commentary is free

Does the Bible Really Say… Part 1

2012-02-11T23:07:00.001+02:00

Neil Trollip has been leading the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ in South Africa since 2008, after Rod Fick, the group’s former evangelist, took his own life in November 2007. The internal church politics of 2007 undoubtedly led to Fick’s illness and subsequent suicide, which later prompted members of four families of this church to relocate to Perth, Australia. Nowadays this church group supports the ‘anti-McKean faction’ better known as the ICOC Co-operational Churches (ICOC).

The Port Elizabeth Church of Christ during the month of February will reflect on “some of the teachings and the doctrine” of the Word of Faith movement in order to find out if it is biblically sound. For some background about the Word of Faith movement go here.

Trollip has developed a three-part critique. He admitted in his first opening address that the topic makes him feel “slightly nervous.” The three part series is called “Does the Bible Really Say…” He even admitted detecting elements of the Word of Faith belief system in “our movement of churches” referring to the ICOC.

Neil Trollip spent more than a year studying material about the Faith movement’s beliefs that according to his own words are “subtle, seeping and cause compromise.” The goal of his series is to inform the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ about the Word of Faith movement and the belief system that underpins it. He hopes to equip his church group through the series he developed as to what the bible actually says. Trollip hopes the series will challenge his group to look critically for signs of subtle or perhaps not so subtle Word of Faith beliefs and attitudes amongst members of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ.

Perhaps the upside of Trollip’s first message, which he professes to bring “in a way that is full of truth and grace” signalled to members to think for themselves. More so to “test” their “own belief system about God.”

You know, please let not these lessons only improve your head knowledge. Please let these lessons encourage you personally. To test your own belief system about God. And your expectations… your expectations that you have as a Christian. Your expectations of life as a Christian against the truth of the Scriptures.
Neil Trollip, Does the Bible Really Say… Part I, February 5, 2012

Trollip dropped a bombshell at the end of Part I. He exposed heresies of the Word of Faith movement that allegedly have infiltrated all kinds of popular Christian media. A local Christian radio station – Radio King Fisher is named and shamed. According to Trollip this radio station is infiltrated by Word of Faith doctrine. Popular Christian Book Shops like CUM Books “best selling authors teach Word of Faith doctrine.” People receiving devotional downloads on their cell phones are at risk because Faith movement agents mostly sponsor the content. People should be careful when watching the Faith movement’s popular Christian T.V network – Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN).

The definitive downside came in the closing statements of Trollip’s sermon in Part I. Here, Trollip relies on a typical interrogation tactic often used knowingly or not by ICOC preachers. He asks many rapid questions, one after another. The idea is to follow through with a burst of several questions at once, before the audience has the chance to begin to answer even the first. People holding a position of authority very commonly do it. Even mothers make use of such ‘interrogation tactics.’

‘Do you realize what time it is? Where have you been? Who was with you? Why didn’t you call me? Where are your shoes?

This effect produces increases in stress through cognitive loading (the mental act or process through which knowledge is acquired, including perception, intuition and reasoning) and emotional pressure. Persons on the receiving end have no time to complete the answer before another question and another affects their need for completion, thus increasing their stress levels.

A small child might be overwhelmed after such ‘interrogation’ and will simply cry. Often a mother will react quickly by deflating the levels of anxiety reassuring the child of her love. In the worst scenario she might say: “Go to your room!”

In the same way, a preacher using such drastic tactics deflates the level of anxiety created by the rapid-fire questions by telling his audience what he thinks about the questions, thus sharing his own convictions on the matter. Hence, excluding anyone to investigate the matters further. The pulpit is often viewed as a sort of position of authority in churches. Members of the ICOC have a high regard for ICOC leadership. (He 13:17) The heightened tensions of fear and guilt experienced by the audience like the example of the mother-and-child last only for a moment, but in the long run this is effective in instilling an inner doctrine particularly suited for the particular needs within the church group.

The call for discernment by Trollip has become an inner doctrine (something shared only to the group) – “to listen and read critically.” The question beckons if this call applies only to the Word of Faith or also to the ICOC teachings and doctrines?

So, let me ask you church. You know, do you read... or let me ask you... what ... what other books do you read, what sort of commentaries do you read? What sort of devotions you rely on every morning? Do you watch TBN? Do you listen to King Fisher Radio? And if you do??? You know, do you read, watch or listen critically? Sifting out the good from the bad? Because there is always something good in it. But I think we are called. The call is 'discernment.' You know, to listen and to read critically. To hold up what is said against the truth of the Word. We got to get into the word of God. That's the only way. To rely on commentaries and TD Jakes, the best selling author and the like to teach us about God will result in a false view of God. We must be in our bibles. You know, do you have the heart of the Bereans that Paul commended in Acts 17?
Neil Trollip, Does the Bible Really Say… Part I, February 5, 2012

What "kind" are the Churches of Christ?

2011-04-04T14:52:00.000+02:00

Booklets of the Churches of Christ ('C' or 'c') frequently state the original church was “merely the church” or the “church of the Bible” or the “Lord’s church.” Some Churches of Christ go on the offensive when pressing for an answer: “WHAT KIND?” Here, a number of Churches of Christ make a BIG DEAL over a non-issue. They state the first church established in Jerusalem was never a “kind” or any “brand.” “There was just the church!”

Why do some of the Churches of Christ react like this?

Denominational churches are the norm today. However, the Churches of Christ affirm original Christianity was undenominational and not supported by the Bible. These UNCONTESTED FACTS gave rise to the American Restoration Movement in the 1800s that eventually gave shape to the Churches of Christ who wants to bypass all forms of denominationalism.

Unfortunately definitions and terms used by a number of Churches of Christ in their quest for undenominational Christianity are often TWISTED to support anti-denominationalism sentiment. Of particular interest to this article are the noun(s) – “kind” and “brand.” The Churches of Christ argue the original New Testament Christians and churches were of no particular kind.

“You can be just a Christian – exactly like the original Christians – not any “kind” – just a Christian. You can be in the church – the original church – not any “kind” of church – just the church.”
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p2, 1991

In the New Testament, the church was merely the church. It is absurd to ask what kind of church it was, because there were no kinds. There was just the church! If we were to see the first automobile, we wouldn't ask what kind is it; for there were no "brands" of automobile. There was just an automobile.
Evangelism Handbook, The Church, Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN

Jim Massey’s argument does not hold ground. Even here, Massey hints to a particular “kind” of Christian – “the original Christians” and a particular “kind” of church – “the original church”! Concord Road Church of Christ does not fare any better regarding the matter of the first automobile, saying: “we wouldn’t ask what kind”. The actual history of the early cars as we shall investigate is not as simple as the Churches of Christ make it out to be. But most importantly…

We believe it is right to ask questions – no matter how stupid! The only stupid question is trusting not to ask! Any group having certain characteristics in common whether religious, political or social according to the DICTIONARY forms a “kind” while the definition of a “brand” according to the DICTIONARY means a kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic. There is no exception. Not even for a church group like the Churches of Christ who like to persuade people OTHERWISE. The Churches of Christ are not any “kind” or “brand” of church – just the “original church.”

If I should come to your door with a new car, you would likely ask, “What kind?” Suppose I said, “No kind, just a car!” You would not believe me, since there are no cars today which are not “kinds” of cars.
Our thinking is the same way about churches. If I say that I am a Christian you immediately ask, “What kind?” You cannot imagine a Christian who is not some “kind” of Christian. You cannot conceive of “the church” except as some “kind” of church.
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p1, 1991

The quote above is a man-made argument, whose aim is to RENEW THE LOGIC about our thinking concerning “kinds” of cars, churches and Christians. Here it is obvious that the Churches of Christ HAVE THEIR LOGIC: Suppose I said, “No kind, just a car! The defence of the argument is to bypass “kinds” of cars, churches and Christians and trusting people will accept the original is achievable. When a salesman knocks on your door and tells you something wonderful that sounds too good to be true – then it is! Always trust your initial gut instinct, as the quote above indicates: “You would not believe me.” The ultimate proposition by Churches of Christ is to avoid being labelled as a “kind” or to be identified as such.

Therefore the next step is to override the meaning what defines the noun “kind” or “brand.” Here, the renewed logic of the Churches of Christ has REDEFINED the meaning of the nouns – “kind” and “brand” to JUST MEAN a type of denominational, interdenominational or even nondenominational Christian church.

This peculiar plea merits an investigation.

First and foremost it is important to distinguish that dictionaries define words like “kind” and “brand” and not pamphlets distributed by church groups. Words are what they are by definition according to the laws of language and not by redefinitions of any church group in order to support doctrinal viewpoints. Proper concern for the laws of grammar makes proper communication possible. No church group is in any position to abuse well-defined terminologies to showcase their agendas.

The Churches of Christ apply the precise definition of terminology to many doctrinal viewpoints. For example the noun – “baptism,” which means: immersion in water. But argue that other well defined definitions like “kind” and “brand” in the context of the dictionary should never be applied to the Churches of Christ or the “original church” in the Bible. To ensure this won’t happen the Churches of Christ rely on the subtle art of redefinition.

The subtlety lies in the truthful representation of the redefined idea. Any Christian denomination forms a “kind” or “brand,” but so does ANY GROUP having certain characteristics in common. Incredulously some Churches of Christ ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to be categorized as a “kind” or “brand”! Here we are not referring to denominational terms, but actually to the noun word of kind and brand.

Nevertheless, the nouns – “kind” or “brand” should easily comply with a type of religious group like the Churches of Christ despite their objections. We know the Churches of Christ consists of many church groups. Each "kind" of Churches of Christ has certain characteristics in common that differs from another "kind."

The Churches of Christ had to redefine these terms for members and outsiders in order to complement their man-made argument: NO KIND, JUST A CHURCH OR CHRISTIAN. The analogy of “the” original and only car is key to support their position, but it’s a fallacy.

But the original car, the very first one, was not any “kind” of car. It was just a car – “the” car. People then did not think of “kinds” of cars – there were no kinds. There was just “the” original and only car.
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p1, 1991

No one can pinpoint so-and-so for being responsible for inventing the first original and only car. Furthermore, we are forced to ask: “What kind!” Early cars developed along the line of three different “kinds” of engines – steam, electrical and gasoline-engine cars!

In the motoring world, some say that Karl Benz takes the honors for making the first prototype of the modern car (1885). The first Benz had only three wheels! On January 29, 1886, the Benz motor tricycle received the first patent (DRP No. 37435) for a gas-fueled car. By 1897 Benz produced 500 automobiles - daily! Even so, Benz was not the first to invent "the" automobile. On March 8, 1886, Gottlieb Daimler designed the world’s first four-wheeled car in 1886. Benz built his first four-wheeled car in 1891. Daimler and Benz invented and built cars that represent the cars we use today. But it is wrong to conclude either man invented “the” original and only car. It’s all a matter of opinions. The argument of the Churches of Christ sounds plausible, but ignores what led to the development of the steam, electrical and gasoline-engine cars! We have no choice in this matter to ask in the motoring world: “What kind of car?”

Thankfully, the New Testament gives us an accurate picture and detailed description of the development of the early primitive church – starting from the original and only church in Jerusalem! Here, we can determine exactly after 2000 years “what kind of church it was.” It was a group of believers – supposedly “a undivided church” that initially excluded all Gentiles and in the end persevered with their unique Jewish customs (Acts 21:20-25)!

The reformulated terms – “kind” and “brand” as used by many doctrinal booklets of the Churches of Christ could only refer to a Christian denomination.

We have all grown up in a world full of churches. We didn’t start them, we didn’t cause them, we didn’t want them. We simply inherited them. Exactly as we think of cars, we think there are no churches except “kinds” of churches.
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p1, 1991

Since we have all grown up in a world of denominational churches, it is hard to think of the undivided church of the first century.
Jim Massey, ‘Was Original Christianity Denominational?’, World Literature Publications, p20, 1991

The Churches of Christ distort the meaning of the terms “kind” or “brand” as established in the dictionary to be understood sub-consciously only as “denominations.” The nouns – “kind” and “brand” become trigger words. This leads to confusion. The Churches of Christ’ vocabulary concerning the words – “kind” and “brand” is not the same language as stipulated in the dictionary. It is a form of trick terminology. A redefinition switch is produced when the terms “kind” or “brand” are associated with the term “a Christian denomination.” These associations of words immediately flash through the mind when the redefinition light is activated through booklets, conversations or sermons. The reformulated terms – “kind” and “brand” produce the redefined idea of denominational Christianity!

Think about it! What do you put in a toaster?

The aim of trick terminology is to overlook the obvious. The purpose of a toaster is making toast. To start the process you need bread! That is what goes in a toaster. What comes out is toast! Hopefully you came to the same conclusion! If you answered, “toast” then you have been tricked: Think again! What do cows drink? The obvious answer is water, but surprisingly many will first think milk! These examples show the power of word association and trigger words that can easily mislead us. Toast and bread are alike, but semantically they describe different nouns. Many people using toasters are happy to substitute the term “bread” with the term “toast” long before it is exposed to heat!

The Churches of Christ’ redefinition switch produces the same effect and will persuade the unaware to overlook the obvious. By definition the noun “kind” is a class or group of individual objects like people of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.

What “kind” are the Churches of Christ?

A predicament arises the moment the Churches of Christ accepts the obvious to be classified as a “kind” or “brand” (1) according to the dictionary or by (2) their redefinition switch. Either way each step of acceptance would relegate them to a position within the body of Christ like any other Christian denomination. But they claim they are not just a part of the body of Christ, but that they are the body of Christ – the original church.

The Churches of Christ argue the “original church” in the New Testament could not be a “kind” or a “brand”! According to them it is “absurd”!

In the New Testament, the church was merely the church. It is absurd to ask what kind of church it was, because there were no kinds. There was just the church!
Evangelism Handbook, The Church, Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN

Here we can see the Churches of Christ support the strange idea and teach “no kinds” of churches existed in the New Testament. Nor is it acceptable to ask: “what kind of church.”

Why does it sound ridiculous to them? The moment when the redefinition switch for the noun “kind” is activated as seen below, it produces the concept of a Christian denomination!

In the New Testament, the church was merely the church. It is absurd to ask what denomination of church it was, because there were no denominations. There was just the church!
Evangelism Handbook, The Church, Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN

See how the redefinition switch dramatically alters the picture! Here, we connect on the same level with the noun “kind” and what it means to members of the Churches of Christ. A moment before it was a ‘strange question’ to ask “what kind of church” was the New Testament Church. Now through the help of the ‘redefinition switch’ we can clearly see why.

Indeed it is ‘absurd’ to state that the first congregation of believers was a denomination. Anyone who wants to imply such ludicrous claims is sadly mistaken! Even so, we must not forget how we came to this conclusion. We have arrived with the help of the Churches of Christ redefinition switch. Cracking this redefinition formula of the noun(s) – “kind” and “brand” is almost as satisfactory as shuffling the name of Dan Brown to mean “Own Brand”! No pun intended.)

The redefinition of the nouns “kind” or “brand” depending on their usage implicates a Christian denomination or a Christian from it. This is exactly what the Churches of Christ want to avoid. They don’t want to be called a Christian denomination or identified as such. Therefore they don’t take it kindly when asked what kind!

Redefinitions create more problems down the line. The redefined noun “kind” not only obscures the proper well-defined terms in the dictionary but also enforces a metaphorical forked-tongue or double talk. Communication suffers when individuals are armed with a redefinition and others are not because the vocabulary is not like the vocabulary of the dictionary by definition. No wonder individuals of the Churches of Christ object being asked: What “kind” are the Churches of Christ? Obviously saying: “Not any kind” will lead to bewilderment. The conversation will go nowhere trying to establish “what kind” was the New Testament church. This cannot be. Any group – religious, political or social, sharing similar characteristics makes a kind!

The Churches of Christ follow the path of established cults who all rely on redesigned terms of their own creation and preferences, which always contradict well-defined and accepted terminology.

This man-made argument of the Churches of Christ surrounds two conflicting points. The New Testament church was NOT A KIND and NOT A DENOMINATION. This observation is twisted.

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ is absurd! It relies on a redefinition switch instead of the laws of language. The argument of the Churches of Christ insists on “what their itching ears want to hear.”

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ does not distinguish between the meaning of the noun “kind” and what a Christian denomination is. For them it is all the same. We can distinguish “what kind of church” was “the” original and only church IN JERUSALEM, but we cannot state it was a Christian denomination. Doing so is wrong.

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ relies on the support of man-made arguments. We can establish the progress of the early church from its humble beginnings in the New Testament, but unfortunately nothing can be said about the origins of the first car. We can establish “what kind of church” “the” original and only church in Jerusalem was, but to assume it was a denomination is wrong. No respected Christian denomination has ever made such claims to justify denominational Christianity. The Churches of Christ make a BIG DEAL of a non-issue.

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ does not take in account “what kind of church” the early church represents. It seems members of the Churches of Christ may not ask such questions. Clearly, the first disciples added to the Lord’s church were all Jewish believers. The ethos of the original church in Jerusalem never changed. It had certain characteristics in common, which makes them a kind of church. The congregation fled to Pella when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Overtime, “the” original and only church vanished. The Pauline churches ‘survived’. Today Christianity imitates the customs of Paul not what James, the Lord’s brother, followed in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-25).

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ implies there was only “the” original and ONLY CHURCH. This is a dangerous assumption, which had led to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. The structure of the early church (for two centuries) was holistic. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts (Galatians 2:9). The New Testament indicates two separate ministries – one for the Jews and another for Gentiles. Thus two “kinds.” However, it is wrong to assume these different churches were denominations. The Bible mentions only one body, one church (1 Corinthians 12:13). But we are in the right to ask: What kind! Whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free?

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ forms an anachronism. If the Churches of Christ imply the early church was not any kind, they also mean not any denomination! We know Christian “denominations” only occurred as a by-product from the 16th Century Protestant Reformation period. Not before. Religious groups who rivaled the teachings of the New Testament were known as “sects” like the movements of the Gnostics, Marcionites and Montanism.

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ relies on double standards that lead to confusion.

Just because men may call the church a division or sect does not make it one. … In like manner the church of Christ today may be everywhere called a denomination, but this does not mean that it is a denomination and calling the church a denomination does not make it one.
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p53, 1991

It is twisted; because this observation of the Churches of Christ can be proven wrong.

Never are “kinds” of churches mentioned. Never in the Bible do we read of “different” churches teaching different doctrines.
Jim Massey, ‘You Can Be Just A Christian’, World Literature Publications, p48, 1991

Never say ‘never’! The conversation between James, the Lord’s brother, and Paul speaks volumes of “kinds of churches” and “different churches teaching different doctrines.” (Acts 21:21) To be of a “kind” or to be “different” does not change much! The characteristics of a lemon and an orange are similar. Yet, they are two kinds of citrus fruits. One is bitter the other delightful. The early church was a mixture between bitter-and-sweet kinds of Christianity. Paul’s Letters attest to it!

Finally, it is twisted, because this observation of the Churches of Christ excludes other Christian denominations from the body of Christ. A predicament arises the moment the Churches of Christ accept to be classified as a “kind” or “brand” (1) according to the dictionary or by (2) their redefinition switch. Either way each step of acceptance would relegate them to a position within the body of Christ like any other Christian denomination. But they claim they are not just a part of the body of Christ, but that they are the body of Christ – the original church!

The Churches of Christ reaction seems to emphasize that the Way, the Truth, and the Life is void in denominational Christianity. How can this be? Surprisingly the original founders of the American Restoration Movement never reacted like this.

Next article: The concept of “kind” amongst the Churches of Christ

Follow me on twitter

2011-04-01T11:25:00.000+02:00

icoccommentary will comment freely on twitter! New articles will be posted shortly. Our focus will be on the Churches of Christ ('C' or 'c').

Not much is said here about the belief system of the Churches of Christ ('C' or 'c'). We think it is worthwhile to examine the doctrine of the 'C' or 'c' of Christ in order to understand the actual roots of the pro-McKean and anti-McKean factions of the former unified ICOC. We will welcome your comments.)

ICOC 'Repentance & Discipleship study' link

2011-03-02T16:56:00.000+02:00

The idea you must first make the decision to be a disciple and then be baptized is considered as ‘saving faith’ by both the anti-and pro McKean factions. Any other standard is viewed with disdain. Even the mainline Church of Christ 5-steps plan of salvation (hear, believe, repent, confess, baptize) onto baptismal regeneration is flawed according to these factions.

At first in 2007 icoccommentary reported an alarming trend of anti-McKean church groups embracing Kip McKean’s baptism philosophy since 2005. The Boston Church of Christ study series were given as proof for these new developments, but the link becomes unavailable, until now.

The Boston Church of Christ Campus Ministry website has the article. Clicking on Repentance and Discipleship Study for a download.

Here the ‘big idea’ of McKean’s view on baptism still remains the prerequisite to become “a disciple first” with baptism to follow for membership in either group in order to become “saved”.

What’s the big idea? Repentance and discipleship are [sic] the same thing. Discipleship is being committed to following Jesus in all areas of your life, and fishing for men. And one must be committed to being a disciple prior to being baptized.
Boston Church of Christ Repentance and Discipleship Study

Many are unaware of the deceptive origins and heresy concerning the former ICOC baptism policy. At first Kip McKean preached sound mainline Church of Christ rhetoric – hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptised. Then McKean’s tune changed suddenly in 1987 including becoming a disciple first before baptism. It meant that prominent leaders who are prolific today were re-baptized. People like Al Baird, Roger Lamb, Gordon Ferguson to name a few. Here is a quick overview:

“And let me just flat lay it out. If people have not had faith in Jesus Christ, if they have not been moved to the point of conviction to repent and to place Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life. If they are not willing to confess. And if they have not been immersed for the forgiveness of sins to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, my Bible teaches me they are outside of Jesus Christ.”
1982 - Kip McKean: Boston World Mission Seminar; "Go Make Disciples":

“How do we answer the call? By having faith in Jesus Christ, by being cut to the heart about our sins, wanting to repent and then to be baptized to have our sins forgiven...You know, if you've not been baptized, if you've not repented, if you've not had faith, then you're not right with the Lord.”
1984 - Kip McKean: Florida Evangelism Seminar; "Go Make Disciples"

“We had some one share the gospel with us--the good news. We were touched in our hearts so much so we wanted to repent of all our sin. We wanted to make him Lord. Then we were willing to confess Jesus before men and then we were baptized...We can never compromise the issue of salvation---what it takes to be saved. You have to have faith, repent, confess and be baptized. That's just how it is.”
1985, January 20 - Kip McKean: Boston Speech; "Our Needs"

“Since the blood of Christ is contacted at baptism, then let us stand firm on teaching that to become a Christian, according to the Bible, one must have faith in Christ and respond by repentance and baptism for the remission of sin (Acts 2:38).”

1985, June 16 - Kip McKean: Boston Bulletin

“For a long time in the church of Christ and those that were raised in it (I appreciate that background and heritage and you need to) have been taught, dare we
say, the five point plan of salvation - hear, believe, repent, confess and be baptized. Though I believe in that because I believe in the word of God, I believe an essential element has not been emphasized in the area of repentance...We need to get it on straight, who is a candidate for baptism. It is the individual who is a disciple...There has become an innate doctrinal difference, but they (traditional church) don't recognize it because it looks like a methodology...After a period of weeks and months, maybe even years, in our fellowship they (new move-ins) get hammered around enough they eventually become disciples, but just for the first time have they become disciples.”
“No one has been rebaptized around here. Not a single person has been rebaptized around here. I only believe in one baptism.”

1987 - Kip McKean: Boston Women's Retreat; "Perfectly United"

“Jesus didn’t say, ‘go and baptize,’ he said, ‘go and make disciples and baptize them.”

1992, August - Kip McKean: Boston Leadership Conference; “The Super Church”

“I think we’ve forgotten to preach the radical message of who is saved. When you preach who is really saved: that you gotta have faith, you gotta repent, you gotta become a true disciple of Jesus, and then you gotta be water immersed for the forgiveness of sins received through the Holy Spirit. That excludes all other denominations, and certainly the Buddhists, the Islamics, everybody else that’s out there.”

1995, August - Kip McKean: Johannesburg Leadership Conference; “Preach the Word”

Khanyi Magubane confirms it was the ICOC

2010-12-11T08:09:00.000+02:00

So it is official.

The mysterious 'cult' in the article of City Press is the ICOC. Khanyi Magubane confirmed it.

Hi guys, Khanyi Magubane here, spot on. I didnt want to mention names because anyone who has been to icoc, knows the strategy and tactics well enough to recognise it a mile away... I'm surprised and glad that you picked up on it. I now present a Christian gospel music and discussion show, and I once invited ICOC to come onto the show to talk about, "is there only one true church", and of course, they declined the offer. We must continue to pray for those who are still in mental bongage of the brainwashing that we all received while we were being recruited, "studying the bible". I believe that God allowed me to go into the church and later out of it, so we could enlighten people about the truth from fiction - hence I read now there are all sorts and types of factions - those pro and against the McKean dynasty. All the best for the work you do Sarel.
Comments by Khanyi Magubane, Khanyi's narrow escape from a religious cult

Follow the interesting comments on the ICOC Discussion forum Spot the Cult.

Khanyi's narrow escape from a religious cult

2010-10-11T18:55:00.000+02:00

City Press is a South African newspaper agency who recently published Khanyi Magubane's narrow escape from a cult. Strange, no names are mentioned, but reading her story it sounds familiar.

Mike Taliaferro's view on 'spiritual pornography.'

2010-09-26T12:22:00.000+02:00

My current subject matter is 'spiritual pornography' = SP on KipMcKean.blogspot.

Next article to follow: "SP4 - The Lion on the Web Never Sleeps". Here I'll expose Mike Taliaferro's take on 'spiritual pornography'.

Mike was formerly the ICOC Geographic Sector Leader (GSL) in Africa and Lead Evangelist of the Johannesburg International Churches of Christ, known today as the Johannesburg Church of Christ.

Notice the dropping of "International" due to the decentralization process that happened during the S.A.D interval covering the period of the Count-out Years from 2001 to 2003. Here, during the interval of the Count-out Years, Kip McKean took a 'S'abbatical in 2001. An 'A'nnouncement' followed in 2002 explaining the McKean's resignation. By 2003 the ICOC had 'D'ecentralized'.

This S.A.D. interval impact on ICOC American leadership working abroad was detrimental to the ICOC Missions outside the U.S.

Suddenly leadership abroad were forced to return to obscurity due to lack of congregational U.S. ICOC funds and support from local congregations.

Mike relocated with his family to San Antonio, Texas since the aftermath of the Kriete Letter in 2003. His family had lived in the city of Johannesburg since 1993.

The 'title' GSL had become irrelevant but not the ICOC role of 'Lead Evangelist.' Mike is currently the Lead Evangelist of the Mission Point Christian Church in San Antonio.

Mike shares other high profile responsibilities such as serving the ICOC Unity Proposal Group. He has authored several ICOC books, like The Lion Never Sleeps. It is told 250 000 books by Taliaferro have been sold! Mike serve as a video editor for ICOCHotNews along with his loyal friend, Justin Renton of the Johannesburg Church of Christ.

Mike was instrumental with the idea to return to former ICOC discipleship policies and shepherding techniques in 2005. If this is an indication by taking a step 'backward' to 'old school' ICOC policies then it merits to investigate Mike's philosophy about 'spiritual pornography.'

Be sure to watch this space for my next article concerning Mike's view on 'spiritual pornography.'

New SP3 article on kipmckean.blogspot.com

2010-08-28T21:23:00.000+02:00

Visit kipmckean.blogspot.com for my next article, entitled: SP3 – The Internet: A free marketplace of ideas.

”Should Internet pornography be made the scapegoat by leadership in order to interfere with the lives of people?

The Internet is loosing ground as the free marketplace of ideas.

The demise of cyber space is twofold...”
(Sarel de Wet, SP3 – The Internet: A free marketplace of ideas)

Who is your daddy?

2010-08-14T12:24:00.000+02:00

Stuart Mains shares his convictions as a Campus Minister handling “Kingdom Kids” issues coming to the fold.

Here Mains challenged Anthony Galang’s son to think of his dad being a ‘grandfather’ while he will take over the role of ‘daddy’.

Herewith the transcript that is done to the best of my abilities. Notice, Mains had issues with Anthony’s son. Look how he address those issues and see where the ICOC is heading with their shepherding methodologies.

First the intro to the class.

"Many of our future leaders were born within the church itself. This is an incredible blessing as an entire generation of students enters the campus ministry with a thorough understanding of our culture and history. Yet, this also poses some unique challenges along with the opportunities. This class will discuss such issues while advising campus leaders how to best care and train their “kingdom kid” students.'

I had a talk with one of the freshmen. I don’t know if you guys know the Galang’s? Anthony Galang’s son – the guy from KNN… Nick Galang? … and his son is part of our ministry. And what he was doing was totally normal. I was fired up. He was calling his parents to get advice about what to do for Bible discussions and different things. And to be honest, Anthony has been doing this for a lot longer than I have. So I have no qualms with him getting this advise. But what I saying, bro we need to be connected. I want to be a part of this loop… and you get advice… you know we advise together with him. Let’s talk about this.

But I did not handle it in the best way. So we go to Starbucks one d-time. And we were talking there. I go: “You know bro. I want to make something very-very clear.” I said: “You are here, you are at UCI now. Okay? When you leave your house, you got to think of your dad more as your ‘grandfather’ now. You know? You call him. You talk to him. He is a wise man and you get advise from him. But if Anthony would be your ‘grandfather’. Who would be your daddy?

And he was like… ‘What?!’ “That’s right you heard me.” Totally straight face, I was dying inside there. I was like… I asked him. Nick who is your daddy? I stared at him! He goes. “Are you my daddy?” “That’s right, baby – I’m your daddy!”

Afterwards, I had a part of me… “Okay, no, let me help you understand my thinking. Let’s talk about this. Let’s be on the same page.” But my heart… The thing I was trying to address is that we want them to understand – we want to help them to understand that they kinda got to break off! You know what I mean? They got to have their own convictions. We’ll get on to them to have their own convictions help them. Not have a rebellious attitude. Not have a mindset “Oh man this is so great! Get away from me. I am never going to call my parents again." But also not having an attitude. “My Campus Minister knows squad! And I got to talk to my parents about everything. Yea, I’ll let you in the loop. I guess." You know what I mean? "I’m doing my own thing. I’m pushing my own agenda." Which can be an issue when you have these Kingdom Kids come in who have been around for a while.
Stuart Mains, Class Recording of Class Session 2: How Do I Best Train and Care for "Kingdom Kids"?, 2010 ICMC North America, 31 July 2010

SP series...

2010-08-12T12:04:00.000+02:00

Check my thoughts about SP on kipmckean.blogspot and comment freely!

The “Precious Bird”: Campus Evangelism

2010-08-10T22:29:00.000+02:00

Some things of the past…

Douglas Arthur’s 1990 segment from Shining Like Stars mentions campus ministry is the goose that laid the golden egg. For good reason because predominately ICOC leadership derive from evangelistic efforts made by students on campuses; with a few exceptions, the leaders in the fastest growing churches in the world were met and converted during their college years. And many of those not actually converted in college were converted or trained in the ministry by those who were.

Campus evangelism is the lifeline for the ICC and ICOC* ministries. From this platform, unexpected students on campuses are on the receiving end of the ICC and ICOC’s most talented people who devote themselves exclusively to that work scouting for prospective disciples who might become future leaders of a movement that strives to grow continuously until Kingdom come! The inner mechanics of the ICC and ICOC will come to a complete halt if campus evangelism seizes.

The London ministry made a determined comeback for revival of campus evangelism in the early 90s. Here, Douglas Arthur mentions the oversight of neglecting that “precious bird” by leadership’ who recognised this error in judgement.

Such a project is supervise by the concept of a Campus Minister who answers to the Overseeing Evangelist of the congregation or body of elders where applicable.

The golden goose is capable more than any other ministry in the ICC and ICOC to ensure lots of visitors, lots of studies and lots of new Christians throughout the year. To top it all, the ICC and ICOC ministries knows that students on campuses are at the height of their receptiveness.

Something new…

The resurgence in campus revival by the ICC and ICOC are a sign of their state of readiness since the disintegration of the campus ministry after McKean’s resignation and the aftermath of Kriete’s Letter. The precious bird have been dormant but not for too long.

The planting of the International Christian Church (ICC) in South Africa is scheduled for 2011. The most obvious places for evangelism will be the colleges and campuses.

A new scheme hatched at the ICOC’s Chicago International Campus Ministries Conference (ICMC), which was richly attended by over 2000 campus members during July 29 – August 1. Here, the South African ICOC churches put out a challenge for students to take a year off and work with their campus ministries as Campus interns. This programme starts July 1st 2011 till July 2012.

Justin Renton appeals for university students or graduates who want to live on the radical edge to come to South Africa for a year and be part of a campus revival that is taking place at the churches in Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg.

Campus interns should be Bible talk leaders with a minimum of two-year membership. They should acquire consent from a church leader and also motivate “Why I want to do the One Year challenge in South Africa”

Some warnings about engaging the ICC and ICOC

*The International Christian Churches (ICC) is a pro-McKean faction, and *the International Churches of Christ Co-operation Churches (ICOC) is an anti-McKean faction of the former International Churches of Christ (ICOC).

If you want to find any facts about any of these groups – Google it!

Never talk directly to them. First they would not know half the issues at hand – that is why most remain faithful until confronted with facts and biblical truth concerning their methodologies and doctrine. Secondly, they will listen to you but want to verify the issues with a ‘bible study’. Don’t get drawn in! Nor visit them.

A ‘church invite’ is opening the front door to the ICC and ICOC. The ICC group starting in Johannesburg 2011 will be a very small group hiring a hall or apartment. While the ICOC have been in South Africa since 1986! Well established and sizable.

A ‘bible discussion group’ is the back door entrance to the ICC and ICOC. Here, an interesting challenging discussion is designed to make you think and wonder about a topic, for example: “So many Christians, so few Churches”. Members always participates giving answers or asking questions. It’s a clever ploy, which often exposes the visitor for feeling puzzled and inadequate in the end. Members always at that moment after a discussion press for a ‘bible study’.

A ‘bible study’ is not an actual study of the Bible as you might think! It’s indoctrination to their belief system that gradually and effectively ‘brain wash’ your mind to think the way they do. If successful, you will be baptized and become part of the group for life! No jokes.

If you are a fervent supporter of infant baptism don’t engage them alone. The Churches of Christ doctrine of baptism regeneration (water baptism saves you) is powerful enough to discourage anyone who supports infant baptism. It happened to me! Lol

Students not affiliated with these groups should not engage them discussing doctrinal matters unless having deep convictions of your own on the Biblical topics such as baptism, discipleship and church polity (governance). Never allow you to be invited to any of their activities, whether it is playing volleyball, Frisbee, touch rugby or going on walks, parties, movies or coffee breaks. Remember they cannot touch you unless you give your consent! The purpose of such activities is to get you to ‘visit church’ or ‘study the bible’ with them.

Students not affiliated with these groups should rather engage them on familiar topics concerning their social standing on dating, marriage and membership requirements. These topics do not require any bible study but only a conversation. Do not consent to any form of ‘Bible study’ or ‘invite’.

Did you know that their membership is for life? Anyone who wants to remain faithful to the group may never leave! People who leave the fellowship of the ICC and ICOC have always experience a painful exit.

Did you know that members must only date members and never develop romantic feelings for non-members?

Did you know that members must only marry members and never marry Christians in other denominations (non-members)?

Did you know that any church that disallows their members to date or marry other Christians from other denominations believe they alone are Biblically saved and they alone are the true church on earth?

Did you know that members have a clear understanding according to their doctrine who-is-saved-and-who-is-not? The reason they are interested in you is because you-are-lost!

Did you know that members of the ICC and ICOC are actively seeking the lost – everyday, every hour, every opportunity? Reaching you is no co-incidence. You happen to cross their path!

If you become a member…

• You will never date outsiders but only the members of the ICC and ICOC – only members dating members.

• You will never marry some one special outside the ICC and ICOC – only members marrying members.

• Your religious outlook on life will be restricted. No one is saved but your church group. You alone are biblically saved, the only true church! This is exactly what all cults teach.

Cult experts refers to these three vital points as "inner doctrine". A teaching that is hidden and only to be revealed later as more trust is gain between the parties.

Don’t risk one-on-one conversations with ICC and ICOC members. Making friends with the ICC and ICOC will destroy your life. If you have any religious queries about the bible, your church, your world – Google it!

Search topics about the ICC and ICOC: Kip McKean; ICOC.

Finally, pay careful attention to leaders of the former ICOC who considers campus evangelism a "precious bird”.

If in the past one ICOC student ministry caused much havoc on a campus – how much more will two rivals competeing with each other bring to the table with the same agenda: Let us not neglect the goose that laid the golden egg.

In the name of Kip McKean

2010-08-09T22:34:00.000+02:00

Check out In the name of Kip McKean on kipmckean.blogspot.com

"Shenanigan-Attack” Let us not panic!

2010-08-05T22:51:00.000+02:00

Jen Chambers, owner of the new website Spiritual Pornography also known as 'SP.com' felt cheated by the shenanigans of Kip McKean and his leaders in procuring the KipMcKean.com website. Here, Chambers respond well stating her reasons for these big changes by posting a four part series, titled, Shenanigans

Chambers started the KipMcKean.com website since February 2005. Most of the content were base on ICOC facts and outside resources pertaining to the world of McKean.

The former website Kip McKean.com were an accurate reflection of the man in the mirror - Thomas Wayne 'Kip' McKean.

According to Chambers, McKean's message had not changed throughout the years. This is evident visiting the 'new' Kip McKean website under McKean's control!

Chambers voluntarily made the decision to transfer the domain to McKean, which was completed by June 30, 2010. This step was deemed necessary due to consistent pressure she received since August 2006 from the shenanigans of Kip McKean. In doing so, Chambers started a new website, Spiritual Pornography because this website will contain THE information that McKean and his churches have not wanted YOU the visitor to see.

Without further a do, the reader is welcome to explore the facts presented by Jen Chambers. But please don't forget to bookmark a brand new website about Thomas Wayne.

If you're not familiar with the name look it up at KipMcKean.blogspot - Get Your Real Answers Here.

Saluting Jen Chambers’s spirit!

Kip still God’s man

2010-08-05T00:49:00.000+02:00

The man in the mirror, Thomas Wayne McKean is best known as 'Kip' and he is never going to “make that change” …ever!

Ron Harding has just completed and published on Kip McKean.com an exhaustive biography of that man in the mirror he describes as a true man of God hailed as a hero and a modern-day prophet liken to King David. Harding concluded: My prayer is that this commentary will silence Satan’s lies about a true man of God, Kip McKean.

Hardly Harding!

Harding with his first hand knowledge about the palace revolution which resulted in the destruction of Kip’s global movement deal punches right and left in order to get to the truth.

Not only is Henry Kriete the most obvious target sited as an extremely bitter evangelist in London but knives are out for Andy Fleming, Scott Green, Al Baird, Ferguson, Jacoby, Laing, Wyndham Shaw, Bruce Williams, Marty Fuqua, Peter Garcia, the Johnsons – the truth is that these people eventually have all force out the leader that even they for years had wholeheartedly agreed was “God’s man” – placed in authority by God to lead His movement and maintain unity.

Their rebellion is compare to an “Absalomic spirit.”

Now Harding is desperately attempting to prove them all wrong for returning to mainline theology by ignoring God’s “timing” for McKean to lead the ICOC. In time, God raised-up David to lead again – just as He has done with McKean! In the Bible, God always “raised-up” and “took out” His leader in “His” timing. God expected His people to trust Him and to wait on His timing instead of rebelling against Him and His leader.

McKean’s biography inherently exposes the group to be cultic because their leader is it with a capital ‘L’ despite trying to dispel the wrongs done by others serving under McKean’s gutsy leadership.

Needless to say, Harding’s biography on the McKeans touches on several aspects of the truth. Of first importance is the majority of the former ICOC leadership indeed embraces mainline theology.

The mainline church of Christ is now unequivocally part of the Second Episode.

In the past they have distance themselves from the former ICOC – accusing it a cult! For now, the International Christian Church (ICC) and the International Churches of Christ Co-operation Churches (ICOC) internal squabbles over Kip offer a slight distraction to the real issues at hand – the teachings of the Churches of Christ belief system.

Here, on the Internet, the mainliners’ church doctrine and belief system received little attention comparatively to her former foe! Now that most of the churches of Episode One era supports the mainline theology it will be interesting to see how the mainliners will react to discipleship relationships as taught by Kip. Let us not forget those of the “Absalomic spirit” also embraces it since 2005.

Eventually change will come for the mainline church of Christ when people everywhere will start to investigate its doctrine. All because of one man who’s followers thinks he is still God’s man.

Now would that not be something!

KipMcKean.org has taken over KipMcKean.com

2010-07-09T13:22:00.000+02:00

Kip McKean and company is most probably very relieved. The metaphoric thorn in their flesh, Kip McKean.com has been pulled. Does the Bible not teach money is the answer for everything? Right.

However all is not lost! The content of the old website Kip McKean.com is available at a new website Spritual Pornography.com Presented on this website will be a collection of material mainly focusing on McKean, the ICOC and the ICC. You will also find the information they don’t want you to see.

Get your answers there. Knowledge is never wrong.

Find KipMcKean.com at Spiritualpornography.com

2010-06-21T11:39:00.000+02:00

The following notice is posted on KIPMCKEAN.com site.

Attention Visitors: Ownership of KIPMCKEAN.COM is changing and the content will be moved to SpiritualPornography.com. To those who have linked to this website, check the new domain to change your bookmarks.

Married men's article removed

2010-01-12T08:04:00.000+02:00

icoccommentary conveyed it's concerns to the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ (South Africa) leadership by means of an email: "Throwing darts at human targets holding up balloons is not what I will promote to children. Will you retract your article?

The Port Elizabeth Church of Christ has graciously removed the article showing married men shooting hand held balloons with catapult slingshots.

In the light of their repentance - icoccommentary has removed (also for the sake of children world wide) the series of photographs depicting the married men's illegal activity in the article, entitled Silly 'Church of Christ' Games Stupefy. However, the copy of the article will remain for historical accountability.

Thank you

Silly ‘Church of Christ’ Games Stupefy

2010-01-10T21:34:00.000+02:00

A decade ago, Sam Laing wrote in his book, Mighty Man of God (1999, DPI Books), “If a gender can be indicted for its crimes, then as men we must all together hang our heads and cry out, “Guilty as charged!”

Heaven knows what exactly possessed the married men of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ and James Lappeman (Marrieds Minister Leader) joining from the Cape Town Church of Christ to orchestrate “an activity designed to build character” by throwing darts and shooting slingshot catapults to hand held balloon targets on the beach.

A short report of the Married’s Men Breakaway November 2009 vividly captures their logic in writing and with some dramatic pictures. “To make it a bit more interesting, the balloons were hand held by a trusting team member. One of the teams took up the option of using a dart which luckily did not get embedded in anyone’s hand or arm. The photos probably explain it better…”

A picture tells a thousand words.

WARNING

Since the church article about the married men’s activities bares no child protection policy, icoccommentary urges kids: Please Don’t Try This!

The challenge...

The photographs depicts an annual outdoors activity known by the married men as the Laurie’s Bay Survivor Challenge. November 2009 challenge comprises “recovering golf balls from the ocean, exchanging them for “ammo” to be used to use in catapults to pop a certain number of balloons.” Diving in the ocean and shooting targets sounds like good innocent fun. However, it seems the shooting challenge initially sounded a bit too lame and the married men improvised to “make it a bit more interesting.”

Towels were wrapped around an extended arm of a ‘trusting’ team member from the shoulder to hand while holding a colourful balloon. The trusting team member when ready will raise his padded arm with his back to the shooter and hope for the best. None of these men are professional target shooters unlike William Tell. Standing not too far off the shooter held a forked Y-shaped stick in his non-dominant hand that serves as a small hand-powered projectile weapon. Two rubber strips are attached to the uprights while the projectile is gripped between thumb and forefinger of the dominant hand. The catapult is pulled back close to the cheek or chin in order to secure aim. In this event, once the pocket is released to fire the projectile to the target no consideration was given to cause bodily harm. Therefore this stupid game required “steady hands and lots of trust” from the other end!

James Lappeman (frames 2 and 3) after facilitating the morning spiritual discussions fully participated in the catapult activity. Lappeman standing a few meters away scored a lucky direct hit. Another team “took up the option of using a dart” for ammo. Here in the photograph a trusting team member disregards the towel for protection – hailed as Alistair the brave. With his bare arm extended holding a balloon the dart is launched a few meters afar. The dart activity according to the report stated “luckily did not get embedded in anyone’s hand or arm.”

But what if matters turned out for the worse? What about injuries such as a cracked skull or pierced artery? The victim would not stand a good chance to get out quickly in an emergency unless they were shooting Marshmallows. Laurie’s Bay is fairly isolated and a considerable distance from the city hospitals in Port Elizabeth.

The proceedings according to the photo material was based on team work – speed – “more than just hot air” (whatever that may mean) – steady hands and lots of trust – aim – hits – bravado and luck.

This is surely one of the most stupid recreational activities ever recorded in the history of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).

Sam Laing lamented in his book, Mighty Man of God, that the “condition of manhood in our world is deplorable. Men are viewed as superficial, shallow louts. A goofy, foolish object of pity, the masculine gender is the butt of countless jokes and subject to an endless stream of ridicule. When was the last time you saw a man portrayed as a hero, as a person of dignity, honor and grace?”

On that day, there were no heroes – no dignity – no honour – no grace!

What is wrong with these pictures?

First and foremost, these married men of the Church of Christ set a bad example for children to follow. Many of them are fathers to children. These violent and ridiculous images should never be posted on the Internet. Let alone a church website! Imagine if a child is inspired by these church activities? What legal implications awaits this church group when a child causes some serious harm to classmates while indicating the source of his/her actions derives from this church website!

Improbable? Think again. Children imitate adults. Period.

A South African schoolboy dressed like drummer Joey Jordison of Slipknot “stabbed a fellow student to death and two other gardeners” before the start of school assembly.

Evidently, from a moral point of view, the activities of these married men promote bad habits to children. Their conduct of bad practice jeopardizes children good behaviour. Spiritually the Bible warns against a person who leads children to sin!

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones [little children] who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matthew 18:6).”

Secondly, these married men of the Church of Christ violates the sporting code of good conduct of these respected sports. They show ZERO regard for safety regulations enforced by the respected sports of darts and slingshot.

A British slingshot specialist website strongly warns potential buyers to be over 18 to order slingshots from them. Their reason: “Slingshots or catapults can be extremely dangerous and must be used responsibly. … All the slingshots featured here are DEADLY weapons and must be treated with respect. … Never EVER point or fire a slingshot at another person.”

The traditional “Y”-shape catapult as used by these married men from the Church of Christ can cause considerable less damage than a new breed wrist brace slingshot, which “are so powerful that it can be used for hunting wildlife. It is an effective killing machine – launching a steel ball bearing, almost silently, at incredible velocity.”

Safe Sport concerning darts website states “there are a number of injuries suffered every year that involve darts and dart players. … Never point, or throw a dart at anyone. … If you follow these guidelines then you will be playing safe and hopefully have loads of fun.”

Evidently these married men from the Church of Christ has transgressed the sins of omission.

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins (James 4:17).”

Thirdly, will the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ leadership retract the Married Men's Breakaway November 2009 article for the sake of children world wide? The issue at stake is CHILDREN WORLD WIDE.

“Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things (Colossians 3:2).”

The married men's article states: "The photos probably explain it better…"

Perhaps how the mighty have fallen???

Guilty as charged.

PS: Please note: The article has been revised in order to emphasize what needs to be done in order to retract the Married Men's Breakaway November 2009 article from the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ. If anyone felt angered by my earlier presentation - my heartfelt apology! NOW LETS ACT FOR THE SAKE OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.

PSS: The PE Church complied.

Cult-like groups on the rise in New Zealand?

2009-11-28T11:38:00.000+02:00

Dr Dennis Green shares some insights in a short two-part documentary series - How to spot a cult on Sunrise hosted by New Zealand's 3news. Green discuss controversial religious groups who amongst them is the International Churches of Christ.

2000 and Nine

2008-12-19T07:47:00.004+02:00

The year is out! Well almost.

90,130

The first four months of the year 2008 primarily was in the hands of statisticians. The 2007 ICOC (ICOC Co-operation Churches ICOC) fellowship tallied at 90,130 indicate a growth of 1.7% according to statistician Kelcy Hahn paperwork.

We at icoccommentary initially projected from Hahn’s Mission Memo Church Survey lists a probable decline of 1.5% based on the reported portion. We tallied 87,280 and Mission Memo had 87,360 on record. We came close with our projections. The ICOC (ICOC Co-operation Churches ICOC) would have had a negative 1.4% growth estimate if guided by Mission Memo’s 87,360. However, a combination of stats including the final report (89,131) and the estimated portion (999) resulted in 90,130.

Clearly stats are in the hands of statisticians. Stats are important and necessary. Kelcy Hahn deliberate extensively on various forums regarding this project and in our opinion did an outstanding service to all. Surely, next year the ICOC (ICOC Co-operation Churches ICOC) membership for 2008 will improve considerably.

90

July 18th Mr Mandela turned 90.

In 1995 this champion of love received the HOPE Unity Reward. Surely we may personify Madiba as the father in the old fable this award represents. The father gave a bundle of sticks tied with leather cord to his sons. They were supposed to break it on his command. But they failed. Then the father untied the bundle of sticks. Each son received a single stick, which snapped easily. The moral of the story: Unity gives strength!

9 Brothers of the Unity Proposal Group

In the name of Unity two main ICOC church groups were formed. Let us note that the 1979-2002 ICOC of the past is ‘dead’, but principally ‘alive’ within these two formations. No one can dispute this fact! However, the ICOC in our opinion busy itself with a two-prong process that essentially entails a process of renovation and innovation that characterise one another.

The leadership crisis in the ICOC is not resolved and remains the biggest obstacle to overcome. In our opinion, it is not the matter of autonomy, which distinct these formations in the ICOC but the leadership crisis.

People were either for or against Kip McKean. Therefore, in our opinion, since the August events and outcome of the September 2005 Seattle Conference the fellowship of the ICOC separated into two factions, the pro-McKean group (Portland/Sold-Out Discipling movement) and the anti-McKean group (ICOC Co-operation Churches ICOC). Worst the ICOC denominated!

The short form ‘ICOC’ embodies the pro and anti-McKean faction. The term is homogeneous.

Even so, the anti-McKean group since 2007 maintains to be the ‘original’ ICOC while they blame McKean has started a ‘new movement’. Indeed McKean’s ‘new movement’ has a new name but its roots are firmly established in the former ICOC. It would be a misnomer to think the anti-McKean faction is the only original ICOC, while McKean (ICOC founder) is building churches more closely modelled after the former ICOC era. Therefore McKean is the renovator while the rest innovate! Here personalities like Raul Moreno and Mike Taliaferro have much in common regarding ICOC doctrine (despite their childish yaps) but are separated by leadership preferences.

The leadership crisis must be resolved. The key is to untie the bundle of sticks. Together, Raul Moreno or Mike Taliaferro along with their respective fellowships will not break! It will only happen when each individual examine him/herself to this regard. We have stated before, people must learn to respect the opposite side as brothers not as rivals.

Disastrous consequences await the ICOC if the leadership crisis is not resolved. In the former era of the ICOC, the churches were ‘persecuted’ by outsiders, namely the Church of Christ (mainline), former members, members of the public, concerned church groups and journalists. Imagine the consequences when two distinct ICOC groups clash in the same arena. It will lead to a form of internal persecution and unhealthy competition. People will hate one another just like the house of Saul hated the house of David and vice versa. Worst this is already happening!

Johannesburg, South Africa, McKean is coming in 2011!

9 Bible studies

The ICOC persists with the erroneous perception for repentance to convert prospective members as “disciples first” before baptism. Meaning a prospective member “must first make the decision to be a disciple then be baptized.” This notion is a continuation from teaching by Kip McKean. Worse, many people in both parties think this teaching in the ICOC is consistent with Scripture. This teaching indeed brings a ‘sharp distinction’ between the ICOC ‘and all other groups’.

It is our opinion that Steve Johnson, with the help of others will eventually come up with a better mousetrap. We hope it will not be establish on any form of shepherding technique but sound doctrine in Christ. Perhaps Henry Kriete’s ministry could be helpful?

9 Million bicycles in Beijing

Is that a fact?

2009

Next year, Decoding The Discipleship To Which We Are Called will be our theme for 2009.

The surprise for 2009 will be a type of Faithful Conversations meeting between the two ICOC parties. Hot topics for next year will be the rise of new leadership in the SODM in order to support the Five Year Plan six church plantings. No doubt members will sacrifice much to achieve this ambitious project of SODM. And, campus evangelism will play a huge role in the ministries of the anti-McKean movement. They have the numbers and churches to blow 2009 out of the water! Yet, the effect of the revolving door will determine if the ICOC collectively have made deep and long lasting changes.

We at icoccommentary wishing everyone a happy new year!

Take care!

Chris Broom comes forward with questions that have taken place in Portland

2008-09-29T00:42:00.005+02:00

Chris Broom, an evangelist of the Chicago International Christian Church (pro-McKean faction) stated in his Portland Report According to My Convictions that Steve was EVER in the new movement because of shared convictions, but rather because of his friendship with Kip.

Remembering Rod Fick

2008-09-25T14:54:00.003+02:00

Rod's family has started a web page dedicated to Rod's memory.

Dear Steve – Think On These Things

2008-09-23T22:05:00.005+02:00

I’m certain. I’m absolutely 100% sure. I know Steve Johnson has made that commitment! Steve thinks on these things.

August 10th 2008 was a start. Here a fresh Portland Story is in the making. Steve’s undertaking will spur on a new form of dedication, to be totally dedicated, not to a man, not to a movement, not to an organization, not to a sect, but Jesus Christ and His church!

Steve in my mind has become elastic. Here, elasticity will prove its worth where people become the opposition rather than being forced on the same team. Indeed, few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day. Now is the time for Steve Johnson to go against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes.

Bottom-line. Steve I ask you. What would our lives, our spiritual underpinnings be like if Kip McKean like Bob Mumford (co-founder of the Shepherding movement) would come forward and unceremoniously apologize: Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness?

Yes, other proven ICOC church builders said it, but succumbed to the groups chosen methods. Mike Taliaferro stated during the 2004 Faithful Conversations: We are a fellowship right now of independent, Bible-believing churches. Yes, we are going to have a man lead the movement, and that is going to be Jesus Christ. Kip McKean said something similar in Portland 2006: I will be with disciples agreeing to build a movement centred on one personality. And His name is Jesus.

But it was not to be.

ICOC Discipleship methodologies did waver in 2003. Kip reacted with disgust in the year 2004. Today 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 a devastating false teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-4)

Mike Taliaferro said the ICOC had a Discipleship Crisis late in 2005. His solution. To embrace all over again the Biblical pattern of discipleship relationships… Here in the San Antonio church we have made certain that every disciple has a discipleship partner with whom they can meet on a regular basis. It was late last year when we decided to once again become involve in close personal relationships in the congregation. Mike thought people have over-corrected the principle of closer friendship with a few as seen with Jesus and the apostles’ friendships. Antonio ready itself for close, dedicated, specific relationships in order to monitor people spiritual wellbeing to confess their sins, receive encouragement, or give an admonishment. Thus avoiding turning into a sort of impersonal spiritual experience now based on one another passages.

Steve Johnson you openly supported this mousetrap in 2005, while many in the fellowship waited for an outcome of a steering committee pending on February 1st 2006. I want 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 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 following year in 2006 you become an Associate Lead Evangelist of Kip’s congregation.

Finally, a proposal document arrived in March 11th 2006 stating in page two the way forward learning from past mistakes without over-reacting to them and, at the same time, maintaining faithfulness to biblical principles. Here “biblical principles” become a mix bag of theological conclusions paralleling from Jude 3 along with teachings developed in the campus ministry days of the early 1970s. Consider the following quote in page four. In order to best communicate our beliefs, we are striving both to articulate the theological framework of “the faith that was once for all 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.

There is this bench near Mount St Helens. Steve, you have your mountain in front of you and your bench. Yes, much of the destruction seems to be well covered by nature, but under it all lays the memories, the history, the facts, the path of destruction. Look at her, her face is scarred. Perhaps the photograph of St Helen on your church website makes a pretty picture, but it is up to you now to come up with a better mousetrap.

Bottom-line. Steve I ask you. What would our lives, our spiritual underpinnings be like if you like Bob Mumford (co-founder of the Shepherding movement) would come forward and unceremoniously apologize: Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness?

Why don’t you travel back there, and take with you these few pages of history. Written by man. Relate if you can to them and then try to adopt it.

If you please:
Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship
1988 Letter to Boston Elders

In Him is Brotherly Kindness

Sarel de Wet

God’s faulty men.

2008-09-21T01:42:00.003+02:00

The sad truth for those affiliated with the International Churches of Christ is members differentiate and practise Jesus by certain labels. In fact the reality cannot be missed. The ICOC has denominated.

How did it happen? The sharp disagreement between Kip and his contemporaries has divided the ICOC. Instead of Kip McKean taking one man and evangelize the world he took who ever wants to go with him. His contemporaries did the same.

Today, the pro-McKean faction (Sold-Out Discipling movement/ICC) maintains a central leadership style with Kip McKean in the position as World Missions Evangelist. The anti-McKean faction (ICOC Co-op Churches/ICOC) has no central church government but co-operate as a union while still resorting to Lead Evangelists overseeing churches.

An article entitled Autonomy? No way! Glorious co-operation between the churches by Justin Renton tries to teach his group of disciples the importance of co-operation. If members of this group act selfishly they’ve proven to be cancerous. Here the anti-McKean faction will not tolerate members breaking-away from each other as the Johnsons have done recently. Doing so would harm the body as cancer is a disease where certain cells in the body stop co-operating and start acting selfishly. They encourage other cells to do the same and very soon a tumor is formed. If that tumor is allowed to grow big enough it can kill the whole body.

Perhaps Renton’s article is designed to make a broad sweep skilfully sidestepping Kip McKean’s autonomy finger pointing issues aimed at the anti-McKean churches. Renton reminds the pro-McKean faction they have no autonomy but a glorious co-operation between the churches. They don’t act selfishly!

Arthur was convinced Kip showed some signs of improvement with the encouragement of Steve and Lisa Johnson but only for a little while before he reverted back to slandering other churches not under his direction. In this light, Douglas Arthur identifies McKean as a dangerous cancer cell. Was it solely Kip’s selfish actions that led to the Johnsons radical decision to depart?

Surely Kip is at fault, but not entirely by himself.

A steady stream of well-wishers from the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) are crossing over the previously impregnable threshold of the Portland International Church of Christ. This all made possible since Steve Johnson and a few elders broke-away in August 2008 from the Sold-Out Discipling movement. Now the majority so-called sold-out baptised disciples of Portland, Oregon have slip back by giving up their unique status being led under the guidance of Kip McKean’s central leadership structure.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this extraordinary event is Kip McKean’s inactive response compare to drastic measures taken in the past. McKean Clearing Up The Confusion article stated: Recently, Steve Johnson and the remaining elders in Portland, Oregon, stated their autonomy and desire to, “Have no man as a leader over them.” Sadly, with these decisions, they have separated themselves from the Sold-out Discipling Movement. Yet, we wish them well.

The Portland leadership actions were not compared to Korah, being filled with bitterness and selfish ambition, deceived the entire congregation and caused many to lose their faith and turn away from God.

Surely in the former era the Johnson’s rebellious behaviour typifies those who oppose and grumble against God’s leaders and divide God’s church. Why is McKean not accusing them of being lost because they do not have a true faith or at least opposing God?

Now, for the moment, it seems McKean is letting no unwholesome talk come out of his mouth, while the anti-McKean movement blames McKean for being responsible for this time of extraordinary pain.

What brought on this new controversy?

In a nutshell – again Kip’s contemporaries blame his divisive leadership style and his inability to work as a team player in a brotherhood of churches.

The impressions given by Douglas Arthur’s first report, Pray for Peace in Portland portrays the conduct of the World Missions Evangelist of the Sold-Out Discipling movement in a very negative light. Almost comparing the McKeans of thief-like behaviour! Here outsiders can read in his report an inventory of pillage rather than pilgrimage to Los Angeles as the McKeans took with them when they left: A Mission contribution of over $120,000. 10 of the 12 full & part time ministry staff 42 Leaders and members of the Portland church 40 more members moved in the next 15 months to LA

McKean has commandeered many to Los Angeles and continues to do so thus robbing the Portland International Church of Christ from its best and brightest for the sake of the mission since establishing a new important beachhead in Los Angeles, since March of 2007.

Strange from this report by Arthur, Kip McKean is portrayed as a heartless missionary out of touch with his once beloved Portland church that always resembled for him a beacon of light and hope for disciples around the world. Not only did the McKeans seem to empty the pockets of the Portland church but they have stolen the joy of the struggling Portland disciples. The Portland church according to Arthur struggle to maintain the same level of faith and zeal that they had established prior to the loss of so many to Los Angeles. Rather than feel appreciation for their sacrifice, they began to receive calls from Los Angeles expressing concern about the church. Accusations of “lukewarmness” and a constant barrage of appeals to “leave Portland and move to LA” became common for members of the congregation. The elders and the Johnsons confronted Kip on this divisive behavior but it continued to escalate.

What is the reason behind McKean’s concerns and ultimately calling out a remnant from the Portland Church?

The goal of the newly found Sold-Out Discipling Movement is two fold. Firstly to remain unified and secondly to continue gathering a remnant of sold-out disciples reaching the world for Christ in a single generation.

The Johnsons and some elders of the Portland church developed a different reality. Arthur writes about the Portland leadership maintains a conviction that local congregations should be open to outside influence but ultimately the final decision making authority rests in the hands of the local leadership. Secondly, the Portland leadership insisted on extending the right hand of fellowship to anyone that they considered a brother or sister in Christ not just those in the “New Movement.” Obviously, Arthur’s conclusion is pretty insightful. These positions were unacceptable to Kip and on August 3, 2008 he announced to his closest advisors that he had decided to “Call out a Remnant” from the Portland church and that all those who have relationships with brothers and sisters in Portland should begin calling to encourage them to leave the church immediately and move to a church in the “New Movement”.

Let us notice that the ICOC Co-operational Churches or ICOC put great emphasis on McKean starting a “New Movement” whereas they maintain keeping the status quo. Arthur reports: In September 2006 Kip made a decision to break all ties with his former fellowship, the International Churches of Christ, and start his new “Sold out Disciples Movement” with its headquarters in Portland. In reality, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is dead since decentralising in November 2002. The former ICOC has divided into two main factions since September 2005.

What was the mandate of the Portland leadership with the McKeans?

Not so long ago, early 2006, Bob Bertalot and Tony Untalan were appointed as the first elders in the history of the Portland International Church of Christ. On that historic day, the Johnsons were welcomed and were made responsible for the West region. Steve served as an Associate Lead Evangelist.

The day the McKeans left for Los Angeles the elders of the Portland congregation had nothing but praiseworthy remarks for our dear brother and sister, Kip and Elena. In their opinion from an article, McKeans To Los Angeles – April 2007 the McKeans have humbly served the Portland International Church of Christ with hard work, tears and selfless lifestyle.

Leadership in the Portland congregation knew their policy differ from the anti-McKean faction. Nonetheless, leadership and the congregation shared a conviction God has begun a new movement of sold-out disciples whose motivating vision is the envangelization of the nations in this generation!

Here the elders and more noteworthy the Bertalots dispels all doubt others may share today about the McKeans mandate.

Firstly. As elders we want to commend Kip for all his tireless efforts to revive God’s worldwide discipling movement. Kip’s continual pursuit to fulfil Jesus’ dream to plant churches of sold-out disciples in every nation in the face of tremendous opposition and criticism is inspiring!

Secondly. We believe that it is God who raises up those in leadership. A person is simply recognized for what one is already doing. Therefore because the scope of Kip’s mission work is worldwide, it is our conviction, as well as Steve Johnson’s and the other leaders in the Portland Family of Churches, that God’s Spirit has raised Kip up to be the World Missions Evangelist for our new movement. The inaugural article, Welcome Home by Kip McKean implicate Steve Johnson by name for encouraging Kip to start again! Then this past year after most ICOC leaders rejected and opposed our efforts to call out a remnant to revive the ICOC, God put on the hearts of my dear brother Steve Johnson and many others to urge me to begin again. So last fall we officially initiated the new Portland Discipling Movement or as some would call us, the “Sold-out Movement.”

Thirdly. Through much discussion and prayer we believe the Spirit has chosen this time to send the McKeans to Los Angeles, California. In April, the McKeans along with a 40-member mission team will join the now 23 Christians of the Los Angeles International Christian Church.

Fourthly. During these early years of God’s new movement, all of the Portland Family of Churches will work together pooling our resources of disciples, money and prayers to send mission teams to the major metropolitan cities of the world.

Finally. Steve and Lisa have also been instrumental in helping to guide the McKeans and the other ministers in the Portland Family of Churches to “take the high road” and not strike back at those who criticize our planting of new churches and starting a new movement.

The impressions given by Douglas Arthur second report From Chaos to Clarity: My Trip to Portland strongly indicate God is dealing with faulty men who have repented. Here Arthur thinks Bob Bertalot and the remaining Portland church elders are men of clear convictions and a strong faith in God’s sovereignty. They have guided the congregation through a storm and have emerged stronger for the experience. They are resolute about their vision for the future and their convictions about God’s church.

These elders have rallied behind a united front – a new type of fellowship according to Mike Taliaferro – We are a fellowship right now of independent, Bible-believing churches. Yes, we are going to have a man lead the movement, and that is going to be Jesus Christ. (April 1st 2004 Faithful Conversations, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas.)

But then there is this one guy who made a similar statement – I will be with disciples agreeing to build a movement centred on one personality. And His name is Jesus. (2006, Kip McKean, Partners in the Gospel II, Portland International Church of Christ)

And this is how God’s faulty men carry out Jesus by certain labels.

Clearing up the confusion - thanks to the Taliaferros

2008-09-13T09:59:00.002+02:00

The Portland International Church of Christ break-away congregation from the Sold-Out Discipling movement were given the right hand of fellowship by Mike and Anne-Brigitte Taliaferro, thus officiate them part of the "original" ICOC clan who had broken away from the Church of Christ in 1988.

Kip promise a new church - if you double cross his new movement

2008-09-04T23:26:00.003+02:00

Clearing up the confusion - The Portland International Church of Christ originally from the Portland Movement now known as the Sold-Out Discipling Movement has become the first church to break away from Kip McKean's new movement (SODM). Steve Johnson defected - he desert a cause in order to join the opposing forces. Here we have to ask: Is the opposing forces cause better? I think not! Or do they look after people better? I think so!

Kip responded promptly by planting a new church - The Portland International Christian Church. Recently, Steve Johnson and the remaining elders in Portland, Oregon, stated their autonomy and desire to, “Have no man as a leader over them.” Sadly, with these decisions, they have separated themselves from the Sold-out Discipling Movement. Yet, we wish them well.

Does it mean the Kathmandu-embrace between Kip and Steve is still intact? Nonetheless it is church business as usual. Out of this confusion, a small remnant group was formed in Portland. It is overseen by Jeremy Ciaramella of Eugene, Oregon, and is called the Portland International Christian Church.

Surely the next leader who dream to defect from McKean's movement may not receive a we-wish-you-well-Kathmandu-treatment. And that's a promise!

A promise is made to be broken? (ironic)

2008-09-04T23:08:00.003+02:00

Steve's response in the context of staying faithful to a Promise.

The Kathmandu-embrace

2008-09-01T01:27:00.001+02:00

Steve and Lisa Johnson new adventure in the new movement has finally come to an abrupt end due to disagreement concerning church polity with the McKean’s. The Johnson’s want no man as a leader over them.

Douglas Arthur broke the news (August 29, 2008) about the Johnson’s turnaround and it was widely publicised by other websites hosting anti-McKean sentiment. Surely the Johnson’s decision to embrace the ICOC will greatly contribute towards church growth within the ranks of the anti-McKean faction. An official report has come forth from the Sold-Out Discipling Movement.

The Johnson’s heroically sided with the McKeans early in 2006 while on the same day the Portland Church appointed their first elders, Bob Bertalot and Tony Untalan. McKean praised the Johnson’s loyalty - Steve and Lisa, truly your “colours are clear!” Welcome home!

The Johnson’s decided to join the Portland movement better known today as the Sold-Out Discipling Movement after making an announcement in the Savannah Church of Christ on December 22, 2005. Lisa and I are moving our family to Portland, Oregon to work with the church there for a while. This news has stunned many at the time due to the massive anti-McKean reaction derived from the Portland Story.

Prior to that, Steve’s Kathmandu-embrace with Kip McKean started in a period where he was personally trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The friendship endured and suffered little ill-effects despite being tested by enormous outside pressures such as the decentralisation of the ICOC in 2002 at the Long Beach Unity Meeting and the anti-McKean September 2005 Seattle Conference response. Here both men have stepped in and supported one another.

Let us consider the decentralisation of the ICOC in 2002. McKean offered the Johnson’s financial support.

The Johnson’s according to Kip’s view had to resign their position as World Sector Leaders during the 2002 Unity Meeting in an article entitled, The Portland Family Welcomes Steve and Lisa Johnson! Here McKean exert his viewpoint that many “Kingdom teachers and elders” falsely believed a central Kingdom leadership (World Sector Leaders), lead evangelists and overseeing evangelists were unscriptural. They also introduced “autonomy” into each congregation of the International Churches of Christ, thus the elders began leading the local ministries without the direction of an overseeing and/or lead evangelist. Therefore, Steve and Lisa, similar to Elena and me, resigned as World Sector Leaders. It seems that the Johnson’s never questioned the McKean’s position on unbearable doctrine.

The New York City Church declined the Johnson’s a pulpit position and they returned to the fulltime ministry a year later – 2004 - serving the Savannah Church of Christ in Georgia. The call for Steve to serve as an Associate Lead Evangelist in the Portland International Church of Christ followed 23 months later. Steve gladly accepted. The McKean’s elders made special arrangement for the Portland congregation Missions Contribution on March 12, 2006 to sacrifice at least ten times their weekly contribution to aid the Johnson’s salary.

Roles reversed. The Johnson’s offered the McKean’s emotional support.

The Portland Story article released on August 21st 2005 (some think as early as August 19th, 2005) has divided the ICOC for good. Perhaps some today will be surprised who were responsible for the content. Steve Johnson was little conflicted during his address to the ICOC leadership gathered at the September 2005 Seattle Conference. Here Johnson was shielding McKean from many angry stares during the Conference. Clearly Kip had few sympathisers during the Seattle Conference due to the August 21st release of the Portland Story. Some speakers were prepared to boycott the Conference if McKean would preach. The organisers barred McKean from any contribution other than being an observer and he was not allowed to participate with any decision-making processes.

Johnson called Kip my friend. He never hesitated to affirm his loyalty to Kip and some ownership regarding the controversial article, which now has split the ICOC. Johnson also implicated Douglas Arthur contribution to this notorious article saying the fact of the matter is, Doug Arthur and I worked on that article with him [Kip] for four hours before it was released. A transcript from McKean’s Friday night, August 19th sermon of the Portland Jubilee, God Became a Dying Man mentions McKean’s annoyance with Douglas and Steve’s involvement. Now that may tick them off… well, that’s OK. Y’know, people who changed my life ticked me off the most. I mean, Doug and Steve did it last night for four hours. I had my whole bulletin article [The Portland Story] written exactly the way I wanted it, and they made me go change it.

Perhaps the most controversial dilemma the neutral ICOC had to face was their apathy concerning discipleship. Johnson assured his audience in Seattle that in Savannah Church of Christ people will once more embrace discipleship exactly in the manner Kip is doing it. In Savannah, I want 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.

Johnson further affirmed at the Conference his logic in pursuing a friendship with McKean right or wrong. …wherever Kip goes, I go. And that’s not because Kip is ever always right or sometimes even close to right – Kip’s my friend. Doug’s my friend too. And I believe if your friend takes you in the wrong direction, you’ve got to straighten him out, but you can’t do that if you’re not together. I needed Kip for the first few years of ministry… but I feel like he needs me now, simply as a friend. And whatever he does, I will support it as best I can and continue to keep a clear conscience.

Johnson made in 2006 an emphatic statement of loyalty to the Portland group which one blogger suggests it is nothing more than schizophrenic babble when reading the article entitled The Portland Family Welcomes Steve and Lisa Johnson!. Here Steve almost sacrificed his soul on the altar of human friendship. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity or meander in the maze of mediocrity.

Needless to say, the true colours of Steve Johnson’s loyalty towards Kip McKean’s belief system have been severely tested. In 2006, McKean made a decision to break all ties with his former fellowship, the International Churches of Christ, and start his new “Sold-Out Discipling Movement” with its headquarters in Portland. Surely McKean’s isolation and that of Steve Johnson bobbing conscience were driven to breaking point as the aggressive church policies of the Portland Story ensued throughout 2006 and 2008.

Near the end of 2006, November 19th McKean lost his friendship with Douglas Arthur. Perhaps others have hoped the Johnson’s might contribute to a positive change keeping Kip in check, but they clearly have failed.

Is it really the end of the Kathmandu-embrace?

Madiba, 90 years of love

2008-07-18T11:38:00.007+02:00

Nelson Mandela is celebrating his 90th birthday in his Transkei Qunu home today - 18 July 2008! Today this humble servant of humanity is with his family the people who made him what he is today. His wife Graca Machel said ahead of this day: The world needs symbols. The world needs to highlight the best values we can find in certain human beings. Mandela is one of those. Former South African president and co-winner of the 1993 Nobel peace prize, FW de Klerk rated Mandela as one of the greatest figures of the last century. He is the most famous South African who has ever lived and is universally regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century.

Mandela’s statesmanship and humility opt him to become the first recipient of the ICOC HOPE Unity Award in 1995. The Unity Award, resembles a hand holding a bundle of sticks tied with a cord mounted on an octagon shape for its base. This original idea came from Pat Gempel, former director of Development for HOPE worldwide. Steve Johnson, former ACES World Sector leader, was responsible for the design, while the hands of Jackie Perreault Gonzales sculpted a magnificent work of art. Pat’s idea based on an old fable tells of a father who handed his children a bundle of sticks tied with a leather cord and gave them the command, “Break it.” Strong as they were, none of them could manage the task and they handed the bundle back to their father. He then untied it, handed each a single stick, and said again, “Break it.’ This they easily did. With an air of gravity and a pause to help drive the point home, the father advised his children, “Unity gives strength.”

Madiba warmly received the honors bestowed on him from an ICOC delegation consisting of Dr. Mark Ottenweller, director of HOPE for the Poor in South Africa, Kip McKean, Bob and Pat Gempel on August 10th 1995 at his official residence in Pretoria. Roger Lamb recorded the event for KNN and the video was shown during the World Missions Leadership conference held in Johannesburg during the period of 9-13 August 1995.

The spirit of Mandela is unbreakable. How do you break love? Nelson Mandela made a profound speech to the court during his opening statement of the Rivonia trial in April 20th 1964. He valued death as an ally in order to achieve an ideal for freedom for all South Africans. During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal, which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

The day, February 11th 1990 Mandela walked free!

Instead of being a bitter man hardened by prison life he showcased to the world his famous Madiba smile! Through those bitter 27 years on Robben Island Mandela made every effort during tough negotiations leading up to the end of apartheid rule in 1994 to add to his faith goodness. The former National Party leader, FW de Klerk, acknowledged his working relationship during negotiations with Mandela went through hardship. He was a hard, sometimes remorseless negotiating partner and our relationship was often severely strained. Nevertheless, whenever the situation demanded it, we were able to overcome our differences and take concerted action to defuse the crisis as they arose. After his inauguration, Nelson Mandela used his personal charm to promote reconciliation and to mould our widely diverse communities into an emerging multicultural nation. This, I believe, will be seen as his greatest legacy.

And to goodness, Madiba added knowledge. And to knowledge self-control; and to self-control, perseverance. And to perseverance, godliness. And to godliness, brotherly kindness. And to brotherly kindness, 90 years of love.

Graca Machel is right: The world needs symbols. Perhaps the triumph of Madiba’s dedication to humanity is in the manner he is a living symbol of hope to the world. And perhaps, Mandela’s story will always remain a triumph because this man was in no position to freely give what he had freely received until his release!

Today, 13 years ago, those men from the ICOC delegation, who visited this champion of peace, must learn from an old fable when a father handed a bundle of sticks tied with leather cord and gave them the command, “Break It.”

I think that father (tata) is Nelson Mandela!

Madiba we salute you! Happy Birthday!

Sarel de Wet
Proudly South African

Road to nowhere.

2008-07-16T00:24:00.002+02:00

Dave Eastman’s article entitled Embracing Discipleship (Part 1) startled me for a number of reasons, mainly because the author proposes new insights and applications to embrace once again, or maybe for the first time, the discipleship to which we are called. Eastman is of opinion people should say ‘no’ to Jesus rabbinical one-over-another disciple model and ‘yes’ to one-another disciple partner arrangements. Is his proposal the correct model?

First it must be said, Eastman is an old hand from the Crossroads era. He has experienced many adjustments to the disciple approach since his first introduction in the late seventies. Terminology shifts between the founder of the Crossroads movement, Charles ‘Chuck’ Lucas and his protégée were early indicators of things to come; McKean pioneered an egoistic guru-style leadership in 1988 based on Jesus leading his few. The Boston movement, which McKean started in 1979, extended over a twenty-year span known as Episode 1, which relapsed in the new millennium with McKean’s Unity Meeting resignation in 2002.

Henry Kriete’s letter followed the Unity Meeting. Here, Kriete’s document presented an honest evaluation of past and present sins especially concerning the formation structures of discipleship in the former ICOC. I quote: That we have become a top to bottom hierarchy is not a question. The truth is we are. Why we have chosen this model, and sought to crystallize it, when the apostolic church has no such model, is the big question. Even with other models to pattern ourselves after; even with so many teachers in our churches who surely know better, the fact is that we have chosen and systematically enforced this one. The reason I use the word ‘enforced’ is simple: we have become what we’ve wanted to become; what we have insisted on becoming. How did this happen? I am not entirely sure. Why we let happen is the more radical question.

Clearly, Dave Eastman is not in favour of any pyramidal relations in his proposal, but he has already made a grave mistake. The fact is Eastman have chosen and systematically enforced this one – discipling relationships. The question is will Chicago Church let it happen? It appears that some Christians in this fellowship would be concerned about a renewed emphasis on discipling relationships.

The new ICOC have come a long way avoiding the pitfalls of the one-over-another model since McKean’s resignation. However, by large, leaders are determined not to let go of discipleship methodologies. Perhaps their dilemma could be explained if Micky Mouse would be removed from Walt Disney, would it still be a Walt Disney? The reconstruction attempts since decentralisation have almost levelled the ICOC to the Church of Christ. Imagine if disciple relations were compromised; the next step would be reintegration with the Church of Christ.

It’s sad to see men like Dave Eastman rallying for a position that would lead to more questions than answers, or a road to nowhere, especially if these men are unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water, considering mandatory or intentional disciple relationships!

Ask this question during October’s discussion. Does it mean if you are born a ‘discipling’ church; you must forever remain a ‘discipling’ church? Is it not to use Kriete’s words what we have insisted on becoming? Eastman stated: We were born as a discipling church. We grew up as a discipling church. And though we made mistakes, and at times sinned, as a discipling church, we are still a discipling church. That means that each one of us needs to once again embrace discipling.

Well we know where were goin
But we dont know where weve been
And we know what were knowin
But we cant say what weve seen
And were not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out

Next time: The Road to nowhere

Commentary on Discipleship to follow...

2008-07-05T23:28:00.004+02:00

icoccommentary will focus on discipleship in a series entitled: DECODING THE DISCIPLESHIP TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED.

Kelcy Hahn is a pro!

2008-05-08T23:02:00.002+02:00

Kip McKean recently reported to his flock the mainline Church of Christ and the International Church of Christ (ICOC), now in ruins, while a remarkable 1.7% growth has been determined by the combine efforts of Kelcy Hahn and Roger Lamb’s 2007 Church Survey tell us otherwise.

icoccommentary perhaps contributed to a picture of doom and gloom for the “ICOC” by projecting a probable decline of 1.5% from the Mission Memo churches survey list. However, the fact of the matter is stats are in the hands of statisticians. Here, Kelcy Hahn gallant feedback resolved unnecessary tension and icoccommentary is grateful for his outstanding contribution to this regard.

Were the numbers rigged?
icoccommentary calculations were entirely based on Kelcy Hahn’s reported portion that is listed on MM (87,360) We tallied 87,280. Even so, if one would have been guided by MM (87,360) figures then the “ICOC” should be in decline by 1.4%. Here, icoccommentary were very close!

However, icoccommentary for the record cannot dispute Kelcy’s numbers – it would be foolish! The upward trend consists from stats obtained from the final report (89,131) + 999 (estimated portion) = 90,130! The “ICOC” have grown by 1.7%! Perhaps this cliché is applicable:) The rat race is over the rats have won!

Is the ICOC back?
It seems that the “ICOC” is back – revived with over 560 churches in 147 countries. Evidently, McKean speaks about his group as a revival movement springing from the ICOC while in return the ICOC Co-op Churches view themselves as the ICOC or at least at best as a successor. Consider the opening remarks in the 2007 Church Survey Report: Part 1. Here, we read: For the first time since 2002, our annual survey of membership among International Churches of Christ shows an increase in estimated membership. Data collected by Lamb and Hahn’s fourth survey ties in with the former ICOC era which is unfortunate.

McKean has stated in June 2004: ”Gone, I believe, is the ICOC.” His opponents were aggravated by this remark. It was the beginning of the Dividing Years. Over the ensuing months, the identity of the ICOC become blurred, but during the end of 2005 two opposing factions emerged, namely the pro-McKean Sold-Out Discipling movement (Since August 2005) and the anti-McKean ICOC Co-op Churches (Since September 2005). The ICOC is divided. Furthermore, a small number of neutral “ICOC” churches decided not to sign up with the Unity Proposal document nor allow Portland to assist them to rebuild since the ICOC fragmented. Very little is known from these remainder offshoots. Some of these congregations no longer want to be associated with an “ICOC” tag. In South Africa there is one such church group (name withhold) that even has participated in the 2007 ICOC Church Survey.

However, the “ICOC” existence cannot be denied. The two main parties have both reached a turning point. Both groups rely on a vital element – Jesus’ disciple-making model, that will ensure more numbers producing more disciple-making churches everywhere. We must not forget that this evangelistic model is flawed and is regarded as unbiblical. Nevertheless, this current survey has boosted the moral for the ICOC Co-op Churches. What effect it will have on McKean’s fellowship remains to be seen.

Numbers that don't make sense to us.

2008-05-01T13:49:00.003+02:00

Stats are in the hands of statisticians.

Perhaps it is time for statistician, Kelcy Hahn to release the full report concerning the 2007 “ICOC” church survey. Indeed, Hahn is correct with his statement: Overall, the numbers tell a remarkable, if uneven, tale of survival, repentance and recovery.

It seems to icoccommentary the report (coming) was dissected by “ICOC” evangelists long before the news of an increase was made public. Also, Mike Taliaferro wasted no time submitting extracts from the full report on ICOC Hot News on Monday, April 28, 2008. Here the breakdown members by regions indeed reach the mystical number 90,130. Thus the ICOC grew by 1.7% in 2007. Furthermore, icoccommentary confirms this fact and is relief to found that our calculators can make sums!

But the numbers don’t make sense to us.

Let us consider church lists submitted on Mission Memo’s 2007 survey. Perhaps the numbers tell a remarkable, if irregular tale?

There are 8 regions. Africa was one of the first regions to contribute 100% as reported by Mission Memo’s article, entitled 525 on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. According to Taliaffero’s ICOC Hot News report Africa tallies 10,750. In comparison, Mission Memo Africa church lists actually tallies 10,788. The difference is 38. How can a region, which reported 100%, be more than stipulated in the full report?

Here follows a breakdown in numbers from regions as reported in ICOC Hot News by Taliaferro and what can be viewed at Mission Memo. Readers please do your maths and comment freely!!!

ICOC Hot News Members by Region:

Africa 10,750
Asia/Pacific 18,489
Canada/U.S. 37,154
Eurasia 6,797
Europe 2,724
Latin America/Caribbean 13,748
Middle East 468

TOTAL: 90,130

Mission Memo Members by Region:

Africa 10,788
Asia/Pacific 17,339
Canada/U.S. 36,311
Eurasia 6,817
Europe 2,351
Latin America/Caribbean 13,465
Middle East 209

TOTAL: 87,280

Update Part 6: 2007 Church Survey Statistics – Did they rig the numbers?

2008-04-29T00:53:00.002+02:00

Monday, April 28th 2008 marks the end of the ICOC 2007 Church Survey.

The year 2002 was the ICOC family of churches best year statistically. It had 135,046 members. This number forms the plateau of the Proclamation Years (1994-2000) since the sharp drop took its terrible toll during the Count-out Years (2001-2003) and present Dividing Years (2004-2008). Perhaps this survey contains a mix bag of bittersweet elements that is hard to swallow. Now for the first time since 2002 the numbers shows an upward curve! icoccommentary is pessimistic optimistic – here’s why…

Who is growing stronger and stronger?
icoccommentary welcomes the idea collecting data from ICOC family of churches. Furthermore, icoccommentary endorses the vision of a new era where churches feel safe sharing vital information without fear of competition and comparison. Nevertheless, the aim of stats is to compare from previous records.

However, it is bothersome that the church survey of 2007 among International Churches of Christ is not a true reflection of the entire ICOC family of churches. Surely this survey only reflect a segment of the International Churches of Christ, namely ICOC churches affiliated to the anti-McKean faction known as the ICOC Co-operation Churches. Why was the pro-McKean faction better known as the Sold-Out Discipling Movement not part of this survey? Who is benefiting from these statistics – the International Churches of Christ as a whole or a certain faction within it?

Not of our numbers
Secondly, icoccommentary is rather surprised by the announcement of an estimated 1.7% increase in 2007. Here, icoccommentary forecast a possible 2.6% decline from 2006 membership stats, and a 36.1% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002. A proposal that was nearly dead on!

This prediction was based on the lists of churches given by Mission Memo starting from the end of January 2008 up and until March 2008. Churches highlighted in red were expected to contribute to the list. Even so, it became clear from the 2007 church lists that the enlisted ICOC churches were not going to improve on the 2006 statistics.

What is more perplexing is the numbers of the most recent updated April 2008 list obtained from Mission Memo. It does not reflect a total membership of 90,130! icoccommentary would like to know where did this number come from?

Furthermore, there are other conflicting interests stated in the 2007 Church Survey Report: Part 1 posted on Mission Memo’s blog that does not correspond with the article found in the Survey-section entitled, Church Survey Status: Participating Churches.

Part 1 mentions they have heard from 545 of the 562 churches where as in the Survey-section they have enlisted 563 churches which have participated in the 2007 survey already. Here, icoccommentary counted all the churches including those marked with [*], [-] and red [?] In total it amounts to 537 churches listed! icoccommentary would like to know where are the remainder of 562/563 churches on this list?

It is correctly stated that 17 churches – those in question [?] did not participate in the 2007 church survey. Seven of those churches combine 2006 membership amounts to 1,368 – there is no recollection of data for the other ten.

United we stand, divided we fall
After careful examination from the April lists provided by Mission Memo it is evident that the total membership among International Churches of Christ notably the anti-McKean faction estimated for 2007 have dropped by 1.5% from the previous year. The number is 87,280; not 90,130. This fact pulls them further down into the abyss with a 35.4% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002.

Finally, it becomes evident that the era of Episode 1 can never wash with a new era whether we’re taking up stats or proposing Not a new beginning, but an exciting Episode 2! Here, Mission Memo and Disciples Today Church Directory must take an honest look and start afresh with the number game. Roger Lamb must be more careful not to generalize and monopolize the old ICOC. If the ICOC were united; 90,130 would be probable, but they’re not.

The divisions within the old ICOC have even messed up the statistics. Kip McKean can no longer share in the ministries of over 560 churches in 147 countries. Each side is forced to take its own stock. This is another significant element of the Dividing Years.

Historically, the year 2002 is the benchmark. Today in total the ICOC, whether consisting the pro-McKean faction or anti-McKean faction numerically are back in 1996!

Herewith the breakdown of regions with respected churches and membership. Commentary is added concerning participation.

63 Churches listed for Africa:
Membership for 2007: 10,788
All participated on the list

46 Churches listed for Eurasia:
Membership for 2007: 6,817
All participated on the list

52 Churches listed for Europe:
Membership for 2007: 2,351
[?] 4 churches
[*] 6 churches
[-] 5 churches

7 Churches listed for the Middle East:
Membership for 2007: 209
All participated on the list

131 Churches listed for Asia/Pacific:
Membership for 2007: 17,339
[?] 1 church
[-] 1 church

18 Churches listed for the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 2,238
All participated on the list

62 Churches listed for Latin America:
Membership for 2007: 11,227
[?] 4 churches

158 Churches listed for Canada/United States:
Membership for 2007: 36,311
[?] 8 churches

537 Churches listed on Mission Memo
Total membership for 2007 Church Survey: 87,280

A) Total membership for 2002 Church Survey: 135,046
B) Total membership for 2006 Church Survey: 88,597
C) Total membership for 2007 Church Survey: 87,280

Difference between (B) and (C): 1,317
% Down: 1.5%

Difference between (A) and (C): 47,766
% Down: 35.4%

E&OE

Update Part 5: 2007 Church Survey Statistics – Africa, Caribbean and Middle East stats completed

2008-04-04T18:03:00.001+02:00

icoccommentary forecast a possible 2.6% decline from 2006 membership stats, and a 36.1% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002.

Church participation from Africa:
Membership for 2007: 10,788
icoccommentary forecast score: -40

Church participation from the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 2,238
icoccommentary forecast score: -116

Church participation from the Middle East:
Membership for 2007: 209
icoccommentary forecast score: +24

Combined Total Membership for 2007: 13,235
Combined Total icoccommentary forecast score: -132

Update Part 4: 2007 Church Survey Statistics – Africa and Caribbean stats completed

2008-03-14T11:48:00.002+02:00

icoccommentary forecast a possible 2.6% decline from 2006 membership stats, and 36.1% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002. (See Update Part 3)

Church participation from Africa:
Membership for 2007: 10,788
icoccommentary forecast score: -40

Church participation from the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 2,238
icoccommentary forecast score: -116

Combined Total Membership for 2007: 13,026
Combined Total icoccommentary forecast score: -156

Update Part 3: 2007 Church Survey Statistics - Slight Improvement, Again

2008-03-12T19:39:00.001+02:00

Mission Memo, along with Disciples Today, conducts an annual survey on a section of the International Churches of Christ (Anti-McKean Churches).

The estimated membership at the end of 2006 was 88,597.

A possible 2.6% decline is forecast from 2006, and a 36.1% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002.

Church participation from Africa:
Membership for 2007: 10,387
3 Churches expect to participate from Africa:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 441

Church participation from Eurasia:
Membership for 2007: 3,742
16 Churches expect to participate from Eurasia:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 3,082

Church participation from Europe:
Membership for 2007: 2,323
9 Churches expect to participate from Europe:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 3

Church participation from the Middle East:
Membership for 2007: 196
1 Church expect to participate from the Middle East:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: -

Church participation from Asia/Pacific:
Membership for 2007: 15,712
23 Churches expect to participate from Asia/Pacific:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,584

Church participation from the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 1,665
4 Churches expect to participate from the Caribbean:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 457

Church participation from Latin America:
Membership for 2007: 11,066
7 Churches expect to participate from Latin America:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 710
(Previously Mexico, Mexico City 3,906 now 3,904 / Puerto Rico, San Juan 120 added, not displayed before)

Church participation from Canada/United States:
Membership for 2007: 33,683
21 Churches expect to participate from Canada/United States:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,221
(Previously U.S. Detroit 303 now 304; U.S. San Antonio 301 now 304; U.S. San Juan 130 now 120; U.S. Raleigh appeared twice 275 and 525 now 525 / U.S. Chapel Hill 275 added to compensate Raleigh?)

TOTAL
Current Membership for 2007: 78,774

84 Churches expect to participate in 2007 Church Survey:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 7,498

Target: 88,597
Possible estimate: 86,272
Difference: 2,325
% Down: 2.6%

E&OE

Why is it taking Kip so long?

2008-03-11T15:55:00.005+02:00

Kip McKean’s article Rapidly Spreading The Honored Message! is a far cry to the words penned by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:1.

Finally, brothers, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honoured, just as it was with you.

Here Paul the apostle and his fellow workers, Silas and Timothy encourage the church in Thessalonica for persevering with the Lord’s message they received whether by word of mouth or by letter. The Thessalonians were under severe pressure from the Jews to deny Jesus as King! (Acts 17:7)

(Part 1)

The International Churches of Christ (ICOC) have separated into two distinct movements, namely the pro-McKean faction known as the Sold-Out Discipling movement and the anti-McKean faction known as the ICOC Co-operation Churches.

Paul’s remarks pray for us and just as it was with you is noticeably absent from these factions interaction with each other whether by word of mouth or letter. Here the possessive plural form – our – is often used in a selfish embrace.

The opening lines of McKean’s article refer to God as our God.

Mike Taliaferro, recently corrected the perception that the anti-McKean faction have renounced the dream to evangelize the world in one generation with this statement: Finally, let us note that we have not lost our dream to win the world in our generation, even though we have hit our bumps at times. [Underlined by me]

However this article is not about fidgeting over words but investigates the likelihood to evangelize the world in one generation.

Kip McKean promote strongly the dream to evangelize the world in a generation. An ideal he penned and signed with his World Sector Leaders on February 4th 1994. This document is known as the Evangelization Proclamation.

However this strategy is not from the Lord despite McKean’s claim that the Lord put on my heart to pen the Evangelization Proclamation. Many ICOC leaders during the S.A.D-interval (see graph) have openly expressed their dissatisfaction with this proclamation. McKean is quick to exploit this fact stating the following in his article: In 2002, many leaders in our former fellowship renounced the dream to evangelize the world in a generation as “impossible” and labelled me a “false prophet” for calling everyone to it.

This impression is clarified in Mike Taliaferro’s article Hotnews Response to Raul Moreno Editorial since November 2007. The article, though unofficially state for the record that [Mike Taliaferro] do not know a single evangelist or elder in the ICOC who has renounced this dream. It seems that the anti-McKean faction have considered a more moderate approach concerning the time frame for a generation in reaching the world for Christ. We are still giving our lives to evangelize the world, and we want to do it in our generation. If it takes longer, so be it. The Holy Spirit is in charge. But we all want to see it happen in our generation.

On the other hand the pro-McKean faction judged from this article by McKean have stipulated a generation consist of thirty-some years. Again, the anti-McKean faction safer option is explained to Raul’s question to evangelize the world in one generation. I quote: Of course, this begs a question. Since the Portland Movement so often talks about winning the world in one generation, well, hasn’t Kip had one generation already to do it? Didn’t he start trying in 1979 in Boston? It seems to [Mike Taliaferro] that after 30 years he is back to square one. Since you guys are so set on World evangelization taking only one generation, then why is it taking Kip so long? It appears that Kip will need to try a second time to accomplish his goal, and it will take Kip himself at least two generations to do the job. So, why are you so critical of us?

The problem between these two factions is Kip McKean’s leadership and a few moderations concerning church polity. Both have a manifest for their modus operandi. Historically the Portland Story and the Unity Proposal documents set them each apart.

The formation of the pro-McKean faction happened in August 2005 at the Portland World Missions Jubilee. Before this event the Portland International Church of Christ since accepting the McKeans in June 2003 were fast reaching “movement status”. The Portland movement was taking shape, while the rest of the ICOC group was “bumping away”.

The former ICOC ‘Kingdom-dominion’ or ‘Restoration’ theology reared its ugly head in the Portland Story released during the Portland World Missions Jubilee in August 2005. Here McKean reintegrate this point in his article [it] was the beginning of a calling out of a remnant of sold-out disciples who believe in a movement to evangelize the world in a generation. McKean is adamant that by October 2006, the Spirit had clearly begun a new discipling movement, which has been “rapidly spreading” in unprecedented ways. [Underlined by me]

McKean stated in the Portland Story: For years, I have preached “one church-one city;” in other words, each city should have only one church of disciples, because if they are faithful to God, He will multiply them to evangelize not only their city but the whole region. (Acts 19:8-10) I still believe in this same principle. Sadly, it has become the practice of some former ICOC churches to break-up into geographic groups or groups of various convictions about commitment to Christ, discipling and church government. If a group asks for help to restore the foundation of sold-out disciples, we will help in any way we can. Biblically, disciples can never rebel against authority, yet as seen with David who “chose” to transfer his allegiance from the ungodly Saul to the uncircumcised Achish (1 Samuel 27:1-4) one is “free to choose” whom to submit to!

A counter movement formed quickly, in order to thwart McKean’s plans for a progressive “calling-out of the remnant of disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches. Simply termed the anti-McKean faction.

Today, the anti-McKean faction officially known as the ICOC Co-operation Churches have a strong ethos with more than 70% of ICOC churches supporting this initiative. This group does not view themselves as a “breakaway” from the original ICOC. Mike Taliaferro’s admonishment to Raul Moreno sounds like a typical William Wallace speech from Braveheart. But most of us did not cut and run during the direst time in our history. While some ran off and started “new movements” simply so that they could be in charge once again, most of us stayed with the churches that we began and did not desert “the army of God” that was still fighting in the field. [Underlined by me]

Nevertheless the freedom to choose whom to submit as it was for Raul Moreno is often met with counter arguments. Mike Taliaferro’s response (no matter how prudent) to Moreno’s grievances will always produce a spirit of dominion that will continue to wound and crush any who do not toe the line. Nothing will be accomplished if the one group, mentions God as our God and the other accuses them from deserting ”the army of God”.

The Bible states: The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker. (2 Samuel 3:1 NIV)

Elsewhere on my blog I have referred to this scenario by calling the pro-McKean faction, the house of Renovation and the anti-McKean faction, the house of Innovation. Altogether the ICOC group can be called the house of Pain.

Both groups are dangerously close in revealing the following character trademarks (if they are not already present) typically associated with church groups preaching ‘Kingdom-dominion’ or ‘Restoration’ theology with their reliance on the shepherding (discipling) approach. The former ICOC was guilty of it. They are characterise by: (1) a universal Kingdom of God on earth; (2) a requirement for religious unity; (3) a requirement for a structured Church system based on human leadership; (4) a rest on human ability and wisdom; (5) replacing Jesus with the Church.

It would be wise for these leaders to council this year in order to make a determined effort either to embrace one another as brothers or at least be leaders and embrace each other’s differences. If leadership fail to remain in dialogue members will abandon this group due to criticism from within. If they cannot resolve this conflict or war then the ICOC as a group will never be able to Rapidly Spreading The Honored Message! Neither in this generation nor the next!

(Part 2)

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian religious group in the world and growing with more than half of the world’s population Christians in this body. Round about 1.1 billion membership.

This Christian group does not rely on a goal to reach the world in a generation, or make use of exponential growth nor on Jesus’ plan of making disciples. Imagine if they did! However, they do have a centralized Catholic leadership hierarchy that answers back to one man.

The pro-McKean faction supports a worldwide centralized leadership structure, while the anti-McKean faction don’t go along with worldwide centralized leadership.

Even so, it is safe to speculate both support a strategy for worldwide evangelism base on exponential growth produced through Jesus’ plan of making disciples within a timeframe of a generation.

Here, both camps have formulated their ideas on paper in accomplishing this mammoth task. The pro-McKean faction’ Portland Story strategy is continually revised by Kip McKean’s pen. The anti-McKean faction ‘Co-operation Churches’ are continually updated on their website.

On the one hand, the pro-McKean faction’ churches are formed by church planting congregations and remnant gathering congregations and on the other hand, the anti-McKean faction’ churches are formed by church planting congregations and churches signing up with the Plan to co-operate.

According to McKean to reach remnant status remnant gathering congregations must ”start” something new or die in order to be part of God’s new discipling movement. This train of thought is nothing less than an extension of the ideals of the Portland Story’s manifesto for a progressive “calling-out of the remnant of disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches.

This very interesting dynamic in God’s new movement officially known as the Sold-Out Discipling movement have spoiled good will in the brotherhood of the ICOC family of churches. Clearly ‘Jesus is replaced with the Church’ as a man is turned against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be members of his own household. (Matthew 10) In other words, it leads to human arrogance and rivalry, and replaces obedience to God with submission to the Church.

Already McKean’s article stipulates Loyalty to his group’s dynamics. For example, Kip states for exponential growth to occur, there must be a pure foundation of only sold-out disciples. Any lukewarmness, sin or hypocrisy allowed to perpetually exist becomes a leaven that eventually ruins the whole church (1 Corinthians 5:6-12).

In the face of this statement how did ungodly (non-Christian) institutions like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Nike and even Britney Spears [music] have evangelized the world in our lifetime?

Now it is a matter of time before the rot will set in (if not already present). The diagnosis for Church groups supporting ‘Kingdom-dominion’ or ‘Restoration’ theology requires obedience to the Letter. It becomes imperative that all churches unite to do the work. The scheme for world restoration calls for organisational ability, qualities of leadership, rhetoric and the ability to dominate adversaries. It requires obedience from followers, which relies on a system of discipleship to ensure every Christian is under authority and unable to err from the teaching. Here the door shut to outsiders who must enter through the system in order to be saved. The church group becomes the visible Body on earth and Leadership impose direction for everyone.

This frightful scenario is already mounting criticism towards the pro-and anti-McKean factions. McKean’s article does not shy away from dramatic criticism. In Los Angeles, one local “minister” has accused God’s new discipling movement of being “a movement of Satan.” How history repeats itself! [Kip is referring to the men stand opposed in the New Testament]

McKean’s article does not hesitate to attribute new direction within his group as Godly intervention, despite criticism. Some have critized and tried to discredit what is clearly the work of God’s Spirit as evidenced in all the miracles – the baptisms and restorations of fallen away brothers and sisters. Therefore, let us share a very interesting dynamic in God’s new movement. In the new discipling movement, churches are formed in two very different ways: church planting congregations and remnant gathering congregations.

Perhaps McKean’s loyalists receive more open criticism than the anti-McKean group because they articulate their intensions more openly. Here the thoughtful must not pause at a particular group but be ever mindful what is happening on the other side. Remember the history in the making of the International Churches of Christ teachings was more openly criticised than the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ!

In conclusion, McKean’s article supports the same strategy for world conquest as described in Robert Emerson Coleman’s book The Master Plan of Evangelism. It relies on worldly formulas such as exponential growth produced through Jesus’ plan of making disciples.
Roy Davison astutely pointed out the doctrinal foundation and fundamental error in relying on exponential growth produced through Jesus’ plan of making disciples. Adherents to this thesis of the disciple approach mistakenly conclude it is correct to follow Jesus’ pattern or plan in training his apostles as a pattern for making disciples. Davison conclude these are entirely different matters.

Jesus Christ was a rabbi who formed an organizational teacher/student relationship with his apostles. He expressly forbids them to become rabbi’s (Matt 23:8-10). Christians cannot imitate Christ example in everything. A Christian cannot be the head of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church does. Christians may not have disciples of their own or disciples! All Christians are the Lord’s disciples!

Clearly the ICOC pro- or anti- McKean factions face an insurmountable task to evangelise the world in one generation or two or ever. The status quo is not good when one go by statistics. (see graph above) Reaching the world in one generation from an ICOC perspective remains a theological fantasy.

McKean’s article has warned his followers about people like myself who oppose this ideal. Be sure, opposition from the “wicked” and “brothers” who have no faith awaits all who desire to challenge and change the status quo.

Perhaps before the ICOC can look at the world they have to look to each brother and each sister across the room. Pay attention to the plank in your own eye!

Finally, I concur with Tricia Tillin’s observation the New Testament demonstrates that the Law cannot save mankind and that the only hope for man is in justification by faith. The Law has failed to transform mankind and it always will. (Romans 7:6)

Let us all rapidly spread the honored message: Jesus’ remains King!

Update Part 2: 2007 Church Survey Statistics - Slight Improvement

2008-02-17T09:45:00.003+02:00

Mission Memo, along with Disciples Today, conducts an annual survey on a section of the International Churches of Christ (Anti-McKean Churches).

The estimated membership at the end of 2006 was 88,597.

A possible 3.3% decline is forecast from 2006, and a 36.6% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002.

Church participation from Africa:
Membership for 2007: 9,924
8 Churches expect to participate from Africa:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 936

Church participation from Eurasia:
Membership for 2007: 3,730
17 Churches expect to participate from Eurasia:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 3,072

Church participation from Europe:
Membership for 2007: 1,314
25 Churches expect to participate from Europe:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 839

Church participation from the Middle East:
Membership for 2007: 137
4 Churches expect to participate from the Middle East:
Combine membership (undisclosed added) since 2006 survey: 185

Church participation from Asia/Pacific:
Membership for 2007: 15,495
28 Churches expect to participate from Asia/Pacific:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,760

Church participation from the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 1,501
7 Churches expect to participate from the Caribbean:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 615

Church participation from Latin America:
Membership for 2007: 10,795
10 Churches expect to participate from Latin America:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,006
(Previously Mexico, Mexico City 3,906 now 3,904 / Puerto Rico, San Juan 120 added, not displayed before)

Church participation from Canada/United States:
Membership for 2007: 31,929
37 Churches expect to participate from Canada/United States:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 2,431
(Previously U.S. Detroit 303 now 304; U.S. San Antonio 301 now 304; U.S. San Juan 130 now 120; U.S. Raleigh appeared twice 275 and 525 now 525 / U.S. Chapel Hill 275 added to compensate Raleigh?)

TOTAL
Current Membership for 2007: 74,825

136 Churches expect to participate in 2007 Church Survey:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 10,844

Target: 88,597
Possible estimate: 85,669
Difference: 2,928
% Down: 3.3%

E&OE

2007 Church Survey Statistics Going Down

2008-02-12T06:41:00.001+02:00

Mission Memo, along with Disciples Today, conducts an annual survey on a section of the International Churches of Christ (Anti-McKean Churches).

The estimated membership at the end of 2006 was 88,597.

A possible 4.2% decline is forecast from 2006, and a 37.2% decline from peak membership (135,046) in 2002.

Church participation from Africa:
Membership for 2007: 9,837
9 Churches expect to participate from Africa:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,027

Church participation from Eurasia:
Membership for 2007: 3,693
18 Churches expect to participate from Eurasia:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 3,121

Church participation from Europe:
Membership for 2007: 1,068
31 Churches expect to participate from Europe:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,085

Church participation from the Middle East:
Membership for 2007: 137
4 Churches expect to participate from the Middle East:
Combine membership (undisclosed added) since 2006 survey: 185

Church participation from Asia/Pacific:
Membership for 2007: 14,213
34 Churches expect to participate from Asia/Pacific:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 2,800

Church participation from the Caribbean:
Membership for 2007: 679
10 Churches expect to participate from the Caribbean:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 1,527

Church participation from Latin America:
Membership for 2007: 6,257
43 Churches expect to participate from Latin America:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 5,166

Church participation from Canada/United States:
Membership for 2007: 27,963
61 Churches expect to participate from Canada/United States:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 6,093

TOTAL
Current Membership for 2007: 63,847

210 Churches expect to participate in 2007 Church Survey:
Combine membership since 2006 survey: 21,004

Target: 88,597
Possible estimate: 84,851
Difference: 3,746
% Down: 4.2%

E&OE

The Come Back of the Goose that laid the Golden Egg – Campus evangelism

2008-01-30T01:34:00.001+02:00

It’s that time of the year – taking stock. By now the holidays are over. Students over the world as in South Africa will soon return to their respected centres of education. And new students all over the country will flock to varsities.

In South Africa there are approximately 740,000 students and the government want to expand its university system and attract an extra 100,000 students. This goal is to achieve a 20% participation rate by 2015.

No wonder, Douglas Arthur, once responded in his section of the multi-authored Shining Like Stars: Campus ministry is “the goose that laid the golden egg”. For him it is a sort of precious bird, which should not be neglected, and for good reason.

The Campus Ministry days of Charles “Chuck” Lucas’ Crossroads movement has given rise to the McKean’s Boston movement (1979), which later was termed the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) (1994).

The ICOC since August 2005 have divided into two alternating camps due to unresolved leadership issues. The pro-McKean camp who call themselves the Sold-Out Discipling movement are those who support the McKean’s leadership style while the anti-McKean camp who call themselves the ICOC Co-operation Churches rejects latter’s leadership. However, both rely heavily on the campus ministry model because it is still viewed as the most fruitful of harvest fields.

Worldwide the post-2003 ICOC campus ministries had virtually came to a stand still. Douglas precious bird were neglected and at some places abandoned.

The pendulum shifts within the ICOC churches are not over. People within the ICOC are still indecisive concerning ICOC teachings and methodologies. Some ICOC churches near campuses seek alternative structures. The house church concept with small cell groups has become the preferred choice by some ICOC members in South Africa. These people no longer want to emphasise ICOC doctrine or methodology uphold by either pro- or anti- McKean group. Campus evangelism does not feature, as an entity on its own – home churches goal is to create a family vibe where all are considered part of the system.

In contrast, the golden eggs (students) associated with the goose (campus ministry) during the pre-2003 ICOC era, were jealously guarded by the most talented people to work solely with the college ministry. This notion may still be prevalent in some ICOC churches who rely on this old model. Here, ICOC evangelists invest all their energies in making this type of academic ministry a success. Harvest time start as soon as campuses open their doors for registration. A three-stage ministry immediately kicks in throughout the academic year with a strong focus on lots of visitors, lots of studies and lots of new Christians throughout the year.

Worldwide ICOC congregations with a life of an academic ministry fluctuate annually. It’s not entirely the graduation ceremonies fault. Each year that goes by, after the holiday break; church leadership anxiously awaits students to return home. Some students return with broken wings, which get fix during inspirational meetings offered by church activities while some decline to go back to the nest, yet they are on campus.

I for one cannot imagine this new era of ICOC campus evangelism.

In years to come, would the DJ’s style of ministry co-work with the Renton’s?

Nowadays, at some varsity institutions one might encounter a pro- or anti- McKean campus ministry – a sort of two types of jealous geese guarding eggs!

Perhaps, students of both camps who no longer feel so strong about their differences might start a new movement – where they can reaffirm those truths and emphases that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now?

So the breeding cycle continues – the Precious Bird(s) that laid the Golden Egg is back. What will the future bring for these new golden eggs? Well, from personal experience – an endless cycle of persecution. No doubt.

Next articles: New 2007 South African stats as revealed by Mission Memo and Your Faith is sufficient.

YouTube' mission statement

2008-01-16T04:49:00.000+02:00

A mission statement video submitted by the Southern Africa International Churches of Christ also features Rod Fick the late evangelist of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ.

In Christ, My Place and Yours

2007-12-17T09:28:00.000+02:00

Lesson One:
Your Faith Reawakens

By Sarel de Wet
July 2006 ©
Revised November 2007 ©

Dedicated to my dear wife.

Compiled out of love and deep affection for the members
and former members of the Port Elizabeth congregation.
To the members and former members of the ICOC past and present.

May Jesus words never fall on deaf ears:
“Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

Author’s note

Not too long ago, my Calvinist dad gave me some Christian material to read.

The author reasons from Romans 6: “Could I be “in Christ” today but lose that protection at some point in the future? Could my faith or lack of faith determine whether I am presently “in” or “out” of Christ?”

I knew that these questions are bound to the realm held by most Christian theologians that one cannot lose your salvation – the doctrine of eternal security or perseverance of the saints or once saved, always saved.

Nevertheless, I ask myself, at what point in my life will Christ not protect me?
Am I presently “in” or “out” of Christ?

This two-part lesson is based on our ordeal making a decision as a married couple to stay or “fall away” from the International Churches of Christ denomination (ICOC). Please note: Our story is deliberately spiritualised.
The New Testament narrative about the “Healing at the Pool” (John 5:1-15 NIV) is juxtaposed onto our lives. Here, the ICOC and Church of Christ water baptism and legalism in the church are best demonstrated from this Bible story.

What was so significant about the mat? Why did Jesus insist that the invalid man “pick it up”? The answer might surprise you. Although all opinions expressed herein are my own, the facts about our exit are truthfully constructed.

Prologue

John’s Jesus “became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” Here, God breaks the silence. He spoke in the only way we could truly understand.

Jesus.

We know Jesus “was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.”

Any one “who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Furthermore, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

John’s Jesus said: “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him or knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 1:1,10-13,17,18; 14:15-21 NIV)

My invalid ICOC years – 1990-2000

What do you read into Jesus’ interaction (John 5:1-15) with a disabled man who was invalid for thirty-eight years?

This is what I know.

Jesus “learned that he had been in this condition for a long time.” He asked him, “Do you want to get well?” The invalid man replied: “I have no one to help me…”

Perhaps that same Jesus looks at you, but why is he silent?

Jesus’ silence in my life was broken when my wife spoke up. And I listened.

We were in Cape Town in April, the year 2000 celebrating our first wedding anniversary. I can describe my wife, as a person who “is of great worth in God’s sight.” For she has an inner self adorned with “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.” This is how many perceive her. Perhaps to some this type of characteristic reflects an introvert. Granted. I am an extrovert.

We welcomed our scheduled ‘break’ from the Church. At the time it was just fun to be ‘away’ from everything and everybody. Although these feelings were true we did not realise that something sinister hid behind our selfish expression of freedom.

Our way of existence was thoroughly documented by people who disapprove our lifestyle. Former members of our church over many years have voiced their anger and concern toward our Church “life and doctrine”. Theologians across the religious divide have contributed spiritual insight based on the Scripture in combating our Church’s erroneous “doctrine”. Psychologists have studied the effects of our way of “life”. Ironically as members of the ICOC we preached onto others: “Watch closely – Your life and doctrine!”

We were unaware about real answers that could explain almost anything about our fellowship methodology. For example we were sheltered from the world. The ICOC was the kingdom of God, God’s modern-day movement, the only true church of Christ. Our life and doctrine was unsurpassable! No other “denomination” in Christendom was saved! It was pointless joining any other church group who did not adhere to our doctrine! People who left our group were called “fallaways” because they have fell way from God! We taught (Colossians 1:15-18) you couldn’t say ‘yes’ to Christ and ‘no’ to His body, the church.

Here, Dr. Paul R. Martin states in his book entitled Cult-Proofing Your Kids, “The cult builds a wall around the person as shelter from the outside world. The purpose of that wall is to control the amount of information that one receives from the outside. Cults control information through (1) their teachings on doctrinal as well as non-doctrinal matters, (2) their activities, and (3) physically isolating the members from worldly and un-spiritual non-members (P.185).”

People’s views on the church, whether from former members, theologians or physiologists are deemed as over critical remarks. Newspapers often tried to discredit our “life and doctrine” and then we were right keeled by our evangelists’ counter arguments. Let’s be honest. How many church groups membership are all dedicated to in “making disciples” – baptising and teaching disciples?

Now before our arrival in Cape Town unbeknown to us the Cape Times newspaper published a front-page story discrediting the Cape Town Church of Christ. Sunday April 30th 2000, leadership in the Cape Town Church of Christ distributed a reactionary letter, entitled, “International Church of Christ Forcefully Denies Allegations Made This Week.” Leadership from this church reacted strongly to the Cape Times front-page story published on Wednesday April 26th 2000, entitled, “SA universities ban religious cult”. They compiled 12 “unfounded allegations” from the article published in the Cape Times newspaper.

A member of the public not affiliated with the Cape Town Church of Christ published a constructive letter of criticism on Friday April 28th 2000 in the “letters of the Editor”. It is entitled, “Basis for cult’s banning was not explored”.

We sympathised with the stricken congregation enduring such public humiliation from the media. The Cape Times article “caused trauma in the lives of church members across the Cape.” It saddened our hearts and naturally put a damper on our holiday spirits.

The Cape Times front-page article transported me back in time to my university years (1989-1993). Religious bodies and the media frequently targeted the Cape Town Church of Christ. Such events were termed “persecution” by the members of the church. I have often wondered about the allegations: “cult”, “sect”, “brainwash tactics” and many more. Admittedly, I never bothered to investigate it. Was this not what my Lord endured?

However, unbeknown to me on our journey back to Port Elizabeth, my wife’s perception on the ICOC had forever changed. The prominence given to the story on the front-page of the Cape Times becomes a cause for her deep concern. She reasoned that there had to be something behind these allegations. How can a reputable newspaper report (or “slander”) with such prominence a church group accusing them of “brainwash tactics” and branding them a “cult”?

Like the rest of us, she was forewarned about this form of persecution. I tried my best to lay her concerns aside. Does the “Jesus is Lord” study in our ‘Equipping Syllabus’ not explicitly mentions we will be “persecuted” by the media? It states:

Anything with commitment and religion is suspect these days – the issue is Jesus and what God commands. You will be persecuted – no one knows to what extent – must be willing to die for Jesus. If you are willing to die, a little newspaper article with misinformation or twisted information will not stop you!

Again I tried to persuade my wife to put her eyes on the Cross. Surely a little newspaper article with misinformation or twisted information about our church must not rob your joy?

With bravado I tried to enlighten her about my varsity years. I had endured my lion’s share of negative media exposure being a student at the university of Cape Town.

The year 1992 was particularly bad. Below are 5 reports, which appeared in the space of three months that accused my church, the International Churches of Christ of being a “cult” or a “sect”.

1) “Banned US cult ensnares student” – Sunday Times Cape Metro, February 16th 1992
2) “Strange cult: UCT alarmed” – Cape Times, February 17th 1992
3) “Members of banned cult active on campus of Technikon” – Technique (front page) March 1992
4) “Trapped in the web of a sect” – You Magazine, pp20-21, March 19th 1992
5) “Church of Christ ‘cult’ cut” – Varsity (UCT) p5, April 1st 1992

Let me tell you the media did not stop me. Nor would this front-page article in the Cape Times unsettle me! I was hardened, tough and arrogant. This is what I told my wife on our way back to Port Elizabeth.

Little did I realise. I was an invalid for ten years (1990-2000) – blind – with this certain biblical condition known as spiritual blindness.

Our secret to freedom

“Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

Why did Jesus refer to the mat? Look at it again.

He said: “Pick up your mat…”

The mat becomes the central point of a religious controversy between Jesus and “ his brothers”. The day the healing took place was a Sabbath. Perhaps it is fair to speculate John’s Jesus acted alone. On a private mission he “went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews” (5:1). Here we do not read, “a great crowd of people followed him” (6:2) to this unspecified feast of the Jews. Nor do we see “his disciples” (6:3) accompanied Jesus.

Here we see Jesus mingling freely with the Jews. He “learned” about an invalid’s condition. The invalid addressed Jesus as “Sir,” because he “had no idea” who “this fellow” was who would later heal him. Afterwards Jesus stood nearby as a crowd of Jews confronted the man who was healed carrying his mat on the Sabbath. Jesus “slipped away into the crowd that was there.” “Later Jesus found him at the temple” and in return the man who was healed “told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well” (5:14,15 NIV).

The ordinary man-made item on which the invalid had laid for thirty-eight years become the bone of contention that pushed the disciples of Moses away from Jesus’ ministry. “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat (5:10 NIV). And “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk? (5:12 NIV).

Jesus’ deliberate instruction to “pick it up” was the bait on the hook. Have you ever walked into a church service with a carpet neatly rolled up under your arm? Will you not stand out? Will people not ask you about it? How much more a Jewish man walking on the Sabbath with a mat? The free walking man with the mat tucked under his arm quickly faces a predicament. To us the Jews reacted negatively, but considering the specific day being the Sabbath they asked a normal question. In fact the “invalid” man was remarkably healed by Jesus words in order to blend so well with the ordinary world of Judaism. The only problem was on that day he broke the law carrying his mat! Notice the Jewish legalism overrides the healing of a man who was invalid for thirty-eight years! The fact was completely overlooked that the man who was invalid got well!

Finally the focus shifted from the man who was healed and his mat to “this fellow” called Jesus. Here the Jews let the man go, unlike the Jews and Pharisees who persistently requested more information concerning Jesus’ healing of a blind man in John Chapter Nine. “The man born blind from birth asked them: “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from” (9:27-29 NIV).

Perhaps they were lying through their teeth. Jesus, the Son of God (5:25) and the Son of Man (5:27) were known by name by all the Jews who he encountered. “So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him (5:16 NIV). The Jewish oral and written tradition of the elders known as the Mishnah contained in the Talmud and Jewish interpretation of biblical laws known as the halakah become problematic for Jesus. He never hesitated to expose their hypocrisy. At one point the Pharisees’ and teachers of the law’s offensiveness towards Jesus’ outspokenness moved his own disciples hearts to pity! “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this? (Matthew 15:12 NIV) Jesus replied: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides of the blind. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit (ibid 7:13 NIV).

John’s Jesus in Chapter Five sees Jesus in action “as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings” (Matthew 23:37 NIV), but they “were not willing” (ibid 23:37 NIV) to get well! The debate that ensued between Jesus and his fellow Jews indicated to the Jews whether they were “in” or “out” of Christ. God through Jesus broke the silence. He spoke in the only way they could truly understand. He used the man Jesus. Jesus shared in their humanity, being the Son of Man but the Jews’ absolutes clashed with Jesus’ absolutes, their own reality with the reality found in Christ. Jesus “calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18 NIV) made them more determined to kill him. “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he crossed over from death to life” (5:24 NIV).

Jesus showed himself to them. He wanted to know if the Jews had ever “heard his voice” (5:37) or “seen his form” (5:37) while they so “diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possesses eternal life” (5:39 NIV). Don’t “you want to get well?” (5:6 NIV) How astonishing the fact that these men made “no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?” (5:44) Cleopas and his friend, in contrast on the road of Emmaus “hearts were burning” while Jesus by himself “opened the Scriptures” teaching them from Moses and all the Prophets” concerning himself (Luke 24:13-35 NIV). They were not bound by the legalism of the synagogue, although they observed the Torah! Jesus concluded in John Chapter Five: “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (5:45-47 NIV)

The Jewish Scriptures was the basis for the disciples of Moses and the primitive Church. However, they frowned upon primitive Christian teaching in later years as taught in the book of Hebrews. “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18 NIV).

The healing at the pool of Bethesda was a personal low-key affair between Jesus and one of Abraham’s descendants. No prying eyes and gasps of amazement. Here, a miracle took place away from the “crowds” and perhaps the awareness of “his disciples”. Therefore this chapter contrasts sharply with the following chapter in John’s Gospel. A “great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick (6:2 NIV). Jesus did sometimes act alone without being surrounded by his fellowship of believers. The previous chapter Jesus’ disciples were “surprised” on their return seeing Jesus conversing with a Samaritan woman! (4:27) Jesus concluded with her: “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth” (4:23,24 NIV).

Jesus takes the initiative. He tested the waters. In due time his disciples applied the miracle “pick up your mat and walk” to a man over forty years old! They too were not afraid to testify about Jesus. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 NIV). The man Peter and John healed was “crippled from birth.” They faced their bitter rivals who soon “realised they were unschooled, ordinary men, they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13 NIV) You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.” (15:16 NIV) “When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.” (15:26,27) “All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.” (16:1-4 NIV)

How do we apply this fantastic ministry in our modern lives?

The truth is we don’t initiate this type of ministry from ourselves unless we act like Simon the sorcerer. “Simon himself believed and was baptised. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw” (Acts 8:13 NIV). Simon wanted to earn the Spirit when he noticed that “the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money” (Acts 8:18 NIV). What ensued was a severe rebuke from the Apostle Peter. Jesus’ will find us! He will show himself.

We understand from Scripture that no man can earn his salvation in Christ. This view is also embraced by the ICOC and the Church of Christ denominations! However, their belief systems are based on the Arminian view. Meaning a Christian can fall from grace and lost their salvation. Where do we draw the line concerning ‘easy believism’ or ‘cheap grace’? What about the Christian teaching ‘accept Jesus in your heart as your personal Saviour’ or those who profess ‘Belief is enough’? These matters will be discussed in lesson two: Your Faith is Sufficient.

It is my opinion that John’s Jesus invalid man is a symbol of hope for every Christian struggling with a human condition so serious that only Jesus can step in and cure it. To me this passage deals explicitly with legalism in our misplaced theological conclusions. Especially when people react negatively out of misplaced theological conclusions toward others who have experience firsthand Jesus’ hand of friendship. “You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you” (15:14,15 NIV).

It is from this viewpoint that we offer our insight in what made us so bold to leave the fellowship of the ICOC and the Church of Christ denominations despite the overwhelming doctrine that kept us loyal for so long.

Christians’ fellowshipping in churches seems to be “well”, but sometimes at these apparently healthy institutions things can be pretty desperate! Therefore we must not think it strange when Jesus asked the invalid man in a obvious place where people want to get well: “Do you want to get well?” (5:6) Here Jesus were surrounded by a “great number of disabled people – the blind, the lame, the paralyzed” (5:3). According to popular superstition of the day this was the place to be if you wanted to get well.

Jesus’ visit made the difference. This man had neither faith nor hope to enter the waters of the miracle pool. Christians often speculate about his “excuses”. But I think his “excuse” is valid. He simply had no friends to help him. Besides he tried! But he was not strong enough to compete! His willingness was trampled on by other people’s over-eagerness to get well. It was a selfish competition driven by selfish ambition! It was a mad rush for the finish line. This scramble went on from day to day, year in and year out. In the end when Jesus passed by him he saw the invalid man “lying there” (5:6) on his mat.

So Jesus dismissed him with his mat. He was “free to go”! There was no indication of faith from the invalid man. Nothing! It was Jesus’ command alone that enabled the man to pick up his mat and walk. The Father in Jesus provided the faith that responded to this miracle. A hearing faith without any precondition! It was so unexpected! With such little effort! Just his will to respond. “Get up!” (5:8) No help was needed from his friends. No rush. No panic. He literally had to pick up his life and go! More importantly Jesus’ only “stipulation” was to walk with a mat. And he obeyed. He never anticipated his mat would cause a huge problem for him. That he had to give some form of account for breaking the law! He had done absolutely nothing to earn his cure.

And here lies the secret of redemption. The secret to freedom in Christ is in Jesus’ words: “Pick up your mat and walk!” This simplicity of the hearing faith in action perplexed many that demand to adhere to some form of ritual aspect or steps that this is what saves and this is not what saves! Here the difference between justification and sanctification get confused within church groups who can’t understand the meanings of the two terms. What saves and what do not? Our next lesson will focus on this matter.

Finally, the mat determines if your congregation is ‘life-giving’ or ‘law-bound’. It can be life altering when Jesus commands: “Pick up your mat…”

This is precisely what happened to my wife.

Today, more than ever, I realise my wife was told by Jesus: “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” Within her spirit Jesus approached her. She did not know who he was. There is no explanation. She heard him say: “Do you, Michelle, want to get well?

We should not forget. “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despise things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”
(1 Corinthians 1:27-30 NIV)

She obediently picked up her mat and walked. It was so unexpected! With such little effort! She relied on her own will. No help was needed from her church friends. No rush. No panic. She literally had to pick up her life and go! More importantly Jesus’ only condition for her was to walk with her mat. And she obeyed.

When our holiday was over we packed our suitcases into the car for our journey back to Port Elizabeth. My wife brought her mat along from Cape Town.

She was in deep thought. She started to ask questions concerning the Cape Times article on the way home. I asked her “Why ask such forthright questions?” At that point we were different people. Michelle forever changed and I was lame.

I was tied up. I was fearful. I tried to justify to her why people write bad things about the Church. We must remain committed to the teachings of the ICOC. Remember: Anything with commitment and religion is suspect these days – the issue is Jesus and what God commands.

In hindsight, the Cape Times newspaper article of April 26th 2000 was instrumental to our voluntary exit (walking away) from the ICOC on July 9th 2000. Indeed a “painful exit process”. It took 45 days. An act perceived by ICOC members as “falling away” from God. A future article will be published in 2008 on icoccommentary concerning the Cape Town Church of Christ response letter of April 30th 2000, entitled, “International Church of Christ Forcefully Denies Allegations Made This Week.”

The question of Legalism

Michelle was cured. She was free to question anything concerning the doctrine of the ICOC or the Church of Christ. She was free to do introspection. She examined herself. Nothing made sense.

She noticed in the year 2000 the ICOC leadership exercised unhealthy authority over the congregation. It was a form of “control-orientated leadership”. People were fearful! Disciples were accountable to one another, which were accountable to others higher up. Inherent, people were disciples of people! We had a hierarchy! Members were manipulated throughout these “discipling chains”. She noticed our absolute reliance on the First Principles study guide that becomes our collective “vision”. Why teach only from it? She noticed weak and faithless church members were treated harshly. Especially if they were not in leadership! People were leaving the church! Were they going to hell?

She became very upset. She became unsure of herself - insecure. A form of pride viewed by any ICOC “discipler”. She didn’t fit in. Her commitment to serve in the church wavered. Her enthusiasm died. Her church friends were concerned about her spiritual well being. Something must be done.

Then her church friends cross-examined her. Although they acted out of “love” in reality they react negatively out of misplaced theological convictions. In the year 2003 some apologised to my wife for treating her the way they did.

Such is the way carrying a mat in a legalistic religious fellowship. Michelle’s mat showed. Every day. And every day is a Sabbath in the ICOC.

Her church friends told her: “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

Get with our programme! Get rid of that thing! She was cross-examined to be happy, to be serving, to become an extrovert like her husband! She was told her lack of joy will discourage her husband!

This form of discipleship is not Jesus’ discipleship. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand,” reasons Paul in Romans 14:4, “for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

Paul states: “Examine yourselves” never cross-examine each other. Never should a church rely on police tactics of cross-examination. Restore people “gently.” “There is a great difference”, argue Roy Davison from Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship, “however, between helping a brother who has sinned, and cross-examining a brother!”

The “reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:17 NIV)

Church groups who don’t uphold the law of freedom have “lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews.” Such church groups rely on their own support system and techniques to make people grow. They cannot believe a person “grows as God causes it to grow.” (Colossians 2:19 NIV)

The questions intensified since our return from Cape Town. Weak and faithless disciples were not spared in the P.E. Church. They were the sort that had no “visitors” or “bible studies” at the Bible talks, church services and church activities. They failed in putting the ICOC kingdom first!

How much worse for anyone carrying a mat of freedom!

When we (yes, me included) confronted her it was never about her ability to walk, or her gift of speaking in different kinds of languages but a stupid mat! A mat she got from Cape Town. A mat she had to carry every day. A mat that caused embarrassment to everyone, including me! A mat that did not fit in the Temple! The system outlawed such articles. It was not required. Prohibited.

It did not surprise my wife when her church friends made her mat the agenda during her “discipling time.” She dreaded “discipling.” And so did I. We all stumbled around with such “fear and guilt”. The weekly arrangement when we reveal our deepest secrets or fears only known by God to our church friends. And when we repented it becomes ‘common talk’! A time where church friends acts like a type of Jesus or rabbi. A time where “disciplers” act like a type of Jesus as a go between for their disciples’ sins! A time where intermediaries act like a type of Holy Spirit! A painful weekly appointment when instruments construe by man deals with a sinful human heart rather allowing God to discipline us for our good.

Here my wife’s church friends pressed for an answer: “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?”

At last, when the opportunity arose she was a loss for words in her “discipling time”. She could not show them this ‘new’ law of freedom while the tears stream down her face. More so, Jesus had slipped away into “the crowd” who was there in spirit. Her answers given to her ‘discipler’ would eventually reached the crowds.

Michelle was covered in the ministry of the Spirit. Jesus removed her veil. “But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” (2 Corinthians 3:16 NIV) But her church friends minds and mine were made dull. “It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.” (2 Corinthians 3:14 NIV)

We are so wise. We are well oiled in the only pattern we follow – we teach only McKeanism. (Some of us today have no clue what this means) The hands of 30-would-be disciples painstakingly built our belief system. Glorious. Active. One Church. One Man. One Message. We had no idea how vast and rich the ministry of the Spirit stretches into the “Christian world”. We shunned other “denominations.” We pitied their doctrine of salvation. We knew only one Temple. One Healing Pool. One Rush. We counted the years since our baptism. (Some of us, like myself, shun our re-baptism on account of the ICOC church reconstructions – but some have no clue what this means) We tick off our baptismal years – year after year. We have managed to will ourselves into the waters of the healing pool. We had friends who helped us to get into the pool no matter what the cost! We too responded to an appointed time to march forward. Done exactly like clockwork. Done according to a fixed formula – disciple = Christian = save. If we missed the opportunity it was to be repeated until we got it and got in! The idea to be a disciple first before baptism is paramount for our healing! Those who fail to grasp it, no matter their condition, become invalid!

The healing at the pool is predetermined not only by the ICOC, but also by the Church of Christ (denomination). Here, a predetermined 5-point plan for salvation mixes their waters of baptism. Their rush forward is stirred by hear/believe/repent/confess/baptise. Sins are only forgiven at the point of making contact with water, being immersed and coming out of the water.

For those who rush ahead Jesus never came by and told them to “pick it up!” Here Christ is silent. However, the ministry of the Spirit determines our steps. It is active. It moves in any direction.

“Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11 NIV)

My wife had reached breaking point in June 23rd 2000 when she was cross-examined. Some might diagnose her “spiritually burned out.” Which would be not far from the truth. In my lunch hour she came to me in tears! She was beside herself. I was paralysed. Her situation and ours had turned for the worse. She told me Jesus slipped away during her “discipling” meeting. She no longer wanted to be a disciple!

That was the moment I heard His voice: “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.”

The ICOC unwritten law better known as inner church doctrine fell away. It stated: Don’t interfere in your wife’s ‘discipling’. Suddenly it no longer applied. In my hand I held my own mat! For the first time I share her understanding.

We today share a precious item – a mat, which transported us to freedom beyond the questions of legalism of “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” The Holy Spirit taught us – the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6 NIV).

That year, our mats made us distinct to the P.E. congregation and the movement it adheres to. The people questioned our conduct. It was a huge shock! For them and us. Notwithstanding the overwhelming doctrinal issues that kept us loyal to the ICOC and our long-standing commitment. Never did I contemplate to deliberately become a “fall away”. To think I was once a “visitor” and now to become a “fall away” was very frightening. It was incomprehensible for them and us to break through the walls of the ICOC kingdom of God!

The McKean walls around us came tumbling down. Those walls have alienated me from my physical family for ten years. Eight days since the July 9th 2000 I reconciled with my Calvinist dad. Seventeen days from that day I reconciled with my mother. I cannot wait to be truly reconciled in heart with my spiritual “brothers and sisters” in the PE church. It’s been seven years and counting…

Why does it take so long to reconcile with the church members? It is because of the doctrine over the person. “Personal experiences”, according Dr. Paul R. Martin, “of individual group members are subordinated to the “Truth” that is held in common by the group. Contrary experiences of what is or is not true must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the accepted doctrine of the group. The collected doctrine is always more important than individual beliefs and personalities. Group thought takes precedence over individual thought, one’s personality, interests, health – virtually anything.” (P.189)

We had to deny the impulses to “stay”! Perhaps this statement sounds a bit strange. But as a people – a married couple – who have had a thorough understanding and experience about the ICOC “life and doctrine” we made a collective decision to walk away! It was not easy. It was very frightening experience!

As individuals we decided to make this decision to “go” according to the measure of faith given to us by Jesus Spirit. Michelle response to the Port Elizabeth Church leadership was: “Count me out!” I stated to be in “deep thought and prayer”.

We were confronted with the inner fear and guilt complexities that ruled our “life” in the ICOC that was based on the “doctrine” of this group. Our commitment to the ICOC was a “lifelong decision”. We made a spiritual pledge the day we got baptised to remain faithful to this group and no one else.

Herewith some extracts from the Douglas Jacoby multi-author book, entitled Shining Like Stars, 1990 edition to give you an indication about our inner conflict. The PE Church adhered to these teachings in the year 2000. The view on baptism described on page 236. “It would be better not to be baptised than to take the step and then fall away (2 Pet 2:20-22). We “put the hand to the plough” for life! Explain that the confession made at baptism “Jesus is Lord” means just that!” The view about church described on page 234. “Make sure he understands that it is not God’s will for him to attend any other church.” The view about family and friends described on page 235. “Does he understand that they are lost? Is he willing to firmly (and lovingly) take a stand, share his faith with them, and hold to his conviction? Ask him how he would react if they opposed him.”

Reality is found in Christ. Not “by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a new moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Or what your ‘discipler’ says. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you.” (Colossians 2:16 NIV)

God’s Spirit rescued us. “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather on Christ.” (Colossians 1:8 NIV)

The overwhelming doctrinal teachings to “deny self – putting first the kingdom” or plain fear “where shall we go” evaporated the minute we trust in God. Some people in our predicament divorced! Some married couples had their spouses estranged because they were sitting by two fires. We were lucky.

The leadership had no answers to our questions. We would perhaps like Henry Kriete had done with “Honest to God” divide the church with our issues. People still involve with the ICOC cannot understand why I still after seven years busy my self with these issues that happened so long ago. Some think I am obsessed or even bitter. But this is the only way I can thank God for my rescue. Would it not be selfish to move on without telling them it was Jesus who made me well! (John 5:15)

It was the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ who did most of the damage control. They literally fixed our brokenness. For that we are thankful.

“The wind [in Port Elizabeth] blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8 NIV)

When you walk out of something tangible into the unknown, surrounded by lots of friends to no friends how do you explain your destiny? But like the invalid had found out, and as Jesus’ insisted: one must lie in the bed (mat) one has made. So we left with our own mats. And sometimes it’s no bed of roses!

But once we got “up” – we were free to “go!”

Obviously it was heart breaking “to go!” For them and us.

But my concern for the ICOC churches never waiver. The more I research about the origins of this fellowship the more red lights flash. It was obviously disturbing and very discouraging. How do you break down such a man-made Temple? How do you convey your fears without appearing to be bitter?

Perhaps I am a fool to “stay near” the ICOC like a type of Philip with the Ethiopian chariot. Perhaps my efforts for positive change is like someone who has left the Jehovah Witness group and is hoping their faith one day will reawakens! And here we arrived at lesson one: faith does reawakens!

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1 NIV)

Do I have answers? To some extent. But thankfully it is not my own. I can point only to the ICOC monuments of the past that guided me to sanity. I have read their inscriptions. But we deal with people, perception and plenty of problems.

The last ICOC monument is Henry Kriete’s shrine. It was erected in 2003. It’s inscription states. “Movement wide, we have no choice but to admit and apologize, expose and expunge, denounce and dismantle.” But as it is with monuments – people move on and forget. How sad.

But rest assured. The process will continue. People within the ICOC will rise up with their mats of freedom. It might be people in Kip McKean’s Portland ‘discipling’ Movement or the unity of 70% congregations collectively known as the ICOC Co-operation Churches.

Don’t be like Nicodemus who asked: “How can this be?”

We can only go back and testify, “that it was Jesus who made us well.” We are in Christ.

We acted not out of our free will to be in Christ. No! We acted out of love. “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.” (2 Corinthians 5:14 NIV)

In conclusion

You will notice in recent translations the “skip over” of John Five verse 3b and 4. Those lines are no longer considered to be part of the original text. Finally, you will notice the author who wrote about the Healing at the Pool in John Chapter Five reflects back onto something that no longer exists. He takes us back like a tour guide to this magical place.

Read John 5:2 it will direct you to a huge monument.

“Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.”(5:2 NIV)

Look for a bronze plate with an inscription. Step up to the mat and read: “Here a great number of disabled people USED to lie – the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.” (5:3 NIV)

Does it describe you?

It USED to be us.

Our Faith Materialised it had reawakened!

At this place: God breaks the silence!

Amen. Let it be!

Port Elizabeth Express: Wednesday, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T00:43:00.000+02:00

Herewith an article published in the Port Elizabeth Express.

Central New York Church of Chirst-Blog Archive-Remembering Our Dear Brother Rod Fick

2007-11-27T01:42:00.000+02:00

Herewith a link from the Central New York Church of Christ remembering Rod Fick.

Rod's memorial services arrangements, encouragement for family and donations

2007-11-26T08:05:00.000+02:00

To all.

Herewith a link to an article entitled, "In memory of Rod Fick...funeral arrangements...donations to the family."

Note of encouragement
Readers may write a note of encouragement to Linda Fick and family. An email link is provided in the article.

Donation
Local and international banking details are inserted within this article for those who would like to "donate towards the outstanding medical bills."

Memorial services
"Two memorial services will be held." One in Johannesburg on Sunday 25th November and as well as in Port Elizabeth on Wednesday the 28th of November 2007.

Contact the PE Church direct

2007-11-22T09:01:00.000+02:00

To all.

Herewith PE Church contact details of three people who are Rod’s friends. They are married. They are members of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ.

icoccommentary was asked to provide the following email addresses in order for any one to ask them any questions related to Rod's death. They will try their best to respond to your emails as soon as they can.

1) Email Alex Croote

2) Email Niel Trollip

3) Email Steyn van Wyk

Feel free to do so.

Sarel de Wet

Disciples Today Link

2007-11-22T06:52:00.000+02:00

Disciples Today have updated the link from the Cape Town Church of Christ article, entitled, "In Memory of Rod Fick" published on November 19th 2007. Initially it announced "Rod Fick passed away early Monday in Johannesburg, South Africa."

The new article entitled, "In memory of Rod Fick...funeral arrangements...donations to the family" disclose more details.

The PE Church response letter

2007-11-22T00:12:00.000+02:00

An email comprised by the evangelists of Southern Africa is currently circulating regarding the tragic death of Rod. icoccommentary obtained permission to publish it in its full entity.

Start

2CO 1:3-5 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows.

It is with great sadness of heart that on Monday the 19th of November our brother and dear friend Rod Fick, took his own life.

Rod has served as the evangelist of the Port Elizabeth Church for the last 7 years and was known and loved by many disciples throughout Africa & the United States. He will always be remembered as an exceptional and faithful servant to God and his people.

His life was filled with adventure, from his days as a Peace Corp volunteer in the Central African Republic, to his time as a professional tri-athlete and ultra-marathon runner, and the years that he has served in the ministry in PE, Cape Town and Gauteng.

During this year Rod experienced a great amount personal and leadership pressure. To lighten his load and help him recover the PE leadership team offered him a 3 months sabbatical.

Shortly after taking the sabbatical Rod’s condition rapidly deteriorated and he admitted himself to hospital where he was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. After being in hospital for 2 weeks he got a weekend pass to attend a family function in Pretoria.

Tragically on Monday morning, before returning to PE, Rod took a gun from a relative’s safe, and in this altered state of mind took his own life.

Many people from around the world knew and loved him deeply. He will be very sorely missed. Our prayers and deepest condolences go out to Linda, Mika, Jordan, their families and the PE church.

Please keep them in your prayers during this time of grief.

If you would like to write a note of encouragement to Linda and the family please hand it to your church leader tonight or on Sunday. You may also donate towards the outstanding medical bills this coming Sunday.

A private cremation will be held during the week. A time to fellowship to encourage the family will be held on Thursday from 7-8pm in the gardens of the Bird and Animal hospital at 494 Atterbury Rd, In Pretoria East. Please bring a candle and flower and a chair to sit on.

Two memorial services will be held. One in Johannesburg on Sunday 25th of November at 2pm at the Johannesburg Church building as well as in PE on Wednesday the 28th of November.

Much love

The evangelists of Southern Africa.

Stop

The Herald Newspaper, Wednesday November 21, 2007

2007-11-21T08:00:00.000+02:00

Herewith a report, entitled "Port Elizabeth's 'Ironman pastor' Rod Fick falls ill, commits suicide" published in The Herald newspaper on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 on page 4.

Herewith the link related to The Herald's coverage on Rod's death.

First and Foremost, Sarel de Wet is not responsible for being the source to The Herald. The news story in The Herald is copied from icoccommentary. How I don't know. A shoddy job. Cheap. And without professionalism. This matter I will take up with this paper's editor of news. The purpose for posting this newsclip is to provide clarity on the matter. Some "information" concerning Rod's death published in The Herald newspaper this morning need to be clarrified.

Firstly, the "information" published in The Herald's article is base on the "facts" derived from icoccommentary's article.

Secondly, in order to avoid any form of confusion. Rod Fick acted as an evangelist for the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ (ICOC South Africa) not to be confused with the mainstream church of Christ' branch also named Port Elizabeth (North) church of Christ.

Thirdly, the Herald Reporter's information regarding the "leaders of the PE Church of Christ" in paragraph 5 need to be corrected. The blog icoccommentary made a comment in paragraph 3 stating: "In the last year..." referring to the year 2007 and not 2006 as reported in The Herald's relevant story: "Last year...".

Finally, the controversial issue and fact concerning "different views on how the church should move forward" is inside news obtained from members of the P.E. congregation by icoccommentary. The Herald Reporter did not consult any one regarding this matter.

Background information and adjustments concerning the P.E. Church
The International Churches of Christ (ICOC) has broken up or decentralised since December 2002. What remain of the ICOC is two main groups namely the Portland 'discipling' Movement associated with the ICOC founder Kip McKean and a unity of 70% of ICOC congregations known as ICOC Co-opperation Churches.

It was earlier reported by icoccommentary" It is not certain if the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ (ICOC South Africa) have signed up to the Unity Proposal of the ICOC Co-operation Churches." They have not signed up. Also, it was earlier reported by icoccommentary" However, the P.E. church are part of the "ICOC churches" in South Africa." The P.E. Church is a church in transit. The Cape Town Church of Christ (ICOC South Africa) and Johannesburg (Joburg) Church of Christ (ICOC South Africa) have officially signed up with the Unity Proposal group, better known as the ICOC Co-operation Churches.

Mike Taliaferro have submitted on Monday, 19th November 2007 an article, entitled, "In Memory of Rod Fick" on the Cape Town Church of Christ webpage. It has been replaced with a new article, only submitted by Justin Renton (not the author), entitled, "In memory of Rod Fick...funeral arrangements...donations to the family" on Thursday 22nd November 2007.

The P.E. Church have released this statement submitted by Renton. Before that, the P.E. Church held a meeting on Monday evening, November 19, 2007, which was attended by icoccommentary. The P.E. Church does not have a website.

In memoriam from the Cape Town Church of Christ

2007-11-20T05:59:00.000+02:00

The Cape Town Church of Christ

(Page not found)

ICOC evangelist dies tragically

2007-11-19T09:29:00.000+02:00

Rod Fick, lead evangelist of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ (ICOC South Africa) died tragically this morning, Monday, 19th November 2007. He had been suffering from severe depression and had been undergoing treatment for this condition. His doctors were satisfied with his progress and he was released from hospital last Thursday. He accompanied his wife and children to a family function in Johannesburg, which was held over the weekend. Unfortunately while he was there, he had a relapse and committed suicide early this morning by shooting himself.

The Port Elizabeth Church of Christ congregation is devastated by his tragic death. Members of the congregation gathered together this Monday evening, where they were officially informed of the details of Rod's death as well as the funeral arrangements. It will be held in Johannesburg this weekend. A second service will be held in Port Elizabeth in two week's time. A Christian psycologist was present at the meeting and he encouraged members to express their feelings. Several members shared their feelings of guilt, sadness, anger and shock while others shared their gratitude and love for him.

In the last year the leaders of the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ have had different views on how the church should move forward. Rod was asked to go on a sabbatical. The resulting conflict no doubt added pressure.

Rod is survived by his wife and two children.

BREAKING NEWS

2007-11-19T02:08:00.000+02:00

One of the prolific leaders in the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ has committed suicide. Details sketchy. Will post update as soon as possible.

The James Lloyd Story: PART2a: An innate doctrinal difference cover-up on ICOC baptism practice flourishes

2007-06-03T11:14:00.000+02:00

An introduction

Churches affiliated with the Portland “discipling” Movement led by World Missions Evangelist, Kip McKean and former International Churches of Christ (ICOC) congregations under the umbrella of the Unity Proposal Group still expect prospective members on either side to become a disciple first before receiving baptism.

This means the prerequisite for membership in either group in order to become “saved” is to become “a disciple first” with baptism to follow. The Boston Church of Christ, which under scribe to the Unity Proposal Group teaches this important step: And one must be committed to being a disciple prior to being baptized. However, Kip McKean’s fellowship accentuates the importance to become a sold-out baptized disciple.

Many ICOC’ers view their baptism policies as standard biblical doctrine as taught proper since the inception of the Boston movement days of 1979, but they are unaware of its deceptive origins and heresy.

The mere fact that the former ICOC were based on man-imposed doctrine cannot be stressed enough. Henry Kriete’s plea for reform within the ICOC has fallen on deaf ears: Movement wide, we have no choice but to admit and apologize, expose and expunge, denounce and dismantle.

In reality, the baptismal doctrinal outlook of the ICOC has not changed radically since the Kriete 2003 letter. Perhaps, the upheaval that occurred in the fellowship of the ICOC as events played out in the new millennium has blinded many church members from seeking truthful solutions concerning ICOC doctrine. Former members like myself were horrified to find ICOC members were totally apathetic in getting outside help for the ICOC dilemma. Even so, the 2004 Faithful Conversations with the Church of Christ have not promoted any workable solutions for the doctrinal heresies of the former ICOC. Amazingly, the former ICOC moved a little closer to the Church of Christ when one-on-one discipleship practices were temporarily abandoned in some congregations. The McKean’s were aghast.

However, in 2005 more and more neutral ICOC churches shifted towards discipleship relationships, which are now part and parcel of the standard practice of the United Co-operation Group. The reason is currently explained in the Boston Church of Christ Repentance and Discipleship study series: (http://www.bostoncoc.org/home/studyseries/index.htm/)

SEE NEW LINK:

Repentance and discipleship are the same thing. Discipleship is being committed to following Jesus in all areas of your life, and fishing for men. And one must be committed to being a disciple prior to being baptized.
"Repentance and Discipleship Study"

The James Lloyd Story: An Introspective - Part 1

2007-05-18T11:42:00.000+02:00

One week after James Lloyd’s 'true baptism' (October 8, 1978), Douglas Arthur approached the minister's son and persuaded him to become a minister. Four years later, the Boston movement leadership commissioned them to start the first church planting outside the borders of the United States. They were responsible for the planting of the South London Church of Christ.

James' father had been a Baptist preacher for 25 years. Reading the 1990's multi-authored edition of "Shining Like Stars", he states: Mom was one of the most Christlike women I'd ever known. When James was only eleven years old his father baptised him the first time infront of his congregation. James grew up a Southern Baptist. As a minister's son he had been forced to attend every service in his father's church. Yet I knew hardly anything about the Bible. He knew that the church of his father would not be his own. It was not my spiritual home. However, not content with the church of my father - he sought religion. James declared in his own storyI had to explore other churches, other congregations, and other expressions of the Christian faith. Here, James prayed with the Methodists, sang with the Presbyterians, hallelujahed wih the Nazarenes, and shouted "Lawdy, Lawdy" with the spirit-filled of other churches.

However, his search intensified when that pistol was shoved up my nostril and James near death experience shook his confidence about his salvation. He felt he wasn't ready to die. Nor was he at peace with himself or with God. On the other hand, relatively unscathed James figured God gave him a second chance. James sincerely felt called by God.

James Lloyd search finally came to an end when he walked aided with his girlfriend into a Church of Christ congregation after being in many places of worship and attending several churches more than once. My search was over. I was home. I had found true Christianity!

However, this spiritual group was labeled according to James Lloyd by many as conservative, and even fundamentalist, the Church of Christ had been around for many years and had congregations throughout the world. But there was a dynamic new group of "radicals" affiliated with the Church of Christ. Headquarters in Gainesville, Florida, and calling themselves the "Campus Ministry", this group sent out ministry teams to begin congregations near college campuses all throughout the United States.

James, at first, did not know where this new found teachings of this so-called true Christianity would lead him. He hurry home each evening in anticipation of studying the Bible four to five hours, fervently highlighting and underlying scriptures. Reading the Bible, from cover to cover, from Genesis to Revelation. Taking copious notes. Sermon notes...personal notes...questions...scrawled down the side and middle columns and across the top and bottom of every page in his Bible. Seated on the front row, focusing intently, taking notes, and hanging on every word the minister preached.

It was at the Duke University in Durham, North Carolina where James struck up a friendship with Douglas Arthur. I studied the Bible with Douglas Arthur, relate James in "Shining Like Stars", in 1978. As we studied, we drew close to God. I enjoyed Douglas' company and our Bible studies immensely until one night it all hit me. My mom and dad were, according to the scriptures, lost. This was extremely difficult for me, as Dad had been a Baptist preacher for 25 years, and Mom was one of the most Christlike women I'd ever known. I remember going to Douglas Arthur's home one night exclaiming, "I cannot accept that my parents are lost! I have no problem seeing my own lostness, but not my parents'." After much study, prayer, and discussion, this situation was finally resolved. But I had already violated the first principle. 1. Accept the Truth Sometimes we say in our speech "My relatives are lost," but have enormous difficulty accepting that fact in our hearts. It is crucial that we accept the harsh reality of their condition if we expect to have the urgency to help them."

After James had accepted the harsh reality of the teachings of the Church of Christ, concerning his parents condition... he was truly baptized (not-rebaptized) on October 8, 1978. Despite the fact that his dad had been a Baptist preacher for 25 years and his Mom was one of the most Christlike women he had ever known... they were in his mind according to the scriptures, lost. This effectively meant, if they would die they will go to hell!

James set out to reverse this spiritual condition for his family. He consistently prayed that [his] family would become Christians. He also recruited other people to pray for [his] family. He believed in this cause. His parents spiritual condition could be altered. They too needed to see their lostness. They too needed to be truly baptized. They too, needed to accept the harsh reality for their parents condition!

Perhaps the driving force behind Lloyd's motives to save his family was helped along by Douglas Arthur one week after his Church of Christ immersion. About a week after my baptism, Douglas told me he would be moving to Boston to train under a powerfully effective minister. After asking me if I'd be willing to move to Massachusetts with him, he persuaded, "It'll be the chance of a lifetime. We can both become ministers!"

At that time, James didn't give it a second thought.

The McKean's comeback years - Part 3

2007-04-09T00:53:00.000+02:00

The following is a letter from the McKean's to the Eugene Church shortly after their arrival in Los Angeles Sunday, March 18, 2007.

The McKean's comeback years - Part 2

2007-04-06T00:39:00.000+02:00

Question: Today, we have to ask the question concerning the legacy of the ICOC leadership - especially those who continue with the procession of discipleship. Are they cured?

Not too long ago, the fellowship of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) could uniformly declare Who We Are - but now members of this divided church group ask themselves Who Are We?

In 1992, Dr. Albert W. Baird commonly known as Al Baird, evangelist, elder, teacher, editor and media spokesperson for the ICOC confidently supported McKean's two-part series entitled Revolution Through Restoration (RTR). Baird stated in his first preface of RTR1: This article explains who we are as God's modern-day movement and where we came from, better than any other single piece of which I am aware. For this reason I frequently give a copy to someone with whom I am studying the Bible or to someone from the media who wants to know more about us.

That now has changed. These infamous articles who were once part and parcel of former ICOC websites are all withdrawn from church websites supporting the United Cooperation Group. They can only be viewed in its entirety on church websites rallied behind the founder of the Portland Discipling Movement.

Henry Kriete released in February 2, 2003, a counter revolution article, entitled, Honest to God: Revolution Through Repentance and Freedom in Christ, in which he asks: On what grounds do we now claim that we are "God's Modern Day Movement"? Kriete pulverised the notion that the ICOC is the kingdom of God. And so I ask again - are we - 'THE ICOC', 'THE KINGDOM', 'THE ONE TRUE CHURCH' - still the remnant chosen by grace? Or was that claim itself simply too much for God?

Kriete, like many other heroic men and women before him refuse to buy into the notion that the emperor's clothes had the wonderful quality of becoming invisible to anyone who was not fit for his office or who was unpardonably stupid. Therefore, no one wished to admit that he could see nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or else a fool.

It is disconcerting to read follow-up material from Henry Kriete such as a Response to a friend, September 6, 2005 with regards to the powerful delusion which still plagues those hearts and minds entrapped with the life and doctrine of the former ICOC. To this day, tens of thousands of our members still think that to leave the ICOC is to leave God. Or at least believe it is probably so. And now that same kind of hubris has spawned a calling out of the remnant from within the ICOC itself! Shame. Shame. Shame. That my friend, is the real reason for the damage, the 'human wreckage'.

In the same article, Kriete state: The ICOC was built, not on the pure foundation of Christ alone, but on a seriously inadequate version of the person and work of Christ, and on a very deficient understanding of the grace and truth of Christ. In short: a different Jesus, a different gospel. Kip's version of Jesus. As we followed Kip's leadership in the ICOC, this was the 'different' Jesus that he himself was following... and follows to this day.

Today, we have to ask the question concerning the legacy of the ICOC leadership - especially those who continue with the procession of discipleship. Are they cured?

Steve Johnson, editor of issues 4 & 5, January 1993, UpsideDown magazine commented From the editor stating: we are believers in leadership; and our belief in leadership is very common sense. Steve emphasises: Kip is our leader not because of a puff of smoke from a Vatican balcony or a twisted theology. He's simply further out front than anyone else I know; so we follow and God has blessed us.

In the following year, 1994, Al Baird's article as editor for the LA Story's 'A Man for All Seasons' affirms: Throughout the pages of the Bible and history God raised up one person to lead his people, and for our day it is unquestionably Kip. He is not infallible, he is not an apostle, he is not perfect, but he is an incredible leader. Baird continues: People outside the movement sometimes ask me, "Why is Kip the leader?" I simply reply that he is the leader because he is far out in front leading!

However, we all know the dutiful courtiers - our highests ranking evangelists have caught up with their front man.

The final straw was during the proceedings early September of 2005, during a forum organized by the 2005 International Leadership Conference in which the coordinators in Seattle barred Kip McKean from attending a vital meeting. Here, a group of nine brothers, were elected by ballot to serve as a Unity Proposal Group. Although there was certainly not a puff of smoke visible from any balcony they were elected by ballot. Thus, McKean was excluded from an unique historical process for this church group.

As a result, a new document was released in March 11, 2006. A ratified plan that serves their dual Christian interests with its background firmly emplaced in the first century; ideally rooted in the New Testament dogma of the Church of Christ and truths and emphases derived from the Crossroads campus ministry days. From page four: The Unity Proposal Group are striving both to articulate the theological framework of "the faith that was once for all 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.

The United Cooperation Group, like their counter group, the Portland Discipling Movement spawn these Crossroads principles as core truths - truths we want to defend.

In reality, these two opposing groups do all our thinking and our agenda setting and many just limp lamely behind it.

Let us note: The leadership of the Unity Proposal Group, guided by the input of the whole ICOC except by Kip McKean did not attempt to overthrow the temples as Kriete suggests, or at least dump the baby along with the bath water, or allow the pendulum to spin madly. By refusing to re-examine the Campus ministry disciple approach is one of the main reasons we fear loosing our identity Who We Are especially our discipleship methodologies of the past. We are very afraid of what we will become once our collective brain is taken away.

How did we get here? Is it because we follow an emperor type of leadership without clothes?

Perhaps the sense to belong, to be part of something, to have an identity Who We Are has short-changed the ICOC.

Here, the presure for leadership to establish a church culture or an identity Who We Are during those neutral years of 2003-2005 often called the pendulum-swinging years have reached a breaking point in most churches. This is evident on page seven of the Unity Proposal document - before the reactions among us define us.

Already, the Unity Proposal document of March 11, 2006, since the ICOC group decentralised in December 2002 have succesfully pulled together over 70% of the former ICOC churches, thus securing some form of anchorage to those who wants to define themselves Who We Are. The majority look for light relief. In so much of 70% of the former ICOC now suspend their thinking capacity by embracing discipleship as those truths and emphases that have particularly shaped our branch of God's movement, from the campus ministry days until now.

However, in reality McKean will keep on probing for ICOC churches made up only of disciples. Kip is back. The McKean's leadership sins - although real - are temporary distractions. In due time their philosophy on the disciple approach will rise above mediocre attempts of others. The possibility for people to defect is tangible. The probability to demonise Kip will continue.

The McKean's have established a church culture, ever since the release of Kip's third revolution article, in July 13, 2003, entitled From Babylon to Zion - Revolution Through Restoration III. The comeback years of the McKeans does not hang in the balance when men and women once more start embracing discipleship principles.

A dry period usually follows after a fire storm. Eventually, dormant seeds of discipleship will sprout again, whether they were hidden underground in the cave of Adullam or being protected by elders guarding their discipling churches against Kip's comeback.

Seeds will sprout and there is nothing one can do to stop the cross-pollination.

Seasoned veterans of the ICOC knows Kip McKean is A Man For All Seasons.

The McKean's comeback years - Part 1

2007-04-01T11:44:00.000+02:00

Question: Will people on April 1st support the couple God once raised up to lead his people to reach the world again in one generation?

The founder and trendsetter of the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), Thomas Wayne McKean, commonly known as Kip McKean is down but not out after been rebuffed by former ICOC colleagues for "calling out of the remnant disciples" from dying, former ICOC Churches in order to start an exciting Episode 2 - now officially termed the Portland Discipling Movement.

The beginning stage of an Episode 1 begun in 1979 when Kip supported by his wife, Elena Gracia-Bengochea moved to the Lexinton Church of Christ, later renamed the Boston Church of Christ. The move was encouraged by Elena's innitiative for Kip's dreams. Let's follow your dream. That dream entailed implementing methodologies based on the the disciple approach acquired from Charles 'Chuck' Lucas' Crossroads movement one-another passages rather relying entirely on Church of Christ dogma.

In 1967 the Church of Christ started a pilot programme called Campus Advance modelled after Campus Crusade for Christ in order to impact the campusses. 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 focussing 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. Although Chuck was the pioneer of this faith after a sabbatical he left the ministry for personal and spiritual reasons in 1985. McKean become the perfector of this faith. Chuck Lucas' idea of discipleship was modified by Kip. Prayer partners became discipling partners and soul talks became known as bible talks.

McKean was 18 years old when he was taught to give up everything for Christ and be baptized for the remission of sins to become a Christian. This commitment he made in April 11, 1972 at the 14th Street Church of Christ, Gainesville, Florida. At the same congregation, Elena was 17 when she was baptized into Christ on August 8, 1972. The following year, 1973, they "dated steady" for three years and were married by Chuck Lucas and Sam Laing December 11, 1976. From here on the McKean's common dream of working together in the ministry started in Charleston, Illinois where Kip was the campus minister for the Heritage Chapel Church of Christ (Roger Lamb was the preacher). Again this was made possible due to Chuck Lucas powerful preaching along with his associate Sam Laing that has convinced Kip in 1975 to become a minister. This he did when he come of age.

Since 1975 Kip's concern for the spiritual state of affairs in the Church of Christ intensified. Here he saw how uncommitted many of the so called "Christian" students were: drugs, drunkenness, prejudice and immorality were prevalent. His resolve to revolutionise the Church of Christ followed over a period between 1975-1979. Here, the truth as set out by the dogma of the Church of Christ was in conflict with his convictions about the truth.

Here, the reader must understand that Kip McKean's introduction to the "set-up" of the Church of Christ is completely different comparatively to many former ICOC colleagues with a traditional Church of Christ background who have joined McKean during the Boston era. They all had to unlearn their past traditions and misconceptions before they could really learn how to build churches. In other words each individual had to re-think his former theology as observed in the Church of Christ before becoming a proven builder in the Boston churches. But this did not deter ambitious Church of Christ leaders or men aspiring leadership. From an account of James Lloyd, who along with Doug Arthur planted the London Church of Christ (1982) describe the youthful Kip McKean at an age of 25 as a powerfully effective minister. Lloyd wrote: About a week after my baptism, [October 8, 1978] Douglas told me he would be moving to Boston to train under a powerfully effective minister. After asking me if I'd be willing to move to Massachusetts with him, he persuaded, "It'll be the chance of a lifetime. We can both become ministers!

In years to come, Roger Lamb described Kip as God's man.

Perhaps Lamb was the last author to lavish such praise on to the founder of the ICOC in an article entitled God's man, Message and Movement in the LA Story magazine, From Here To Eternity, August 1999, p3 before the curtain abruptly dropped on the couple as they entered the new millenium. 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. Lamb also stated: 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.

To conclude part 1.

The ICOC had a founder - Kip Thomas Wayne McKean. He based his philosophy on the disciple approach methodologies rather on Church of Christ dogma. Here, the truth as set out by the dogma of the Church of Christ was in conflict with his convictions about the truth. His followers had to unlearn their past traditions and misconceptions before they could really learn how to build churches. His followers described Kip as God's man. This fellowship believed God has raised up a couple to lead his people to reach the world again in one generation.

In reality these very elements are fuel for the McKean's comeback.

Next week: McKean's comeback years - Part 2.

PE Church of Christ participation in the Ironman South Africa 2007

2007-03-18T04:49:00.000+02:00

Sunday 18 March 2007 will be an extraordinary day for the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ because their "pastor" Rod Fick participated along with Jabu Mpengesi, a member of the church in the Spec-Savers Ironman South African 2007, which includes a 3,8km swim, 180km cycle and 42,2km run, to be completed within 17 hours. An article, posted on March 17th in the Weekend Post newspaper provides all the details. How about it? ICOC churches can generate some positive news, but more so, is it not remarkable for "pastors" in the ICOC churches to take Sundays off for sport? Just too show how drastic "kingdom" priorities over the last few years have changed!

From the article:
Inspiring pastor and protege set to pit strengths

At tomorrow's Ironman race one Port Elizabeth man will pit his strength against the pastor who first inspire him to take up the sport.
Jabu Mpengesi was so moved by US pastor Rod Fick's passion for the sport that he tried it out himself, and soon was also hooked.
Fick, a pastor at the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ, last did an Ironman 20 years ago when, by fluke, he landed himself a slot in the much-coveted Ironman Hawaii on the island of Kona - where the current World Ironman Championships are held.
"When I last did an Ironman in 1987, there were only two Ironman races in the world, Kona and Canada," said Fick.
The pastor explained how he met and motivated Mpengesi, who was one of the first development triathletes in Ironman to be nutured bt SA Triathlon Development director Paul Wolff.
After Kona, from 1989 to 1992, he joined the Peace Corp and went to the former Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) to teach people how to farm.
He then returned to the US and became a Christian - and triathlon and Ironman seemed a long way away.
In 1996, he returned to Africa to work at a mission in Johannesburg. Then with his wife Linda, a former Free State radiographer, he settled in Port Elizabeth to lead the church.
"At this stage triathlon was a distant memory for me, although it's funny, when I preach I bring up triathlon quite a lot as an example for perseverance."
The passionate way he spoke about the sport piqued the interest of Mpengesi, a member of his congregation. And in 2002, when a group from the church signed on for the Redhouse River Mile, Mpengesi was there to have a go at the swim.
He was "sold on the sport of triathlon". He borrowed Fick's bike, entered races and started to excel.
As one of few black athletes in sport then, he caught the eye of Wolff, who started to help him with training.
With Mpengesi well on his way, Fick felt the urge to take up triathlon again.
In 2004, he and Mpengesi raced the half-Ironman in Port Elizabeth and were on par until Fick dropped out to go and preside at a friend's wedding.
On Fick's 45th birthday last year, a congregation member challenged him to do the Ironman in 2007. "I thought, why not? It's been 20 years, it's an anniversary."

The Dividing Years

2007-03-09T09:05:00.000+02:00

Kip said it. They denied it. Who's dividing who?

"Gone, I believe, is the ICOC," stated McKean, A Great Light Has Dawned, June 2004, "I mean it's a name we invented in 1994 anyway. Many churches have renounced the name International Church of Christ and just going back to Church of Christ because they want to be identified with the Church of Christ." McKean might be right, but a large contingent of the "former" International Churches of Christ (ICOC) perhaps better known as the Cooperation Group still appraise "the name".

They retaliated soon after Kip and Portland leadership dared to begin "a progressive 'calling-out of the remnant of disciples' from dying, former ICOC Churches." The Portland Story burst unto the scene stating: "August 2005 is not a new beginning but an exciting Episode 2!" It hoped to kick start "valiant but wiser, past leaders of His [God's] movement to meld with young Spirit-filled leaders to forge a new brotherhood leadership to spearhead the evangelization of the world in the 21st century."

But McKean's unrepented "leadership sins" and "character sins" twarted cooperation between himself and those "valiant but wiser, past leaders" who want to heal him from his spiritual deficiency. Since Kip's Resignation letter, according to the first Brothers' letter addressed to him by "key leaders who led the planting and the building of churches of the International Churches of Christ" they've noticed that McKean "have acknowledged these sins, but we do not see change in you beyond mere surface change to satisfy people for the moment."

The drama intensified over the years since November 2002 as Kip singlemindedly tries to outwit - outlast and tries to outplay his former collegues concerns for him in order to reach "cities where former 'ICOC churches' have abandoned discipling and world vision." McKean is more anxious to get the former ICOC back on track rather than worrying about his anxious counterparts concern for his spiritual wellbeing. Here both groups face a terrible dilemma. How could the weaklings of the present rebuild what the giants of the past had been unable to uphold? Secondly, both groups think they are like David's mighty men, thinking they too "understood the times and knew what Israel should do" (1 Chronicles 12:32 NIV). McKean's "same short-term attractive results" serve as a catalyst for conflict between himself and other leadership groups within the ICOC. Kip have been warned many times not to revamp the "structure" of Episode 1. "Yet, when asked what your ideas are for unifying us once again and helping our churches to heal, mature and return to our mission, your answer is to go back and do what you did in the 1980's. You are in fact attempting to do just that. If you continue on this course, you will build some churches. And you will reap the same short-term attractive results and the same long-term painful results. You must repent and learn how to work with other leaders in true adult to adult relationships. You are no longer a young man with lack of experience for an excuse."

The excuse ultimately came from Kip's own support base - the Portland International Church of Christ. In an international letter of appeal, Portland acknowledges "there have been numerous letters of warnings and markings for divisiveness from former International Churches of Christ (ICOC) leaderships against the McKeans and the Portland Church. On October 3, 2005, Kip McKean received a letter signed by over sixty evangelists and elders which had grave concerns and accusations about his character, his motives and his ministry building skills. Once again divisiveness was a central issue."

Their appeal for Concern For All The Churches is neatly sandwished between the two Brothers' letters designed for the purpose to show concern for Kip McKean "to appeal for Kip's repentance and to protect the flock." These serious letters of admonishment, rebuke and disfellowship were respectively signed by more than 60 and 80 international signatories. Here, McKean's philosophy or "persuasive talents" provided Roger Lamb no other alternative in December 2006 to remark: "If they agree with Kip's teachings, they apparently also do not believe that any other churches are godly churches. Though our family of churches desire fellowship with them, they have separated themselves from our family of churches." He justified his statement on the following facts.

"In an October 8th sermon entitled 'You Might Be Fighting God' McKean stated: You see we believe our congregation is unique here in Portland. Now I think there are other baptized disciples in other fellowships. But I don't think there is any other fellowship that is composed solely of sold-out baptized disciples. From this proclamation, we are hearing the old refrain that proved disastrous once before among us - that the Portland Church and the others in their movement are the One True Church. This is a false premise and elitist claim. To us this is more of the same judgemental, divisive teaching that serves to draw people to himself as the only truly godly leader of the only true church. Sadly, the arrogance and the divisive spirit have not changed. These are all the signs of one who 'loves to be first.' This is not the narrow road of Matthew 7: 13-14. This is a tight, elitist circle."

Furthermore, Lamb offers an explaination on Kip's lack of cooperation. "The common requirement is being under Kip's control. This is the very reason he is not willing to work among our churches or any other group of churches. Kip was offered to work as a team player with the other brothers, but his response was that he was the star. We must follow God first, not men."

The history and narrative of the Portland Story, according to the majority of key leaders is reintegrated from "a simplistic, misleading and self-advancing way". Here, the Brothers' Statement to Kip McKean, November 2, 2005, mentions: "The Portland response paints [Kip's] resignation in noble colors, something completely inconsistent with what actually took place."

However, the entire Portland leadership viewpoint differs considerably from the major ICOC stakeholders opinion concerning McKean's resignation. They say: "By November 2002 at the Los Angeles Unity Meeting, Kip officially resigned as the World Missions Evangelist, not because he felt he was disqualified for his role, but in an effort to preserve unity between the leaders and the churches. As Kip and others have testified before, the 'irony' of the LA Unity Meeting was that a gathering that was supposed to bring unity, in the end produced widespread disunity. Sadly, all the World Sector Leaders were called to resign. This resulted in the visionary central leadership of the International Churches of Christ being dissolved. It must be noted at this point in time, the ICOC as we knew it ceased to exist."

Whereupon, the second Brothers' letter quickly seized on this opportunity to point out that Portland's "response shows no acknowledgement of the hand of God and our learning from him. The issue is reduced to a discussion of structure and organization. This is the real heart behind what went wrong with our churches in the 1990s. We are glad that the church organization that valued structure over spirituality and maturity has ceased to exist."

The issue about the "dying, former ICOC Churches" is a lie. They stated: "But the church is God's. He is still leading us. He has disciplined us. We are still learning from his discipline. We are seeking his will in how we should work together in the future. This is why there was such unity in forming the Brotherhood Proposal Group. We are glad that God is still working through us as a family of churches called the International Churches of Christ."

Sandwished between these two letters from the Brothers, Portland ponders: "One must pause and ponder as to what has happened to our fellowship of churches during these last four years in the absence of Kip's influence and a central leadership?"

Clearly, the house of Renovation, alias the Portland "discipling" movement emphasise something completely different than the house of Innovation or United Cooperation Group. In February 2003, the principle of “Continual Restoration - Man, Message, Momentum, Maintenance, and Monument” has reached an “unavoidable fork in the road” in the outcome of Kriete’s ‘Honest to God’ letter. Mature Christians no longer think “to work the plan” or “pack a bag, go any where, do anything, give up everything” for the sake of “leaders in the Boston movement.” Rather, mature Christians go by faith “doctrinally and practically" when they have seen the truth in the Scriptures. How shortsighted are those who follow a failed and tried doctrine of “God’s man, Message and Movement.”

Here, the articles of Revolution Through Restoration, Part 1-3; The Mandate of God for World Evangelism series; The Portland Story and Partners in the Gospel Part 1-3 written by Kip McKean do not carry innovative schemes but renovate dreams of God’s ‘former’ modern-day movement a.k.a. the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ.

Clearly this ICOC is dead. It no longer exist. It is gone. But there are others who will fill her shoes. What remains is a divided frontier.

"I am sad", replies Kip in an article entitled A Divided Kingdom, March 2007, "that many of my former colleagues and me continue to be unable to resolve our issues. But as for me and my house, we are serving the Lord and 'moving' on." Elsewhere in the same article he states: "But of this I am sure, I am teaching the same thing 'everywhere in every church' as I have for more than three decades. Therefore, the Portland family of churches has been called the 'Sold-Out Movement,' the 'Portland Movement,' the 'International Christian Church Movement' and my choice, the 'Portland Discipling Movement."

The purpose for this "new movement" is ultra clear when the following question is asked to Kip McKean: "Why have several ICOC Churches disfellowshipped you, the father of faith for all the ICOC Churches, for being divisive?"

Here we must conclude why the dividing years... and who is responsible?

"We in the Portland Discipling Movement are calling out a remnant from the ICOC, the mainline Churches of Christ, the conservative Christian Churches as well as those who have 'walked away' from the ICOC. God is using this rapidly multiplying remnant to form a new movement of churches, which are distinguished by our sold-out commitment to God and our love for one another through discipling. Each disciple's love of Christ compels us to collectively dream of evangelizing the world in this generation. These were our original teachings in 1979 which God used to form the Boston Movement, which officially became the ICOC in 1994. Now we considered divisive, because the present ICOC church leaders no longer fully embrace these teachings. We are not drawing people away from God, but are unapologetically calling everyone to repent of lukewarmness, bitterness and unbelief and return to God as sold-out disciples. Bottom line, the question must be asked to the present leaders of the ICOC, 'Who divided from whom?" Source: Super Bowl Sunday in Las Vegas!

McKean and the Portland Discipling Movement refuse to "draw a line of fellowship. We want there to be a genuine 'bridge of fellowship' to visit our congregations to see what God is doing among us. Daily we pray that more individuals and whole congregations will join us."

Let us note; they themselves don't want to cross over! The reason is simple Old Testament tactics. People defected slowly to David's side! No wonder in every opposing ICOC church group concerned leaders notices "two separate churches trying to please God in different ways." In deed it's becoming all the more "a cloudy situation."

At best the years of dividing will last a long time. The battle will intensifies with the McKean's "move" to the City of Angels International Christian Church.

The Count Out Years

2007-02-25T01:26:00.000+02:00

Seven years have past since the dawn of the new millenium. The first three years - 2001-2002-2003 - were the literal "go down for the count" for the indomitable International Churches of Christ (ICOC). It took only three well directed blows aimed at the World Missions Evangelist to finish off the ICOC structure. But who knocked out who?

The first blow was the Sabbatical in late 2001.

The McKeans oldest child "stopped attending church." She was heiled according to the LA Story 'From Here To Eternity' (August 1999) as "the first of the 2nd generation disciples born, raised and baptized in the movement." The status of the three children of the McKeans were more pronounced than any other "Kingdom kids." They were groomed to "become disciples and leaders in the kingdom;" a "godly offspring". They were the frontrunners for the ICOC youth - Revolution X. In fact, the young Miss McKean (name witheld) is a product from Generation Y. "They", according to 'From Here To Eternity' videotape, August 1999, "represent the renewed emphasis of the Kingdom in the campus and teen ministries, as they lead us into the next generation of disciples."

Nothing of this sort was accomplished when the McKeans oldest child bravely walked away. "This single event", reported Kip McKean.org,"caused uncertainty in McKean's leadership among some of the World Sector Leaders. In the later part of 2001 the World Sector Leaders then forced McKean to go on sabbatical, though some later regretted the decision."

However, Kip and Elena McKean expressed a more honest opinion in their statement released in 11/11/2001. They provide sound reasons for taking a sabbatical, of special note, they view it as "God's will". It read as follows: "During these days, Elena and I have been coming to grips with the need to address some serious shortcomings in our marriage and family. After much counsel with the Gempels and Bairds and other World Sector Leaders as well as hours of prayer, we have decided it is God's will for us to take a sabbatical and to delegate, for a time, our day-to-day ministry responsibilities so that we can focus on our marriage and family."

The consistency issue for ICOC leadership children to remain faithful to God (ICOC) were rigorously applied to the McKean's dilemma. This legalistic requirement instituted by Kip derailed relationships between himself and some upper class leaders who were in "sin" because their children no longer fellowship with the ICOC (God). In due time, the McKeans were forced "to address some serious shortcomings in [their] marriage and family" after the McKeans oldest child "stopped attending church." Their sabbatical were announced with two written statements: one by the McKeans; and another by World Sector Leaders Al Baird and Bob Gempel on November 11, 2001.

The second blow was the Announcement in late 2002.

Kip McKean's resignation on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 did not only technically paved the way for a new beginning for church polity in the ICOC, but more so, caused a scandal! Kip's hypocrisy aghasted friend and foe alike. The "shortcomings" were serious. Simply put, McKean pretended to be a disciple.

Kip's "character sins" led to his resignation. It was unavoidable, therefore a personal decision. "I have decided to resign from my role as World Missions Evangelist and leader of the world sector leaders." At the time, Kip did the right thing - he stepped down because of his personal "character sins". Nothing more sinister than that. There was no plot, no take-over, no threats and above else no "forced" resignation!

Kip admitted to arrogance. "God through His Word, through circumstances and through true brothers has made it clear that my leadership in recent years has damaged both the Kingdom and my family. My most significant sin is arrogance - thinking I am always right, not listening to the counsel of my brothers, and not seeking discipling for my life, ministry and family. I have not followed Jesus' example of humility in leadership."

Kip also admitted to anger . "Other sins manifested themselves through my anger. My anger has often shut people down and, worse yet, fostered an environment where people were afraid to speak up."

Kip was never a team player. "Additionally, I failed to build strong, mutually helpful relationships. I did not respect those whose leadership gifts could have complemented my own."

Kip manifested typical symptoms found in Diotrephes - who loves to be first (3 John 9). "I was insensitive to the needs of weaker Christians and churches. I also caused some to operate from wrong motives and other to stumble because I focused more on numeric goals than on pleasing God. To my shame I allowed myself to be glorified more than calling everyone to give God all the glory."

Kip's Resignation Letter briefly touched on future plans for a "new governance." He stated: "A new governance is being discussed and formed by the world sector leaders and other leading evangelists, elders and teachers. I shall give them my full support as they strive to follow the Scriptures and the principles of our Father in heaven." Perhaps, purely from a speculative point of view. This was McKean's final official proclamation, until mid 2003 McKean writes to oppose the new direction of the ICOC in 'Revolution Through Restoration Part 3: From Babylon to Zion.'

The final blow was the Decentralization of the ICOC in late 2002.

It merits to revisit McKean's thoughts on this matter. Almost five years ago - Kip asked for prayers and guidance during his resignation. But quickly changed his mind in supporting the "new direction"! In his letter of resignation McKean asked: "Please pray for me that someday these tears, which are no longer shed in self-pity but because I have hurt God and His people, will give birth to a joyous harvest of righteousness."

Today, every one involved with the ICOC can vouched this day is still long off!

Kip McKean.org tries to shed some inside perspectives regarding what actually happened at the Resignation. Here, the World Sector Leaders are first portrayed as the culprits who "forced McKean to go on sabbatical, though some later regretted the decision." Then we are told during the sabbatical period, "the most influential leaders in the International Church of Christ became the 'Kingdom Teachers' and the 'Kingdom Elders'." These secondary groups "influenced the rest of the leaders of the ICOC at the Long Beach Unity Meeting, November 2002, to dissolve the structured, central leadership." They "forced" McKean and all the World Sector Leaders "to resign". To an innocent bystander it sounds just like a mutiny, a take-over! On the other hand how unbelievable when we compare Kip McKean's carefully drafted documents regarding his sabbatical and resignation with these revisionist propoganda on Kip McKean.org! Did he not state before? "A new governance is being discussed and formed by the world sector leaders and other leading evangelists, elders and teachers."

Clearly the ICOC leadership with or without McKean's prior-knowledge have experienced a change of heart regarding the concept of church polity (church rule). A document 'ICOC Unity Conference' (November 15, 2002) shed some light concerning the mood in which the "humble resignation of our world missions evangelist" and the "decision to dissolve the world sector leaders group" come about. "The first night of our meeting we had a powerful worship service of singing, scripture reading, and prayer. This set the tone for the humble and apologetic resignation of our world missions evangelist." The leadership shake-up has effectively done away with the popular watchword "God's man, message and movement." Before, so much emphasis was on Kip McKean. These attributes have persuaded many critics that the ICOC is a cult despite being believers in leadership. The termination of having a form of positional authority in the ICOC have done away with the role - world missions evangelist - the role - world sector leader - and subsequently the role - geographic sector leader. Ultimately, these decisions stripped away the elemetary role - bible talk leader. All these titles were drafted by Kip McKean. The mastermind behind these schemes.

"This reaction", according to Kip McKean.org, "produced a reactionary 'new vision' of autonomous congregations, consensus leadership with no lead evangelists, the elimination of structured outreach (Bible Talks) and the elimination of discipleship partners." The ICOC "lost its distinctiveness and identity." Most importantly the organization was not ready to steer the ship unaccustomed into unfamiliar waters without a rudder! For the first time ever, McKean was not recognised as the sole arbiter of orthodoxy in the ICOC. This drastic action was to be repeated during the September 2005 Seattle Leadership Conference. "Several key decisions made at this meeting," states McKean.org "went against the basic convictions of Kip McKean, the Boston Movement's founder."

The "new era of leadership for the kingdom" was a dramatic breakaway from the former leadership model since 1988. Kip McKean appointed in 1988 his "chosen few" as World Sector Leaders. Six years later, Geographic Sector Leaders were appointed. The former leadership model relied on an oppresive authoritarian tactics as observed in McKean's letter of Resignation. McKean was surrounded by "fallible men" serving as Kip's "focused few" in the role of World Sector Leaders who had relied on a system where "one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still (Ecc 5:8 NIV)." As a unit they could tap into huge Kingdom resources available on their finger tips. The rest of the membership worked the plan and provided the much needed Kingdom cash to finance it. But a new dispensation of "spirit of unity, teamwork, and consensus" overruled all that. It apparantly took the Holy Spirit only 36 hours, according to the 'ICOC Unity Conference' document, in order to transform the former 23-year pyramidal system, also institutionalize by God, into a brand new system of church rule. No wonder because of this absurdness, thousands later jumped ship!

The doctrine of autonomy has clearly struck a nerve. It was never addressed as such by name. The right of self-rule were never properly addressed. This concept of having "a right of self-government" is totally foreign to any members of the former ICOC. According to Henry Kriete's article: "Local church autonomy is practically viewed as heresey."

Furthermore, the ICOC fast becoming an unstable vessel. The dramatic plunge occured two months after the Long Beach Unity Meeting in February 2003 after Kriete releases a letter, entitled 'Honest to God'. By now the colossus of Episode 1 was down... but not out! No official mentioning was made about Kip McKean other than promised "a full-time ministry position with the South Region of the Los Angeles International Church of Christ." Or the rumour to "go back to the Third World and spend [their] remaining years there."

But who knocked out who?

It's too early to reveal the scorecard. Technically, McKean should be down... but he is not out!

Best Quote of the Week

2007-02-13T11:39:00.000+02:00

"We in the Portland Discipling Movement are calling out a remnant from the ICOC, the mainline Churches of Christ, the conservative Christian Churches as well as those who have “walked away” from the ICOC. God is using this rapidly multiplying remnant to form a new movement of churches, which are distinguished by our sold-out commitment to God and our love for one another though discipling." - Kip McKean (February 2007)

Also. "The Portland Leadership sees itself as a restoration movement within the former ICOC churches." Click here to read 'The Portland Movement' article on Kip's official website

Next article: "Your contribution" on the ICOC

2007-02-09T02:27:00.000+02:00

Commentary is free - below are some pointers for my next article. If you want to contribute drop me an email. I can read Afrikaans / English and with some help: Dutch / French and German. Lets see if we can post an article by end February 2007.

A lack of understanding - a nation falls. No one can ever accurately guess how many tens of thousands of people have left this organisation overtime. Nevertheless, the revolving door always welcomes new faces - no matter who is coming or going - and at best what they teach from the pulpit. The majority of ICOC elders, evangelists, people in leadership roles have not a degree or diploma in theology! Does it matter?

The disciple approach - dismantled for a short time in the history of the ICOC since 2003 is fast becoming a popular methodology within the ICOC. Why did the majority of the ICOC never revert to the traditional Church of Christ viewpoint on this matter? For example; who is paying attention to Roy Davison's lesson on "Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship"? How liberated are the "new lot" concerning the disciple approach? Does one need to be a disciple before baptism? Date and marry only ICOC disciples? Fellowshipping only with the ICOC disciples? Is salvation found only with the ICOC disciples?

Is there a difference - what is different from Kip McKean's Boston movement a.k.a. the ICOC and his newly founded Portland movement? Do they offer newcomers a choice in style of worship/doctrine? Which church is the Temple? Which fellowship is more sacred? Who worship in spirit and truth? Who is to blame for our divisions? McKean? Kriete? Our brain dead "followship"?

The Church of Christ - heritage goes back much further than the Campbells and Stone "founders"- as a matter of fact - this church group believe their origin begins with the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:42! Is this form of transference literal or spiritual? What about the "denominational churches"? On the other hand, Catholics belief in their Pope's lineage - all the way to the apostle Peter!? How should one view the traditional Church of Christ claim based on Acts 2:42? What did the former ICOC believe to this regard? Moreso, will the "new" Unity Cooperation Group and the "new" Portland movement avoid the Acts 2:42 blunder? Is it a blunder?

What's your questions?

Commentary is free.

Holy crumbs! Portland is a Movement!

2007-02-04T10:50:00.000+02:00

Jesus said: "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Whereupon, the Canaanite woman replied: "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table."

The new year - 2007 - is well under way. New agendas await for those dining on the long extendible table of the once-unified-ICOC and those dogs snatching at the crumbs underneath it. I am a bottom feeder. What's happening on top is only news when bits and pieces fly off the topside into my mouth. Honestly, I am very happy with the crumbs! However, when dogs like myself bite back, the master's table is quick to reply: "You only fight our dust!"

Jesus, at the time, considered it wasteful in order to deliberately entertain dogs - the act of tossing bread - rather than the child starved through neglect. And those doggies were the non-Jews of his time! They were not considered "family". However, the Canaanite woman, was aware that even the crumbs are holy! When it mingled with dirt on the floor or saliva of other hungry competitors under the table - it didn't matter - the crumbs were holy!

So what do I make of the scrap?

It's official in my humble opinion - since feeding of the crumbs, starting this blog a year ago, that the PORTLAND MOVEMENT is an official term for the Portland family of churches, also described here, as the House of Renovation. Kip McKean made that announcement in his article: A Modern Day Jethro. "Truly, there is so much good news to report concerning the PORTLAND MOVEMENT OF CHURCHES." [4th February 2007] Furthermore, Kip McKean has an official website [www.kipmckean.org] which, now describes the Portland family of churches as the PORTLAND MOVEMENT. Their aim is summarised as follows from McKean's official website regarding the PORTLAND MOVEMENT: "McKean and the other leaders of the Portland Movement saw a tremendous wave of evangelism sweep the world in the days of the Boston Movement (ICOC). Their conviction is to learn from the past and to build a church growth movement that will far surpass any of the previous efforts of the ICOC."

I think it is very signifigant, because again in my humble opinion, McKean is the only person that can bring about reconciliation in the family of the once-unified-ICOC. No other former ICOC leader has achieved by himself what Kip has done regarding tearing down relationships and re-building new friends on a scale his life demonstrates persisting with the message of the disciple approach. Perhaps it is Kip's intention "to rebuild the churches", but never again will the ICOC be put back together again. The lesson of Humpty Dumpty: All the kings horses and all the kings men could never put back together Humpty Dumpty again.

It is now a matter of attitude. Those of us under the table will assuredly be fed from the table top like never before when McKean and his millenium friends move down this coming April to L.A. If he is not settled to unify or "keep bridges there" meaning to act in a role as an appeaser to those long-forgotten associates in L.A. ICOC then heaven help us! This trip definitely is all to familiar whith the 1990 Boston trip to L.A. but with a twist! Back then, in the Boston days, in their opinion there was in that great city no "God's fellow-workers". Today, it is a different ball game. If so much memories swamped McKean's mind in his recent visit to the University of Florida football stadium then Kip will surely choke on his oatmeal reaching L.A! On the other hand, it seems his move seems like a sort of demonstration of will. Perhaps a contest. The former L.A. church will rise from the metaphorical ashes. Here we'll see the former World Missions Evangelist of a bygone era in Episode 1 rise to the occasion doing exactly what he has done before in the capacity of World Mission Evangelist now as the proud bearer of that title in the Portland Movement.

So how can Kip possibly improve his attitude and bring about reconciliation?

Impossible. If unchanged, he'll remain a contemptible person in 2007.

If we can return to Jesus' story. The crumbs that fell merely from the table or from the childrens mouth fed faith! The Canaanite woman not only benefitted for herself, but her daughter was healed from that very hour when the Holy Crumb, filled up her empty room. Jesus also said: "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you."

As Gentiles, let us not fight each other for the crumbs on the dirty floor. Like dogs, snarling, biting and devouring each other whole. What do we achieve by eating flesh and blood? If we feast on tables, let us not make light of the Bread of Life. Let us consider the mere fact of a Holy Crumb. It can raise life through FAITH!

In conclusion. If your are not part of the "ICOC family" or if you are part of a "new movement" or established one - does your faith heal or does it send people away? What is happening in your very hour?

Season Greetings

2006-12-15T13:27:00.000+02:00

Wishing you all the best for the festive season, and a prosperous 2007!

Married to the Mob?

2006-12-05T20:26:00.000+02:00

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?

The Blogger and the Shape-shifter movement

2006-11-23T20:33:00.000+02:00

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)

Church Politics: The McKean’s and Us

2006-11-19T20:35:00.000+02:00

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)

Jewish Politics: You Might Be Fighting God?

2006-11-09T20:47:00.000+02:00

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.

How can something so right be so wrong?

2006-10-22T20:41:00.000+02:00

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]

The Rise of the Portland movement: Where Are The Churches?

2006-10-08T20:57:00.000+02:00

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?

The Rise of the Portland movement: The Dumbing of the ICOC

2006-09-30T15:56:00.000+02:00

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?

The Rise of the Portland Movement: Flaunting a Dead Horse

2006-09-26T08:59:00.000+02:00

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.

Next series - The rise of the Portland movement

2006-09-20T10:26:00.000+02:00

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.

Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets (3)

2006-09-18T08:31:00.000+02:00

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!”

Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets (2)

2006-09-15T08:37:00.000+02:00

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.