute between an individual and the discipler, whatever the individual says is “defensive”, “critical”, “proud”, “emotional”, “unspiritual” etc. Whatever the discipler says is “out of love”, “giving spiritual input”, “concerned”. The discipler is always ‘right’, the individual always ‘at fault’. In this way it’s impossible for the individual to have any personal defense or support, because all members are trained to support the system over the individual.

Shadow Discipling

Leverage over an individual doesn’t just come in the form of treating the individual, it also comes in the form of treating every relationship or connection around the individual. Thus I’ve coined the term ’shadow discipling’. A crafty, manipulative leader can influence every relationship around that individual, and the individual not only is powerless to stop it, he is probably unaware of it.

For example, say that ‘Joe Blogs’ is a threat to leadership in some way by exposing bad doctrine or practice. Joe Blogs’ group leader (bible talk or family group) can spend individual ‘discipling time’ with every other member of the family group, and discuss how Joe Blogs is going through ‘a difficult spiritual time’, or is having ‘emotional struggles’, or has ‘pride in his heart’ and to ‘please pray for him’ etc…They can even call them to ’stand firm’ against Joe Blog’s if he’s ‘divisive’. This will undermine the opinions and cases of argument that Joe Blogs will have, and therefore will negate his influence in the small group.

Of course, leadership has access via discipling relationships to all friends and connections Joe Blogs may have in the fellowship -the sister he hopes to date, the brother he likes to meet up for prayer or evangelism, those in the choir he sings with, those he plays tennis with etc etc… The effort leadership goes into ’shadow discipling’ is determined by how much of a threat Joe Blogs is to the moral authority of leadership.

A healthy church leadership does need to discern if a member has a reasonable case or is being argumentative and divisive. However, this should be determined with the people involved, in more open discussion. There’s no need to go behind one’s back, and there’s no need for shadow discipling. Because everything is open, the case will become apparent. An unscrupulous, dishonest leader will not work with such integrity, however, because if things are open and above board it will become apparent his is illegitimate for serving in a moral, religious position.

Shadow discipling leaves an individual defenseless against slander. There is no defendant, there is no jury -only a self appointed prosecutor and judge casting slurs behind one’s back. And in a discipling organisation, leadership has access to all the key relationships an individual will have.

Leverage via dating

Leverage over an individual via dating is a powerful technique with singles. Without the the green light from a discipler, who often needs a “yae or nae” from zone-leader/evangelist, then the only possible way for that individual to date the person he desires is to persuade her to “fall away” with him. He cannot continue in the system and have hopes to date without total cooperation with leadership. In other words, when it comes to dating, leadership has got the single by the proverbial balls.

Control and leverage: in the Small Group

Small teams and teamwork is important in a healthy church -it gives a chance for members to get to know others on a closer level and opportunity to help each other. It can provide encouragement and comradeship in the mission (evangelising), support in prayer and bible study and encourage deeper friendship. Ideal numbers in a group could range from 5 members to 15 members I suppose, and it doesn’t have to have rigid discipling relationships.

The small group (bible talk, family group, cell group etc…) however, can also be a tool used by an unscrupulous leader. In a small group individual members can feel more pressure to conform, and a way for the group leader (like a bible-talk leader or family group leader) to keep tabs on all members. It’s reasonably easy for the top leader to ensure all the group leaders are loyal to him (rather than first to the gospel), who will then ensure all members in their groups are loyal to him as well.

In such a case you have a group that fears a man and his man-made system rather than fearing God. If the small groups become very tight-knit ‘families’, it can leave members vulnerable to fear of non-acceptance and rejection by his peers and the leader. In fact, if the leader disapproves, it’s more likely all other members will automatically support the leader over the individual (because it’s a lot safer and easier for them).

Continuing with the concept of ‘family’. A healthy church inspires family-like relationships built on love and trust with each other and a deep faith and commitment to God and the scriptures. There are some hardline scriptures that warn that the commitment to Christ can cause one’s natural family to oppose or persecute but one must remain faithful. However, the unscrupulous leader can twist these scriptures to pressure members to antagonise their natural family and allow the church’s ‘family group’ to have more influence than appropriate.

(I won’t argue the ICOC was mostly like this: in my experience often members had freedom with commitment to their natural families, but leaders could be insensitive and negligent in guiding newly baptised Christians in communicating with their family, leading to needless antagonising. This would often be the case if a leader felt pressure to baptise more, and to rush them through before the end of the month in trying to meet quotas.)

Control and leverage: collectively

On the collective level, leverage and control can by conducted via propaganda, implied meanings, implied threats and double meanings. This can be via the literature, websites, sermons, classes, conferences and midweek services. And there are several objectives and ways to achieve these objectives which will be discussed:

Undermining confidence

If members have strong self esteem, strong confidence in the system, good grounding in the scriptures and belief in their own ability to discern right from wrong, (and therefore good leadership from corrupt leadership) then they will be a threat to the unscrupulous leader. Techniques to undermine confidence may be to constantly remind members of their ’spiritual weakness’, that they should ‘go and reflect on themself’, and that ‘one another’ relationships are about not being ‘proud’, but ‘getting help from other brother’s and sisters’ and ‘getting input from one’s disciplers’. These constantly imply the members are never qualified to question leadership and never strong enough to make it on their own (i.e. to leave the group). Ultimately this is to cultivate dependence on the system, the leadership, and one’s discipler on an individual level.

I believe this is a contrary message to the spirit of Christianity. Yes, we’re called to confess our sins, face our struggles, but also we are called to ’strengthen our weak limbs’ and to grow and mature. We’re called to grow in wisdom, be able to discern right from wrong in more circumstances, to know the bible well and know how to use it, to be an example at work, to be more responsible, more disciplined and have the ability to face more situations with faith.

(Why did the ICOC then constantly have the case of the ‘old Christian losing zeal’ syndrome, always becoming ’spiritually lethagic’ all the while it was the young Christians who were the ‘examples of zeal’. Was it that insecure leadership didn’t like members to have the ability to discern -the very thing a Christian is called to do? Therefore the constant message was to say how weak they are… Or was it because they became used to the antics of such a system? Over time they saw through it. Maybe they did become wise, but that wisdom wasn’t welcome.)

The weak

Back to the corrupt leader and his propaganda techniques. In his system, the weak aren’t the weak. In bible terms, the weak are perhaps those less able to take on responsibility for whatever reason, -physical, mental, education level, background etc… And therefore, more care and honour should be shown them -simple biblical principle. But a twist on the definition of ‘weak’ can be used to imply those who don’t support the system.

The idea is to make someone who may question the system be ‘weak’, and no one wants to seem ‘weak’. Everyone wants to seem ’strong’ and ‘mature’. Other labels include ‘critical’, ‘difficult’ and ‘emotional’. Often leaders like to make examples of these people, they’re the ‘fall away’, ‘bitter, emotional person who couldn’t grow in their relationship with god’ , and this sends an implied meaning to the rest of the congregation: ‘you know what to do if you don’t want to be like this guy.’

Furthermore it undermines the influence an individual may have to others, if they’re portrayed as ‘weak’ and ‘unspiritual’. Christians in the fellowship won’t seek their advice or respect their input.

Character assassination from the pulpit

This can be like a veiled form of slander, used particular if a prominent member or leader left the group and opposes the leadership. It’s basically a rationalisation for how people leave such a ‘good’ leadership, so therefore they must have had the problem. “A certain person/couple have left… they weren’t doing well spiritually… they had struggles with this or that sin… they just hadn’t been fired up for a long time…. their relationship with God was weak… not having great QT’s…. brothers and sisters, how are your QT’s recently?…” In a sermon, the preacher doesn’t even have to say their names, many will know who they’re talking about, and the rest will get all the information from round the grapevine.

Conclusion

When a congregation has a system that causes such a very close-knit community, with such access to members private lives and influence around their key relationships, there’s a big dependency on trust. In one sense one-on-one discipling can have benefits of close relationships, camaraderie, people able to meet each others’ needs and the ability to mobilise a unified group for action. But surely there needs to be a balance. Surely healthy Christianity has these benefits without so much control given to leadership -in a sense, real trust, rather than ‘forced trust’.

Forced trust is just a facade, because it means down the line, everything is based on a lie under such a propaganda machine. And if there is one thing Christianity is not about, it’s lies. Christianity is about openness and truth, and giving from the heart, not under compulsion.

Better the devil you know…

I’ve become a little weary from being in some churches of how leaders seem to know so much about Satan. They seem to know who’s bitter, or how their critics must be “critical” because Satan is in their hearts. The bible says the language of the Devil is lying, and after seeing how some religious leaders operate first hand, it’s become apparent to me that they’re not too shabby in some of the devil’s dialects themselves.

Some ICOC leaders I knew were like this and some weren’t. Some seemed fairly honest and upfront and did their best despite the pressures of the system all those years ago. But more often than not, they weren’t the ones telling everyone from the pulpit who’s turned to Satan or captive of Satan etc…

In my opinion, Satan exists like the bible says but he’s not the major focus of the bible. It’s not hard to see Satan “working” in the world. You just have to pick up a newspaper to see there’s more than enough evil, lies, murder, war, rape, greed, treachery etc… going on in the world. But it annoys me when religious leaders use the concept of “devil” and “Satan” just to discredit those who dare criticise or leave the church or perhaps don’t live up to the expectations of their brand of Christianity. It then becomes evident that this is just a tool in their propaganda machine and a way to cast a slur on thier enemies (because Christians are not supposed to have enemies, so they use other ways to discredit them).

 

Definitions of a Cult

(I hesitated to publish this post after I wrote it up as a draft, because I was concerned about “opening up old wounds” and I wondered if it could be constructive. But I figured that despite the changes in 2003, the problems I had experienced had continued to 2005 in some congregations.

From my perspective I’ve seen a kind of polarization: some leaders have learned from the past and are trying to forge a better way ahead because they honestly acknowledge the seriousness of the issues, some leaders (understandably) want nothing to do with the ICOC/SODM/Kip Mckean at all, some gave token apologies but even tightened controll with the one-on-one discipling system, and some are kind of existing in the middle.

When I got baptized, it was with the intention to become a Christian who contributes and shares in a church, it wasn’t to become a “cult member”. But I’ve mentioned before there were definitely some “Orwellian” aspects, and these are things I believe that need to be counteracted in maintaining a healthy, spiritual fellowship and therefore we need to be aware of them. Furthermore, if I’ve experienced these things, then perhaps I’m obligated to warn others of the pitfalls of religion gone wrong.)

There’s always been controversy around the word “cult” as it is a very media-driven word and can mean several things. That is, it can evoke different associations in a reader depending on media impressions: the Waco sect, sci-fi cults, suicidal cults, Japanese terrorist cults and the list goes on.

It has also been an issue for the old ICOC (International Churches of Christ, Boston Movement, etc) because the media has used the term, some ex-ICOC people have used the term, and friends and family of members have used the term as well. I’ve read several definitions on forums and I thought I’d write a list of definitions that I’ve heard and thought of from my own knowledge and experiences. Actually, they are more ideas and insights, rather than strick definitions. I’ve numbered them so as to identify them in discussion, but I don’t consider any more “right” or accurate than the others.

<1> A group with such a strong and insular culture that it negates the influence of society outside the group. In this “cult” comes from “culture” -it’s a group with a strong culture.

<2> A group with a leader who has such strong influence that it is like his/her personal kingdom. It’s an empire within a modern state (in a democracy, for example). Most modern nations are fledging democracies where the leader is held accountable to the people and is in for limited terms. A cult leader is an emperor (or dictator) within his own personal empire -there’s no limited term and there is no opposition party. The cult leader can also expand his “empire” globally. It may have only a few hundred thousand members, but, hey, being an emperor of a few hundred thousand beats an office job.

<3> A deceptive religious organisation that exploits and controls it’s members via psychological control (fear, conditional love and false emotional comfort, knowledge of members personal lives, pressure to comform, pressure to reject influence of and contact with outsider family and friends).

<4> A religious system that becomes a self-feeding organism greater than its individual parts. That is, a kind of pyramid structure where you enter on the lower rung and work hard at first, but the more you can climb up the structure (if you can), the more benefits you can gain. With this kind of culture the truth is only acceptable if convenient to the majority of the group (or leadership). The culture fosters competitiveness, connection building, leadership pleasing, slander (for one’s enemies) and eventually cronism and privelege for those at the top rung. Any individuals are expendable if they threaten the whole group (or are perceived to be a threat), and this can include leaders and even the top dog.

<5> A delluded yet charismatic man who creates a new religious sect based on his visions/dellusions/claims of higher spirituality. Of course this incorporates some previous definitions as well.

Obviously this list is not exhausted, but I think it points out different aspects. I’m not going to say the ICOC definitely was or wasn’t a cult. That’s something people need to decide for themselves. 

However, the  first definition isn’t necessarily a negative definition, and in this sense the ICOC can be defined as such. I believe there are some influences in society in general that should be negated such as promiscurity, violence, course language, empty consumerism. Now, whether definitions <2> to <5> apply is up for debate. In my own experience I’ve witnessed <3> (only under one evangelist) and some aspects of <4> . In fact, is kind of similar to some of the things discussed in the “Honest to God” letter of 2003 -like institutional ills.

Some may argue for definition <5> , but I never felt that Kip Mckean was important in my day-to-day existence in the ICOC. But if the allegations of his financial benefitting from the ICOC are true, then definition <2>  has some sway, where the ICOC became like his own personal kingdom. He certainly seemed to have most influence, but I never new the details of what when on in L.A. Maybe it was like a power struggle between defs <2> and <4>. I will say, from what I’ve read in his articles lately in the SODM, he’s heading towards definition <5>.

There are arguments for the ICOC not being a cult. It was a strong revival movement, and that seems to be a tendency in Christianity. We have the truth of the bible, but when we see the hypocrisy of the institution, it only takes one guy to take the lead and call for change, and many rally behind him. In the early days Kip had that kind of inspiration. There needs to be revivals -but we can’t assume all revivals are good. They can be misguided even when inspiring because wrong doctrine and wacky ideas can be slipped in during all the europhoria, and then become cemented in “tradition” and the belief system.

I appreciate some brothers in the ICOC who reached out to me -in that I appreciated how they took the bible seriously, they took sin seriously, they confessed sin, they prayed seriously, they shared their faith because of what they believed in the bible. That part to me wasn’t a cult. But discipling was to become a problem, and the belief the ICOC was the only saved church was to become a problem as well. These things led to tighter control. Some say this just stemmed from the insecurity of leaders, but does that make it condonable?

Discipling became a cult in that people could be bullied and coerced “spiritually”- I mean they used spiritual jargon to coerce. I saw bibletalk leaders in meetings rebuked for as long as forty minutes or an hour (just on them), made to feel like a worthless wretch for the lack of visiters over a month, and if they said “boo” they were being “proud” “arrogant” “defensive” “emotional”. And it became a cult in the amount of control leaders and disciplers (or moses’) had over their “disciplees” (or “joshuas”, especially in regard to whether one could date and when they got the green light to date.

ICOC being the only true church was also cultish -it fed fear into it’s members, because to leave the ICOC was to fall away from God. It also fed arrogance to its members, who were taught to assume that any person outside the ICOC who claimed to be a Christian couldn’t be. It assumed that because Kip said mainline churches of christ were “lukewarm”, that all mainline churches must be lukewarm, and that all ICOC congregations were “fired-up”. Yet most of us had never set foot in a mainline service.

What’s the scripture that says the spirit blows where it pleases? Just when the ICOC was taking for granted it was THE kingdom of God, things fell apart, and the average member could breath again. People may say “the kingdom of God is here”, Kip may say “no, it’s over here”, but the kingdom exists within our hearts if there’s real love. If there’s no love, then it’s just a “resounding gong”, and a lot of the religious lingo you’ll find is nothing more than a resounding gong. I guess what I’m saying is, do your homework to see if your local Christian leader is the real deal or dodgy.

There’s another aspect that I found in the ICOC that could be considered “cultish”, and that was the over-emphasis on imitating older Christians or leaders. Because it was preached to death, people would imitate “style” (words, lingo, prayerstyle) more so than “substance” (character, conviction, sincere love). In fact, some people learned that if you imitated  the former, you could get away with not imitating the latter. Moreover, imitating ICOC leaders could become more common than imitating examples in the bible.  And that leads to cliches and jargon more so than real faith.

Follow up cartoon

Here’s another comic strip, kind of related to some of Kip Mckean’s pet phrases -but it’s used in the religious world in general I’ve found.

World Sector Leaders or Worldly Sector Leaders

There’s another article from Kip Mckean, but it’s found on a different website to caicc.net, it’s on a UK site for the European Missions Conference. It’s about the issue of world sector leaders. Anyway, I’m only going to make a few comments, I’m not going to analyze and argue through this one, partly because I get the feeling the article is deliberately being controversial. The one thing I will refer to is where he discusses a central leader for the whole of God’s movement, and how this man is accountable to God since there is “no one over him”. And if the top man strays from God’s leadership, he’ll do it either by falling away and leaving the church, or if he remains in the church, God will kill him.

I don’t know what to say about that. There are thousands of churches and growing sects in Christendom, they can’t all be God’s no.1 movement. Does that mean the number-one-honcho of each has to be killed off? Kip may believe he’s in God’s chosen movement, but that doesn’t mean everyone else does. So he may say “God knows it’s his movement”. Well, that’s what any church leader can say. Outsiders need to believe that the leaders of any church claiming to be God’s “chosen movement” have the righteousness, faith, integrity and honesty to back it up. And maybe some of us are  cynical and critical as we’re just not convinced by Kip Mckean’s latest arguments. Even if we were to accept the concept of one centralized global Christian leader (and it just doesn’t sound right -surely only Jesus has that role), WE WOULD NOT CHOOSE KIP MCKEAN! NEVER! AT ALL! PERIOD! FULL STOP!

The thing is, so many  from the old ICOC days know better. They’ve been through it all, the great lessons and services where they give you a run-down of Israel’s history, then pin-point it all down to the ICOC (now SODM). They know the propaganda. They know how discipling works. They know the culture. They know what really goes on below the religo-speak. They know where there was real love, and where there was only words. They know where there was true humility, and where there was competitiveness. Most of all, they know where there was truth, and where there was a great lack of it!

They know the leaders in the group, and those who left, and they know that on many occasions some of those who left became better people, and more honest, where congregations were lied to how they’ve “turned their back on God”, because they’d only turned their back on the group (whether it’s ICOC or SODM, doesn’t matter). They know the games, the tricks and they’re getting tired of the rhetoric and spiritual bullying.

And what’s more significant, they know their bible too. They read it every day in the ICOC, and some of them enjoy reading it more now without an ICOC/SODM filter. They’ve learned to discern when the bible is simply being used to advance some religious leader’s agenda or when he’s teaching the bible honestly to edify people.  Their faith has become stronger, and they’re not going to be bullied into joining a group or made to feel outside God’s grace because they choose not to join.

I must say, in one aspect, I appreciate Kip Mckean speaking his mind upfront. We know where he standst -world domination through one-on-one discipling. I mean, atleast we know his intentions. If anyone continues in the SODM, and discover 10 years down the line they are still serving a system where Kip is top-dog, and contributions are going to one centralized super-mega-church on another continent, they can’t complain that they didn’t know better.

I wonder if some leaders in the ICOC-cooperative kind of like SODM’s propaganda in this way. It can make them look better -like they’re the level-headed ones. But as stated just before, people are wise to them as well, because one-on-one discipling is a major issue, and a lot of abuse went on not so much directly from Kip Mckean, but because it became part of the institution, the culture, the way of existence in the ICOC. It taught us to be like that with eacher. Kip may have initiated discipling, but it was all passed down the line, and to some degree we’re all responsible for the abuse because we also claimed to know the bible and even follow it.