Commentary by Sarel de Wet—©2006. A former member (1990-2000) of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) in South Africa. Commentary concerns McKeanism discipleship of the pro-McKean faction, officially known as the International Christian Churches (ICC) and anti-McKean faction, officially known as the ICOC Co-Operation Churches a.k.a. International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
Friday, December 15, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Married to the Mob?
Henry Kriete has exposed many fallacies of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) in his long forgotten letter, ‘Honest to God: Revolution Through Repentance and Freedom in Christ’ (February 2nd 2003), but not a word was said about “the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” within the ICOC. Many outsiders are unaware of the complex of the wall ICOC rules concerning the intimate aspects of male-female, husband-wife relationships.
This issue of dating and marriage will become the ultimate storm that will bring more heartbreak to this divided Christian community more than any other doctrinal matter since Kriete’s Letter. In general, prolific ICOC leadership in both camps gives the impression on the topic of relationships that they have “cross a line from genuine shepherding to control.”
“Where there’s an intrusion”, according to Ron Enroth, “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God, in the name of shepherding, you begin to move in a direction that I think is unhealthy.” The new reformed groups of the former ICOC have done that since May 2005 and March 2006.
The policy on dating and marriage, for the most part, remains like this: ‘A disciple marries a disciple’. Therefore since we can “marry only disciples (2 Cor 6:14, 1 Cor 7:39), it stands to reason that we should date only disciples. Dating non-Christians messes motives up our motives and theirs, and is extremely unwise.” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Lesson 9: Counting the Cost, p234/316.
Unfortunately, I do not possess, the latest edition on Shining Like Stars. I doubt very much if anything has changed to this regard since 1990.
The question is can these splinter groups of the former era accommodate a future for youngsters? May (ICOC) members, since the awakening of the worldwide ICOC fellowship, marry other Christians, who do not share the same convictions? For example, would the respected family of churches in the ICOC, in practice, forbid intermarriage between a Presbyterian, Methodists or Roman Catholic? And if so, why?
Marrying a Christian is correctly argued from Scripture. Christians must marry only Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39). However, some family of churches in the post-HKL era compromised the organisation’s ideal of marrying only ICOC members – whereupon Kip McKean retaliated by asking in his article, entitled ‘The Honor of God’ (May 2005): “What should we do in our worldwide fellowship of churches?”
Kip stated [emphasis mine]: “Of consideration even the Catholics teach you should MARRY ONLY CATHOLICS, the Mormons believe in ONLY MARRYING MORMONS, and the Muslims have been known to kill a Muslim that DOES NOT MARRY A MUSLIM. Though these groups do not follow the Scriptures’ teaching on salvation, they understand THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE in relation to “their view” of “God’s people”. Are Jesus’ TRUE DISCIPLES to be less convicted?”
This means, in a roundabout way, “true disciples” like those fellowshipping with the Portland family of churches (The Portland movement) might not marry Christians in other groups who do not share an equal understanding regarding “their view” on the concept of marriage. On the other hand, “true disciples” who fellowship with the “International family of churches” (United Cooperation Group) might not marry those in McKean’s “new movement”? Who is exactly less convicted?
Nevertheless, the United Cooperation Group, in their document since March 11th 2006, shares McKean’s convictions on marriage. “With holiness in mind, the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians are to be pursued with ONLY THOSE who “belong to the Lord” as defined by Scriptures (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 7:39).”
What exactly will these families of churches teach youngsters on “romantic relationships and marriage”? It is my opinion that both groups will revert to former ICOC doctrine – marrying only “in the mob”. The frightening consideration of this “concept of marriage” is three fold. If we; number one, allow people to “marry only in the mob”, then we; number two, say we are the “one true church” and therefore; number three, the “only biblically saved”!
In the post-HKL era, Enroth’s outlook on unhealthy abuse by leadership by intruding “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God, in the name of shepherding” has materialised during the Seattle September 2005 leadership conference. Here, we have evidence to what extend the marriage concept can lead people to trust. Mike Taliaferro, one of the nine brothers selected to serve with the Unity Proposal Group, together with Chris Ogbonnaya shared a lesson entitled, Pulling Your Church Together.
Here, Taliaferro, during his lesson “cross a line from genuine shepherding to control.”
He said: “…we began to call people back to decisions, and we did it one by one. We called the church back to discipling relationships. We called the church back to sacrificial giving… We made that decision. We resurrected church discipline… We confronted people that were divisive; some of them left the church. We resurrected confession of sin in the church… We reminded people of their commitment to all the services… Who’s lost, who’s saved – we had a talk about it.”
But more importantly, on the topic of marriage/church/salvation, Chris Ogbonnaya, shows how it is done to intrude “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God.”
Here, Chris expanded on the idea of Mike “Who’s lost, who’s saved” in the same lesson by stating: “WE CANNOT MARRY A NON-CHRISTIAN. WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MARRIAGES BETWEEN US AND A CATHOLIC. You want to do that, hey, you’re welcome as A VISITOR. We had to do it… Is this authority? I say, ‘Yes’. It’s authority, and IT’S AUTHORITY THAT WE HAVE FROM GOD AS LEADERS, to pull ourselves together, so that the church can march forward.”
Clearly, the bible teaches against marrying a non-Christian. However, I wonder if Chris toyed with the idea that Christians in the Roman Catholic Church are condemned? But I will give him the benefit of my doubt.
Which brings us to the next question: who belongs to the Lord?
Kip McKean rightly points to other religious groups (notice the strong presence of established cults) that forbid their members to marry outside their particular group even to the point of death. However, this inclusive viewpoint leads only to the belief in being the “one true church”. It is a form of spiritual apartheid.
If “romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” in the ICOC congregations become regulated, then we need to know how they perceive other Christian groups outside their particular “view”. Clearly, Chris Ogbonnaya’s viewpoint is extreme: “WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MARRIAGES BETWEEN US AND A CATHOLIC. You want to do that, hey, you’re welcome as A VISITOR.”
What does the New Testament teach on marriage between Christians? Here young people who are on the verge to join the former ICOC family of churches need to consult the Scriptures without interference from them. Youngsters need to go back to their parents, families, friends and pastors before getting baptised in either former ICOC “family of churches”.
The Apostle Paul made several contributions on the topic of marriage as requested by the Corinthians. Here individuals are free to choose who they want to marry, but they must belong to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:39). If an individual becomes a Christian while the other is not, and the non-Christian partner wants to leave, it is allowed. However, individuals in the Lord may not divorce. If they divorce they are not permitted to marry other individuals. It is permitted for such a couple to get back together. Individuals are free to marry anyone in the Lord after a death of a spouse.
Let us note: The Apostle Paul’s advise on “the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” makes no distinction between “all the churches”. The same rule applies to all. (1 Corinthians 7:17) Perhaps not entirely to the Jerusalem Church (Acts 21:21). Here the Jewish traditions and customs of the elders as observed in the Jerusalem church would not tolerate Jewish marriages with Gentiles. However, the Apostle made it very clear that we all belong to the Lord. “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23 NIV)
In his time some “forbid people to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3). In later times some forbid people to marry if they’re not in the same church group! The Roman Catholic Church policy was marrying only Catholics.
Today “slaves of men” favours one church group over another. Many Christian groups do not include a subsequent step that members MUST EMBRACE DISCIPLESHIP. Therefore this pre-requisite for the ICOC fellowship enforces “romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” in the Portland movement and United Cooperation Group to observe a type of “slaves of men” rule: “marrying only ICOC members”. If this rule is not applicable, people in the ICOC are free to choose whomever they want to “marry in the Lord” no matter what “Christian” that belongs to a biblically converted affiliation.
So where do they stand?
Many ICOC leaders TEACH AGAINST a disciple marrying someone who did not have these same convictions on embracing discipleship. However, these teachers, for now, will NOT FORBID a disciple from marrying a “biblically converted Christian in another group.”
Let us consider former rules of a bygone era in Episode 1. If we; number one, allow people to marry only in “the mob”, then we; number two, say we are the “one true church” and therefore; number three, the “only biblically saved”!
For your benefit, here are the former rules of marrying to the mob in a bygone era.
Number one.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord of our Dating Life or Marriage” according to implication five:
e. Implication 5: Lord of our Dating Life or Marriage
“Marry only a Christian – obviously will marry someone you date, therefore best to date only disciples. (Exception: an existing dating relationship. Handle with care and wisdom, Not a must to break up – a must to stop sin, if any, and a must to discipline it and a must to make a decision that if a person is not really interested in becoming a Christian or is pulling person down spiritually, will break it off immediately. 1 Corinthians 7:39 – must marry in the Lord – no double standards between first and second marriage.”
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, “Shining Like Stars,” ii edition, 1990.
“Marry a Christian! (2 Cor 6:14ff, 1 Cor 7:39)” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Study 12: Christian Marriage: Cord of Three Strands, p.258/316.
“Dating and marriage”
a) Since we can marry only disciples (2 Cor 6:14, 1 Cor 7:39), it stands to reason that we should date only disciples.
b) Dating non-Christians messes motives up our motives and theirs, and is extremely unwise.” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Lesson 9: Counting the Cost, p234/316.
Number two.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord of One Church” according to implication four:
d. Implication 4: Lord of One Church
“Ephesians 4:4 – only those who are scriptural Christians are members of the true church. Church of Christ – only major group I know that baptizes those willing to be disciples for the forgiveness of sins.”
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990.
6) New Testament Church
a) Explain that we must attend only a church, which follows the Bible.
e) Make sure he understands that it is not God’s will for him to attend any other church.
Number three.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord and Savior of only the Biblically Saved” according to implication three:
c. Implication 3: Lord and Savior of only Biblically Saved
Must have deep convictions of who is lost and who is saved. You are lost (person you are studying with). Others like you are lost – family, friends, old church friends, etc.
Church groups do “differ in their doctrines”. However, the ICOC makes damning statements towards other church groups by stating they are false churches, teaching false doctrine, thus not biblically saved.
Back Tracking [An A4 sheet ‘back tracks’ issues before a prospective member “counts the cost” to become a disciple in the ICOC]
False Doctrines & Denominations
- Is it wrong to baptise babies?
- What is wrong in praying Jesus into your heart to be saved?
- What is wrong with getting baptised after being saved?
- Is there anyone in the churches where any of these false doctrines are taught who is saved?
- Is there any member of your family who is saved?
- Do you know anyone who is a true Christian?
- Is it okay for a Christian to worship at a denominational church?
- What churches will you attend when you visit your homeland?
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990.
4) Implication of baptism
a) Ask him if he knows other true Christians (e.g. in his old church, at home, in his country, at work, family…)
11) Taking a stand with family and friends
a) Does he understand that they are lost?
b) Is he willing to firmly (and lovingly) take a stand, share his faith with them, and hold to his conviction?
c) Ask him how he would react if they opposed him?
If ICOC leadership hardly compromise on point one, where does it leave them on the other points?
This issue of dating and marriage will become the ultimate storm that will bring more heartbreak to this divided Christian community more than any other doctrinal matter since Kriete’s Letter. In general, prolific ICOC leadership in both camps gives the impression on the topic of relationships that they have “cross a line from genuine shepherding to control.”
“Where there’s an intrusion”, according to Ron Enroth, “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God, in the name of shepherding, you begin to move in a direction that I think is unhealthy.” The new reformed groups of the former ICOC have done that since May 2005 and March 2006.
The policy on dating and marriage, for the most part, remains like this: ‘A disciple marries a disciple’. Therefore since we can “marry only disciples (2 Cor 6:14, 1 Cor 7:39), it stands to reason that we should date only disciples. Dating non-Christians messes motives up our motives and theirs, and is extremely unwise.” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Lesson 9: Counting the Cost, p234/316.
Unfortunately, I do not possess, the latest edition on Shining Like Stars. I doubt very much if anything has changed to this regard since 1990.
The question is can these splinter groups of the former era accommodate a future for youngsters? May (ICOC) members, since the awakening of the worldwide ICOC fellowship, marry other Christians, who do not share the same convictions? For example, would the respected family of churches in the ICOC, in practice, forbid intermarriage between a Presbyterian, Methodists or Roman Catholic? And if so, why?
Marrying a Christian is correctly argued from Scripture. Christians must marry only Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39). However, some family of churches in the post-HKL era compromised the organisation’s ideal of marrying only ICOC members – whereupon Kip McKean retaliated by asking in his article, entitled ‘The Honor of God’ (May 2005): “What should we do in our worldwide fellowship of churches?”
Kip stated [emphasis mine]: “Of consideration even the Catholics teach you should MARRY ONLY CATHOLICS, the Mormons believe in ONLY MARRYING MORMONS, and the Muslims have been known to kill a Muslim that DOES NOT MARRY A MUSLIM. Though these groups do not follow the Scriptures’ teaching on salvation, they understand THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE in relation to “their view” of “God’s people”. Are Jesus’ TRUE DISCIPLES to be less convicted?”
This means, in a roundabout way, “true disciples” like those fellowshipping with the Portland family of churches (The Portland movement) might not marry Christians in other groups who do not share an equal understanding regarding “their view” on the concept of marriage. On the other hand, “true disciples” who fellowship with the “International family of churches” (United Cooperation Group) might not marry those in McKean’s “new movement”? Who is exactly less convicted?
Nevertheless, the United Cooperation Group, in their document since March 11th 2006, shares McKean’s convictions on marriage. “With holiness in mind, the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians are to be pursued with ONLY THOSE who “belong to the Lord” as defined by Scriptures (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 7:39).”
What exactly will these families of churches teach youngsters on “romantic relationships and marriage”? It is my opinion that both groups will revert to former ICOC doctrine – marrying only “in the mob”. The frightening consideration of this “concept of marriage” is three fold. If we; number one, allow people to “marry only in the mob”, then we; number two, say we are the “one true church” and therefore; number three, the “only biblically saved”!
In the post-HKL era, Enroth’s outlook on unhealthy abuse by leadership by intruding “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God, in the name of shepherding” has materialised during the Seattle September 2005 leadership conference. Here, we have evidence to what extend the marriage concept can lead people to trust. Mike Taliaferro, one of the nine brothers selected to serve with the Unity Proposal Group, together with Chris Ogbonnaya shared a lesson entitled, Pulling Your Church Together.
Here, Taliaferro, during his lesson “cross a line from genuine shepherding to control.”
He said: “…we began to call people back to decisions, and we did it one by one. We called the church back to discipling relationships. We called the church back to sacrificial giving… We made that decision. We resurrected church discipline… We confronted people that were divisive; some of them left the church. We resurrected confession of sin in the church… We reminded people of their commitment to all the services… Who’s lost, who’s saved – we had a talk about it.”
But more importantly, on the topic of marriage/church/salvation, Chris Ogbonnaya, shows how it is done to intrude “into the personal lives of parishioners in the name of God.”
Here, Chris expanded on the idea of Mike “Who’s lost, who’s saved” in the same lesson by stating: “WE CANNOT MARRY A NON-CHRISTIAN. WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MARRIAGES BETWEEN US AND A CATHOLIC. You want to do that, hey, you’re welcome as A VISITOR. We had to do it… Is this authority? I say, ‘Yes’. It’s authority, and IT’S AUTHORITY THAT WE HAVE FROM GOD AS LEADERS, to pull ourselves together, so that the church can march forward.”
Clearly, the bible teaches against marrying a non-Christian. However, I wonder if Chris toyed with the idea that Christians in the Roman Catholic Church are condemned? But I will give him the benefit of my doubt.
Which brings us to the next question: who belongs to the Lord?
Kip McKean rightly points to other religious groups (notice the strong presence of established cults) that forbid their members to marry outside their particular group even to the point of death. However, this inclusive viewpoint leads only to the belief in being the “one true church”. It is a form of spiritual apartheid.
If “romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” in the ICOC congregations become regulated, then we need to know how they perceive other Christian groups outside their particular “view”. Clearly, Chris Ogbonnaya’s viewpoint is extreme: “WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MARRIAGES BETWEEN US AND A CATHOLIC. You want to do that, hey, you’re welcome as A VISITOR.”
What does the New Testament teach on marriage between Christians? Here young people who are on the verge to join the former ICOC family of churches need to consult the Scriptures without interference from them. Youngsters need to go back to their parents, families, friends and pastors before getting baptised in either former ICOC “family of churches”.
The Apostle Paul made several contributions on the topic of marriage as requested by the Corinthians. Here individuals are free to choose who they want to marry, but they must belong to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:39). If an individual becomes a Christian while the other is not, and the non-Christian partner wants to leave, it is allowed. However, individuals in the Lord may not divorce. If they divorce they are not permitted to marry other individuals. It is permitted for such a couple to get back together. Individuals are free to marry anyone in the Lord after a death of a spouse.
Let us note: The Apostle Paul’s advise on “the romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” makes no distinction between “all the churches”. The same rule applies to all. (1 Corinthians 7:17) Perhaps not entirely to the Jerusalem Church (Acts 21:21). Here the Jewish traditions and customs of the elders as observed in the Jerusalem church would not tolerate Jewish marriages with Gentiles. However, the Apostle made it very clear that we all belong to the Lord. “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23 NIV)
In his time some “forbid people to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3). In later times some forbid people to marry if they’re not in the same church group! The Roman Catholic Church policy was marrying only Catholics.
Today “slaves of men” favours one church group over another. Many Christian groups do not include a subsequent step that members MUST EMBRACE DISCIPLESHIP. Therefore this pre-requisite for the ICOC fellowship enforces “romantic and marriage relationships of Christians” in the Portland movement and United Cooperation Group to observe a type of “slaves of men” rule: “marrying only ICOC members”. If this rule is not applicable, people in the ICOC are free to choose whomever they want to “marry in the Lord” no matter what “Christian” that belongs to a biblically converted affiliation.
So where do they stand?
Many ICOC leaders TEACH AGAINST a disciple marrying someone who did not have these same convictions on embracing discipleship. However, these teachers, for now, will NOT FORBID a disciple from marrying a “biblically converted Christian in another group.”
Let us consider former rules of a bygone era in Episode 1. If we; number one, allow people to marry only in “the mob”, then we; number two, say we are the “one true church” and therefore; number three, the “only biblically saved”!
For your benefit, here are the former rules of marrying to the mob in a bygone era.
Number one.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord of our Dating Life or Marriage” according to implication five:
e. Implication 5: Lord of our Dating Life or Marriage
“Marry only a Christian – obviously will marry someone you date, therefore best to date only disciples. (Exception: an existing dating relationship. Handle with care and wisdom, Not a must to break up – a must to stop sin, if any, and a must to discipline it and a must to make a decision that if a person is not really interested in becoming a Christian or is pulling person down spiritually, will break it off immediately. 1 Corinthians 7:39 – must marry in the Lord – no double standards between first and second marriage.”
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, “Shining Like Stars,” ii edition, 1990.
“Marry a Christian! (2 Cor 6:14ff, 1 Cor 7:39)” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Study 12: Christian Marriage: Cord of Three Strands, p.258/316.
“Dating and marriage”
a) Since we can marry only disciples (2 Cor 6:14, 1 Cor 7:39), it stands to reason that we should date only disciples.
b) Dating non-Christians messes motives up our motives and theirs, and is extremely unwise.” – Shining Like Stars, ii Edition, 1990, Lesson 9: Counting the Cost, p234/316.
Number two.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord of One Church” according to implication four:
d. Implication 4: Lord of One Church
“Ephesians 4:4 – only those who are scriptural Christians are members of the true church. Church of Christ – only major group I know that baptizes those willing to be disciples for the forgiveness of sins.”
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990.
6) New Testament Church
a) Explain that we must attend only a church, which follows the Bible.
e) Make sure he understands that it is not God’s will for him to attend any other church.
Number three.
A South African ICOC study guide, known as ‘Equipping Syllabus’ teaches, “Jesus is Lord and Savior of only the Biblically Saved” according to implication three:
c. Implication 3: Lord and Savior of only Biblically Saved
Must have deep convictions of who is lost and who is saved. You are lost (person you are studying with). Others like you are lost – family, friends, old church friends, etc.
Church groups do “differ in their doctrines”. However, the ICOC makes damning statements towards other church groups by stating they are false churches, teaching false doctrine, thus not biblically saved.
Back Tracking [An A4 sheet ‘back tracks’ issues before a prospective member “counts the cost” to become a disciple in the ICOC]
False Doctrines & Denominations
- Is it wrong to baptise babies?
- What is wrong in praying Jesus into your heart to be saved?
- What is wrong with getting baptised after being saved?
- Is there anyone in the churches where any of these false doctrines are taught who is saved?
- Is there any member of your family who is saved?
- Do you know anyone who is a true Christian?
- Is it okay for a Christian to worship at a denominational church?
- What churches will you attend when you visit your homeland?
Internationally, this teaching is encouraged since the early 1990’s with Douglas Jacoby’s multi-authored book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990.
4) Implication of baptism
a) Ask him if he knows other true Christians (e.g. in his old church, at home, in his country, at work, family…)
11) Taking a stand with family and friends
a) Does he understand that they are lost?
b) Is he willing to firmly (and lovingly) take a stand, share his faith with them, and hold to his conviction?
c) Ask him how he would react if they opposed him?
If ICOC leadership hardly compromise on point one, where does it leave them on the other points?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The Blogger and the Shape-shifter movement
My worst fears about the religious exploits of my former church, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) are shaping up nicely since this blog started in February 2006.
It’s quite overwhelming!
At least it’s official, Douglas Arthur, will not act as Kip’s “right hand cranker”! McKean may have the “glue of the World Sector Leaders” – Steve Johnson – by his side, but on the whole, it’s a sticky issue concerning unifying the former brotherhood.
I am certain, since McKean probably no longer has to be tied to “lifelong friends who used to support” his leadership, the opportunity will come for him to re-introduce former leadership structures of the ICOC in the Portland family of Churches. McKean to the determent of his life long friends, still reasons “there are no Scriptures against World Sector Leaders, Lead Evangelists, Women’s Ministry Leaders, Bible Talks and Discipleship Partners.” Perhaps now Pope Benedict XVI feels more comfortable with his leadership role in the Catholic Church! And Archbishop Tutu can safely hold his title!
In my article, entitled, A Renovator, not an Innovator, “Kip’s current ministry is about renovation, renovation and more renovation from here to eternity!” I was amazed to compare my notes with McKean’s ideals as stipulated in Partners in the Gospel – Part 1-3. Here I strongly recommend all concerned parties to view Roy Davison’s treatise (Check the sidebar) concerning Kip McKean’s “own version” that “we are free to implement any methodology that is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible” based on Kip’s own reformed slogan “Speak where the Bible is silent!”
Interestingly, many ICOC’ers like the “mainliners” now start to see Kip McKean as a type of “boogieman”! But we must not lose sight of leaders who have signed up their churches with the ratification plan of the United Cooperation Group that now “embraces discipleship”. The majority of these churches are not as visible as the Portland movement. They are in my opinion still locked up in an old wardrobe. The lowered standards comparatively to the Portland family of churches zeal will steadily rise over time. Anyone practising the principles held by the disciple approach (generally representing the findings of Robert E. Coleman’s Master Plan of Evangelism) will quickly realise there is no time for a slacker in the Kingdom. The disciple approach knows no half measures! Many supporters of the United Cooperation Group or “our international family of churches” will have to “agree” on certain biblical principles uphold by McKean, like the Jethro’s principle, which ties in with the disciple approach. Here, the “persecution” Portland faces not only from outsiders in other church communities but from “flesh and blood” relations within the ICOC will befall the United Cooperation Group in the near future.
Alas, more fears, despite Arthur’s optimism: “Clearly our best and brightest days are ahead as we reengage in winning our cities and this world for Christ.” I say, it’s about time for those in the wardrobe to come out!
Personally I can deal with the “boogieman”. In fact, for ten years I had given my brain to that former “movement”. Today, it is relatively easy to anticipate where the Portland movement is heading officially. On the other hand, it’s the Boggart in the old wardrobe that scares me the most. Ever heard of it?
In one of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books, Professor Lupin poses a question to his third-years studying Defence Against the Dark Arts. Standing next to him is an old wardrobe “in which the teachers kept their spare robes.” Only this time something more sinister has “moved in”. A Boggart. “So, the first question we must ask ourselves is, what is a Boggart?” Hermione put up her hand. “It’s a shape-shifter”, she said. “It can take the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most.”
“Nobody” as the story continues with Professor Lupin, “knows what a Boggart looks like when he is alone, but when I let him out, he will immediately become whatever each of us most fears.” “This means”, said Professor Lupin lecturing the class, “that we have a huge advantage over the Boggart before we begin. Have you spotted it, Harry?”
Harry replied, “there are so many of us, it won’t know what shape it should be?” “Precisely,” said Professor Lupin. “He becomes confused.”
Lupin explains, “The charm that repels a Boggart is simple, yet it requires force of mind. You see, the thing that really finishes a Boggart is laughter. What you need to do is force it to assume a shape that you find amusing. We will practise the charm without wands first. After me, please … riddikulus! Riddikulus!” said the class together.”
A shape-shifter. “It can take the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most.”
If I was in Lupin’s class standing next to Harry Potter. My fear would be to see young people, become entrapped by the methodologies that “embrace discipleship”. So, “laughter” can make it go away, Professor Lupin?
I thought it over. I have become a Blogger. In the old wardrobe is a Boggart – a shape-shifter. I blogg about my experiences in the ICOC … and my fears for her future! But I am not alone! There are many of us. And if this is the scenario – the Boggart becomes confused. Maybe this process is becoming apparent concerning the Portland movement. “Perhaps most confusing is the persecution towards us within our own fellowship, the International Churches of Christ”, related Kip in Partners in the Gospel – Part 1.
Finally, I have assumed a shape. A restaurant menu! It makes me laugh. This time I’ll practise the charm without my wand first.
The leadership representing the houses of Renovation (The Portland movement) and Innovation (United Cooperation Group) despite their differences and confusion have something in common as this restaurant menu advertises.
“All the chicken you can eat!!! This is the same delicious chicken we have been serving for the past twenty years!”
After me, please… Ridiculous!!!
Crack!
(Thank you R.K. Rowling for the little inspiration)
It’s quite overwhelming!
At least it’s official, Douglas Arthur, will not act as Kip’s “right hand cranker”! McKean may have the “glue of the World Sector Leaders” – Steve Johnson – by his side, but on the whole, it’s a sticky issue concerning unifying the former brotherhood.
I am certain, since McKean probably no longer has to be tied to “lifelong friends who used to support” his leadership, the opportunity will come for him to re-introduce former leadership structures of the ICOC in the Portland family of Churches. McKean to the determent of his life long friends, still reasons “there are no Scriptures against World Sector Leaders, Lead Evangelists, Women’s Ministry Leaders, Bible Talks and Discipleship Partners.” Perhaps now Pope Benedict XVI feels more comfortable with his leadership role in the Catholic Church! And Archbishop Tutu can safely hold his title!
In my article, entitled, A Renovator, not an Innovator, “Kip’s current ministry is about renovation, renovation and more renovation from here to eternity!” I was amazed to compare my notes with McKean’s ideals as stipulated in Partners in the Gospel – Part 1-3. Here I strongly recommend all concerned parties to view Roy Davison’s treatise (Check the sidebar) concerning Kip McKean’s “own version” that “we are free to implement any methodology that is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible” based on Kip’s own reformed slogan “Speak where the Bible is silent!”
Interestingly, many ICOC’ers like the “mainliners” now start to see Kip McKean as a type of “boogieman”! But we must not lose sight of leaders who have signed up their churches with the ratification plan of the United Cooperation Group that now “embraces discipleship”. The majority of these churches are not as visible as the Portland movement. They are in my opinion still locked up in an old wardrobe. The lowered standards comparatively to the Portland family of churches zeal will steadily rise over time. Anyone practising the principles held by the disciple approach (generally representing the findings of Robert E. Coleman’s Master Plan of Evangelism) will quickly realise there is no time for a slacker in the Kingdom. The disciple approach knows no half measures! Many supporters of the United Cooperation Group or “our international family of churches” will have to “agree” on certain biblical principles uphold by McKean, like the Jethro’s principle, which ties in with the disciple approach. Here, the “persecution” Portland faces not only from outsiders in other church communities but from “flesh and blood” relations within the ICOC will befall the United Cooperation Group in the near future.
Alas, more fears, despite Arthur’s optimism: “Clearly our best and brightest days are ahead as we reengage in winning our cities and this world for Christ.” I say, it’s about time for those in the wardrobe to come out!
Personally I can deal with the “boogieman”. In fact, for ten years I had given my brain to that former “movement”. Today, it is relatively easy to anticipate where the Portland movement is heading officially. On the other hand, it’s the Boggart in the old wardrobe that scares me the most. Ever heard of it?
In one of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books, Professor Lupin poses a question to his third-years studying Defence Against the Dark Arts. Standing next to him is an old wardrobe “in which the teachers kept their spare robes.” Only this time something more sinister has “moved in”. A Boggart. “So, the first question we must ask ourselves is, what is a Boggart?” Hermione put up her hand. “It’s a shape-shifter”, she said. “It can take the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most.”
“Nobody” as the story continues with Professor Lupin, “knows what a Boggart looks like when he is alone, but when I let him out, he will immediately become whatever each of us most fears.” “This means”, said Professor Lupin lecturing the class, “that we have a huge advantage over the Boggart before we begin. Have you spotted it, Harry?”
Harry replied, “there are so many of us, it won’t know what shape it should be?” “Precisely,” said Professor Lupin. “He becomes confused.”
Lupin explains, “The charm that repels a Boggart is simple, yet it requires force of mind. You see, the thing that really finishes a Boggart is laughter. What you need to do is force it to assume a shape that you find amusing. We will practise the charm without wands first. After me, please … riddikulus! Riddikulus!” said the class together.”
A shape-shifter. “It can take the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most.”
If I was in Lupin’s class standing next to Harry Potter. My fear would be to see young people, become entrapped by the methodologies that “embrace discipleship”. So, “laughter” can make it go away, Professor Lupin?
I thought it over. I have become a Blogger. In the old wardrobe is a Boggart – a shape-shifter. I blogg about my experiences in the ICOC … and my fears for her future! But I am not alone! There are many of us. And if this is the scenario – the Boggart becomes confused. Maybe this process is becoming apparent concerning the Portland movement. “Perhaps most confusing is the persecution towards us within our own fellowship, the International Churches of Christ”, related Kip in Partners in the Gospel – Part 1.
Finally, I have assumed a shape. A restaurant menu! It makes me laugh. This time I’ll practise the charm without my wand first.
The leadership representing the houses of Renovation (The Portland movement) and Innovation (United Cooperation Group) despite their differences and confusion have something in common as this restaurant menu advertises.
“All the chicken you can eat!!! This is the same delicious chicken we have been serving for the past twenty years!”
After me, please… Ridiculous!!!
Crack!
(Thank you R.K. Rowling for the little inspiration)
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Church Politics: The McKean’s and Us
Point 2: Are we fighting God?
The growing number of Portland family of churches, hereby describe as the Portland movement follows a predictable pattern of self-imposed isolation, fence-building and burned bridges as recorded throughout the history of the Boston movement. Not far behind them is the slowly awakening giant of the Unity Proposal Group, hereby describe as the United Cooperation Group, consisting of an estimate 70% of the former International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
Many ICOC members downplay the logical conclusions and reasons offered by various leaders in both factions as church politics thus cleverly avoid sticky issues that need urgent biblical attention of which “church unity” is paramount. How can Christians in both groups teach a Church study with a clear conscience while amongst them there may be quarrelling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder? Here, we need to ask, are we fighting God, like the Corinthians, when we quarrel amongst ourselves, lining up behind various church leaders?
Here the predictable pattern of self-imposed isolation, fence-building and burned bridges becomes unmistakeable as leadership of both factions revert to old habits with a slight twist. Both groups believe they can see the road ahead much clearer than those comrades on the other side. Nevertheless, both groups, more so with the Portland movement busy themselves with introducing former ICOC concepts by slowly giving old words new meaning to a new crowd.
Would you belief the ICOC cult of personalities – a thing of the past has been replaced by “a new group of like-minded friends creating a new synergy, a new movement.” However, here too we face a problem. Whose side is God on?
Mike Taliaferro now a supporter of the United Cooperation Group have answered a question concerning McKean’s role during the April 1st 2004 Faithful Conversations: “Yes, we are going to have a man lead the movement, and that is going to be Jesus Christ.” Today, Kip McKean who acted in a role as “leader of the movement” before 2001 also agrees with Taliaferro: “I will be with disciples agreeing to build a movement centered on one personality. And His name is Jesus.”
Now the Apostle Paul lectures the McKean's and us in our Church Studies: “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13 NIV)
The growing number of Portland family of churches, hereby describe as the Portland movement follows a predictable pattern of self-imposed isolation, fence-building and burned bridges as recorded throughout the history of the Boston movement. Not far behind them is the slowly awakening giant of the Unity Proposal Group, hereby describe as the United Cooperation Group, consisting of an estimate 70% of the former International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
Many ICOC members downplay the logical conclusions and reasons offered by various leaders in both factions as church politics thus cleverly avoid sticky issues that need urgent biblical attention of which “church unity” is paramount. How can Christians in both groups teach a Church study with a clear conscience while amongst them there may be quarrelling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder? Here, we need to ask, are we fighting God, like the Corinthians, when we quarrel amongst ourselves, lining up behind various church leaders?
Here the predictable pattern of self-imposed isolation, fence-building and burned bridges becomes unmistakeable as leadership of both factions revert to old habits with a slight twist. Both groups believe they can see the road ahead much clearer than those comrades on the other side. Nevertheless, both groups, more so with the Portland movement busy themselves with introducing former ICOC concepts by slowly giving old words new meaning to a new crowd.
Would you belief the ICOC cult of personalities – a thing of the past has been replaced by “a new group of like-minded friends creating a new synergy, a new movement.” However, here too we face a problem. Whose side is God on?
Mike Taliaferro now a supporter of the United Cooperation Group have answered a question concerning McKean’s role during the April 1st 2004 Faithful Conversations: “Yes, we are going to have a man lead the movement, and that is going to be Jesus Christ.” Today, Kip McKean who acted in a role as “leader of the movement” before 2001 also agrees with Taliaferro: “I will be with disciples agreeing to build a movement centered on one personality. And His name is Jesus.”
Now the Apostle Paul lectures the McKean's and us in our Church Studies: “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13 NIV)
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Jewish Politics: You Might Be Fighting God?
Tom Jones and Roger Lamb wrote some time ago a guide ‘You Might Be Fighting God’ (1991). The dual-author project with its bias “basic outline” on church history covers a period “from the dynamic first-century church to the divided religious world of today.”
The Boston movement was in its twelve year when this document saw the light in 1991. Nobody involved at the time with this church group would foreseen with the same years ahead in 2003 the demise of “God’s modern movement” a.k.a. the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). How could they? Though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.
History teaches us Gamaliel was a revered rabbi in his day. He was a disciple of the progressive branch of Judaism that originated with the rabbi Hillel. Pharisaic interpretations of the Law have long divided Jewish scholars between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel was not a Christian, nor an apostle nor an inspired writer no more than Pontius Pilate who crucified Jesus. Even so, many Christians often draw inspiration from his council to the Jews in order to substantiate a particular liberal idea as Biblical theology. Some justify “growth” as an indicator that “it is of God”. While others defend their own creed or belief system as “the will of God” in order to avoid “ever to slip into weak imitation of true Christianity”. Those who oppose them “might be fighting God”. They all quote the advice of Gamaliel, which he addressed, to the Sanhedrin: “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will only find yourselves fighting against God”. (Acts 5:38,39 NIV)
Should Christians entertain this criterion of “Jewish politics” when groups oppose one another? Is it not reasonable for church groups in order to prevent strive amongst themselves to follow the plan of Gamaliel’s counsel to the Jews? “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.” Here Paul’s Old Teacher builds his “present case” on events that took place “some time ago”. The unsuccessful activities of people like Theudas and Judas were based on “human logic”. Theudas claimed, “to be somebody” while Judas the Galilean “led a band of people in revolt”. Both were killed. In the end their followers were scattered.
What will we find in our “present case” with the rise of the Portland movement? Should we allow the same principle of “Jewish politics” as observed in the days of the Boston movement to continue its course with Kip McKean’s “new movement”? Let us like Gamaliel send the agitators of the Portland movement “outside for a little while” and counsel behind close doors. Let us consider two important points.
Point 1: Though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.
The dynamic first-century church was never “completely united” in heart and mind as many might think. The honest report in the book of Acts regarding relationships between the characters we love to endear so much provides a steady picture of fragmentation. The one-size-fit-all shoe of complete unity as described in Acts 2:42-47 did not last very long. Nor could it. The Christians in the dynamic first-century church were not “one happy family” no more than the various fellowships of the ICOC struggling today to fit on the same shoe of union amongst themselves. On the other hand, Jesus close disciples also known as apostles were completely unified with him, but they were often at loggerheads with each other. They were 100% behind Christ and 100% real people. What was the reason for the steady decline concerning Jesus’ ideal of “complete unity” in the first-century church?
First and foremost the ‘absence’ of Jesus Christ physical presence to act as a Leader for the Christians must have had an impact on unity. Nevertheless, hopefully we all understand the reasons for his departure. The workings of the Holy Spirit in reaching more and more people for the Lord have resulted in breaking the cultural hub which so unified the primitive Christians in Acts 2:42. These early Christians or disciples of Jesus “meet together in the temple courts” and “enjoying the favour of all the people”. They were “one happy family” because they shared the same cultural history as Peter addressed them in Acts 2:14: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem”; in Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel”; in Acts 2:29: “Brothers” and in return the Eleven was greeted as “Brothers” by those people who reacted in favour of Peter’s plea to get baptised.
The modern Christian scarcely gives any thought to these matters when he or she read the New Testament. Therefore, the ‘dynamic’ of the first-century church gets compromised. Especially when church groups generalise the Bible to fit ‘God’s will’ into their specific ‘belief system’. Can you imagine the reaction of the Jewish audience when Christ announced: “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Thomas the apostle could have reacted in this manner listening to Jesus: “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, … okay! And in all Judea … okay! And Samaria, … o…okay! And to the ends of the earth … Oh-say what?” When we go backward with history Jesus commission to “make disciples” seems like a well-rehearsed script. We understand from reading our Bibles how the events have unfolded one after the other. But we forget that life is lived forward – one day at a time! The same principle applies for those guys who had obeyed Jesus’ commission for the very first time. The Holy Spirit gradually empowered people starting with the small group of 120 believers in Acts 2:4, then fell on each new group of believers; the Jews in Acts 4:31; then on the Samaritans in Acts 8:17; then on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44; and last but not least John the Baptist’s disciples in Acts 19:6.
Jesus’ own group of disciples were comfortable with their own Jewish tradition and customs. They didn’t wear an American, or an African, or an Asian or a European costume. The motto of the apostle Paul “become all things to all men” was still long off. At the mean time, they knew nothing else but Judaism. Even so, Jesus did not replace their traditions and customs as he taught in the Temple or in the fields and towns around Palestine. Jesus died a Jew and appeared to his fellow Jews!
Today we see Jesus not only as a Jew but also as an American, an African, an Asian and a European! When I think and talk to Jesus. In my mind he is a white man who speaks Afrikaans! But when I was in the ICOC who is predominately an English institution my Jesus was a white man who speaks English! Maybe there are others perceiving Jesus in their likeness the way I do. Who knows? But that is how I can relate God to myself. And it is my opinion that through this association Jesus’ words rings true for the world of believers out there “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” Therefore, it is impossible to preach that “my Jesus” is more special than the Jesus others worship. Because Jesus is an American, an African, an Asian and a European! Therefore we are completely united with the Spirit that falls on us when we call on the Lord!
Let us consider the Jewish Disciples of Christ that had to “make disciples” on foot “to the ends of the earth”. They had to cross over familiar terrain into unfamiliar territories. They had to go to the Americans, Africans, Asians, and Europeans! Imagine the conflict their traditions and customs have brought on themselves and their hearers. Gamaliel’s student did not only disagree with Barnabas on matters concerning the missions but also with Peter’s hypocrisy in far-away places. “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:14 NIV) Not many Christians are aware of the incredible challenges these men had to overcome in order to succeed to the end. Perhaps if we allow ourselves to think more on these matters we would not be so desperate to force our minds and hearts into one-size-fit-all type of shoes that our first-century brethren couldn’t wear.
The Kingdom teachers and evangelist’s of the former ICOC have often over simplified the dynamic first-century church history. They too often have spoon fed hungry disciples with their one-size-fit-all lessons of which Jones and Lamb’s “You Might Be Fighting God” is a classic. Here is another story where the ICOC missions seem to come out tops where everyone else has failed. Ironically McKean in the Portland movement is repeating the same old story! Here, the attitude of the Portland churches relies on Gamaliel’s advice in order to intimidate the opposition – what-if-we-are-right-and-you-are-wrong?
Gamaliel never intended to intimidate the Sanhedrin, but he read history well in his judgement for the Jews not to oppose the Christians. He pointed out that false prophets often rose, attracted a large following and created a temporary stir, but once the leader had been killed, his followers dispersed and the movement eventually died out. The apostles’ claim that Jesus was the Messiah had dangerous political overtones. The Romans might interpret their talk of a new kingdom as part of an anti-government plot. Moreover, most of the members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection. Yet for the moment there was nothing they could do but warn the apostles against speaking or teaching in the name of Jesus. Even under the threat of scourging and imprisonment, Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather men!”
For the next few years the apostles and the other brethren lived relatively peacefully in Jerusalem. They continued to preach every day in the temple, but the Sanhedrin, bound by Gamaliel’s counsel did not prosecute them. Their numbers grew, but not at the spectacular pace of the first few months of their preaching. It seemed that Christianity was destined to become another of the many sects within Judaism, but a chain of events soon led the brethren in unforeseen directions that led to separation.
For almost a decade the Sanhedrin had stood by its decision against active prosecution of the apostles who believed in Jesus. Gradually the membership came to include a sizable number of Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. Most of them had lived in Jewish communities in the large cities of the Roman Empire such as Alexandria, Athens, Cyrene and Syrian Antioch. They were a cosmopolitan group, accustomed to doing business with their Gentile neighbours, and were considerably less conservative than the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Judea, whom they referred to as ‘Hebrews’.
The event that led to the stoning of Stephen a Greek-speaking Jew has altered the perception on “Jewish politics”. Not only did Stephen challenge the higher authorities thinking of central worship but also he had managed to instil God’s omnipresence in the minds of Christians. Christians no longer have to be seen around the temple. They can worship God wherever! Furthermore, Stephen’s death touch off a widespread persecution in Jerusalem of all the Hellenists associated with the brethren, though the Hebrew apostles were left unharmed. The persecutions were lead for the most part by Saul who was Gamaliel’s student who had witnessed Stephen’s death. The evangelists, from the Greek word euangelistai, meaning preachers of the good, influenced non-Jewish communities. As the gospel spread among Samaritans and Gentiles, an unforeseen problem develops. Until this time all members of the church had been practicing Jews. They had been admitted after repenting their sins and undergoing baptism, through which they received the Holy Spirit. At first all Gentile converts were required to embrace the Jewish religion before they could enter the community of the righteous. This requirement presented difficulties because many Gentiles who wished to join the church were reluctant to undergo the painful rite of circumcision and to observe the complicated Jewish dietary laws. For this reason the Judean brethren opposed the ministry to the Gentiles, which, though limited at first, was beginning to grow. However, Peter convinced the Jerusalem church of the worth and validity of the Gentile inclusion. The difficult issue of Gentile converts was by no means resolved by the meeting in Jerusalem and Peter’s own attitude proved ambivalent facing Paul again over this matter in later years.
In order to conclude our first point; shall we consider the following advice given by Walter Ralston Martin (1928-1989) in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults”. Martin stated on page 13: “Let it not be forgotten that Gamaliel’s advice is not Biblical theology; and if it were followed in the practical realm of experience as steadfastly as it is urged, then we would have to recognize Islam as “of God,” because of its rapid growth and reproductive virility throughout the world.” On page 384: “If his advice is to be followed and his criterion to be recognized, then the thriving growth of the various non-Christian cults, all of which deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith, must be acknowledged as the work of God! No consistent thinker of Christian orientation could long entertain such a warped conclusion without doing violence to a great portion of the New Testament.”
Next week, our second point: Are we fighting God? – We will investigate the criterion of “Jewish politics” as church politics in the Portland family of churches.
The Boston movement was in its twelve year when this document saw the light in 1991. Nobody involved at the time with this church group would foreseen with the same years ahead in 2003 the demise of “God’s modern movement” a.k.a. the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). How could they? Though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.
History teaches us Gamaliel was a revered rabbi in his day. He was a disciple of the progressive branch of Judaism that originated with the rabbi Hillel. Pharisaic interpretations of the Law have long divided Jewish scholars between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel was not a Christian, nor an apostle nor an inspired writer no more than Pontius Pilate who crucified Jesus. Even so, many Christians often draw inspiration from his council to the Jews in order to substantiate a particular liberal idea as Biblical theology. Some justify “growth” as an indicator that “it is of God”. While others defend their own creed or belief system as “the will of God” in order to avoid “ever to slip into weak imitation of true Christianity”. Those who oppose them “might be fighting God”. They all quote the advice of Gamaliel, which he addressed, to the Sanhedrin: “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will only find yourselves fighting against God”. (Acts 5:38,39 NIV)
Should Christians entertain this criterion of “Jewish politics” when groups oppose one another? Is it not reasonable for church groups in order to prevent strive amongst themselves to follow the plan of Gamaliel’s counsel to the Jews? “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.” Here Paul’s Old Teacher builds his “present case” on events that took place “some time ago”. The unsuccessful activities of people like Theudas and Judas were based on “human logic”. Theudas claimed, “to be somebody” while Judas the Galilean “led a band of people in revolt”. Both were killed. In the end their followers were scattered.
What will we find in our “present case” with the rise of the Portland movement? Should we allow the same principle of “Jewish politics” as observed in the days of the Boston movement to continue its course with Kip McKean’s “new movement”? Let us like Gamaliel send the agitators of the Portland movement “outside for a little while” and counsel behind close doors. Let us consider two important points.
Point 1: Though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.
The dynamic first-century church was never “completely united” in heart and mind as many might think. The honest report in the book of Acts regarding relationships between the characters we love to endear so much provides a steady picture of fragmentation. The one-size-fit-all shoe of complete unity as described in Acts 2:42-47 did not last very long. Nor could it. The Christians in the dynamic first-century church were not “one happy family” no more than the various fellowships of the ICOC struggling today to fit on the same shoe of union amongst themselves. On the other hand, Jesus close disciples also known as apostles were completely unified with him, but they were often at loggerheads with each other. They were 100% behind Christ and 100% real people. What was the reason for the steady decline concerning Jesus’ ideal of “complete unity” in the first-century church?
First and foremost the ‘absence’ of Jesus Christ physical presence to act as a Leader for the Christians must have had an impact on unity. Nevertheless, hopefully we all understand the reasons for his departure. The workings of the Holy Spirit in reaching more and more people for the Lord have resulted in breaking the cultural hub which so unified the primitive Christians in Acts 2:42. These early Christians or disciples of Jesus “meet together in the temple courts” and “enjoying the favour of all the people”. They were “one happy family” because they shared the same cultural history as Peter addressed them in Acts 2:14: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem”; in Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel”; in Acts 2:29: “Brothers” and in return the Eleven was greeted as “Brothers” by those people who reacted in favour of Peter’s plea to get baptised.
The modern Christian scarcely gives any thought to these matters when he or she read the New Testament. Therefore, the ‘dynamic’ of the first-century church gets compromised. Especially when church groups generalise the Bible to fit ‘God’s will’ into their specific ‘belief system’. Can you imagine the reaction of the Jewish audience when Christ announced: “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Thomas the apostle could have reacted in this manner listening to Jesus: “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, … okay! And in all Judea … okay! And Samaria, … o…okay! And to the ends of the earth … Oh-say what?” When we go backward with history Jesus commission to “make disciples” seems like a well-rehearsed script. We understand from reading our Bibles how the events have unfolded one after the other. But we forget that life is lived forward – one day at a time! The same principle applies for those guys who had obeyed Jesus’ commission for the very first time. The Holy Spirit gradually empowered people starting with the small group of 120 believers in Acts 2:4, then fell on each new group of believers; the Jews in Acts 4:31; then on the Samaritans in Acts 8:17; then on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44; and last but not least John the Baptist’s disciples in Acts 19:6.
Jesus’ own group of disciples were comfortable with their own Jewish tradition and customs. They didn’t wear an American, or an African, or an Asian or a European costume. The motto of the apostle Paul “become all things to all men” was still long off. At the mean time, they knew nothing else but Judaism. Even so, Jesus did not replace their traditions and customs as he taught in the Temple or in the fields and towns around Palestine. Jesus died a Jew and appeared to his fellow Jews!
Today we see Jesus not only as a Jew but also as an American, an African, an Asian and a European! When I think and talk to Jesus. In my mind he is a white man who speaks Afrikaans! But when I was in the ICOC who is predominately an English institution my Jesus was a white man who speaks English! Maybe there are others perceiving Jesus in their likeness the way I do. Who knows? But that is how I can relate God to myself. And it is my opinion that through this association Jesus’ words rings true for the world of believers out there “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” Therefore, it is impossible to preach that “my Jesus” is more special than the Jesus others worship. Because Jesus is an American, an African, an Asian and a European! Therefore we are completely united with the Spirit that falls on us when we call on the Lord!
Let us consider the Jewish Disciples of Christ that had to “make disciples” on foot “to the ends of the earth”. They had to cross over familiar terrain into unfamiliar territories. They had to go to the Americans, Africans, Asians, and Europeans! Imagine the conflict their traditions and customs have brought on themselves and their hearers. Gamaliel’s student did not only disagree with Barnabas on matters concerning the missions but also with Peter’s hypocrisy in far-away places. “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:14 NIV) Not many Christians are aware of the incredible challenges these men had to overcome in order to succeed to the end. Perhaps if we allow ourselves to think more on these matters we would not be so desperate to force our minds and hearts into one-size-fit-all type of shoes that our first-century brethren couldn’t wear.
The Kingdom teachers and evangelist’s of the former ICOC have often over simplified the dynamic first-century church history. They too often have spoon fed hungry disciples with their one-size-fit-all lessons of which Jones and Lamb’s “You Might Be Fighting God” is a classic. Here is another story where the ICOC missions seem to come out tops where everyone else has failed. Ironically McKean in the Portland movement is repeating the same old story! Here, the attitude of the Portland churches relies on Gamaliel’s advice in order to intimidate the opposition – what-if-we-are-right-and-you-are-wrong?
Gamaliel never intended to intimidate the Sanhedrin, but he read history well in his judgement for the Jews not to oppose the Christians. He pointed out that false prophets often rose, attracted a large following and created a temporary stir, but once the leader had been killed, his followers dispersed and the movement eventually died out. The apostles’ claim that Jesus was the Messiah had dangerous political overtones. The Romans might interpret their talk of a new kingdom as part of an anti-government plot. Moreover, most of the members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection. Yet for the moment there was nothing they could do but warn the apostles against speaking or teaching in the name of Jesus. Even under the threat of scourging and imprisonment, Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather men!”
For the next few years the apostles and the other brethren lived relatively peacefully in Jerusalem. They continued to preach every day in the temple, but the Sanhedrin, bound by Gamaliel’s counsel did not prosecute them. Their numbers grew, but not at the spectacular pace of the first few months of their preaching. It seemed that Christianity was destined to become another of the many sects within Judaism, but a chain of events soon led the brethren in unforeseen directions that led to separation.
For almost a decade the Sanhedrin had stood by its decision against active prosecution of the apostles who believed in Jesus. Gradually the membership came to include a sizable number of Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. Most of them had lived in Jewish communities in the large cities of the Roman Empire such as Alexandria, Athens, Cyrene and Syrian Antioch. They were a cosmopolitan group, accustomed to doing business with their Gentile neighbours, and were considerably less conservative than the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Judea, whom they referred to as ‘Hebrews’.
The event that led to the stoning of Stephen a Greek-speaking Jew has altered the perception on “Jewish politics”. Not only did Stephen challenge the higher authorities thinking of central worship but also he had managed to instil God’s omnipresence in the minds of Christians. Christians no longer have to be seen around the temple. They can worship God wherever! Furthermore, Stephen’s death touch off a widespread persecution in Jerusalem of all the Hellenists associated with the brethren, though the Hebrew apostles were left unharmed. The persecutions were lead for the most part by Saul who was Gamaliel’s student who had witnessed Stephen’s death. The evangelists, from the Greek word euangelistai, meaning preachers of the good, influenced non-Jewish communities. As the gospel spread among Samaritans and Gentiles, an unforeseen problem develops. Until this time all members of the church had been practicing Jews. They had been admitted after repenting their sins and undergoing baptism, through which they received the Holy Spirit. At first all Gentile converts were required to embrace the Jewish religion before they could enter the community of the righteous. This requirement presented difficulties because many Gentiles who wished to join the church were reluctant to undergo the painful rite of circumcision and to observe the complicated Jewish dietary laws. For this reason the Judean brethren opposed the ministry to the Gentiles, which, though limited at first, was beginning to grow. However, Peter convinced the Jerusalem church of the worth and validity of the Gentile inclusion. The difficult issue of Gentile converts was by no means resolved by the meeting in Jerusalem and Peter’s own attitude proved ambivalent facing Paul again over this matter in later years.
In order to conclude our first point; shall we consider the following advice given by Walter Ralston Martin (1928-1989) in his book “The Kingdom of the Cults”. Martin stated on page 13: “Let it not be forgotten that Gamaliel’s advice is not Biblical theology; and if it were followed in the practical realm of experience as steadfastly as it is urged, then we would have to recognize Islam as “of God,” because of its rapid growth and reproductive virility throughout the world.” On page 384: “If his advice is to be followed and his criterion to be recognized, then the thriving growth of the various non-Christian cults, all of which deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith, must be acknowledged as the work of God! No consistent thinker of Christian orientation could long entertain such a warped conclusion without doing violence to a great portion of the New Testament.”
Next week, our second point: Are we fighting God? – We will investigate the criterion of “Jewish politics” as church politics in the Portland family of churches.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
How can something so right be so wrong?
Dr Robert E. Coleman author of The Master Plan Of Evangelism believes the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) have “twisted” his book despite mentioning in his book that ‘methods will vary’. The former ICOC’s legacy relied on a strong authoritarian leadership structure. “But people will be people”, he stated in an interview by Chris Lee (26th February 2002), “and they will twist anything. See, I do not see discipleship as a pyramid leadership structure; rather I encourage a servant-leadership model, based on the model of Jesus.”
However, some ICOC discipling churches in the post HKL era have embraced the disciple approach. Here, again the ‘destiny of multitudes hangs in the balance’. “That they will follow someone is certain” concludes Coleman in his final chapter of the Master Plan Of Evangelism, “but will he or she be one like themselves leading them only on into greater darkness? This is the decisive question of our plan of life.” [p.116]
Coleman’s major argument for implementing the disciple approach is found in the ‘primary sources’. “One has to go to the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, to really see the plan of Jesus. They are after all the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Master at work.” Here Coleman points to the way Jesus “lived and taught others so to live.” Coleman states: “Like any historical narrator, the Gospel writers paint a picture of the whole by elaborating upon a few characteristic persons and experiences, while bringing out certain critical points in the development of events.”
Coleman’s thesis does not rely much on ‘secondary materials’. “That is why the scriptural accounts of Jesus constitute our best, and only inerrant, Textbook on Evangelism.” Others have substantiated the disciple approach by incorporating ‘secondary materials’ such as the book of Acts and the Epistles, which mentions the ‘one another passages’. Lastly, infrequent reference to titbits found in the Old Testament that support the disciple approaches such as Jethro’s advise to Moses (Ex 18) springs to mind.
The philosophy of the disciple approach
The disciple approach as observed in Coleman’s The Master Plan Of Evangelism (Second Edition; 2000) sends out a signal that the modern church needs to be re-evaluated. Essentially everything in the congregation must revolve around ‘the Master’s view of the ministry’. However, ‘methods will vary.’ ‘The Master gives us an outline to follow, but he expects us to work out the details according to local circumstances and traditions. This demands every bit of resourcefulness that we have.’[p.108] Therefore, the disciple approach is not limited but open for any contemporary church. ‘Hence, Jesus did not urge his disciples to commit their lives to a doctrine, but to a person who was the doctrine, and only as they continued in his Word could they know the truth (John 8:31,32).’ [p.56]
The modern church lacks an effective leadership system
Supporters of the disciple approach believe they have rediscovered ‘the lost plan’ of Jesus method in making disciples. They describe Jesus ‘controlling method’ as ‘revolutionary’ when compared to the ‘lazy example’ of the modern church evangelistic strategy. The issue of evangelism and particularly methods of evangelism becomes the criteria in which the adherents of the disciple approach measure success. ‘Do we see an ever-expanding company of dedicated people reaching the world with the gospel as a result of our ministry? That we are busy in the church trying to work one program of evangelism after another cannot be denied. But are we accomplishing our objective? [p.19]
To them the modern churches have failed dismally. ‘It is time that the church realistically face the situation. Our days of trifling are running out. The evangelistic program of the church has bogged down on nearly every front, especially across the affluent Western world. In many lands the enfeeble church is not even keeping up with the exploding population.’ Many Christian denominations, if not all have failed to implement Jesus’ ‘controlling principles’ for evangelism. ‘Men were to be his method of winning the world to God.’ [p.27] Modern churches have failed to personalise Christianity by not focussing on a select few co-working along ‘with the pastor and church staff’ according to the ‘pattern of Jesus’. ‘Everything that is done with the few is for the salvation of the multitudes.’ [p.34]
The ‘principle of selectivity’ appears to be Jesus tactic as mimicked today in ‘successful leadership training program in business, industry, government or the military’. Clearly this top-down strategy ensures ‘that the multitudes can be won easily if they are just given leaders to follow.’ For this was the reason they speculate that Jesus “called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.” (Luke 6:13-17, Mark 3:13-19 NIV)
Only a few in the end of Jesus earthly life remained loyal to him. ‘Jesus doubtless would not be considered among the most productive mass evangelists of the church.’ [p.34] However, the religious affairs of Israel was supervised and instructed ‘though comparatively few in number’. ‘Why did Jesus deliberately concentrate his life on comparatively so few people? The answer to this question focuses at once on the real purpose of his plan for evangelism. Jesus was not trying to impress the crowd, but to usher in a kingdom. This meant that he needed people who could lead the multitudes. What good would it have been for his ultimate objective to arouse the masses to follow him if these people had no subsequent supervision or instruction in the Way?’ [pp.31-32] Therefore, the pattern of Christ mission depends on leadership. Where by it ‘teaches that the first duty of a church leadership is to see to it that a foundation is laid in the beginning on which can be built an effective and continuing evangelistic ministry to the multitudes.’ The foundation of the modern church must rest on ‘proper training’ from the beginning. ‘Here is where we must begin just like Jesus.’ [p38]
People ‘already in responsible positions of leadership’ within the modern church must be retrained! The disciple approach utterly relies on the role of leadership in order to built an effective system. Inappropriate leaders are quickly dismissed and replaced by ‘the lowly to become the great.’ ‘But if we can’t begin at the top, then let us begin where we are and train a few of the lowly to become the great.’ [p38] The role of leadership in the disciple approach becomes plain ‘to be raised up who could lead the multitudes in the things of God.’
The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern
Adherents to the disciple approach always argues that the modern church is not a place of continuing fellowship for the reason that members hardly associate constantly on a personal level. ‘When will the church learn this lesson? Preaching to the masses, although necessary, will never suffice in the work of preparing leaders for evangelism. Nor can occasional prayer meetings and training classes for Christian workers do this job. Building men and women is not that easy. It requires constant personal attention, much like a father gives to his children. This is something that no organization or class can ever do.’ [p.48]
The concepts of ‘evangelism and Christian nurture’ is apparent in the modern church ‘but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.’ The impersonal efforts in reaching out to young members by the modern church entails ‘some kind of a confirmation class which usually meets an hour a week for a month or so.’ Perhaps ‘parents or friends’ tend to ‘fill the gap in a real way’ on a more personal level. Needless to say, such ‘haphazard follow-up of believers, it is no wonder that about half of those who make professions and join the church eventually fall way or lose the glow of a Christian experience, and fewer still grow in sufficient knowledge and grace to be of any real service to the Kingdom.’ ‘The church obviously has failed at this point, and failed tragically.’ [p.49]
Through association Jesus started and ended his earthly ministry stating, “Follow me” and “I am with you always”. ‘He was his own school and curriculum.’ [p.41] People flocked and listened to him. He becomes ‘the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6). The successes of today’s disciple approach modelled after Jesus training methods is based on informal training, which ‘contrast to the formal, almost scholastic procedures of the scribes.’ ‘Jesus asked only that his disciples follow him.’ [p.41] This calling of associating with Jesus was indifferent ‘in terms of laws and dogmas’ uphold by ’religious teachers insisted on their disciples adhering strictly to certain rituals and formulas of knowledge which distinguished them from others.’ ‘His disciples were distinguished, not by outward conformity to certain rituals, but by being with him, and thereby participating in his doctrine (John 18:19).’ [p.42]
The biblical concept of having a ‘group of believers’ that became the body of Christ whom ‘ministered to each other individually and collectively’ on a continuous basis slacken considerably in the modern church due to a lack of association. This ideal New Testament Christian practice now embodies the heart and soul of the disciple approach. ‘Every member of the community of faith had a part to fulfil in this ministry.’ [p.48]
The element of association plays a vital role within the fellowship. An uninspired church is dead when people lost the ability to make disciples themselves. People are trained and inspired by ‘trained disciplers’ who aspire to become trained disciplers. This concept of reproduction according to the disciple approach is observed in the following way. ‘As long as Jesus was with them in the flesh, he was the Leader, but thereafter, it was necessary for those in the church to assume this leadership. Again this meant that Jesus had to train them to do it, which involved his own constant personal association with a few chosen men.’ [p.48]
The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern because people are trained to become distant through the follow-up system it has adopted whether it may be confirmation classes, parents and friends help, worship services or membership training classes. What is lacking for ‘the rest of the time the young convert [and mature member] has no contact with a definite Christian training program’. The disciple approach argues that ‘Jesus the Son of God, found it necessary to stay almost constantly with his few disciples for three years, and even one of them was lost, how can a church expect to do this job on an assembly line basis a few days out of the year?’
Therefore they caution that a prerequisite for ‘whatever method of follow-up the church adopts, it must have as its basis a personal guardian concern for those entrusted to their care. To do otherwise is essentially to abandon new believers to the devil.’ A ‘Christian friend’ is assigned to ‘every convert’. The personal guardian is known as ‘trained disciplers’ or ‘committed councelors’. A system whereby the counsellor ‘should stay with the new believer as much as possible, studying the Bible and praying with him or her, all the while answering questions, clarifying the truth, and seeking together to help others.’ Observation ends when the new convert ‘can lead another’. Nothing can be accomplished through this system if leaders are disobeyed. ‘A father must teach his children to obey him if he expects his children to be like him.’ [P.58]
The modern church lacks a membership roll of obedience
The idea that Christians must be obedient to one another is a foreign concept in the contemporary church. Adherents of the disciple approach blame the modern church for ‘dillydallying around with the commands of Christ’ by replacing ‘the teachings of Christ regarding self-denial and dedication’ to ‘a sort of respectable “do-as-you-please” philosophy of expediency.’ ‘Where is the obedience of the cross?’ [p.59]
The level of obedience required by the disciple approach stems from the believe that ‘Jesus expected the men he was with to obey him.’ ‘They were called his “disciples” meaning that they were “learners” or “pupils” of the Master.’ This arrangement ‘became the distinguishing mark’ by which Jesus’ disciples later were called “Christian” (Acts 11:26) ‘for in time obedient followers invariably take on the character of their leader.’ ‘They were not required to be smart, but they had to be loyal.’ [p.51]
The key element according to the disciple approach is daily self-denial (Luke 9:23), which is lacking in the lives of ‘many professed Christians today.’ It is an alien concept locked up in the early teachings of Jesus in the New Testament hopelessly unexplored by the modern Christian. ‘The great tragedy is that little is being done to correct the situation, even by those who realize what is happening. Certainly the need of the hour is not for despair, but for action.’ [p.59]
The modern church lacks a membership role of obedience comparatively to the disciple approach requirement of membership ‘in terms of true Christian discipleship’. ‘It is high time that the requirements for membership in the church be interpreted and enforced in terms of true Christian discipleship.’ [p.60] True Christian discipleship congregations unlike contemporary churches have ‘church officials’ who are obeyed by their respected ‘church membership’ who understand ‘the meaning of obedience’. ‘Followers must have leaders, and this means that before much can be done with the church membership something will have to be done with the church officials. If this task seems to be too great, then we will have to start like Jesus did by getting with a few chosen ones and instilling into them the meaning of obedience.’ [p.60]
The disciple approach demonstrates its ability to instil the ‘meaning of obedience’ even if ‘church officials’ in the modern church labour some concerns. They can easily pick up the ‘lowly to become the great’ because the disciple approach does not rely on ‘smart’ people, ‘but they had to be loyal’. The disciple approach has no room for ‘those who wanted to make their own terms of discipleship.’
The modern church lacks a strategy of world conquest
“We must always remember, too, that the goal is world conquest.” [p.95] In order to spread fast the disciple approach latch on ‘promising individuals’ thus establishing a ‘beachhead’. “Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth” (Matt 10:11; cf., Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4). In effect, the disciples were told to concentrate their time on the most promising individuals in each town who would thereby be able to follow up their work after they had gone. This was to receive priority over everything else.” [p.82] “The principle of establishing a beachhead in a new place of labor by connecting with a potentially key follow up leader is not to be minimized. Jesus had lived by it with his own disciples, and he expected them to do the same. His whole plan of evangelism depended on it, and those places which refused the disciples opportunity to practice this principle actually brought the judgement of utter darkness on themselves.” [p82] (Matt 10:14,15; cf., Luke 9:5; Mark 6:11)
The disciple approach appetite for ‘world conquest’ can never be satisfied with mere ‘firstfruits’. “When will we learn the lesson of Christ not to be satisfied merely with the firstfruits of those who are sent out to witness?” [p.95] “It does not matter how many people we enlist for the cause, but how many they conquer for Christ.” [p.115]
The disciple approach relies on ‘sharp people’ to bring itself into effect. “If we get the right quality of leadership, the rest will follow; if we do not get it, the rest have nothing worth following.” [p.115]
The disciple approach is the final solution. There is no other plan for world conquest. “It did not matter how small the group was to start with so long as they reproduced and taught their disciples to reproduce. This was the way his church was to win – through the dedicated lives of those who knew the Savior so well that his Spirit and method constrained them to tell others. As simple as it may seem, this was the way the gospel would conquer. He had no other plan.” [p.99]
However, some ICOC discipling churches in the post HKL era have embraced the disciple approach. Here, again the ‘destiny of multitudes hangs in the balance’. “That they will follow someone is certain” concludes Coleman in his final chapter of the Master Plan Of Evangelism, “but will he or she be one like themselves leading them only on into greater darkness? This is the decisive question of our plan of life.” [p.116]
Coleman’s major argument for implementing the disciple approach is found in the ‘primary sources’. “One has to go to the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, to really see the plan of Jesus. They are after all the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Master at work.” Here Coleman points to the way Jesus “lived and taught others so to live.” Coleman states: “Like any historical narrator, the Gospel writers paint a picture of the whole by elaborating upon a few characteristic persons and experiences, while bringing out certain critical points in the development of events.”
Coleman’s thesis does not rely much on ‘secondary materials’. “That is why the scriptural accounts of Jesus constitute our best, and only inerrant, Textbook on Evangelism.” Others have substantiated the disciple approach by incorporating ‘secondary materials’ such as the book of Acts and the Epistles, which mentions the ‘one another passages’. Lastly, infrequent reference to titbits found in the Old Testament that support the disciple approaches such as Jethro’s advise to Moses (Ex 18) springs to mind.
The philosophy of the disciple approach
The disciple approach as observed in Coleman’s The Master Plan Of Evangelism (Second Edition; 2000) sends out a signal that the modern church needs to be re-evaluated. Essentially everything in the congregation must revolve around ‘the Master’s view of the ministry’. However, ‘methods will vary.’ ‘The Master gives us an outline to follow, but he expects us to work out the details according to local circumstances and traditions. This demands every bit of resourcefulness that we have.’[p.108] Therefore, the disciple approach is not limited but open for any contemporary church. ‘Hence, Jesus did not urge his disciples to commit their lives to a doctrine, but to a person who was the doctrine, and only as they continued in his Word could they know the truth (John 8:31,32).’ [p.56]
The modern church lacks an effective leadership system
Supporters of the disciple approach believe they have rediscovered ‘the lost plan’ of Jesus method in making disciples. They describe Jesus ‘controlling method’ as ‘revolutionary’ when compared to the ‘lazy example’ of the modern church evangelistic strategy. The issue of evangelism and particularly methods of evangelism becomes the criteria in which the adherents of the disciple approach measure success. ‘Do we see an ever-expanding company of dedicated people reaching the world with the gospel as a result of our ministry? That we are busy in the church trying to work one program of evangelism after another cannot be denied. But are we accomplishing our objective? [p.19]
To them the modern churches have failed dismally. ‘It is time that the church realistically face the situation. Our days of trifling are running out. The evangelistic program of the church has bogged down on nearly every front, especially across the affluent Western world. In many lands the enfeeble church is not even keeping up with the exploding population.’ Many Christian denominations, if not all have failed to implement Jesus’ ‘controlling principles’ for evangelism. ‘Men were to be his method of winning the world to God.’ [p.27] Modern churches have failed to personalise Christianity by not focussing on a select few co-working along ‘with the pastor and church staff’ according to the ‘pattern of Jesus’. ‘Everything that is done with the few is for the salvation of the multitudes.’ [p.34]
The ‘principle of selectivity’ appears to be Jesus tactic as mimicked today in ‘successful leadership training program in business, industry, government or the military’. Clearly this top-down strategy ensures ‘that the multitudes can be won easily if they are just given leaders to follow.’ For this was the reason they speculate that Jesus “called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.” (Luke 6:13-17, Mark 3:13-19 NIV)
Only a few in the end of Jesus earthly life remained loyal to him. ‘Jesus doubtless would not be considered among the most productive mass evangelists of the church.’ [p.34] However, the religious affairs of Israel was supervised and instructed ‘though comparatively few in number’. ‘Why did Jesus deliberately concentrate his life on comparatively so few people? The answer to this question focuses at once on the real purpose of his plan for evangelism. Jesus was not trying to impress the crowd, but to usher in a kingdom. This meant that he needed people who could lead the multitudes. What good would it have been for his ultimate objective to arouse the masses to follow him if these people had no subsequent supervision or instruction in the Way?’ [pp.31-32] Therefore, the pattern of Christ mission depends on leadership. Where by it ‘teaches that the first duty of a church leadership is to see to it that a foundation is laid in the beginning on which can be built an effective and continuing evangelistic ministry to the multitudes.’ The foundation of the modern church must rest on ‘proper training’ from the beginning. ‘Here is where we must begin just like Jesus.’ [p38]
People ‘already in responsible positions of leadership’ within the modern church must be retrained! The disciple approach utterly relies on the role of leadership in order to built an effective system. Inappropriate leaders are quickly dismissed and replaced by ‘the lowly to become the great.’ ‘But if we can’t begin at the top, then let us begin where we are and train a few of the lowly to become the great.’ [p38] The role of leadership in the disciple approach becomes plain ‘to be raised up who could lead the multitudes in the things of God.’
The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern
Adherents to the disciple approach always argues that the modern church is not a place of continuing fellowship for the reason that members hardly associate constantly on a personal level. ‘When will the church learn this lesson? Preaching to the masses, although necessary, will never suffice in the work of preparing leaders for evangelism. Nor can occasional prayer meetings and training classes for Christian workers do this job. Building men and women is not that easy. It requires constant personal attention, much like a father gives to his children. This is something that no organization or class can ever do.’ [p.48]
The concepts of ‘evangelism and Christian nurture’ is apparent in the modern church ‘but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.’ The impersonal efforts in reaching out to young members by the modern church entails ‘some kind of a confirmation class which usually meets an hour a week for a month or so.’ Perhaps ‘parents or friends’ tend to ‘fill the gap in a real way’ on a more personal level. Needless to say, such ‘haphazard follow-up of believers, it is no wonder that about half of those who make professions and join the church eventually fall way or lose the glow of a Christian experience, and fewer still grow in sufficient knowledge and grace to be of any real service to the Kingdom.’ ‘The church obviously has failed at this point, and failed tragically.’ [p.49]
Through association Jesus started and ended his earthly ministry stating, “Follow me” and “I am with you always”. ‘He was his own school and curriculum.’ [p.41] People flocked and listened to him. He becomes ‘the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6). The successes of today’s disciple approach modelled after Jesus training methods is based on informal training, which ‘contrast to the formal, almost scholastic procedures of the scribes.’ ‘Jesus asked only that his disciples follow him.’ [p.41] This calling of associating with Jesus was indifferent ‘in terms of laws and dogmas’ uphold by ’religious teachers insisted on their disciples adhering strictly to certain rituals and formulas of knowledge which distinguished them from others.’ ‘His disciples were distinguished, not by outward conformity to certain rituals, but by being with him, and thereby participating in his doctrine (John 18:19).’ [p.42]
The biblical concept of having a ‘group of believers’ that became the body of Christ whom ‘ministered to each other individually and collectively’ on a continuous basis slacken considerably in the modern church due to a lack of association. This ideal New Testament Christian practice now embodies the heart and soul of the disciple approach. ‘Every member of the community of faith had a part to fulfil in this ministry.’ [p.48]
The element of association plays a vital role within the fellowship. An uninspired church is dead when people lost the ability to make disciples themselves. People are trained and inspired by ‘trained disciplers’ who aspire to become trained disciplers. This concept of reproduction according to the disciple approach is observed in the following way. ‘As long as Jesus was with them in the flesh, he was the Leader, but thereafter, it was necessary for those in the church to assume this leadership. Again this meant that Jesus had to train them to do it, which involved his own constant personal association with a few chosen men.’ [p.48]
The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern because people are trained to become distant through the follow-up system it has adopted whether it may be confirmation classes, parents and friends help, worship services or membership training classes. What is lacking for ‘the rest of the time the young convert [and mature member] has no contact with a definite Christian training program’. The disciple approach argues that ‘Jesus the Son of God, found it necessary to stay almost constantly with his few disciples for three years, and even one of them was lost, how can a church expect to do this job on an assembly line basis a few days out of the year?’
Therefore they caution that a prerequisite for ‘whatever method of follow-up the church adopts, it must have as its basis a personal guardian concern for those entrusted to their care. To do otherwise is essentially to abandon new believers to the devil.’ A ‘Christian friend’ is assigned to ‘every convert’. The personal guardian is known as ‘trained disciplers’ or ‘committed councelors’. A system whereby the counsellor ‘should stay with the new believer as much as possible, studying the Bible and praying with him or her, all the while answering questions, clarifying the truth, and seeking together to help others.’ Observation ends when the new convert ‘can lead another’. Nothing can be accomplished through this system if leaders are disobeyed. ‘A father must teach his children to obey him if he expects his children to be like him.’ [P.58]
The modern church lacks a membership roll of obedience
The idea that Christians must be obedient to one another is a foreign concept in the contemporary church. Adherents of the disciple approach blame the modern church for ‘dillydallying around with the commands of Christ’ by replacing ‘the teachings of Christ regarding self-denial and dedication’ to ‘a sort of respectable “do-as-you-please” philosophy of expediency.’ ‘Where is the obedience of the cross?’ [p.59]
The level of obedience required by the disciple approach stems from the believe that ‘Jesus expected the men he was with to obey him.’ ‘They were called his “disciples” meaning that they were “learners” or “pupils” of the Master.’ This arrangement ‘became the distinguishing mark’ by which Jesus’ disciples later were called “Christian” (Acts 11:26) ‘for in time obedient followers invariably take on the character of their leader.’ ‘They were not required to be smart, but they had to be loyal.’ [p.51]
The key element according to the disciple approach is daily self-denial (Luke 9:23), which is lacking in the lives of ‘many professed Christians today.’ It is an alien concept locked up in the early teachings of Jesus in the New Testament hopelessly unexplored by the modern Christian. ‘The great tragedy is that little is being done to correct the situation, even by those who realize what is happening. Certainly the need of the hour is not for despair, but for action.’ [p.59]
The modern church lacks a membership role of obedience comparatively to the disciple approach requirement of membership ‘in terms of true Christian discipleship’. ‘It is high time that the requirements for membership in the church be interpreted and enforced in terms of true Christian discipleship.’ [p.60] True Christian discipleship congregations unlike contemporary churches have ‘church officials’ who are obeyed by their respected ‘church membership’ who understand ‘the meaning of obedience’. ‘Followers must have leaders, and this means that before much can be done with the church membership something will have to be done with the church officials. If this task seems to be too great, then we will have to start like Jesus did by getting with a few chosen ones and instilling into them the meaning of obedience.’ [p.60]
The disciple approach demonstrates its ability to instil the ‘meaning of obedience’ even if ‘church officials’ in the modern church labour some concerns. They can easily pick up the ‘lowly to become the great’ because the disciple approach does not rely on ‘smart’ people, ‘but they had to be loyal’. The disciple approach has no room for ‘those who wanted to make their own terms of discipleship.’
The modern church lacks a strategy of world conquest
“We must always remember, too, that the goal is world conquest.” [p.95] In order to spread fast the disciple approach latch on ‘promising individuals’ thus establishing a ‘beachhead’. “Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth” (Matt 10:11; cf., Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4). In effect, the disciples were told to concentrate their time on the most promising individuals in each town who would thereby be able to follow up their work after they had gone. This was to receive priority over everything else.” [p.82] “The principle of establishing a beachhead in a new place of labor by connecting with a potentially key follow up leader is not to be minimized. Jesus had lived by it with his own disciples, and he expected them to do the same. His whole plan of evangelism depended on it, and those places which refused the disciples opportunity to practice this principle actually brought the judgement of utter darkness on themselves.” [p82] (Matt 10:14,15; cf., Luke 9:5; Mark 6:11)
The disciple approach appetite for ‘world conquest’ can never be satisfied with mere ‘firstfruits’. “When will we learn the lesson of Christ not to be satisfied merely with the firstfruits of those who are sent out to witness?” [p.95] “It does not matter how many people we enlist for the cause, but how many they conquer for Christ.” [p.115]
The disciple approach relies on ‘sharp people’ to bring itself into effect. “If we get the right quality of leadership, the rest will follow; if we do not get it, the rest have nothing worth following.” [p.115]
The disciple approach is the final solution. There is no other plan for world conquest. “It did not matter how small the group was to start with so long as they reproduced and taught their disciples to reproduce. This was the way his church was to win – through the dedicated lives of those who knew the Savior so well that his Spirit and method constrained them to tell others. As simple as it may seem, this was the way the gospel would conquer. He had no other plan.” [p.99]
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Rise of the Portland movement: Where Are The Churches?
Part 3: Looking for an Alternative: Where Would I Find It?
“Much material”, according to Tom Jones, “has been circulated declaring the mistakes and errors of the discipling churches and further declaring that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus.” Jones made this statement thirteen years ago in an UpsideDown magazine of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
He asked: “Where are the churches where the majority of members even understand that it is their responsibility to make disciples and to teach others what following Jesus is all about? Where are the churches where the average member prepares himself or herself to study the Bible with someone else and then does it? Where are the churches who have brought many others to Christ out of the world and then showed us how to care for them, mature them and keep them faithful? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?”
Jones introspective questions of 1993 is though provoking. More so, it strikes a cord, which modern Christian cannot ignore. Here, Christians as individuals need to examine their relational fellowship with Jesus Christ and “one another”. Here Christians need to know they are first and foremost “the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1) and according to the Apostle “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5 NIV).
However, can Jones and company ignore the criticism because there seems to be no other alternative for the successes of the disciple approach? Where are the churches who has embraced the disciple approach?
Perhaps the family of churches of the ICOC imitate a lazy example of the Boston era because leadership have no other alternative. Consider Tom Jones statement of 1993 “If some of the critics are ready to show us something better, I for one am ready and willing to pay attention and learn, but at this point I am still waiting and wondering: where are these other churches?” And Steve Johnson statement of last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”
The time has come for those I-told-you-so-crowd who contributed to “much material” and rightly pointed out the “mistakes and errors of the discipling churches” to put up “that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus” or shut up. Likewise, staunch ICOC supporters of the disciple approach dare not slip into their comfort zone imitating the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples.”
The rise of the disciple approach in the Twentieth Century has produced a cultural phenomenon that enables modern Christians to act like Disciples of Christ. This approach manages to bring the devotee in touch with a type of schedule base upon Jesus daily ministry rather than relying on a traditional weekly spiritual experience.
The benefit of the disciple approach is it can be introduced “with stealth” in any church group. However, a remark in the context of the Church of Christ early adoption of the disciple approach bears a foreboding that needs to be addressed. “What you are experiencing in the Church of Christ is what the charismatic movement vomited up.”
Here members of the ICOC have seldom acquainted them with the ”giants of the past” upholding the disciple approach in the Pentecostal movement. Don E. Vinzant’s article, The Discipling Dilemma warns ”against the abuses of authoritarian discipling” that “appear as early as 1974.” Early role players who have contributed to the disciple approach were Watchman Nee, Juan Carlos Ortiz, the Shepherds of Fort Lauderdale, Florida consisting of Don Basham, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and Charles Simpson. Bob Mumford no longer supports the disciple approach. This year he apologised: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.” Other prolific authors like Robert Emerson Coleman and various para church organizations such as Campus Crusade; the Navigators have influenced “charismatic” Protestant and Catholic groups alike.
There’s a new doctrine called “the discipleship and submission movement”. You may have never heard of it before. But it is so subtle and doing so much harm that if somebody doesn’t do something to rebuke Satan and stop this movement, it is going to absolutely destroy the great charismatic movement… Not only do they tell you to give your money to the shepherd, but to become involved in cell groups and to “reveal your deepest thoughts.” I’ll tell you one thing. I’m not going to tell anybody my inner thoughts. – Kathryn Kuhlman, speech at Youngtown, Ohio, 1975
It should be apparent why the Shepherding Movement is in such error: it applied to men what rightfully belongs to God. Instead of saying the Lord is the covering, it claims that shepherds are the covering. When the Bible says people can trust God for strength and guidance, the Shepherding Movement says that a man is necessary too. In short, the Shepherding Movement casts doubt on God’s ability to care for the Christian. – Steve Coleman, ‘Christian, Who Is Your Covering? 1981
Vinzant affirm there ‘is a large body of literature full of warnings and criticism of this authoritarianism as it has been tried by others. The fact that [others have tried it] is rather embarrassing to those who thought that someone in the churches of Christ invented this approach. The reality, however, is that churches of Christ are among the last ones to be damaged by the discipling movement.’
In 1967 the Church of Christ started a pilot programme called Campus Advance modelled after Campus Crusade for Christ in order to impact the campuses. Charles ‘Chuck’ Lucas was a campus minister in the 14th Street Church of Christ (later renamed the Crossroads Church of Christ). This new undertaking started in several Church of Christ congregations focusing on shepherding of Christians by other Christians primarily from students basing their techniques on the “one-another passages”.
The Crossroads movement was the product of Chuck Lucas teachings after modifying discipleship principles observed in certain Christian groups such as The Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Lucas was also influenced by Robert E. Coleman’s book The Master Plan of Evangelism first published in 1963. He thought up “prayer partners”, the pairing of new converts with mature Christians and “soul talks”, small group Bible classes designed to attract newcomers to join-up. Although Chuck was the pioneer of this system after a sabbatical he left the ministry for personal spiritual reasons in 1986. Kip McKean become the “perfector” of this system. Lucas’ idea of discipleship was modified by Kip. Prayer partners became “Discipling partners”. Soul talks became “Bible Talks”. In 1988, the Crossroads Church of Christ and the Church of Christ denomination dissociates themselves from the Boston movement disciple approach. Thus, left McKean to explore new frontiers of doctrine without being hampered by the elementary teachings of the Church of Christ. According to Kip’s perception he made a conscious effort to move away from the Church of Christ dogma by “moving back to the Bible doctrinally” while moving forward around the world. The Boston movement equipped with the disciple approach has become according to McKean “God’s restored true church and movement.”
Adherents to the disciple approach are convinced that this system “is not a system contrived by man, but a way of relating that springs from the word of God.” Gordon Ferguson’s book entitled Discipling (1997) pleads with his readers like McKean that the disciple approach “is the forgotten art, the missing ingredient, in so many efforts to built churches and practice what is commonly known as Christianity.” Ferguson reasons, “Discipling has been rediscovered and reinstituted in modern times by those who have a passion to restore the relational nature of biblical Christianity.”
Here, Ferguson’s “relational nature of biblical Christianity” relates to “personal association” an expression used by Robert E. Coleman author of The Master Plan of Evangelism (1963, 2000). Coleman observed: “There is a lot of talk in the church about evangelism and Christian nurture, but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.” (P.47 – First Edition 1963 or p.49 – Second Edition, 2003)
Gordon Ferguson’s Discipling reason that “people today cannot gain a complete understanding of Christ simply from reading the New Testament; we now have to see a flesh and blood Jesus in the form of his body, the church of his disciples.” Furthermore, “there can be no “loner” Christians. We play an absolute essential role in each other’s lives.” Kip McKean recently asked during 2006 Portland World Missions Jubilee: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?”
The preacher-centred model, which allows the pastor to do everything, is replaced with the disciple approach where everyone is empowered to co-work as a unified entity. No wonder such an arrangement in the church will lead to “some incredible results.” The disciple approach have distinct itself from the “lazy example” as stated by Coleman. “If Sunday services and membership training classes are all that a church has to develop young converts into mature disciples, then they are defeating their own purpose by contributing to a false security, and if the new convert follows the same lazy example, it may ultimately do more harm than good.”
Ferguson admits, “independent Westerners have a difficult time with the concept.” He states: ”The Jews in Jesus’ day employed much the same method of training, as did the famous philosophers. Leading rabbis had their little groups who followed them through their daily tasks, straining to pick up every tidbit of wisdom that might drop from their lips. Paul had been tutored in this fashion… John the Baptist had a definite group of disciples… Certainly he [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.”
As much as adherents of the disciple approach want to implement everything Jesus commanded they have over looked a specific command from the Lord concerning the formation of relationships in the Church. Here the adherents of the disciple approach in their pursued to become disciples and make disciples have failed to grasp that the New Testament more specifically the Four Gospel Books only entertains MASTER/STUDENT relations.
Roy Davison, an evangelist of the Church of Christ dealt in 1988 with the disciple approach in an article Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship (Click Sidebar: Roy Davison). Davison states that this movement “is based on the thesis that Christ’s master/disciple relationship with the twelve apostles is a pattern to be followed in making, training and leading disciples today.” The fundamental error of the disciple approach based on this thesis according to Davison’s observations “is that Jesus training his apostles is used as a pattern for making disciples, whereas these are entirely different matters.” Roy points out ICOC members “use an incorrect definition for the word “disciple”. They define a disciple as a Christian who is trained through a subordinate relationship with another Christian. This unscriptural definition results from an incorrect concept how one becomes a disciple of Christ.”
The Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU” can never be based on the rabbinical master/student concept as observed by the disciple approach. “Certainly [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.” Nevertheless as a Rabbi, Jesus strictly forbids his disciples to imitate this system in the Body of Christ. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one master and YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS (Matthew 23:8 NIV).” Rightly so! Because Rabbi Jesus “is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy (Colossians 1:18 NIV).”
Christians wrote the Apostle “have different gifts, according to the grace given us.” “If it is leadership, let him govern diligently” (Romans 12:6-8 NIV). Therefore leadership have a responsibility in the Church not to overstep ground rules already emplaced. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11 NIV).
As much as the disciple approach display the ability to rejuvenate the modern Church it also reaps havoc amongst Christians. History has shown that any Christian group embracing the disciple approach have in the long run caused much division in the Body of Christ. The vomit the Church of Christ lapped up in 1967 soured relations within this group that allowed a church split in 1988. Today church leadership whether from the Portland movement or the United Cooperation Group who persists with the disciple approach are not “shepherds of the church of God”. Like “savage wolves” amongst us they “will not spare the flock.” The elders of the church in Ephesus were perhaps perplexed with Paul’s admonishment: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:30,31 NIV)
How can any right-minded leader within the context of the ICOC family of churches persist with a “mousetrap” that displays the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples”? There is no excuse for "embracing discipleship" even if other church groups relies on "lazy examples". How can more than seventy percent of the ICOC pooled with the Unity Proposal Group still justify “embracing discipleship”?
If the Portland movement leadership ask: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?” then the United Cooperation Group is not far off in asking that of their own churches.
Today we ask: Where are the Churches who entertain the disciple approach? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?
“Much material”, according to Tom Jones, “has been circulated declaring the mistakes and errors of the discipling churches and further declaring that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus.” Jones made this statement thirteen years ago in an UpsideDown magazine of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
He asked: “Where are the churches where the majority of members even understand that it is their responsibility to make disciples and to teach others what following Jesus is all about? Where are the churches where the average member prepares himself or herself to study the Bible with someone else and then does it? Where are the churches who have brought many others to Christ out of the world and then showed us how to care for them, mature them and keep them faithful? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?”
Jones introspective questions of 1993 is though provoking. More so, it strikes a cord, which modern Christian cannot ignore. Here, Christians as individuals need to examine their relational fellowship with Jesus Christ and “one another”. Here Christians need to know they are first and foremost “the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1) and according to the Apostle “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5 NIV).
However, can Jones and company ignore the criticism because there seems to be no other alternative for the successes of the disciple approach? Where are the churches who has embraced the disciple approach?
Perhaps the family of churches of the ICOC imitate a lazy example of the Boston era because leadership have no other alternative. Consider Tom Jones statement of 1993 “If some of the critics are ready to show us something better, I for one am ready and willing to pay attention and learn, but at this point I am still waiting and wondering: where are these other churches?” And Steve Johnson statement of last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”
The time has come for those I-told-you-so-crowd who contributed to “much material” and rightly pointed out the “mistakes and errors of the discipling churches” to put up “that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus” or shut up. Likewise, staunch ICOC supporters of the disciple approach dare not slip into their comfort zone imitating the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples.”
The rise of the disciple approach in the Twentieth Century has produced a cultural phenomenon that enables modern Christians to act like Disciples of Christ. This approach manages to bring the devotee in touch with a type of schedule base upon Jesus daily ministry rather than relying on a traditional weekly spiritual experience.
The benefit of the disciple approach is it can be introduced “with stealth” in any church group. However, a remark in the context of the Church of Christ early adoption of the disciple approach bears a foreboding that needs to be addressed. “What you are experiencing in the Church of Christ is what the charismatic movement vomited up.”
Here members of the ICOC have seldom acquainted them with the ”giants of the past” upholding the disciple approach in the Pentecostal movement. Don E. Vinzant’s article, The Discipling Dilemma warns ”against the abuses of authoritarian discipling” that “appear as early as 1974.” Early role players who have contributed to the disciple approach were Watchman Nee, Juan Carlos Ortiz, the Shepherds of Fort Lauderdale, Florida consisting of Don Basham, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and Charles Simpson. Bob Mumford no longer supports the disciple approach. This year he apologised: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.” Other prolific authors like Robert Emerson Coleman and various para church organizations such as Campus Crusade; the Navigators have influenced “charismatic” Protestant and Catholic groups alike.
There’s a new doctrine called “the discipleship and submission movement”. You may have never heard of it before. But it is so subtle and doing so much harm that if somebody doesn’t do something to rebuke Satan and stop this movement, it is going to absolutely destroy the great charismatic movement… Not only do they tell you to give your money to the shepherd, but to become involved in cell groups and to “reveal your deepest thoughts.” I’ll tell you one thing. I’m not going to tell anybody my inner thoughts. – Kathryn Kuhlman, speech at Youngtown, Ohio, 1975
It should be apparent why the Shepherding Movement is in such error: it applied to men what rightfully belongs to God. Instead of saying the Lord is the covering, it claims that shepherds are the covering. When the Bible says people can trust God for strength and guidance, the Shepherding Movement says that a man is necessary too. In short, the Shepherding Movement casts doubt on God’s ability to care for the Christian. – Steve Coleman, ‘Christian, Who Is Your Covering? 1981
Vinzant affirm there ‘is a large body of literature full of warnings and criticism of this authoritarianism as it has been tried by others. The fact that [others have tried it] is rather embarrassing to those who thought that someone in the churches of Christ invented this approach. The reality, however, is that churches of Christ are among the last ones to be damaged by the discipling movement.’
In 1967 the Church of Christ started a pilot programme called Campus Advance modelled after Campus Crusade for Christ in order to impact the campuses. Charles ‘Chuck’ Lucas was a campus minister in the 14th Street Church of Christ (later renamed the Crossroads Church of Christ). This new undertaking started in several Church of Christ congregations focusing on shepherding of Christians by other Christians primarily from students basing their techniques on the “one-another passages”.
The Crossroads movement was the product of Chuck Lucas teachings after modifying discipleship principles observed in certain Christian groups such as The Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Lucas was also influenced by Robert E. Coleman’s book The Master Plan of Evangelism first published in 1963. He thought up “prayer partners”, the pairing of new converts with mature Christians and “soul talks”, small group Bible classes designed to attract newcomers to join-up. Although Chuck was the pioneer of this system after a sabbatical he left the ministry for personal spiritual reasons in 1986. Kip McKean become the “perfector” of this system. Lucas’ idea of discipleship was modified by Kip. Prayer partners became “Discipling partners”. Soul talks became “Bible Talks”. In 1988, the Crossroads Church of Christ and the Church of Christ denomination dissociates themselves from the Boston movement disciple approach. Thus, left McKean to explore new frontiers of doctrine without being hampered by the elementary teachings of the Church of Christ. According to Kip’s perception he made a conscious effort to move away from the Church of Christ dogma by “moving back to the Bible doctrinally” while moving forward around the world. The Boston movement equipped with the disciple approach has become according to McKean “God’s restored true church and movement.”
Adherents to the disciple approach are convinced that this system “is not a system contrived by man, but a way of relating that springs from the word of God.” Gordon Ferguson’s book entitled Discipling (1997) pleads with his readers like McKean that the disciple approach “is the forgotten art, the missing ingredient, in so many efforts to built churches and practice what is commonly known as Christianity.” Ferguson reasons, “Discipling has been rediscovered and reinstituted in modern times by those who have a passion to restore the relational nature of biblical Christianity.”
Here, Ferguson’s “relational nature of biblical Christianity” relates to “personal association” an expression used by Robert E. Coleman author of The Master Plan of Evangelism (1963, 2000). Coleman observed: “There is a lot of talk in the church about evangelism and Christian nurture, but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.” (P.47 – First Edition 1963 or p.49 – Second Edition, 2003)
Gordon Ferguson’s Discipling reason that “people today cannot gain a complete understanding of Christ simply from reading the New Testament; we now have to see a flesh and blood Jesus in the form of his body, the church of his disciples.” Furthermore, “there can be no “loner” Christians. We play an absolute essential role in each other’s lives.” Kip McKean recently asked during 2006 Portland World Missions Jubilee: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?”
The preacher-centred model, which allows the pastor to do everything, is replaced with the disciple approach where everyone is empowered to co-work as a unified entity. No wonder such an arrangement in the church will lead to “some incredible results.” The disciple approach have distinct itself from the “lazy example” as stated by Coleman. “If Sunday services and membership training classes are all that a church has to develop young converts into mature disciples, then they are defeating their own purpose by contributing to a false security, and if the new convert follows the same lazy example, it may ultimately do more harm than good.”
Ferguson admits, “independent Westerners have a difficult time with the concept.” He states: ”The Jews in Jesus’ day employed much the same method of training, as did the famous philosophers. Leading rabbis had their little groups who followed them through their daily tasks, straining to pick up every tidbit of wisdom that might drop from their lips. Paul had been tutored in this fashion… John the Baptist had a definite group of disciples… Certainly he [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.”
As much as adherents of the disciple approach want to implement everything Jesus commanded they have over looked a specific command from the Lord concerning the formation of relationships in the Church. Here the adherents of the disciple approach in their pursued to become disciples and make disciples have failed to grasp that the New Testament more specifically the Four Gospel Books only entertains MASTER/STUDENT relations.
Roy Davison, an evangelist of the Church of Christ dealt in 1988 with the disciple approach in an article Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship (Click Sidebar: Roy Davison). Davison states that this movement “is based on the thesis that Christ’s master/disciple relationship with the twelve apostles is a pattern to be followed in making, training and leading disciples today.” The fundamental error of the disciple approach based on this thesis according to Davison’s observations “is that Jesus training his apostles is used as a pattern for making disciples, whereas these are entirely different matters.” Roy points out ICOC members “use an incorrect definition for the word “disciple”. They define a disciple as a Christian who is trained through a subordinate relationship with another Christian. This unscriptural definition results from an incorrect concept how one becomes a disciple of Christ.”
The Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU” can never be based on the rabbinical master/student concept as observed by the disciple approach. “Certainly [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.” Nevertheless as a Rabbi, Jesus strictly forbids his disciples to imitate this system in the Body of Christ. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one master and YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS (Matthew 23:8 NIV).” Rightly so! Because Rabbi Jesus “is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy (Colossians 1:18 NIV).”
Christians wrote the Apostle “have different gifts, according to the grace given us.” “If it is leadership, let him govern diligently” (Romans 12:6-8 NIV). Therefore leadership have a responsibility in the Church not to overstep ground rules already emplaced. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11 NIV).
As much as the disciple approach display the ability to rejuvenate the modern Church it also reaps havoc amongst Christians. History has shown that any Christian group embracing the disciple approach have in the long run caused much division in the Body of Christ. The vomit the Church of Christ lapped up in 1967 soured relations within this group that allowed a church split in 1988. Today church leadership whether from the Portland movement or the United Cooperation Group who persists with the disciple approach are not “shepherds of the church of God”. Like “savage wolves” amongst us they “will not spare the flock.” The elders of the church in Ephesus were perhaps perplexed with Paul’s admonishment: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:30,31 NIV)
How can any right-minded leader within the context of the ICOC family of churches persist with a “mousetrap” that displays the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples”? There is no excuse for "embracing discipleship" even if other church groups relies on "lazy examples". How can more than seventy percent of the ICOC pooled with the Unity Proposal Group still justify “embracing discipleship”?
If the Portland movement leadership ask: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?” then the United Cooperation Group is not far off in asking that of their own churches.
Today we ask: Where are the Churches who entertain the disciple approach? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
The Rise of the Portland movement: The Dumbing of the ICOC
Part 2: Kip’s Pawns – You’re Hired!
And so we find ourselves, at this point in our evolution as a brotherhood glumly staring into the future with trepidation. The Portland movement has spread their wings to the “farthest horizon” – the islands of Hawaii.
Here, sharp people of the university of Hawaii with the likes of a baseball captain and a professor of volcanology and a retired Navy Master Chief along with their wives becomes the “decision making couples” for the Hilo International Church of Christ. Let us note: none hold a degree in theology! The neon lights of Portland’s discipleship – Boston style – have become their inspiration. They like a moth drawn to a flame have followed “with eyes wide open” the fire of Portland International Church of Christ.
“In Hilo, the existing church leadership has called its membership [16 sold-out disciple members from a group of nearly 60] to the radical commitment” that is “to be a sold-out disciple and participate in all the worship services, a Bible Talk and in discipleship partner relationships.”
The stage was set for Kip and Elena McKean’s arrival in Hilo Thursday, September 14th 2006 “to rebuild the foundation of sold-out disciples” despite “a third of the congregation was against the new direction for the Hilo Church.” Sunday Kip preached a lesson entitled, “God Is On Your Side.” McKean reverie his recent trip to Hawaii in an article, A Tale Of Two Cities. He states: “I simply made the point that I was not calling people to be on “Portland’s side”, but to obey the Word and be on God’s side.” On the other hand he “told the “Portland Story” and preached about radically following Jesus.”
Here, we see the Portland movement descending into stupidity. How foolish for them to champion a document that has spliced the ICOC and gave rise to the “Portland’s side”. Incredulously, the Portland Story has redefined Biblical terminology! You interpret it your way; I’ll interpret it in mine. Furthermore, the co-boundaries of God’s side and Portland’s side are skilfully blended with stupefying ease.
Support for the rebuilding of the Hilo International Church of Christ spilled over to the Honolulu congregation, known as the Honolulu International Christian Church, which took effect from Sunday 24th September 2006. However, those islanders affiliated to the former ICOC who don’t want to commit to the flame of Portland were chastised by Kip as the “negative group” or “dissident group”. Here, the stupidity sweeping the Portland movement is a good dress rehearsal for what life is like under Kip’s leadership sins.
What about Douglas Arthur’s admonishment to Kip? What happened to Kip’s “Heartfelt Apology”? A Tale of Two Cities is a Dickens classic. However do you recall the fable of the Toad carrying the Scorpion across the river? It goes like this. “I am so sorry to everyone who is striving to be a dedicated disciple of Jesus. Please forgive my arrogance and disrespect in the Portland Bulletin articles and in my Sunday sermons, which are online. I do believe there are church leadership around the world that are trying very hard to restore the lordship of Christ and discipling.”
Now, even “Generation Y” has become aware of Kip’s nature. The ability to sting! What happened to the idea to picky-back Kip’s articles? Didn’t Kip felt “greatly honored” to comply with Doughlas Arthur’s suggestion “it needed to be critiqued by people outside the Portland congregation.” In particular “if Dough would do it”. Now remarks do the round … again … derived from Dough to Kip “spitting in the face of church leaderships that were trying to follow the Bible’s commands of discipling” and “You treated them like a stray dog that you kicked every time you passed by.”
The script of A Tale Of Two Cities states the “Honolulu elders and evangelist met at a separate location with the dissident group.” This is a tell tale story of the 1994 Indianapolis incident. Kip’s “one church – one city” policy will never allow God to “pull us together.”
Kip’s revisionism has polished the ICOC Unity Conference document, which entails “the decision to dissolve the world sector leaders group” during the Long Beach Unity Meeting in November 2002 to sound like a “forced resignations of the World Sector Leaders”. Perhaps the long-arm of the Portland movement is looking into reinstating a concept base on the WSL group in order to hold “God’s side” together.
Furthermore, there has been little debate for returning to the disciple relations as it was abandoned for the most part since HKL in February 2003. The fact is while we accuse McKean of annexing churches, more than 70 percent of the ICOC voluntarily handed over their collective brain to the Unity Proposal Group supporting Kip’s ideals of discipleship.
The question of an identity was not on the agenda until Kip McKean made his famous Portland Story. “At the 2005 World Missions Jubilee, the Portland church leadership believed that the time had come to begin calling a remnant of disciples to come together for God to use to evangelise the world in one generation. In response, disciples have moved to Portland from 24 different states, some church leaderships have asked for discipling, and several groups of disciples have left lukewarm churches to begin new congregations of sold-out disciples. Though there are sold-out congregations and disciples who are not aligned with Portland, our conviction is that in time God will pull us together.”
In reality, two mainstream ICOC groups do all our thinking and our agenda setting and many just limp lamely behind it. From “Portland’s side” without Kip McKean, it seems they cannot initiate any thinking projects!
By re-examining the Boston disciple approach is one of the main reasons we fear loosing our discipleship methodology. We are afraid of what we will become once our collective brain is taken away. Will we become like the “mainline” Church of Christ? Who will lead our policy interrogation? Who will construct and manage the complex web that is our governance matrix?
We look into the future and forget “how could the weaklings of the present rebuild what the giants of the past had been unable to uphold?”
McKean’s supporters – so dwarfed, intimidated and alienated by their strategist – warm to “do anything, go anywhere, give up everything for Christ”. In him they see someone they can “press on” to win the prize of global evangelisation in one generation. They see someone – a man of God, a leader, and a prophet – who can take them “From Here To Eternity.”
As the sun sets on the unity efforts of the two groups, the Portland movement and the United Cooperation Group, the “proven church builders” who served in a bygone era of Episode 1 scramble for the hearts and minds of ordinary ICOC folk. The majority look for light relief. In so much of 70 percent of the former ICOC now suspend their thinking capacity by embracing discipleship as truths we want to defend.
How did we get here? It is just a case of us mimicking the intellectual capacity of people who-wants-to-be-the-leader that has turned us into dolts!
Inasmuch as many would not like to believe so, this is the case. It is our refusal to be ourselves that has landed us in this predicament – being Kip’s Pawns! Although the majority is not for hire! It is the refusal of the ICOC membership to draw on its intellectual commonsense that has short-changed us.
The past year [2006] has been a period in which ICOC membership capable of intelligent conversation since the HKL turned into a global congregation of babbling fools.
If the strategists in the US ICOC ignore the dangers of the disciple approach as spelled out in Roy Davison’s article (Click on sidebar: Roy Davison) and lingering on Church of Christ Kingdom theology other fellowships in the world will make peace with the fact that this may be our future. Herein awaits us all a second wave of global persecution from outsiders as well as deepening the rift in the brotherhood of believers.
This perception is born out of reality.
Pawns march forward – one step a time. When blocked – they stagnate. However being dormant the rule of engagement awakens when unexpected chess pieces ventures within their reach.
Let us become keenly aware not becoming Kip’s Pawns. Let us not support discipleship relationships base on the bygone era of Episode 1. It is time for urgent thinking!
Are You For Hire?
Next weeks article: The rise of the Portland movement: Where Are The Churches?
And so we find ourselves, at this point in our evolution as a brotherhood glumly staring into the future with trepidation. The Portland movement has spread their wings to the “farthest horizon” – the islands of Hawaii.
Here, sharp people of the university of Hawaii with the likes of a baseball captain and a professor of volcanology and a retired Navy Master Chief along with their wives becomes the “decision making couples” for the Hilo International Church of Christ. Let us note: none hold a degree in theology! The neon lights of Portland’s discipleship – Boston style – have become their inspiration. They like a moth drawn to a flame have followed “with eyes wide open” the fire of Portland International Church of Christ.
“In Hilo, the existing church leadership has called its membership [16 sold-out disciple members from a group of nearly 60] to the radical commitment” that is “to be a sold-out disciple and participate in all the worship services, a Bible Talk and in discipleship partner relationships.”
The stage was set for Kip and Elena McKean’s arrival in Hilo Thursday, September 14th 2006 “to rebuild the foundation of sold-out disciples” despite “a third of the congregation was against the new direction for the Hilo Church.” Sunday Kip preached a lesson entitled, “God Is On Your Side.” McKean reverie his recent trip to Hawaii in an article, A Tale Of Two Cities. He states: “I simply made the point that I was not calling people to be on “Portland’s side”, but to obey the Word and be on God’s side.” On the other hand he “told the “Portland Story” and preached about radically following Jesus.”
Here, we see the Portland movement descending into stupidity. How foolish for them to champion a document that has spliced the ICOC and gave rise to the “Portland’s side”. Incredulously, the Portland Story has redefined Biblical terminology! You interpret it your way; I’ll interpret it in mine. Furthermore, the co-boundaries of God’s side and Portland’s side are skilfully blended with stupefying ease.
Support for the rebuilding of the Hilo International Church of Christ spilled over to the Honolulu congregation, known as the Honolulu International Christian Church, which took effect from Sunday 24th September 2006. However, those islanders affiliated to the former ICOC who don’t want to commit to the flame of Portland were chastised by Kip as the “negative group” or “dissident group”. Here, the stupidity sweeping the Portland movement is a good dress rehearsal for what life is like under Kip’s leadership sins.
What about Douglas Arthur’s admonishment to Kip? What happened to Kip’s “Heartfelt Apology”? A Tale of Two Cities is a Dickens classic. However do you recall the fable of the Toad carrying the Scorpion across the river? It goes like this. “I am so sorry to everyone who is striving to be a dedicated disciple of Jesus. Please forgive my arrogance and disrespect in the Portland Bulletin articles and in my Sunday sermons, which are online. I do believe there are church leadership around the world that are trying very hard to restore the lordship of Christ and discipling.”
Now, even “Generation Y” has become aware of Kip’s nature. The ability to sting! What happened to the idea to picky-back Kip’s articles? Didn’t Kip felt “greatly honored” to comply with Doughlas Arthur’s suggestion “it needed to be critiqued by people outside the Portland congregation.” In particular “if Dough would do it”. Now remarks do the round … again … derived from Dough to Kip “spitting in the face of church leaderships that were trying to follow the Bible’s commands of discipling” and “You treated them like a stray dog that you kicked every time you passed by.”
The script of A Tale Of Two Cities states the “Honolulu elders and evangelist met at a separate location with the dissident group.” This is a tell tale story of the 1994 Indianapolis incident. Kip’s “one church – one city” policy will never allow God to “pull us together.”
Kip’s revisionism has polished the ICOC Unity Conference document, which entails “the decision to dissolve the world sector leaders group” during the Long Beach Unity Meeting in November 2002 to sound like a “forced resignations of the World Sector Leaders”. Perhaps the long-arm of the Portland movement is looking into reinstating a concept base on the WSL group in order to hold “God’s side” together.
Furthermore, there has been little debate for returning to the disciple relations as it was abandoned for the most part since HKL in February 2003. The fact is while we accuse McKean of annexing churches, more than 70 percent of the ICOC voluntarily handed over their collective brain to the Unity Proposal Group supporting Kip’s ideals of discipleship.
The question of an identity was not on the agenda until Kip McKean made his famous Portland Story. “At the 2005 World Missions Jubilee, the Portland church leadership believed that the time had come to begin calling a remnant of disciples to come together for God to use to evangelise the world in one generation. In response, disciples have moved to Portland from 24 different states, some church leaderships have asked for discipling, and several groups of disciples have left lukewarm churches to begin new congregations of sold-out disciples. Though there are sold-out congregations and disciples who are not aligned with Portland, our conviction is that in time God will pull us together.”
In reality, two mainstream ICOC groups do all our thinking and our agenda setting and many just limp lamely behind it. From “Portland’s side” without Kip McKean, it seems they cannot initiate any thinking projects!
By re-examining the Boston disciple approach is one of the main reasons we fear loosing our discipleship methodology. We are afraid of what we will become once our collective brain is taken away. Will we become like the “mainline” Church of Christ? Who will lead our policy interrogation? Who will construct and manage the complex web that is our governance matrix?
We look into the future and forget “how could the weaklings of the present rebuild what the giants of the past had been unable to uphold?”
McKean’s supporters – so dwarfed, intimidated and alienated by their strategist – warm to “do anything, go anywhere, give up everything for Christ”. In him they see someone they can “press on” to win the prize of global evangelisation in one generation. They see someone – a man of God, a leader, and a prophet – who can take them “From Here To Eternity.”
As the sun sets on the unity efforts of the two groups, the Portland movement and the United Cooperation Group, the “proven church builders” who served in a bygone era of Episode 1 scramble for the hearts and minds of ordinary ICOC folk. The majority look for light relief. In so much of 70 percent of the former ICOC now suspend their thinking capacity by embracing discipleship as truths we want to defend.
How did we get here? It is just a case of us mimicking the intellectual capacity of people who-wants-to-be-the-leader that has turned us into dolts!
Inasmuch as many would not like to believe so, this is the case. It is our refusal to be ourselves that has landed us in this predicament – being Kip’s Pawns! Although the majority is not for hire! It is the refusal of the ICOC membership to draw on its intellectual commonsense that has short-changed us.
The past year [2006] has been a period in which ICOC membership capable of intelligent conversation since the HKL turned into a global congregation of babbling fools.
If the strategists in the US ICOC ignore the dangers of the disciple approach as spelled out in Roy Davison’s article (Click on sidebar: Roy Davison) and lingering on Church of Christ Kingdom theology other fellowships in the world will make peace with the fact that this may be our future. Herein awaits us all a second wave of global persecution from outsiders as well as deepening the rift in the brotherhood of believers.
This perception is born out of reality.
Pawns march forward – one step a time. When blocked – they stagnate. However being dormant the rule of engagement awakens when unexpected chess pieces ventures within their reach.
Let us become keenly aware not becoming Kip’s Pawns. Let us not support discipleship relationships base on the bygone era of Episode 1. It is time for urgent thinking!
Are You For Hire?
Next weeks article: The rise of the Portland movement: Where Are The Churches?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Rise of the Portland Movement: Flaunting a Dead Horse
Part 1: What is the relationship of Kip McKean to ICOC today?
”Kip had a huge influence on our movement … That influence is not there anymore, and each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.” – Gregg Marutsky
The reins of Episode 1 were firmly in the hands of Kip McKean. Eventually, the horse bucked and the rider hailed as “God’s man” is without a horse to command. Today that horse is embarrassed of its former master. Herewith lies our question as asked by the panellist of the 2004 Faithful Conversations: “What is the relationship of Kip McKean to ICOC today?”
Thomas ‘Kip’ McKean founder and trendsetter of the Boston movement a.k.a. the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is down but not out after having been rebuffed by concerned ICOC pressure groups for “calling out of the remnant disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches’ in order to start an exciting Episode 2!”
Today the ICOC arena offers varying doctrinal conclusions. McKean a colossus of Episode 1 is no longer the sole arbiter of orthodoxy in the ICOC. This is to his disadvantage. His cracking reforms in the Portland International Church of Christ have estranged relations with the brotherhood. Nevertheless can they do without McKean?
Kip’s ‘unfortunate article, “The Portland Story”’ has persuaded the 2005 International Leadership Conference Committee ‘to take Kip McKean and his class, “Revival: Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?” off of this year’s International Leadership Conference teaching program.” Their reason: ‘The Portland Story that in our observation, while calling disciples to appropriate commitment to Jesus and His missions, also disparages and disrespects churches and leaderships around the kingdom in a way unbefitting the purposes of this conference.’ The International Leadership Conference was held September 8-10th 2005 in the Seattle Church of Christ based with the theme “By Faith”.
The crux of the Conference was decisions made by leadership ‘for the sake of our churches’ Maturity & Missions’.
What transpired before the Seattle Conference was the release of two proposals with similar ideals yet set apart in the manner they were written. Kip McKean issued a strongly worded statement during the Portland church World Missions Jubilee, August 21st 2005. A commentary from one of the reactionary ICOC churches summed it up perfectly. ‘Kip McKean is ‘calling people out’ of existing [ICOC] churches to what he considers a higher standard of commitment to counter the lukewarm faith and fruitlessness he perceived in the [ICOC] churches during the last couple of years [2003-2005].
McKean stressed that members of the ICOC churches must become “sold-out” disciples. Hot on his heals, the LA Unity Proposal released on 25th August 2005, apparently without their prior knowledge about Kip’s Portland Story emphasise that ‘every member in every church is expected to be a true disciple’. The LA leadership does not claim ‘that this proposal is, by itself, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.’ ‘We have assembled a basic list of core convictions and principles upon which most, if not all, of us have lived our Christian lives since the beginning of our walk with God.’ [Some since 1967 and others since June 1st 1979 to the present] The Leadership Group of the LA ICOC are aware that ‘there will be some who may not be ready to join us in this action.’ Kip McKean ‘gladly joined the LA Church because we fully agree with the accompanying “Statement of Unified Brotherhood”. Portland’s elders in training are in accord with Kip. ‘We too commend the L.A. Church and their decision to introduce a vehicle to assist in helping churches to return to the standard of the Bible.’
Nevertheless, Kip’s strongly worded statement has upset many ICOC churches “calling out of the remnant disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches’. They reacted against Portland’s plan for recruitment. ‘In the fall the Portland leadership will begin to seek out church leaderships in congregations that are struggling to ask if we can help them build a foundation of sold-out disciples.’
The elders of the Boston Church of Christ reacted with dismay and shock. They stated they ‘have grave concerns about our brother Kip McKean’s actions. While we love the man and are thankful for good he has done, we cannot be silent in the face of recent events.’ The Seattle Church of Christ could not allow Kip McKean to teach during the Conference due to some conference goers planning to boycott the proceedings if he was a guest speaker.
The moderate ICOC churches strongly opposed Kip McKean’s idea of ‘discipling other congregations’ with the help of ‘Overseeing Evangelists’ through means of Portland’s rescue effort in ‘replanting other places’ where congregations have ‘lukewarmness, no discipling and no evangelism’. Although the South Florida [Miami] Church of Christ oppose most of McKean’s plans they do acknowledge that they ‘must learn about [themselves] in these situations. Some of the criticisms raised in Kip’s article [Portland Story] are valid and apply to the South Florida Church. Lukewarmness in our relationship with God, lack of commitment to our love to each other, and the absence of evangelism are issues we must face in light of the Scriptures at a congregational level.’
Many moderate ICOC churches see the Portland Church as ‘divisive and dangerous’. In a resent sermon Kip stated: ‘there are three main charges against us. Number one is unwholesome talk. Number two is recruitment. And number three is division.’ Nonetheless, Kip reminds his followers that: ‘Our enemies are not these churches that wrote us up. Our enemy is Satan. And the sad thing is, I will guarantee that those letters are going to cause the falling away of people in this church [Portland] and other churches. I will guarantee it. I will guarantee it.’
In the aftermath of the Seattle Conference it is apparent that not every one is in favour of LA’s Unity Proposal or Portland’s Church rescue attempts. Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego ICOC churches objected to both calls. Atlanta, Vancouver, Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego oppose the LA Unity call. LA, Boston, Seattle, Phoenix, Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego oppose Kip’s call. Nevertheless, a repetitive pattern simulating the period of Episode 1’s disciple practices is emerging within the family of former ICOC. Many former ICOC churches start to embrace mentoring relationships as some referred to it as a commitment to our love to each other while others simply calls it discipling.
As stated before, Kip McKean despite being the frontrunner have now accepted that the ‘path may get a lot darker and a lot more lonely in the next few months or couple of years. Our issue is not, “Are we on their side or our side? Or anything. The issue is “Are we on the Lord’s side? What does God want us to do?” Many former ICOC churches are content to cut-off metaphorically speaking the head of the snake (Kip) while keeping the body (McKeanism). This strategy is clearly visible in Scott’s Green Seattle Church response letter to The Portland Story. ‘We would welcome them [Portland Leadership Group] “to be on the team,” with the Northwest family of churches and leadership fellowships. If not, then we wish them well, pray for them, but are both sad yet content to part company for the present time and move in a very different direction for our own church’s missions and maturity.’ Boston elders declared. ‘Kip’s actions are divisive and arrogant and must be stopped.’
Kip McKean was publicly reprimanded while attending the conference in Seattle. The Seattle Letter, according to Kip, ‘was read even the Wednesday night before the whole Conference there to all the people. And in particular it said, “Take special note of Kip”. I felt real encouraged by that.” Furthermore, the 33 worldwide conference-planning members barred Kip from attending any decisive decision making group like the Co-operation Proposal Group whose sole aim ‘is to review all proposals, prayerfully synthesize the best ideas from them, and by February 1, 2006 to submit a recommended proposal for brotherhood consideration to our family of churches. Kip admits he ‘also was not allowed to take part in the leadership shaping of the Movement. I was left out of that meeting.’ Over the period in Episode 1 members of the ICOC were informed to ‘take special note of Kip’. For example: “We thank God for raising up Kip and Elena McKean to lead us. Their vision, their commitment to God and their continual challenge to take Jesus to all the nations has spurred us on. God works through men and movements. But in the end it is all God. He takes us From Here To Eternity.”
Kip’s ‘leadership sins’ have become a stumbling block for many ICOC leaders.
McKean has saddled up another horse willing enough to obey his every command to ‘go anywhere, do anything and give up everything’. In 2004, celebrating his 50th birthday in Portland Kip stated: ‘I am just as vigorous to battle the spiritual forces of evil to evangelise the world as in the early days of Boston!’ The McKean’s resoluteness to ride out into “new frontiers” has contributed to the rise of the Portland movement. The futile attempts to reason with Kip by leadership from former moderate ICOC churches simulate a period in time when mature evangelists from the Church of Christ tried to reason with their young evangelists not to use vices like unwholesome talk, recruitment and division in order to bring about ‘a church within a church’ scenario.
Kip McKean has spurred his horse on at the August 2006 World Missions Jubilee held at the Portland ICOC. He is not interested to build the ICOC Church but Jesus Church! “I started the sermon by preaching that we are not building the Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, Mormon Church, a community church or even the ICOC Church. We have been called by God to build Jesus’ Church.” (Source: Report: Follow the Fire)
It is my opinion that Kip is done with the ICOC sentimentality. He is bend on conquest despite the criticism. McKean’s own experience will tell him not to waste any time in unifying the ICOC as he tried in the 80’s with the Church of Christ.
History is repeating itself. The reins are firmly in his hands.
“We are so grateful the McKeans still are pressing on and we want to press on with them to win the prize. We are not ashamed of Jesus and we are not afraid to associate with a couple that is preaching the Word and putting their lives on the line to see the world evangelised for Christ!”
This praise comes from Anita and Buzz Banadyga, Lead Evangelist of the Savannah Church of Christ. How striking is their words when compared to a bygone era known as Episode 1.
“Out of this darkness, [referring to: the 1970’s worldwide unrest among the youth.] God called a young man to start another movement for this generation.
GOD’S MODERN-DAY MOVEMENT
(The Boston Movement)
Twenty years ago, on June 1, 1979, Kip McKean led a devotional in Bob and Pat Gempel’s living room for 30 would-be disciples of the Lexington Church of Christ. Here is where the Spirit of God initiated what men would call “the Boston Movement”.
THE RIGHT MAN: God raised up Kip McKean and gave him a radical message that would start a revolution in the lives of people all over the world in our era. …
God’s awesome plan is staggering in its wisdom. As the World Sector Leaders have imitated Kip and Elena’s faith and remained unified in the message, God used them to build the largest churches of any kind in many areas of the world. They are planting churches in remote countries while they are building pillar churches to be great models for their World Sectors.
No other Christian movement since the first century has spread this far, this fast. None has grown this quickly during the lifetime of its founder. … God has raised up a couple to lead his people to reach the world again in one generation.” - by Roger Lamb “God’s Man, Message and Movement” commemorating Episode 1 in the LA Story magazine of 1999
Surely the horse that is saddled up for Episode 2 is unlikely to run out of steam in the near future. Perhaps the words of King Richard III “My kingdom for a horse” may ring true for McKean’s great escape.
”Kip had a huge influence on our movement … That influence is not there anymore, and each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.” – Gregg Marutsky
The reins of Episode 1 were firmly in the hands of Kip McKean. Eventually, the horse bucked and the rider hailed as “God’s man” is without a horse to command. Today that horse is embarrassed of its former master. Herewith lies our question as asked by the panellist of the 2004 Faithful Conversations: “What is the relationship of Kip McKean to ICOC today?”
Thomas ‘Kip’ McKean founder and trendsetter of the Boston movement a.k.a. the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is down but not out after having been rebuffed by concerned ICOC pressure groups for “calling out of the remnant disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches’ in order to start an exciting Episode 2!”
Today the ICOC arena offers varying doctrinal conclusions. McKean a colossus of Episode 1 is no longer the sole arbiter of orthodoxy in the ICOC. This is to his disadvantage. His cracking reforms in the Portland International Church of Christ have estranged relations with the brotherhood. Nevertheless can they do without McKean?
Kip’s ‘unfortunate article, “The Portland Story”’ has persuaded the 2005 International Leadership Conference Committee ‘to take Kip McKean and his class, “Revival: Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?” off of this year’s International Leadership Conference teaching program.” Their reason: ‘The Portland Story that in our observation, while calling disciples to appropriate commitment to Jesus and His missions, also disparages and disrespects churches and leaderships around the kingdom in a way unbefitting the purposes of this conference.’ The International Leadership Conference was held September 8-10th 2005 in the Seattle Church of Christ based with the theme “By Faith”.
The crux of the Conference was decisions made by leadership ‘for the sake of our churches’ Maturity & Missions’.
What transpired before the Seattle Conference was the release of two proposals with similar ideals yet set apart in the manner they were written. Kip McKean issued a strongly worded statement during the Portland church World Missions Jubilee, August 21st 2005. A commentary from one of the reactionary ICOC churches summed it up perfectly. ‘Kip McKean is ‘calling people out’ of existing [ICOC] churches to what he considers a higher standard of commitment to counter the lukewarm faith and fruitlessness he perceived in the [ICOC] churches during the last couple of years [2003-2005].
McKean stressed that members of the ICOC churches must become “sold-out” disciples. Hot on his heals, the LA Unity Proposal released on 25th August 2005, apparently without their prior knowledge about Kip’s Portland Story emphasise that ‘every member in every church is expected to be a true disciple’. The LA leadership does not claim ‘that this proposal is, by itself, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.’ ‘We have assembled a basic list of core convictions and principles upon which most, if not all, of us have lived our Christian lives since the beginning of our walk with God.’ [Some since 1967 and others since June 1st 1979 to the present] The Leadership Group of the LA ICOC are aware that ‘there will be some who may not be ready to join us in this action.’ Kip McKean ‘gladly joined the LA Church because we fully agree with the accompanying “Statement of Unified Brotherhood”. Portland’s elders in training are in accord with Kip. ‘We too commend the L.A. Church and their decision to introduce a vehicle to assist in helping churches to return to the standard of the Bible.’
Nevertheless, Kip’s strongly worded statement has upset many ICOC churches “calling out of the remnant disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches’. They reacted against Portland’s plan for recruitment. ‘In the fall the Portland leadership will begin to seek out church leaderships in congregations that are struggling to ask if we can help them build a foundation of sold-out disciples.’
The elders of the Boston Church of Christ reacted with dismay and shock. They stated they ‘have grave concerns about our brother Kip McKean’s actions. While we love the man and are thankful for good he has done, we cannot be silent in the face of recent events.’ The Seattle Church of Christ could not allow Kip McKean to teach during the Conference due to some conference goers planning to boycott the proceedings if he was a guest speaker.
The moderate ICOC churches strongly opposed Kip McKean’s idea of ‘discipling other congregations’ with the help of ‘Overseeing Evangelists’ through means of Portland’s rescue effort in ‘replanting other places’ where congregations have ‘lukewarmness, no discipling and no evangelism’. Although the South Florida [Miami] Church of Christ oppose most of McKean’s plans they do acknowledge that they ‘must learn about [themselves] in these situations. Some of the criticisms raised in Kip’s article [Portland Story] are valid and apply to the South Florida Church. Lukewarmness in our relationship with God, lack of commitment to our love to each other, and the absence of evangelism are issues we must face in light of the Scriptures at a congregational level.’
Many moderate ICOC churches see the Portland Church as ‘divisive and dangerous’. In a resent sermon Kip stated: ‘there are three main charges against us. Number one is unwholesome talk. Number two is recruitment. And number three is division.’ Nonetheless, Kip reminds his followers that: ‘Our enemies are not these churches that wrote us up. Our enemy is Satan. And the sad thing is, I will guarantee that those letters are going to cause the falling away of people in this church [Portland] and other churches. I will guarantee it. I will guarantee it.’
In the aftermath of the Seattle Conference it is apparent that not every one is in favour of LA’s Unity Proposal or Portland’s Church rescue attempts. Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego ICOC churches objected to both calls. Atlanta, Vancouver, Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego oppose the LA Unity call. LA, Boston, Seattle, Phoenix, Orlando, St. Louis and San Diego oppose Kip’s call. Nevertheless, a repetitive pattern simulating the period of Episode 1’s disciple practices is emerging within the family of former ICOC. Many former ICOC churches start to embrace mentoring relationships as some referred to it as a commitment to our love to each other while others simply calls it discipling.
As stated before, Kip McKean despite being the frontrunner have now accepted that the ‘path may get a lot darker and a lot more lonely in the next few months or couple of years. Our issue is not, “Are we on their side or our side? Or anything. The issue is “Are we on the Lord’s side? What does God want us to do?” Many former ICOC churches are content to cut-off metaphorically speaking the head of the snake (Kip) while keeping the body (McKeanism). This strategy is clearly visible in Scott’s Green Seattle Church response letter to The Portland Story. ‘We would welcome them [Portland Leadership Group] “to be on the team,” with the Northwest family of churches and leadership fellowships. If not, then we wish them well, pray for them, but are both sad yet content to part company for the present time and move in a very different direction for our own church’s missions and maturity.’ Boston elders declared. ‘Kip’s actions are divisive and arrogant and must be stopped.’
Kip McKean was publicly reprimanded while attending the conference in Seattle. The Seattle Letter, according to Kip, ‘was read even the Wednesday night before the whole Conference there to all the people. And in particular it said, “Take special note of Kip”. I felt real encouraged by that.” Furthermore, the 33 worldwide conference-planning members barred Kip from attending any decisive decision making group like the Co-operation Proposal Group whose sole aim ‘is to review all proposals, prayerfully synthesize the best ideas from them, and by February 1, 2006 to submit a recommended proposal for brotherhood consideration to our family of churches. Kip admits he ‘also was not allowed to take part in the leadership shaping of the Movement. I was left out of that meeting.’ Over the period in Episode 1 members of the ICOC were informed to ‘take special note of Kip’. For example: “We thank God for raising up Kip and Elena McKean to lead us. Their vision, their commitment to God and their continual challenge to take Jesus to all the nations has spurred us on. God works through men and movements. But in the end it is all God. He takes us From Here To Eternity.”
Kip’s ‘leadership sins’ have become a stumbling block for many ICOC leaders.
McKean has saddled up another horse willing enough to obey his every command to ‘go anywhere, do anything and give up everything’. In 2004, celebrating his 50th birthday in Portland Kip stated: ‘I am just as vigorous to battle the spiritual forces of evil to evangelise the world as in the early days of Boston!’ The McKean’s resoluteness to ride out into “new frontiers” has contributed to the rise of the Portland movement. The futile attempts to reason with Kip by leadership from former moderate ICOC churches simulate a period in time when mature evangelists from the Church of Christ tried to reason with their young evangelists not to use vices like unwholesome talk, recruitment and division in order to bring about ‘a church within a church’ scenario.
Kip McKean has spurred his horse on at the August 2006 World Missions Jubilee held at the Portland ICOC. He is not interested to build the ICOC Church but Jesus Church! “I started the sermon by preaching that we are not building the Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, Mormon Church, a community church or even the ICOC Church. We have been called by God to build Jesus’ Church.” (Source: Report: Follow the Fire)
It is my opinion that Kip is done with the ICOC sentimentality. He is bend on conquest despite the criticism. McKean’s own experience will tell him not to waste any time in unifying the ICOC as he tried in the 80’s with the Church of Christ.
History is repeating itself. The reins are firmly in his hands.
“We are so grateful the McKeans still are pressing on and we want to press on with them to win the prize. We are not ashamed of Jesus and we are not afraid to associate with a couple that is preaching the Word and putting their lives on the line to see the world evangelised for Christ!”
This praise comes from Anita and Buzz Banadyga, Lead Evangelist of the Savannah Church of Christ. How striking is their words when compared to a bygone era known as Episode 1.
“Out of this darkness, [referring to: the 1970’s worldwide unrest among the youth.] God called a young man to start another movement for this generation.
GOD’S MODERN-DAY MOVEMENT
(The Boston Movement)
Twenty years ago, on June 1, 1979, Kip McKean led a devotional in Bob and Pat Gempel’s living room for 30 would-be disciples of the Lexington Church of Christ. Here is where the Spirit of God initiated what men would call “the Boston Movement”.
THE RIGHT MAN: God raised up Kip McKean and gave him a radical message that would start a revolution in the lives of people all over the world in our era. …
God’s awesome plan is staggering in its wisdom. As the World Sector Leaders have imitated Kip and Elena’s faith and remained unified in the message, God used them to build the largest churches of any kind in many areas of the world. They are planting churches in remote countries while they are building pillar churches to be great models for their World Sectors.
No other Christian movement since the first century has spread this far, this fast. None has grown this quickly during the lifetime of its founder. … God has raised up a couple to lead his people to reach the world again in one generation.” - by Roger Lamb “God’s Man, Message and Movement” commemorating Episode 1 in the LA Story magazine of 1999
Surely the horse that is saddled up for Episode 2 is unlikely to run out of steam in the near future. Perhaps the words of King Richard III “My kingdom for a horse” may ring true for McKean’s great escape.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Next series - The rise of the Portland movement
My review and comments on the rise of the Portland movement will be published before the end of September.
Part 1 will be posted on TUESDAY, 26 SEPT 2006. Thereafter expect weekly submissions.
Part 1 will be posted on TUESDAY, 26 SEPT 2006. Thereafter expect weekly submissions.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets (3)
The architects of the Portland movement and United Cooperation Group have fallen into old patterns in order to increase and sustain their respective memberships. Why the need to embrace the Biblical pattern of discipleship relations all over again?
McKean has justified the imperative disciple approach as an essential part for salvation. Anything obscuring his viewpoint is devastating false teaching. Kip warned disloyal members not to think themselves “better” than past leaders! How about that standard!
“I believe the lukewarmness that is plaguing many American congregations comes from some leaders, who are ‘super apostles’ (thinking themselves ‘better’ than past leaders) who have begun to preach a more palatable, ‘PC’ (politically correct) Jesus! They preach a different Jesus who says, “You don’t have to come to all church services to be a faithful disciple!” “If evangelism is too much pressure, do it only if you ‘feel’ good about it.” “Only the apostles were discipled. That was a ‘professional preacher training relationship’, no one-one one! Especially no one-over-one!” Sadly many thought these destructive teachings are being ‘led astray from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” [Source: I Am Not Ashamed – 4th July 2004]
Paul the Apostle hangs up a signboard in the book of Philippians. It reads: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” (Philippians 3:2 KJV) In modern English it reads: “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2 NIV)
The signboard warns about “a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all.” The gospel of the Circumcision group is recorded in Acts 15:1. “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV)
The Apostle for the Gentiles spends all his days refuting it. In short, circumcision is not faith and faith is not based upon this circumcision! In other words: a belief system is not faith and faith is not based upon a belief system!
But can you teach old dogs new tricks? Often, it is not that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks; you can’t teach some dogs any tricks at all.
Is Jesus’ discipleship method a theological fantasy?
A careful study on Roy Davison’s Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship (click sidebar on Roy Davison) is either instrumental as “dangerous rhetoric” of a false prophet or heaven send wisdom!
Who is barking into the wind?
In my opinion: “There is a need for urgent fresh thinking!”
McKean has justified the imperative disciple approach as an essential part for salvation. Anything obscuring his viewpoint is devastating false teaching. Kip warned disloyal members not to think themselves “better” than past leaders! How about that standard!
“I believe the lukewarmness that is plaguing many American congregations comes from some leaders, who are ‘super apostles’ (thinking themselves ‘better’ than past leaders) who have begun to preach a more palatable, ‘PC’ (politically correct) Jesus! They preach a different Jesus who says, “You don’t have to come to all church services to be a faithful disciple!” “If evangelism is too much pressure, do it only if you ‘feel’ good about it.” “Only the apostles were discipled. That was a ‘professional preacher training relationship’, no one-one one! Especially no one-over-one!” Sadly many thought these destructive teachings are being ‘led astray from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” [Source: I Am Not Ashamed – 4th July 2004]
Paul the Apostle hangs up a signboard in the book of Philippians. It reads: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” (Philippians 3:2 KJV) In modern English it reads: “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2 NIV)
The signboard warns about “a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all.” The gospel of the Circumcision group is recorded in Acts 15:1. “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV)
The Apostle for the Gentiles spends all his days refuting it. In short, circumcision is not faith and faith is not based upon this circumcision! In other words: a belief system is not faith and faith is not based upon a belief system!
But can you teach old dogs new tricks? Often, it is not that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks; you can’t teach some dogs any tricks at all.
Is Jesus’ discipleship method a theological fantasy?
A careful study on Roy Davison’s Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship (click sidebar on Roy Davison) is either instrumental as “dangerous rhetoric” of a false prophet or heaven send wisdom!
Who is barking into the wind?
In my opinion: “There is a need for urgent fresh thinking!”
Friday, September 15, 2006
Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets (2)
Irrespective of the political divide, both the house of Renovation (The Portland movement) and the house of Innovation (The United Cooperation Group) have reinstated Christ’s plan of mentoring better known as “discipling”. According to Roy Davison this plan is based “on the thesis that Christ’s master/disciple relationship with the twelve apostles is a pattern to be followed in making, training and leading disciples today.” (Click the side bar on Roy Davison)
According to the Church of Christ and Davison “these are entirely different matters.”
Despite his many shortcomings, Kip McKean, and a small band of followers were the first to drag a part of the ICOC back to the Boston disciple approach hence the rise of the Portland movement. Today many of his disgruntled former colleagues have done the same, hence the rise of the United Cooperation Group.
As a consequence the doctrinal foundation in “making disciples” of the Boston movement era remains intact in both factions. Embracing discipleship has become a core truth - “truths we want to defend”.
Here, both groups within the ICOC have failed to come up with a healthier alternative or better mousetrap for it‘s seemingly essential discipleship methodology in order to increase and sustain membership.
By September 2003, the Portland International Church of Christ adopted the former ICOC discipleship teaching plan based on a voluntary teacher-student relationship (one-over-one or adult-to-adult discipleship). According to McKean’s understanding, mandatory discipleship relationships in the fellowship “was and still is the only plan of God to evangelise the world.” McKean has responded strongly to many churches in the ICOC fellowship that have either abandoned or compromised discipleship relationships – “the now lost plan of multiplying disciples.” According to Kip, any suggestion by his colleagues in stating that the Bible does not teach one-over-one discipleship is “devastating false teaching”.
ICOC Christians with their “valuable insight and wisdom” across six continents helped the nine coordinators of the Unity Proposal Group to submit a plan of ratification on March 11th 2006. As a result a good chunk of the ICOC failed to discard the Boston disciple approach. Instead they “reaffirm those truths and emphasis that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now.” In other words, like Steve Johnson who joined Kip McKean in Portland, Oregon, they also wanted to do exactly what they were taught in Boston in 1979 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples.
Thus the legacy of the Shepherd movement remains intact. Authors and para-church groups who were never affiliated with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) first introduced this type of method in “making disciples.” In particular, The Master Plan of Evangelism (1963, 2003) by Robert Coleman or similar material like Juan Carloz Ortiz book titled Discipling (1975, 1995) forms the backdrop for the ICOC mousetrap.
If we consider these above-mentioned facts, how can anyone consider Greg Marutzky assurance to the Church of Christ’ April 2004 panellists that Kip McKean’s “influence is not there anymore”? And “each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.”
In order to “move forward” the Second Epistle of John implores the saints to be like children “walking in truth” (KJV) rather than being hasty people “who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ” (NIV).
The United Cooperation’s efforts were never aimed to change the disciple approach so called “one-another passages” or “one another Christianity” but rather focussed on rebuilding and restructuring the overall leadership organization for the entire ICOC. From this point of view, Kip McKean’s character sins that led to his resignation as the Lead Evangelist of the Los Angeles ICOC in 2001 and World Missions Evangelist for the ICOC in 2002 frustrates their plans to reach “complete unity” among the brotherhood. Over 80 prolific ICOC leaders accused McKean for starting a “new movement” or “building a kingdom for himself”. Some stated McKean’s sins compare to Diotrephes “who loves to be first”.
Perhaps McKean paid the ultimate price being a pacesetter.
He could never compromise nor abandon discipling. “Methods” states Kip in RTR 3, 2003, “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 as well as to other denominations in which people are not involved in each other’s lives.”
What exactly did Mike Taliaferro mean by stating at the 2004 Faithful Conversations Forum: “We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
Clearly, the changes we see from a discipleship point of view by the frontrunners of the ICOC are not “deep and long lasting”. Their best efforts parallel well with dangerous rhetoric of false prophets.
According to the Church of Christ and Davison “these are entirely different matters.”
Despite his many shortcomings, Kip McKean, and a small band of followers were the first to drag a part of the ICOC back to the Boston disciple approach hence the rise of the Portland movement. Today many of his disgruntled former colleagues have done the same, hence the rise of the United Cooperation Group.
As a consequence the doctrinal foundation in “making disciples” of the Boston movement era remains intact in both factions. Embracing discipleship has become a core truth - “truths we want to defend”.
Here, both groups within the ICOC have failed to come up with a healthier alternative or better mousetrap for it‘s seemingly essential discipleship methodology in order to increase and sustain membership.
By September 2003, the Portland International Church of Christ adopted the former ICOC discipleship teaching plan based on a voluntary teacher-student relationship (one-over-one or adult-to-adult discipleship). According to McKean’s understanding, mandatory discipleship relationships in the fellowship “was and still is the only plan of God to evangelise the world.” McKean has responded strongly to many churches in the ICOC fellowship that have either abandoned or compromised discipleship relationships – “the now lost plan of multiplying disciples.” According to Kip, any suggestion by his colleagues in stating that the Bible does not teach one-over-one discipleship is “devastating false teaching”.
ICOC Christians with their “valuable insight and wisdom” across six continents helped the nine coordinators of the Unity Proposal Group to submit a plan of ratification on March 11th 2006. As a result a good chunk of the ICOC failed to discard the Boston disciple approach. Instead they “reaffirm those truths and emphasis that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now.” In other words, like Steve Johnson who joined Kip McKean in Portland, Oregon, they also wanted to do exactly what they were taught in Boston in 1979 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples.
Thus the legacy of the Shepherd movement remains intact. Authors and para-church groups who were never affiliated with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) first introduced this type of method in “making disciples.” In particular, The Master Plan of Evangelism (1963, 2003) by Robert Coleman or similar material like Juan Carloz Ortiz book titled Discipling (1975, 1995) forms the backdrop for the ICOC mousetrap.
If we consider these above-mentioned facts, how can anyone consider Greg Marutzky assurance to the Church of Christ’ April 2004 panellists that Kip McKean’s “influence is not there anymore”? And “each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.”
In order to “move forward” the Second Epistle of John implores the saints to be like children “walking in truth” (KJV) rather than being hasty people “who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ” (NIV).
The United Cooperation’s efforts were never aimed to change the disciple approach so called “one-another passages” or “one another Christianity” but rather focussed on rebuilding and restructuring the overall leadership organization for the entire ICOC. From this point of view, Kip McKean’s character sins that led to his resignation as the Lead Evangelist of the Los Angeles ICOC in 2001 and World Missions Evangelist for the ICOC in 2002 frustrates their plans to reach “complete unity” among the brotherhood. Over 80 prolific ICOC leaders accused McKean for starting a “new movement” or “building a kingdom for himself”. Some stated McKean’s sins compare to Diotrephes “who loves to be first”.
Perhaps McKean paid the ultimate price being a pacesetter.
He could never compromise nor abandon discipling. “Methods” states Kip in RTR 3, 2003, “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 as well as to other denominations in which people are not involved in each other’s lives.”
What exactly did Mike Taliaferro mean by stating at the 2004 Faithful Conversations Forum: “We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
Clearly, the changes we see from a discipleship point of view by the frontrunners of the ICOC are not “deep and long lasting”. Their best efforts parallel well with dangerous rhetoric of false prophets.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets (1)
The most challenging aspect for reconstructing the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is to find a healthier alternative or “mousetrap” for it seemingly essential discipleship methodology in order to increase and sustain membership. The Los Angeles apology letter of February 25th, 2003 attests: “We participated in an authoritarian discipling structure where advice was too often perceived as command. Some felt controlled and manipulated…” Therefore they pleaded: “We need your help and support to make these changes deep and long lasting.” They were in for the long run. “We are absolutely committed for change.”
That was yesterday. As for today, it is certain that the major role players within the ICOC lay claim to the disciple approach. Steve Johnson proceeded earlier this year to side himself with Kip McKean! The Unity Proposal Group has also embraced discipleship without McKean!
Have we reached a scenario where old dogs can’t learn new tricks while fighting over the same bone of discipleship?
Steve Johnson stated last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”
Equally this year the Unity Proposal Group “are striving both to articulate the theological framework of ‘the faith that was once entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3) and to reaffirm those truths and emphases that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now.”
It is important to notice that the disciple approach was only disrupted for a short period and never formally rejected. The Los Angeles apology letter stated in 2003: “Although we definitely believe in Biblical discipling relationships and the need to be involved in each others’ lives, as taught in the many ‘one another’ verses, many relationships need to be redefined so that they are filled with mutual trust, honesty, humility and approachability.”
A year after Kriete’s letter, Kip McKean was outraged early in 2004 (March) when “many churches in the ICOC fellowship have either abandoned discipling relationships or compromised them by teaching there is no such thing as teacher-student (one-over-one discipling) relationships in the Scriptures. This is devastating false teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-4) No wonder so many disciples are confused, lonely, lukewarm and lacking zeal for souls. One person teaching another is the essence of the method and ministry of Jesus.” Kip maintained, “Making disciples is a command of God for every true Christian. Jesus built God’s movement on the now lost plan of multiplying disciples. It was and still is the only plan of God to evangelise the world. And to God be the glory!”
In April 2004, Greg Marutzky assured Church of Christ panellists that Kip McKean’s “influence is not there anymore, and each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.”
Kip McKean was isolated. He had very few sympathisers in his camp. Today this remains the case.
Mike Taliaferro assured the same panellists of the 2004 Faithful Conversations Forum in addressing a question: ‘Talk about the changes you see going on in the ICOC. “We have done away with top-down hierarchy that we had in the past, and we recognize the mature independence of every congregation in our fellowship of churches … We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
It seemed at the time that the disciple approach only existed in the annals of recent ICOC history and the present reformed Portland Church. Here, Kip’s regular updates on events in the Portland Church during the period of 2004 sketched a bleak picture of apathy and neutrality that now define most churches in the ICOC fellowship. He writes: “In many parts of the United States and the world, disciples report that their congregations have little fire in the service, with little zeal in their singing, little discipling, little warmth, and very few baptisms.” ICOC Congregations that showcase this level of Christianity are often described by Kip in his bulletins as ‘committed but confuse disciples’; ‘misguided Christians’; ‘well intentioned disciples’ as in contrast with his pumped up congregation consisting of ‘sold-out disciples'. The Portland International Church of Christ is perceived to be according to Kip ‘a powerful beacon of light’. Bob Bertalot, an elder in training during that time in Portland become very supportive of Kip while he criticise neutral ICOC discipling churches. ‘Neutrality is running rampant in many churches, not because it’s righteous, but because it’s safe. … I so appreciate Kip’s bold sermons on Sundays and the bulletin articles. There is no neutrality, only compassionate convictions from the Word of God. As a church, let’s repent of any apathy, neutrality, or a playing it safe in relationships. [Bob Bertalot (Elder-in-Training) Portland International Church of Christ, The Violence of Silence, 08-08-2004.]
Kip has fully restored old discipleship structures with slightly improved adjustments while the world watched. ‘In Portland we teach from the Bible that everyone is expected to be in discipling relationships (We call these Discipleship Partners.) However, each member chooses how many, who it is, and the two of them define whether the relationship will be more teacher/student or adult/adult. Also every week, the leadership expects each member to be in an evangelistic, discipling group – Bible Talk.’ Will other neutral ICOC churches follow?
The McKean’s since July 2003 could share their skills first hand in the fellowship of the Portland Church. They progressed much quicker in resolving conflict and building a new ministry based on these “old school” principles. Their renewed efforts were focussed on eliminating bad habits of the Boston days. The “practice of over/under discipling” and “performance orientation” is some of the red herrings they tried to avoid. At this stage many neutral ICOC churches were still recovering from repercussions followed from the aftermath of the LA Unity Conference in 2002 (decentralization) and the release in 2003 of Kriete’s letter (exposure of systematic evils).
The “proven church builders” knew the magical ingredient for multiplying churches with disciples is none other than following a programme of discipleship as “trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth” or “from the campus ministry days until now.” The problem was to calm the panic stricken churches. Then renegotiate the plan.
Churches in the U.S. were slowly beginning to assess in which direction they should venture regarding church missions and maturity. Mike Taliaferro, evangelist of the San Antonio ICOC reinstated the importance to “embrace all over again the Biblical pattern of discipleship relationships.” I quote from an article titled ‘Our Discipleship Crisis’ released in September 2005. “Here in the San Antonio church we have made certain that every disciple has a disciple partner with whom they can meet on a regular basis. It was late last year [2004] when we decided to once again become involve in close personal relationships in the congregation.” Mike is of opinion that people have “over-reacted” the principle of a “closer friendship with a few” as seen with Jesus and the apostles’ friendships. Antonio church fellowship consists of “close, dedicated, specific relationships.” The aim of these relationships is to mentor people to “confess their sins, receive encouragement, or give an admonishment”. Apparently these relationships in the church prevent people from “turning into a sort of impersonal spiritual experience.” The discipleship mentoring method is base upon “one another passages” in the New Testament. The Antonio church like the Portland church for the moment steers well clear from “one disciple over another.”
“The purpose for having discipleship partners”, write Taliaferro, “is to help us have close relationships in the body. The idea is not to have one disciple over another. We do not believe in bossing around or giving orders to one another. Rather, the purpose is to provide a framework so that everyone can both help another disciple and receive it as well. The point is for us to see our own need for fellowship, to seek out the help we need, and to also ask, ‘Hey, how can I encourage, build up, teach, or pray for my discipleship partner?’ Instead of just wandering the fellowship and speaking randomly to whoever we might encounter, we are also devoting ourselves as Jesus did to specific relationships. It is really that simple.”
The plan to sell and accept the disciple approach again to a weary ICOC crowd is the masterstroke for this year. Perhaps, McKean’s concern will lessen as many will return to his legacy of McKeanism. For this reason it will be silly to maintain hostilities with McKean since Kip is trying to reconcile with his comrades on the other side.
That was yesterday. As for today, it is certain that the major role players within the ICOC lay claim to the disciple approach. Steve Johnson proceeded earlier this year to side himself with Kip McKean! The Unity Proposal Group has also embraced discipleship without McKean!
Have we reached a scenario where old dogs can’t learn new tricks while fighting over the same bone of discipleship?
Steve Johnson stated last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”
Equally this year the Unity Proposal Group “are striving both to articulate the theological framework of ‘the faith that was once entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3) and to reaffirm those truths and emphases that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now.”
It is important to notice that the disciple approach was only disrupted for a short period and never formally rejected. The Los Angeles apology letter stated in 2003: “Although we definitely believe in Biblical discipling relationships and the need to be involved in each others’ lives, as taught in the many ‘one another’ verses, many relationships need to be redefined so that they are filled with mutual trust, honesty, humility and approachability.”
A year after Kriete’s letter, Kip McKean was outraged early in 2004 (March) when “many churches in the ICOC fellowship have either abandoned discipling relationships or compromised them by teaching there is no such thing as teacher-student (one-over-one discipling) relationships in the Scriptures. This is devastating false teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-4) No wonder so many disciples are confused, lonely, lukewarm and lacking zeal for souls. One person teaching another is the essence of the method and ministry of Jesus.” Kip maintained, “Making disciples is a command of God for every true Christian. Jesus built God’s movement on the now lost plan of multiplying disciples. It was and still is the only plan of God to evangelise the world. And to God be the glory!”
In April 2004, Greg Marutzky assured Church of Christ panellists that Kip McKean’s “influence is not there anymore, and each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.”
Kip McKean was isolated. He had very few sympathisers in his camp. Today this remains the case.
Mike Taliaferro assured the same panellists of the 2004 Faithful Conversations Forum in addressing a question: ‘Talk about the changes you see going on in the ICOC. “We have done away with top-down hierarchy that we had in the past, and we recognize the mature independence of every congregation in our fellowship of churches … We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
It seemed at the time that the disciple approach only existed in the annals of recent ICOC history and the present reformed Portland Church. Here, Kip’s regular updates on events in the Portland Church during the period of 2004 sketched a bleak picture of apathy and neutrality that now define most churches in the ICOC fellowship. He writes: “In many parts of the United States and the world, disciples report that their congregations have little fire in the service, with little zeal in their singing, little discipling, little warmth, and very few baptisms.” ICOC Congregations that showcase this level of Christianity are often described by Kip in his bulletins as ‘committed but confuse disciples’; ‘misguided Christians’; ‘well intentioned disciples’ as in contrast with his pumped up congregation consisting of ‘sold-out disciples'. The Portland International Church of Christ is perceived to be according to Kip ‘a powerful beacon of light’. Bob Bertalot, an elder in training during that time in Portland become very supportive of Kip while he criticise neutral ICOC discipling churches. ‘Neutrality is running rampant in many churches, not because it’s righteous, but because it’s safe. … I so appreciate Kip’s bold sermons on Sundays and the bulletin articles. There is no neutrality, only compassionate convictions from the Word of God. As a church, let’s repent of any apathy, neutrality, or a playing it safe in relationships. [Bob Bertalot (Elder-in-Training) Portland International Church of Christ, The Violence of Silence, 08-08-2004.]
Kip has fully restored old discipleship structures with slightly improved adjustments while the world watched. ‘In Portland we teach from the Bible that everyone is expected to be in discipling relationships (We call these Discipleship Partners.) However, each member chooses how many, who it is, and the two of them define whether the relationship will be more teacher/student or adult/adult. Also every week, the leadership expects each member to be in an evangelistic, discipling group – Bible Talk.’ Will other neutral ICOC churches follow?
The McKean’s since July 2003 could share their skills first hand in the fellowship of the Portland Church. They progressed much quicker in resolving conflict and building a new ministry based on these “old school” principles. Their renewed efforts were focussed on eliminating bad habits of the Boston days. The “practice of over/under discipling” and “performance orientation” is some of the red herrings they tried to avoid. At this stage many neutral ICOC churches were still recovering from repercussions followed from the aftermath of the LA Unity Conference in 2002 (decentralization) and the release in 2003 of Kriete’s letter (exposure of systematic evils).
The “proven church builders” knew the magical ingredient for multiplying churches with disciples is none other than following a programme of discipleship as “trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth” or “from the campus ministry days until now.” The problem was to calm the panic stricken churches. Then renegotiate the plan.
Churches in the U.S. were slowly beginning to assess in which direction they should venture regarding church missions and maturity. Mike Taliaferro, evangelist of the San Antonio ICOC reinstated the importance to “embrace all over again the Biblical pattern of discipleship relationships.” I quote from an article titled ‘Our Discipleship Crisis’ released in September 2005. “Here in the San Antonio church we have made certain that every disciple has a disciple partner with whom they can meet on a regular basis. It was late last year [2004] when we decided to once again become involve in close personal relationships in the congregation.” Mike is of opinion that people have “over-reacted” the principle of a “closer friendship with a few” as seen with Jesus and the apostles’ friendships. Antonio church fellowship consists of “close, dedicated, specific relationships.” The aim of these relationships is to mentor people to “confess their sins, receive encouragement, or give an admonishment”. Apparently these relationships in the church prevent people from “turning into a sort of impersonal spiritual experience.” The discipleship mentoring method is base upon “one another passages” in the New Testament. The Antonio church like the Portland church for the moment steers well clear from “one disciple over another.”
“The purpose for having discipleship partners”, write Taliaferro, “is to help us have close relationships in the body. The idea is not to have one disciple over another. We do not believe in bossing around or giving orders to one another. Rather, the purpose is to provide a framework so that everyone can both help another disciple and receive it as well. The point is for us to see our own need for fellowship, to seek out the help we need, and to also ask, ‘Hey, how can I encourage, build up, teach, or pray for my discipleship partner?’ Instead of just wandering the fellowship and speaking randomly to whoever we might encounter, we are also devoting ourselves as Jesus did to specific relationships. It is really that simple.”
The plan to sell and accept the disciple approach again to a weary ICOC crowd is the masterstroke for this year. Perhaps, McKean’s concern will lessen as many will return to his legacy of McKeanism. For this reason it will be silly to maintain hostilities with McKean since Kip is trying to reconcile with his comrades on the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)