The Kingdom of God is Within You…

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.

Provocations

Have you ever been in a relationship or social setting where someone seems to be out to provoke you? It can be old friends, family members, partners, acquaintances, church members and coworkers. Often it’s the older relationships that can be the most bitter, and there’s so much baggage.

 If you feel provoked by someone, manipulated or controlled, and feel that below superficial niceties they’re a very nasty person, ask yourself why they’re nasty. The biggest temptation is to be nasty back in kind. To play the same game. Perhaps it becomes intensely competitive with a ‘tit for tat’ kind of situation.

 If you think about it, someone who is provocative and nasty is bound to be a deeply unhappy person. Whether you know it or not, you’re a threat to them. It could be ‘impersonal’ in that you represent a threat because of your talents, knowledge, position or clout, or it could be personal -they don’t like your personality, something you’ve said etc…

 On the other hand, a self-assured person is content, so therefore, why be competitive? If you can be self-assured in yourself, you have no compulsion to be one-up on your fellow man. Someone who is content and self assured, no matter religion or philosophy, has no interest in dominating, controlling or exploiting their fellow man.

 The biggest challenge for us is how do we react to someone who provokes us? The natural reaction is to do the same back, but the problem with that is you’re stooping down to their level. You become like them, and are liable to get caught in a downward spiral of biting back… The bible warns congregations not to get caught up in this, because in the end you destroy each other (‘envying and devouring’ each other).

 But the alternative is much harder -to do nothing. And it’s a risk. By doing nothing, you may be successful in preventing a war, and things may settle down. On the other hand, the antagonist might be looking for a fight, in which case he or she will persist until they either get their desired affect or eventually give up.

 There are some things to keep in mind about provoking people (rather than use the term ‘being provocative’, which can be seen as a noble artistic endeavor). There are advantages for people who provoke: they can gain the ‘moral’ upper hand by silently provoking their target until the target finally lashes back in front of witnesses -typical classroom trick with students, the teacher always catches the one who is being provoked while the instigator feigns innocence.

 The other advantage in being the one who provokes is related -they have the advantage of planning ahead. They often have the element of surprise. Really clever provoking is when the instigator can provoke their target without their target realizing they’re deliberately being provoked at the time. The target is then prone to a knee-jerk reaction that can get him or her into trouble.

 This can be relevant between classmates, family members, church members, employees, politicians and governments. It can exist on several levels: emotional and psychological, in conversation, in the media and any communications, in financial and business warfare and in military (tit-for-tat between borders for example). It can be on a conscious level and even subconscious – people may provoke you though they’re not consciously aware of it, they just feel you’re a threat for some reason.

 As a Christian I feel answers to these dilemmas are not easy but wisdom can be found in the scriptures, through prayer and wise communication and negotiation. It also involves building up emotional self-control and checking one’s knee-jerk reactions, because when you lose it in anger that’s when you make mistakes and lose respect of those around you. Of course, we all have a limits and fall on many occasions, but we can learn from out mistakes.

Why Test Religion?

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.

Testing Religion (Part 2 from previous post)

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.

Testing Religion

“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…

Black, White and Grey

There are times when issues are ‘black and white’, and there are times when issues are ‘grey’. It also involves knowing when to compromise on an issue or when to make a stand and it could also involve knowing when you should take an idealist approach or a practical approach. I suppose controversies arise when people are divided between the two. It really depends on our value systems and our experiences.

Manipulators and schemers however know how to use these concepts to their own advantage in discrediting the opposition. For example, when the opposition compromises, a schemer will label them ‘weak’. When the opposition takes a stand, he’ll label them ‘arrogant’, ’stubborn’ and ‘rebellious’.

This can especially be applicable in the myriad world of Christian sects, splinter groups, and all their differing doctrines. And it involves judgments on whether an issue is a ’salvation’ issue or merely an ‘opinion’ issue which allows for flexibility and compromise.

As Christian followers, it’s wise to develop your own convictions on issues rather than just swallow everything thrown at you from the pulpit. From my ICOC experience back in the 90’s preachers made some things ‘black and white’, often coming straight from the top, are we just to accept it blindly?

 An example issue is the belief that the ICOC was pretty much THE kingdom of God, and the ‘mainline’ Churches of Christ were ‘lukewarm’. We just accepted this paradigm as ‘black and white’. You may find a mainline Church of Christ a preferable fellowship in one city and not in another city. We have to beware of ‘black and white’ teachings from the pulpit. And all kinds of branches of churches make all kinds of issues ‘black and white’: to meet or not on the Sabbath of the week, to have music accompaniment, compulsory discipling or shepherding, the nature of church autonomy or centralisation, interpretations of revelations etc…

You’ll have to decide which issues are issues of salvation or just opinion, because some groups use these issues to differentiate themselves from all other groups. In this way they can claim ‘we’re the chosen ones because other groups don’t follow on this or that issue…’

Why can’t we all just get along? I believe the reasons vary depending on circumstance. Sometimes it’s about groups of people genuinely believing something about a ‘black or white’ issue. You could then say this is based either on ‘ignorance’ or ‘good moral convictions’. Sometimes it’s about leaders and groups wanting to feel exclusive, special and separate from all the other groups (-this is kind of a twisting of the appreciation that becoming Christians we are chosen out of the world. This is true, but you’ve got to stay righteous, and it doesn’t mean you’re better than non-christians or other churches because it’s based on grace.) They therefore pick an issue to make them feel that way. And one could even say sometimes it’s about individual leaders wanting to hold on to POWER. That’s right, and depending on their opposition, or they kinds of arguments they take, they’ll pick issues to negate any threat.

So, the next time you hear a preacher say an issue is ‘black or white’, don’t just swallow it hook, line and sinker. Be a bit more prudent, and look at the scriptures yourself to decide how you feel about the issue, and you may come to the belief that it’s just as biblical to be open-minded about the issue. The gospels constantly mention how Jesus knew the hearts of men as so often, it wasn’t really about the issues, but ways his enemies wanted to undermine Him.

Fear and Love

Looking back on my experience of being in the ICOC (International Churches of Christ) for over ten years I definitely question the role of love and fear in it’s culture. A lot of the rhetoric going around talked of ‘unconditional love’, and to be sure it did exist, but often it existed because individuals chose to love unconditionally. However, because of the pressures of the system that rewarded those who did what it wanted and said what it wanted, fear became a major motivator.

Specifically, this meant baptisms, ultimately ‘fruit’ that you can add to your credit, but on a weekly basis it meant visitors to church or bible-talk, studies, how many contacts you got in street evangelism in an effort for churches to grow. It was acknowledged and taught that motivation to love the lost should stem from gratitude of what Jesus did on the cross but the pressures of church culture sent a different message -it was shameful to not have any visitors for a month. It was shameful to go one year, two years or more without being fruitful. It was shameful as a bible-talk leader if your bible-talk hadn’t brought any visitors on a given Sunday.

Under some church leaders it was also shameful to question how things were done, to question decisions and actions of leadership, or leave because of differences. This was called being ‘critical’. Those who left like this were painted as people ‘who hadn’t been doing well spiritually’, ‘weren’t growing in their relationship with God’, and that was also shameful.

So this kind of culture leads to fear -fear of being shamed. Fear of being perceived as ‘unspiritual’, and if your peers (who are in the church) perceive you this way then it’s hard not to believe it yourself. But with works to your name, being fruitful several times a year, constantly bringing visitors, you were considered ’spiritual’. In fact, as I remember, such people entered the ’super spiritual’ realm.

Of course, for most churches, this changed around the impacting times of 2003. The works/performance mentality was finally seen for all its flaws. But the challenge then was, what could replace this motivational force within the culture? I left in 2005 so I haven’t kept in touch with how individually churches are doing. Since discipling was integral to the accountability of such a works-orientated culture I have continued to oppose churches that keep the system going.

The problem is, for years much of the motivation in such a culture was based on fear. You can’t just overcome that in a year or two. It really affected our thinking and emotional experience of Christianity. For many of us, the ICOC was our main experience and ‘reality’ of Christianity. So absorbed and surrounded by the language, the teachings, the mindset, it’s a hard thing to shake off. The shame-based aspect of it is really a fear of rejection. And in what became such a claustrophobic society for many, that is a prime motivator.

The thing to remember is Jesus was familiar with rejection. The Pharisees and teachers of the law had tight control of the synagogue culture and those who supported Jesus risked rejection from the synagogue. That doesn’t mean it’s all about being a rebel, but the bible provides hope for those who believe in doing what’s right but in the course of this risk rejection. Being motivated from love can lead to rejection, being motivated by fear can lead to acceptance.

Looking back on my ICOC experience, many things were done to please the group, the leadership, the peers. Hard to know what’s done out of love, or what’s done out of fear. But there were testing times. If there was an opportunity to help someone which wouldn’t be recognised by the culture, would you do it? Or if you felt someone shouldn’t be baptised because you feel their heart isn’t in it, but you pressure them to do it anyway (for you to look good as ‘fruit’), would you do it? (I failed that one back in the day.)

The problem with the ICOC culture was that in it’s desire to control, the tendency was for members to just going along to evade consequences (over time). Yes, new Christians were motivated from love of their new-found faith, but the culture had a way of stifling it in the long run. If at the end of it all there’s no love, then what is there, and what is the point?

Cartoon about being part of the group…

I’ve just done a new batch of comic strips, most of which aren’t religion orientated (my main blog for my cartoons is Munhwa Experienceat WordPress). This one kind of looks at the exclusivity of churches and how being part of a certain group/sect/branch affects the view on comers and leavers…

SODM goes West, ICOC goes East…

From what I see in ‘hardline’ discipling movements, Kip Mckean has a lot of influence in the West with his ‘Sold Out Movement’,  while Steve Chin of the ICOC leads discipling congregations in the East including Hongkong and Taiwan. You can find articles and info on the following sites…

Taiwan Churches of Christ, English section:  http://www.taiwanchurch.org.tw/index_en.php
and Sold Out Discipling Movement, City of Angels International Christian church: http://www.caicc.net/

I was originally part of the Sydney Church of Christ, but I spent a few years in the Taiwan Churches of Christ from around 2000, while working in Taipei. In contrast to the turbulent times of other ICOC congregations of 2003, Steve Chin’s version of one-on-one discipling, the ‘Moses-Joshua’ system, continued to exist in the church structure up until when I left in 2005, and by looking at the website it seems to still be the norm.

Meanwhile Kip Mckean seems to have been reinforcing one-on-one discipling, with the belief of churches with ‘no discipling’ or ‘optional discipling’ being false teachings. From what I’ve been monitoring, these seem to be the most dedicated in maintaining compulsory discipling.

Other links

If your Mandarin is good, here’s another link for the Taiwan ICOC: http://www.icoc.org.tw/index.php, and here’s a Hongkong link, but at the time of writing this post it was timing out:http://www.hongkongcoc.org/

Roundup on Discipling/Mentoring/Shepherding Part I

I thought I’d try to do a round up on different takes leaders and Christians have  regarding one-on-one discipling including Kip Mckean, Henry Kriete, Douglas Jacoby and others. I’ve taken many quotes from around the time of 2003 and some more present day, and I’ve been surprised how big a task it’s been (having to read through documentation) so I haven’t provided my views or comments much on it yet, and I will have to do another post to finish.

 

Henry Kriete

 

This is from Henry Kriete’s Honest to God letter, released in 2003. Previously up until that point discipling was standard practice in the ICOC. The letter is long, and discusses many issues plaguing the ICOC congregations of the time, but I’ll just refer to his statements on discipling, and I think they summed up in many ways problems with discipling. This is a quote:

 

We have assumed, wrongly, that the sheep are stupid. We have trained them to depend on men, on us in fact, and not on Christ. ‘Did you get advice’ for the most part means ‘Did you get permission?’ Yes of course,  they are vulnerable and open to attack, but they are not stupid. It is we who have been stupid, Biblically and spiritually. Should we not assume, rather, that a true, spirit-filled Christian desires to please God, not a rebel?

 

(He then quotes Ezekial 36:’I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you…’)

 

Through our discipling partner theology, we have attempted, like modern-day Pharisees, to put a hedge around God’s law. In trying to protect or control the Christians, we have routinely violated their liberty in Christ. We have not trusted disciples to live by their own convictions and decisions (and mistakes), and have fostered in them an unhealthy dependence rather than freedom to grow and mature. Many of our discipling guidelines are nothing more than ‘rules taught by men’, condemned by Jesus as burdensome and legalistic. No control mechanisms, or traditions of men, or rules and culturally accepted regulations will keep anyone faithful who does not want to be faithful in their heart. But they will create rebellions and criticalness among sincere and liberated Christians. We did not become new creations to be controlled by men; rather ‘it is for freedom Christ has set us free’.

 

 

Later on he uses a term ‘formalized discipleship’ which I think raises an important point: the concept of ‘discipling’ isn’t bad in it’s bare definition of teaching, correcting, training, leading etc… But in the ICOC discipling formed a culture all of it’s own. Then he lists discipling in number 20 under “Wide Scale Problems and Concerns”:

 

The concept of discipleship partners as presently practiced in most of our churches has failed. Perhaps more than all else, our discipleship hierarchy with all its ‘little leaders’ has caused more damage, heartache, and criticism than any other thing. Among the tens of thousands of untrained and ‘unspiritual’ disciples, advice has become permission, opinions have become orders, and the dignity and ‘right’ of our God given freedom has been denied. The nature of our hierarchy and the ‘baptism is best’ theology, when mixed with our sinful human nature has in many cases been a disaster. Paul said, ‘I am free and belong to no man’ and to the Corinthians, ‘You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men’. This is a command of God, not good advice. And to the Galations, ‘It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery’.

 

In our discipling relationships, we can warn, plead, share from experience, and of course, open the Scriptures – but in the end, each Christian must work out their ‘own salvation with fear and trembling’. Intrusive interference in matters of opinion is simply unacceptable. Pulling rank is sin. A godly man will seek advice, but another godly man will never bind advice. Of course, some will fall and make bad decisions – and in some cases disastrous decisions -  but they are their decisions, not ours. We routinely make ourselves the judges of another man’s freedom; another man’s life. But who are we to judge? The Ethiopian breaks every rule of discipleship we have. He was left dripping wet, and Philip was immediately taken away. Are we wise than God? Or more competent than the Spirit of God?

 

…What started out as a sincere desire to protect the sheep has degenerated into a mechanism of control… The need for imposed discipleship relationships to maintain our system of things is so crucial that to say ‘no thank you’ has meant banishment from some of our churches. Kips own quote from LA is now world famous. That is why a sincere Christian would even think to ask, ‘Is it a sin not to have a discipleship partner?’ Well, is it?

 

And he continues to reveal how much advice in discipling relationships stemmed from agendas of those up the leadership chain.  He also refers to scriptures demonstrating Christians are competent to make decisions and judgments for themselves. Then he ends the section with:

 

I do not deny the phenomenal amount of good that has come about from godly ‘discipling’ relationships- but as a formalized, authority laden institution it is doomed to fail and must therefore be dismantled. Why? ‘Because where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom’.

 

Finally, at the end of the whole paper, he gives some practical guidelines to leaders around the world (the document was intended for leaders to read, but later available on the internet). Regarding discipling partners he advises:

 

We must dismantle authoritarian DP  relationships. All of these ‘little leaders’ have not been immune from bad theology. There should be more prayer, more love, more seeking God’s will. All Christians should be encouraged to seek advice and examine the Scriptures, yet liberated to choose a course of action or application to their own conscience.

 

From what I gather Henry Kriete currently leads a church in Canada called Maple Ridge, which you can check out here,(but you won’t find the Honest to God document here, best to just google the title)

http://opendoorfamily.ca/

 

Kip Mckean and Mike Patterson

 

If you’ve read this blog or followed the latest literature from Kip Mckean you’ll know that not only is he pro discipling, he states his belief that optional discipling within a church is a heresy. However, going back to around 2003 and in light of the Honest to God letter, I thought I’d refer to his ‘From Babylon to Zion: Revolution Through Restoration III’, and to the section towards the end ‘Reaffirming God’s Revealed Truth, part 7, where he says:

 

Every disciple must be discipled by God, by the Scriptures and by man. God is sovereign and disciples us through our experiences of both victory and defeat. (Hebrews 12:1-15) The Scriptures disciple us and mature us as we learn to obey them more and more. (Hebrews 5:11-14) Jesus exemplified discipling in his relationships with the apostles and then commanded discipling not only to become a Christian, but also after baptism … “teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20)

 

Though the methodologies of discipleship partners, prayer partners, discipleship groups, as well as the changing nature of the discipling relationships mature from being a parent/child to adult/adult may all be debated, being discipled is an absolute command of God and makes God’s true movement distinctive.

 

Later in a section devoted to disciping he goes into more detail. He starts of with Hebrews 3:12-19 regarding the role of Christians being involved in each other’s lives and guarding against ’sin’s deceitfulness’. He also cites examples of Moses discipling Joshua, Samual and David, Elijah and Elisha and then goes on to Jesus:

 

In the New Testament, Jesus preached the Word publicly, but he focused his energy into a few. He chose 12 men to be his apostles. Jesus, our perfect example, discipled them as a group. He discipled them one-on-one. And, yes, even one-over-one. And then he paired them up and sent them out on their first mission. He focused on the few, so that “they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach.” (Mark 3:14) After daily walking with them for three years, he called those same apostles in Matthew 28 to go and make disciples of all nations. This enormous, seemingly impossible task of evangelizing the world could only be accomplished by the God-given principle of the multiplication of disciples. In other words, one disciple makes another disciple: the two of them each make another disciple… 

 

From this concept comes the ideal of global evangelism which he claims that churches could not grow they way they did in the ICOC without discipling. He continues regarding its necessity:

 

Discipling is not only for the salvation of the lost, but I believe it is the salvation of the saved. All of us, at one time or another, struggle even to the point of disconnecting with God. It is at these times that those who are involved in our lives can rescue us from the fire because of their relationship with us. Discipling is the only way that we can fulfill all of the “one another” passages in the Scriptures…

 

And he goes on to refer to more “one another” scriptures: Hebrews 3:12-13, Hebrews 10:24, James 5:16, Galations 6:2, Galations 5:13, Romans 15:14 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13.

 

He does give some concessions to the problems of discipling however:

 

I do believe too often many of us have tried to disciple behavior, and not heart and character. …Also, too often in the past a discipler would give advice to another disciple and make it binding on him. That was very wrong. However, to do away with discipling is equally wrong because this is what Jesus called us to do by command and example.

 

Discipling gave warmth to our fellowship and distinctiveness to our brotherhood. Discipling is the reason many many committed Christians from within the mainline Churches of Christ moved to the congregation of the “Boston Movement”.

 

Finally he discussed the issue of distinguishing Biblical ‘principles’ and ‘methodology’ in discipling:

 

Discipleship partners, prayer partners, friendship partners, discipleship groups, family groups and Bible talks all draw on the principles of Jesus’ discipling, but they are methodologies. Methods are neither right nor wrong; people can use them for good and for evil. But denying the principles of discipling in time will lead us directly back to the mainline Church of Christ… Some have argued that one-over-one discipling is wrong because people have been hurt, and therefore we should not do it. However, even in the church, we have marriages in which husbands and wives have hurt each other, but we are not about to abandon marriage…. We must not abandon discipling… We must reaffirm it because it is one of the key ways God changes us through the Spirit and the Word. Jesus calls everyone to be a disciple. Jesus calls everyone to be discipled. And Jesus calls everyone to make disciples.

 

I’ll probably have to devote a number of posts to this, but I feel there’s a whole lot of rationalising going on.

 

But on to the present  ‘Sold Out Discipling Movement’ it’s fairly obvious that Kip Mckean still maintains the practice of one-on-one discipling with the belief that ‘optional discipling’ is a heresy (let alone ‘no discipling’). Mike Patterson of the SODM has also labelled as ‘false teachings’ autonomy and “discipling is optional”.  He quotes Colossians 1:28 – “We proclaim Him, warning and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ”… and states in his article ‘Spiritual Maturity’ that:

 

Discipling is a command from God that is necessary for each of us to become mature! Who is discipling you to maturity in Christ? Not just giving you “Biblical Knowledge” or “deep insights into the Scriptures” or their “opinions,” but someone who is challenging you to become Biblically mature, calling you to obey the Word of God. (Matthew 28:20) That means someone who is training you to become like Christ in every aspect of your character. Who trains you to obey the Scriptures, serve others, build the church, disciple others and produce a crop? Discipling is vital for each of us to be presented mature in Christ. Discipling relationships are friendships with Christians who “speak the truth in love,” “warning and teaching” us in every aspect of our lives. 

 

 

 Kip Mckean is currently leadering the City Of Angels International Christian church in L.A. (again, I think you’ll have to google ‘From Babylon to Zion’ to find the original document addressed to the ICOC).

 

http://www.caicc.net/

 

 

Douglas Jacoby

 

http://www.douglasjacoby.com

(and www.jacobypremium.com)

 

On to Douglas Jacoby, who was a teacher in the ICOC for many years prior to the 2003 ’shake-up’. Since then I know he’s been running an apologetics ministry but I don’t know what affiliations, if any, he has to ICOC or post-ICOC churches.

I found the following sections on discipling from his informative website (see above), and he’s given me permission to quote the ‘Q&A’s in full. The first one is Q&A 309 ‘Discipler’:

 

Q “I was wondering if having a discipler was essential for salvation. I know that the Bible says getting discipling and advice and counseling is essential, but there are many ways to get discipled without having an official discipler. So isn’t it okay not to have a discipler, as long as we get discipled by each other?”

 

A You are right, the Bible speaks of “many advisers,” not one single individual helping us along. (Though it usually does begin with one person who really cares.) There are two opposite errors to avoid. One is to have so many diffuse relationships that no one ends up challenging us. This contradicts the spirit of Colossians 1:28-2:1, and in fact all the “one another passages”.

 

The other extreme is to limit our openness to one person only. James 5:16, for example, insists we share with one another. (Confession, yes, but no “confessional”, please!) So to answer your question, the N.T. portrays a vibrantly interactive fellowship where in love all members give to and receive from others. Discipleship is not limited to only one individual. If we are smart—as the Proverbs repeatedly remind us—we will be getting advice, perspective, training, correction, and inspiration from a number of persons.

 

Now if someone doesn’t want anybody involved in his or her life, we do have a problem! (If that is the sad situation, scriptures like John 3:19-21 come to mind, don’t they?) Let’s all go after all the discipling we can get, without making rules where the Bible lays down no rule. Yet for most of us, the needs is probably for more input, not for less! For more on this, see Gordon Ferguson’s excellent books on Discipling, available from DPI…

 

 

The other is Q&A 403 ‘Discipler Advice’.

 

Q. Do I have to obey a human discipler? I have heard Hebrews 13:17 quoted to tell me to be humble and follow advice. But sometimes it feels like I am following orders, especially when I don’t agree with the advice. Please help me.”

 

A. No, we are not obligated to obey human disciplers. To begin with, there are no “disciplers” in the New Testament. Instead, we find the “one-another passages.” There are dozens of them. If you are not familiar  with these scriptures, it your concordance or skim through the New Testament and they will leap off the page at you! This does not mean that we do not all need instruction, or that we should disregard advice. “Victory comes through many counselors”– which I take to mean we all need a number of “disciplers.”

 

Hebrews 13:17 does not give carte blanche to a leader. I believe the passage most likely refers to elders. At any rate, there is not enough information in this one passage to enable us to decide how much “authority” a leader has in the life of a “non-leader”. Leaders cannot bind their advice or opinions on others. (Maybe a good way to understand the scope of obedience to leaders in the New Testament is to study Acts and the letters to notice the sorts of things leaders told others to do.)

 

In short, advice should be weighed. It should be considered. We are under no obligation to follow it. The word of God, on the other hand, is not to be “considered.” It is to be obeyed. Humanly speaking, it is a strong tendency to confuse God’s word with our guidelines and suggestions. This is dangerous. (Mark 7:1-9)

 

(Here are the full links:

309 Discipler

http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=1472

403 Discipler’s Advice

http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=2852)

 

 

Mike Cameron’s ‘Discipling and Related Issues’.    

 

http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=1531

 

If you search on Douglas Jocaby’s site you may find an essay written by Mike Cameron (also in 2003) which at first I found a little dry (contrasting to the dramatic letters, apologies and essays coming out at the time) but reading over it now I found it very informative and well-argued. I could just as well quote the whole thing, as he attacks every relevant issue to the ICOC culture and discipling, but instead I’ve provided the link (above) and put in one quote:

 

A discipling system would undermine Paul’s intentions because it would put the church effectively in the hands of inexperienced, untested leadership, which he specifically taught against. This is because, as mentioned earlier, discipling requires that almost everyone be a teacher (that’s the whole point of it -to teach and train).

 

He looks at discipling thoroughly from many of angles and in light of scriptures commonly used to support discipling.

 

I find Mike Cameron’s articles to be one of the most unassuming, trustworthy, devoid of self-absorbed rhetoric, and well-argued articles I’ve read so far -coming from both sides of the Mckean/ICOC fence. I guess it helps that he’s not so much a famous personality with a large following that may tend towards bias.

 

 

Russ Ewell

 

http://www.bacc.cc/index.htm

 

 

The development of Russ Ewell’s leadership and Bay Area Christian Church post 2003 has surprised me a little as he has appeared to distance himself somewhat from both Kip Mckean’s SODM and the remainder of the ICOC churches by chosing a different term to ‘discipling’ in the form of ‘mentorship’.  Having said that, I did see a reference to him and his fellowship on the ICOC ‘hot news’ website.

 

Citing examples of biblical relationships on their website with Moses to Joshua, Samual to Saul and David and Jesus to the apostles, the BACC explains that

 

We will practice mentorship in our church so that everyone receives spiritual and life guidance.  New Testament Christianity is impossible without this kind of relationship and guidance.   Proverbs 9:9 clearly states that even the wise and righteous need these types of relationships.  Who can claim to be wise, righteous, or a New Testament Christian and exempt himself or herself from mentoring relationships?

 

It seems clear that they haven’t taken the ‘discipling is optional’ approach. The section also outlines basic expectations each newcomer must have to starting a ‘mentoring relationship’. First is to consider how the newcomer can ‘give’ and what his ‘gifts’ are, and second is how they can ‘receive’ Then they’re advised how to ‘initiate’ in the new relationship by examining some scriptures. 41 references in fact, according to my count.

 

They’re not saying the references are about mentorship directly -they’re for ‘gaining conviction about initiating in relationships’, but since it’s under the topic of ‘getting started in a mentoring relationship’ it’s implied. 

Here is the link:

(http://www.bacc.cc/BACC/Inspirare/Brevis1/What_Is_Mentorship.htm)