Religious authority is sometimes a tricky one… Some churces may claim to be the ‘right’ church, or imply their the ‘only’ church, and with that assume their authority is basically the authority under the Word of God, and they’ll use scriptures to imply this authority. It’s up to us research the Word of God and decide how authority can be used, to what extent, and also be able to detect when it is being abused.
I’m learning more and more it’s all down to faith. I know everyone says it’s about ‘faith’, but what does this mean? For me, in context of my situation having come from the International Churches of Christ, faith means several things.
It means persevering despite what’s happened in the past. It means continuing to investigate the bible, and not just go with the flow of whatever church culture you happen to be immersed in. It means searching for wisdom and knowing why you believe what you believe.
Faith also means using the wisdom from the bible to defend yourself against manipulation and guilt trips of a dodgy church. It means having the fortitude and wisdom to know when to support certain leaders and when to avoid or oppose certain leaders.
This is the kind of faith developed over time, because you learn that some leaders in the religious world have no scruples and will take advantage of the naive and vulnerable. You need faith to guard against abuse and seek ways to minimise it for future generations of believers.
Faith helps you be grounded in the gospel of Christ and the word rather than the institution, which allows you to contribute spiritually to the institution and hold it accountable where necessary.
One of the fundamental contradictions in many religions is that they preach humility and integrity on the one hand, but when their organizations experience exponential growth the leaders are inclined to the temptation of pride and glory. Furthermore, while the rhetoric of the religious group focuses on the teachings of its religion, the reality can be a tendency for competitiveness, political games and maneuvering. This becomes apparent when the privileges and advantages of being in the top leadership motivate unscrupulous players who are more interested in power than in really promoting the religion with integrity.
This definitely became an issue with the ICOC and I believe it’s still a factor today in some congregations. The discipling system allows greater control by leaders and causes members to be further open to abuse and exploitation whether it be financial, emotional, psychological or otherwise. When people began to see inequality between lower members and some leaders in the ICOC in 2003 many became disillusioned and left, but some churches still seem to have a desire to bring back the burdens of pre-2003.
This is why I’ve titled this post and the last one ‘Riding the Beast’. These idealistic movements begin with freshness and inspiration, and it attracts a lot of people, but they also attract people who seek to take advantage of the movement when there’s so much to be gained by advancing your own position. You have to look below the surface of rhetoric and see people’s motives. You have to read between the lines. You also have to detect techniques of manipulation, veiled coercion and threats and pressures to cause members to be over-dependent on the organization.
This is unacceptable for generally decent religion. I’m talking about Christianity, but also any religion that supports universal principles of love, integrity, honesty, righteousness, hard-work, humility and peace, etc. An example passage is Galatians 5.22-24. Spiritual guidance is supposed to empower us spiritually, not enslave us to an organization. The organization is supposed to aid and help us in our spiritual quest, not use us for the purposes of a few at the top. It’s suppose to increase our knowledge and wisdom in the face of life’s difficulties, not restrain us psychologically under the whims and desires of an elite theocracy or clergy-clique.
I believe the aim of Paul the Apostle was to guide recent Christians of his day into greater spiritual growth and wisdom. His focus was on accountability we will have before God, and therefore to help us take responsibility for ourselves as we grow in Christ. But he knew all the pitfalls of religion, and one was the dangers of followers being led astray and exploited, as is seen in 2 Corinthians 11:19-21:
(New International Version) 19You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!
I saw an interesting documentary the other day on Islam, and one of the Muslims being interviewed claimed that for hundreds of years there was no clergy in Islam, meaning that no leaders of the religion were paid for their religious work, they all had secular jobs. The interviewee made the point that because of this there was no motive for leaders to exploit followers, they had no vested interest in establishing a religious bureaucracy.
At any rate, I feel that as Christians in the modern world, we have more at our disposal to educate ourselves, and should strive to maintain enough wisdom, flexible and independence, that we know when to support a church and know when to walk away. Never let a church culture, movement or organization give you the impression that it is essential to your salvation. It’s not. It’s the gospel that’s essential to your salvation.
Spiritually churches come and go. They can be righteous in one point of time, but if you know your New Testament well, they can go sour, become seduced by money, devour themselves internally by deceit, envy and competitiveness, water down the gospel and New Testament teachings or just grow complacent. It’s up to all members, not just leadership, to help each other stay on the narrow path.
But if corrupt leaders get in power, it’s time to leave or go into hiding, because not only will they strive to play the system, they will secretly strive to gather supporters who are just as deceitful and corrupt as they are, because that’s how they gain security, and they’ll strive to isolate, slander and provoke anyone who would dare stand up to them or threaten to expose them. At this ponit the key is to have faith in God.
In the next couple of posts I’m exploring the issues of power and idealistic or revolutionary movements, again in light of my experience in the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). I suppose I’m looking at how the power influences people who have it and people who don’t, and how at the beginning they came together.
We’re all familiar with the term ‘power corrupts’ but it’s scary how power and control in a religious group can creep up. A church or religious organisation is first and foremost a place for believers to come together to interact, encourage and edify each other. Persevering in one’s faith is a difficult thing -at times the most challenging commitment to keep, and a church should be about spurring you on. It should provide services of teaching, guidance and activities, and you should provide contributions of time, money and talent. Within this interaction is fellowship and fulfilling relationships.
But the problem is when a religious organisation becomes a monster so much more complicated and intrusive than what it should be. It takes on the Orwellian symptoms of control by a few over the many. It imitates tendencies of autocratic regimes and dictatorships in the use of information, propaganda, character assassination and the fundamental twisting of truth and justice.
The question is, how does this happen in a democratic society? And why does such an authoritarian religious group grow in popularity? How does it gain so much control over people’s lives in a society that values freedom and democracy? Not that democratic systems are squeaky clean. We all know corruption exists, but there’s freedom of the press and ways to balance power. And we still have to pay our taxes and support the government. But you don’t want to be in the position of supporting two corrupt institutions: the government and your religious order. Paying taxes to one is enough, you only want to support a religious group because it’s your free will to do so.
As is well known on the blog, the International Churches of Christ was the religious order I joined around 17 years ago while on campus. Thinking back, the reason I joined was for ideals and camaraderie. I was impacted by the way they taught the bible, called for change in peoples lives, and their attitude to righteousness which stood in contrast to society in general.
From my experience, and the little corner of the ICOC I was a part of, back then we were motivated by certain ideals. It was a religious revival, but like many religious revivals it has some good things and some bad things. Many of us were inspired by something that stood out from the rest of the Christian community, while some of the Christian community felt threatened.
But surely this is how movements start, of any ideology whether it’s religion, socialism, environmentalism or any other political ideal -even a business concept. Things start out fresh. There’s a sense of hope and reform, a kind of revolution, and of course the old guard is threatened. There’s usually a leader or few with innovative ideas and ideals who manage to spark a social following, a wave or snowball that grows with a life of its own.
The problem is, if the fundamentals are not quite right, then down the line things can go very pair-shaped. That’s why you have to be careful with certain ideals, because they can become twisted and misused down the track.
But just as there will always be a human tendency for revivals and revolutions, there’s always the accompanying tendencies for yesterday’s revolutionary to become today’s dictator. And it makes sense.
Imagine you’re young, full of energy, zeal, ideas and ideals. And you decide to start a revolution with your ideas (or perhaps a religious revolution with your revelation etc…) You rope a few of your best friends in as side-kicks, and you start a society. As a little group you become dreamers, and you motivate people with impassioned speeches, and this sparks interest and reactions. The excitement draws people in, and the more that join, the more exciting it becomes with the snowball effect.
Of course, you, being the one that started it, are becoming more and more important. You started out just leading a few friends, no big deal. Now you have a membership of thousands. Next year it’s tens of thousands, because those followers are motivated and well-networked to inspire new recruits to join.
So what happens when you’re the number one personality of a tribe of a hundred thousand. Now, if it’s a religion, the belief system strikes not to doing business, or a commitment to a political party or social club, but to a spiritual cause and the belief in eternal life, giving cause for a far deeper commitment. There in lies the temptation, with access to adoration from your group and the kind of influence, power and financial resources that might become available to you. No wonder they say power corrupts.
Somewhere down the line, the dreams and ideals that motivated so many seem to take a back seat to maintaining control of the resources at your disposal. You still talk about the dreams and ideals, but the reality could be that the position, power and influence you have becomes too important to you. You’re in a high position, with a long way to fall. You’ll probably have a range of enemies and critics, both internally and externally. They would range from the old threatened establishment that you led a revolution against to competing upstarts within your movement who you may fear to have an eye on your position.
This is the danger of heading religious revival movement, because once it becomes large and established, you want more. Riding that wave in the early days must have been a real high as well. There’s always the temptation to want to return to that glory, because in those days things were simple, there were less critics and less complications.
The concept of advice shouldn’t be confused by a discipling system, and used to exert pressure by a ‘discipler’ (or ‘moses’) on a ‘disciplee’ (or ‘joshua’). When the concept is abused by pressure with authority and ‘lording’ over people, it’s not really advice at all.
Advice is something an individual seeks when faced with difficult decisions. The responsibility is solely on him or her, as these decisions can potentially bring about life-long consequences.
Proverbs 24:6 says “for waging war you need guidance, and for victory many advisers.” A general or king, as the leader, has to take the consequences of his decisions in battle, which can lead to victory or defeat. So a general will have his advisers who can provide information, give insights, look at the pros and cons and give advice, but the advisers don’t have authority or power over the general.
The concept of discipling became twisted when seeking advice in reality meant seeking permission -this was the policy in the ICOC regarding dating, for example. ‘Going against advice’ was frowned upon and seen as ‘rebellious’, therefore ‘against God’s will’. How can that be pressure-free advice? And seeking advice should mean the individual has the freedom to chose from whom he or she seeks advice. Another major flaw in shepherding is when inexperienced disciplers are given authority over a Christian’s life which can have an adverse influence.
I think back with embarrassment while I was in the ICOC the number of times I heard another Christian sharing struggles or problems with me and I ask “have you talked to your discipler about it”. It was almost instinctive, and indicative of how dependent we were on a discipling system. That’s not Christianity.
When you or I are leading our life, we have to take responsibility, but we should seek wise advisors. It says in Proverbs 24:5, the preceding verse, ‘A wise man has great power, and a man of knowledge increases strength’. So you need to seek advice from wise and trusted people rather than just accept a discipler assigned to you. The more consequential the decision, the wiser and more trustworthy the adviser you need.
But getting wise advice is not enough. We need to do our own homework, and seek wisdom straight from the source of the issue. If it’s spiritual, you need to search the scriptures. If it’s financial or regarding career, you should do your own research and reading. That way, no matter what the topic, when you seek advice, you are also grounded with your own knowledge. This allows you to make informed decisions in receiving advice, and not just swallowing advice ‘hook, line and sinker’. It also means you’re more likely to detect faulty advice and make the right decision with conflicting advice.
Furthermore, when it says ‘a wise man has great power’ I believe it’s not just saying seek wise man, but strive to be one. To be truly wise, you have to do more than just learn from those around you, you have to go the extra mile in doing your own homework, and seek inspiration that puts you above the norm. Just going with the flow and accepting the same input from everyone around you means you’ll just be a part of the system, another brick in the wall.
To be wise and visionary, you need to seek something outside the system -in Christianity, that is searching the scripture for truth, not to just strengthen your own sectarian position. It means having the courage to ask difficult questions. Most of us simply end up accepting the sectarian culture with interpretations that are taught to us year after year. For me, it wasn’t until the ‘Honest to God’ letter and other articles and information that I realized how much I’d just swallowed everything in the ICOC, including the concept of advice and tithing among other things.
On to some other proverbs: Acts 11:14 says “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make a victory sure.” That’s just common sense. You wouldn’t want you’re government waging a war if it didn’t get reliable intel. You wouldn’t want your company to waste its advertising budget on a product if it didn’t get reliable marketing info.
Proverbs 12:15 “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.” This is a verse that does look at someone’s stubborn and proud nature of relying on him or herself rather than listening to advice. I don’t think that gives justification for discipling authority… The responsible thing for an individual to do, as mentioned above, is to seek advice from wise people. And it makes a difference if the individual trusts that person, rather than an imposed discipler. It’s also possible, if the discipler is inexperienced, to give the wrong advice, and if insecure, to feel betrayed if the disciplee seeks advice elsewhere. Then the disciplee may be labeled ‘proud’ for seeking advice elsewhere, even though it’s the right thing to do.
I think this verse also implies listening to advice from an expert. The fool ignores the experts because he made up his mind already. That’s obviously proud. If you’re seeking advice regarding a career decision, you should seek a career counselor and/or people who are already in that prospective industry.
Then there’s also bad advice. Another proverb says: “The plans of the righteous are just, but the advice of the wicked is deceitful.” Another issue regarding advice and discipling is if deceitfulness and competitiveness become widespread within a church. This leads to the devastating effects of power games and manipulation, and where individuals are vulnerable if one-on-one discipling is used as the ‘nuts and bolts’ of a system of control.
This is the danger of discipling I have often warned about on the blog. The ICOC culture of discipling allowed so much potential influence to be exerted on the individual by leaderships -whether it’s the immediate discipler or bible-talk leader above them etc… There is no ’stop-gap’ for abuse. There is no objectivity and people are vulnerable to emotional, financial and social abuse and exploitation.
Certain leaders’ assumptions that ‘discipling’ is biblically essential is gravely erroneous. Discipling and shepherding are controversial, and used well they can be effective for personal training, but there’s a tendency for immature leaders to have far too much control over individual’s lives. That’s how the term ‘advice’ can become grossly abused. I suppose if the leaders have great integrity at the top, and ensure it down the line, and also allow avenues for issues, conflicts and complaints to be heard in a balanced, objective way then a discipling/mentoring system can be successful. But if leaders at the top become deceitful and corrupt, then that’s going to permeate all the way down the line as all lead by personal example or ‘miss-example’.
That’s an interesting statement, from Luke 17:20-21. I never heard it preached much while I was in the ICOC (International Churches of Christ), but I did hear :”the Kingdom of heaven is advancing forcefully, and forceful men take hold of it” a thousand times. In fact it was virtually beaten over our heads…
Perhaps leaders were afraid that people may interpret the ‘within you’ as too ‘new agy’. Within the ICOC culture people forever warned not to ‘follow your heart’, after all the heart is ‘deceitful above all things’…Talking about the kingdom being ‘within you’ might give people the impression they don’t need the ICOC franchise as long as you have God’s spirit in your heart.
So then, why does Jesus say such a statement? He even says that people won’t say ‘here it is’ or ‘there it is’. This was something I asked myself when I read it whilst in the ICOC. But having gone through and come out of the ICOC, this makes more sense to me now.
One of the problems with the ICOC culture was a tendency to make things clear cut, or ‘black and white’. You either were a Christian, or not. You were either saved, or not. And you were either in the kingdom of God -a church which followed correct doctrine etc etc, or out. And through this ‘black and white’ reasoning we rationalised what the Kingdom of God should be defined as, and believed that all other churches couldn’t really be in the Kingdom because they didn’t follow out ‘biblical’ definitions.
Once we had the ‘Kingdom of God’ defined -repentence, baptism, one-on-one discipling, tithing, World Sectors and centralised leadership etc.. it was easy just to pretty much define the Kingdom of God in modern times as the ICOC -”God’s modern-day movement”.
But I believe, as with other things, we got ahead of ourselves. We went beyond what was written. We made dangerous assumptions, and that is, perhaps, why it’s prudent not say ‘this is the Kingdom of God’ or ‘that is the Kingdom of God’. You can keep all the ‘externalities’. You can say the right things, show up to all services, meetings, groups and events, you recite all the right scriptures, and define all the right doctrines, but that doesn’t mean you’re God’s kingdom, because God cuts through to the heart.
Our human definitions to the boundaries of God’s kingdom ultimately mean nothing, because the bible warns that even from within a congregation a corrupt leader can rise up to lead people astray -and they can still be under the umbrella of the organisation which you assume is so faithful.
Therefore, the kingdom of God can’t be seen so obviously, and it exists because a group of people have the right heart before God. There did seem to be two interpretations: one was that it ‘exists within you’ as in ‘in your hearts’, and the other was ‘among you’, as in existing within a bunch of Christians. Perhaps it’s similar to the concept as ‘where two or more are gathered in my name I am there also.’
It’s harder to make definitions of what is the kingdom of God in the present situation of post-2003 churches related to the ICOC -whether it’s ex-ICOC, ICOC cooperative, SODM or ‘mainline’ churches of Christ. I’ve made certain decisions from what I’ve witnessed, and the first is to oppose churches that employ one-on-one discipling. I also believe that members of congregations should be wiser and shrewder in regards to leadership in their church, and be prepared, if compelled by conscience, to leave a congregation and search others.
The good news is no leader can coerce or bully you into staying by claiming his church is ‘in the kingdom of God’ and another church is not included. The kingdom exists in your heart when you have a relationship with God and choose to support a fellowship that has the same mindset.
One major reason I can think of is financial. If ‘the worker deserves his wages’, then the payers also deserve proper work. I believe that means if you pay a church or religious leaders ten percent of your income, you should have certain expectations as to their conduct, attitude, morality and spiritual example.
Don’t let religious leaders coerce or pressure you into thinking “it’s God’s command, you must contribute”. Sure, it’s a command from God to support church leadership, but a church leadership you believe in and trust. Otherwise, you can take your ten percent elsewhere -give it to another church, or a charity, or simply to the poor, if your faith prompts you to.
I believe the bible also calls us to be shrewd, wise and discerning. You’re not paying ten percent of your income to be lied to, spiritually bullied, looked down upon, emotionally abused, psychologically manipulated, exploited or used for the selfish ambition of church leaders. They have no right to exploit their congregations and take financial liberties at the expense of the grass roots members. That’s simply sheer arrogance, because it’s the grass roots members who literally support them.
I’m honing on this point a little, because I’ve been looking at the music industry recently for interest’s sake, being somewhat of a keen songwriter (though it’s just a hobby), but time and time again I see artists and bands who make it give utmost respect and gratitude to their fans, because it’s fans who put their food on the table.
Now, sure enough church leaders are spiritual guides, and they have authority to teach people to obey the teachings of the bible etc… but ‘lording it over’ is not supported by the bible. I say this, as is a theme from my blog, in light of my experience of being in the ICOC. The concept of ‘accountability’ became far too ‘top heavy’.
In leaders’ ambitions for more members, baptisms, visitors and the ultimate goal of the ’superchurch’, they loaded heavy burdens on their congregations, both financial and in the way of evangelistic ‘works’. It wasn’t until 2003 that many, but not all, leaders were brought to account themselves. It’s little wonder the ICOC had such an issue with low retention of members.
But it wasn’t so much the accountability itself, it was the attitude of leaders. Many changes have been made since 2003, but the attitudes of some haven’t changed. Possibly because many leaders are leading the way they were taught and indoctrinated by Kip Mckeanism for so many years. Many still hold to one-on-one discipling which opens the way for control and systematic abuse.
You need to test your church culture, the ways leaders lead, their attitudes, because you are investing in them -in both time and money, and in your spiritual endeavor of salvation. Do you want to invest in leaders who are deceitful? Arrogant? Manipulative? And you need to test, because these things are not obvious. Corrupt religious leaders know how to say the ‘right things’, to spiritually fake it.
How do you test? That’s up to you. Who’s going to be afraid of you asking lots of questions? A leader of integrity, or a corrupt leader? Maybe you need to be observant. Maybe the devil’s in the details. Maybe you need to get away for a certain time to gain some objectivity? Abusive groups tend to exert a lot of pressure. Sincere Christians may out of genuine concern, but they should be considerate enough to give people space. Do they want servile robots or edified Christians with an empowered faith?
Another thing to consider -sometimes the top leadership can be corrupt, while those sandwiched in the middle can be sincere in their concern, but they’re just taught to go along with the system. My experience in the ICOC, it was this middle-level of leadership that was the most overworked and abused.
There are many warnings throughout the bible concerning religious leaders and the religious establishment. Jesus exhorted his followers to be on their guard against the ‘yeast of the Pharisees’. And as I referred to in my last post, John calls Christians to ‘test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”
I find the terminology interesting, though. Why ’spirit’, and not just ‘teachings’ or ‘doctrine’? But having been through the ICOC for so many years, looking back on that, it makes sense to me now that the ’spirit’ of a church or leader is what’s important, which includes but is not limited to, doctrine or dry doctrinal arguments.
Back to my campus days, where nearly all the years I spent at uni I was a dedicated member of the ICOC, evangelising for weekly bible discussions and ever trying to set up personal bible studies with other students. And we earned ourselves a reputation. We had an ‘answer for everything’. Baptism, works, faith, judging others, and every other issue, we were taught and trained to have an answer for. Everything our critics threw at us regarding our own practices, we had an answer for. We believed our doctrinal position was solid, air-tight.
Now, there’s not anything necessarily wrong with this. If you believe in what you do, then you need to answer your own questions. You need to be assured that this is the right thing to do, that all the time and effort invested is worth it, and that you’re truly benefitting yourself and others with spreading the gospel. Perhaps in the early days the ICOC inspired a refreshing revival, and that’s what attracted many to join.
However, having an ‘answer for everything’ eventually meant down the line that we didn’t have an honest answer for everything, so we had to erect our own propaganda machine and find ways to silence internal critics. We felt we could ‘test’ every other religion and Christian sect, but we couldn’t ‘test’ ourselves. And I believe that when Jesus warned about the yeast of the Pharisee, he wasn’t just warning us to be wary of exploitation from the religious establishment, but that we should be wary of becoming like the religious establishment in their hypocrisy.
After years of becoming ‘indoctrinated’ by one’s own teachings, it’s difficult to test your own church from doctrine alone. But the ’spirit’ of a church, or a leader is important. And that means everything. Personality, style, manner, charisma, honesty, attitude, atmosphere can all be included. Doctrine may seem all ‘above board’, but the integrity, humility and honesty of a leader is essential, and the kind of ’spirit’ and culture he passes down to his congregation.
Practically speaking, how do you ‘test the spirit’ of a leader or church? That’s a good question, and one I’m not making any claims to be an expert at answering. There’s probably no official answer anyway, it may depend a lot on the particular circumstances you’re in.
Of course, one first obvious answer is to ‘pray about it’. If you really want a healthy relationship with God, and a church that will have a positive impact on this, then you really should pray about it. And serious prayer, if you are in the valley of decision on whether to join or leave a church. Pray specifically and pray for wisdom, which leads to the next suggestions:
Reading the scriptures -as Acts refers to the Bereans who examined the scriptures in light of Paul’s teachings. Knowing your bible is a fundamental, and if you know it really well, I believe it provides wisdom and defence against the range of predatory religious leaders from whatever background who are more concerned about their own ambitions (like building super churches and an international franchise) than individual members of their congregations.
But even a knowledge of the bible is not enough if you are completely indoctrinated by bias of the church your in. That’s my experience in the ICOC. We read an awful lot. We studied the bible daily, we had to memorize scriptures for mid-week services, we participated in extra theology and history classes, but it wasn’t until 2003 when many churches found the freedom to review there beliefs did we get some fresh air. It transpired that we had erred in the way financial contributions were taught, in the control of discipling, the rebuking culture, performance based pressure and exalted role of church stats and the list goes on.
However, for many, 2003 came too late as spiritual abuse had taken it’s toll, because there was no ’stop-gap’, no avenue for members and even leaders to find justice because of the tight grip of centralised control with it’s insecurities and inflexibilities. (And it should be mentioned, some churches changed, others didn’t really. Not everyone wants to give up power. That’s why I warn people to stay away from one-on-one discipling churches either from the ICOC or Kip Mckean’s SODM.)
In testing the spirits, I guess Christians should be ’shrewed as snakes and innocent as doves’. Christians tend to have the reputation for the later, like Ned Flanders, but one thing I’ve learned over the years you have to be shrewed, even in your own fellowship. It’s about finding a balance. You can’t be paranoid, and you can’t go round just accusing leaders because they’re leaders. But you have to consider whether people are sincere or insincere, and then you have to take appropriate action.
For all those years in the ICOC, I realise there were often two levels: one was the superficial level of the church -the propaganda, the sermons, the brochures, the cards, the speeches, the sharing about people and the ‘how ya doing bro’ religo-speak. This all reinforces the notion you’re in a ‘utopia’ and that this is THE spiritual place to be, THE movement.
The other level is all that happens below the surface: the implied meanings, bitter remarks, suppressed emotions etc. But looking back from what people have shared, this level wasn’t ‘unobvious’, meaing it was very much evident. The private discussion you had with trusted friends often revealed stuff really going on.
If a church generally has an honesty about it and both leaders and members are sincere in their beliefs then this is not so much an issue. If the warts are exposed, then this is a good thing. If you feel your church is visibly dealing with this problem and that problem, than possible your church is doing well in that there’s no need for these two levels. But a good test is, if you feel there are two levels, in other words problems and issues are swept under the carpet, potential critics are silenced by shaming -then it’s probably not wise to invest too many years in such a congregation.
To ‘test the spirits’ can be to test for sincerity. Conversely, lack of sincerity is simply deceit, and speaking from experience, deceit is a very bad sign. However, I can’t provide any specific formula to test for the sincerity or deceit. There are many ways, but sometimes you have to start with intuition.
Have you ever been around someone who boasts alot? Or someone who always has to be right? There’s your intuition working. Honest people are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, sometimes have victories and sometimes have defeats. They have no need to lie about either. But you can sense the kind of guy who always has to be right, becuase no matter the topic or the issue, they’ll twist things to suite their own way.
What I’m getting at, is picking up that ’spirit’. And you can pick that kind of spirit up even from a religious leader. I believe boasting is one of Kip Mckean’s issues. But it wasn’t obvious at the time, I’ll admit -back then it was all about ‘giving glory to God’, but he’d use that terminology to cover up boasting as to why people should be in his movement, and not, for example, a ‘mainline’ Church of Christ. The point I’m making is not to blame Kip at all, but rather be wise to the tell-tale signs of a religious movement that can chew you up and spit you out like you’re rotten refuse. This is why you need to test.
It’s not just about testing or looking at the personality of the top leader. It’s about testing the whole culture of the church at the grass-roots level. Again, I’m not saying there are any hard-fast-rules. A lot of it also depends on your personal values as well. For example, do you see a healthy balance of individualism and intelligence with sincere support for the church. An unhealthy balance, for example, is where there’s this feeling that everyone you talk to has the same opinion and creepily says the same things, like church cliches of that culture. A tangible example would perhaps be, everyone supports the same political party and leader. If you get the feeling that there’s no freedom in that realm for individualism, then perhaps it’s not the congregation for you. (I never felt any pressure regarding politics in the ICOC -that was up to the individual).
Finally, regarding testing, it’s not something you have to necessarily have concrete ‘results’ for. I mean, you could use this test to decieve yourself that everything is OK. That’s exactly what I did for years in the ICOC. “We’re the only one’s who evangilise daily, read our bibles daily, and I can’t see anyone else doing it. Kip Mckean must be right”. That’s an example of how I reasoned to myself whenever something didn’t seem right. If your intuition is telling you something is seriously wrong, then you don’t necessarily need to proove it to decide you need to have a break or examine other fellowships. Of course, there’s probably going to be a discipler or member on your tail…
In conclusion, ‘testing the spirits’ is not something I recall ever being taught in the ICOC about looking at our own congregations. We just assumed (and that’s breaking the golden rule) that all congregations under the ICOC fold were automatically the ‘Kingdom of God’. Sure, some churches did better than others and maybe some leaders were ‘more immature’ than others, but it never occurred to us that even leaders within the ICOC umbrella can actually lead members astray and be corrupt, unscrupulous and deceitful. Read the signs, genius. Such symptoms are not heaven bound.
“For the Lord and and for Gideon”… But in the murky world of a differing religious sects, splinter groups, off-shoots, left-overs, conservatives and idealists alike, how do you know who’s really ‘for the Lord’? Modern Christianity seems to be a tale of continuing divisions. One man’s ‘angel’ is another man’s ‘demon’. Kip Mckean is a case in point.
Considering my own experience, and what I’ve witnessed from post International Churches of Christ situations, we usually base our judgments on how people treated us in a particular group and our experience of being in that group. The bottom line is, how do you know a group is wrong or right, good or bad, unless you’ve spent a considerable time in it?
However, there are some interesting verses I’ve stumbled upon which discuss ‘testing’. 1 John 4:1 calls Christians to ‘not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,…’ 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says ‘Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.’ My impression from reading through the First Testament is that in those days all kinds of phoney leaders and charismatic personalities were trying to steer followers away from the apostle’s leadership for their own selfish gain, or their own religious doctrinal prejudice etc.
A major lesson to be learned, I believe, and I’ve discussed this on the blog previously, is that we shouldn’t assume our congregation or particular brand of Christianity is infallible. It seems obvious, but the oppressive nature of the ICOC doesn’t give much leeway in my experience.
Another reference I’d like to make is from Philippians 2:21: Everyone else looks after his own interests, not after those of Jesus Christ. The point is, Paul was wise enough to know that just because a bunch of people go to church and participate in communion, doesn’t mean they are really for the Lord.
And it’s the same today. You can’t ultimately know which leader is really for God, and which are kind of in the system, but really concerned about fattening up their superannuation, or finding a better location for their home or a better school for their kids etc… I dare say, it was this kind of hypocrisy that in the long-run led to a major disillusionment with some of the leaders of the ICOC.
For many who have come out and come through the ICOC, how are you going to know if you are really for the Lord, and if you believe you really are for the Lord, who are you going to trust in committing to a fellowship and it’s leader (who you believe is really for the Lord)? Or will you seek a congregation simply because it supports your particular doctrinal bias or convenience? And out of all the remaining personalities and leaders in the post-2003 world, who are you going to listen to?
And getting back to the bible’s concept of ‘testing’. How do you test the spirits? How do you ‘test everything? In the ICOC we spent a lot of time reading the bible and participating in classes concern doctrine, church history and the beliefs of other denominations. It did help us be ‘well-equipped’, but it also lead to a deeper prideful stance that we must be the ‘one true church’. We knew how to measure and test every other denomination, but it was a lot harder to test ourselves.
And it’s hard to test your own church for the simple fact that what if the results are not good? What then? Just leave all those friends and relationships you’d invested hours, days and years in? Well, the fact was, many left because they just had a bad experience. In one sense, it’s better to test something first, and know it’s prudent to leave, than to go through the bad experience and leave eventually.
But the concept of ‘testing’ can apply on so many levels. I’ll discuss some of my ideas in the next post…
