The most challenging aspect for reconstructing the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is to find a healthier alternative or “mousetrap” for it seemingly essential discipleship methodology in order to increase and sustain membership. The Los Angeles apology letter of February 25th, 2003 attests: “We participated in an authoritarian discipling structure where advice was too often perceived as command. Some felt controlled and manipulated…” Therefore they pleaded: “We need your help and support to make these changes deep and long lasting.” They were in for the long run. “We are absolutely committed for change.”
That was yesterday. As for today, it is certain that the major role players within the ICOC lay claim to the disciple approach. Steve Johnson proceeded earlier this year to side himself with Kip McKean! The Unity Proposal Group has also embraced discipleship without McKean!
Have we reached a scenario where old dogs can’t learn new tricks while fighting over the same bone of discipleship?
Steve Johnson stated last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”
Equally this year the Unity Proposal Group “are striving both to articulate the theological framework of ‘the faith that was once entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3) and to reaffirm those truths and emphases that have particularly shaped our branch of God’s movement, from the campus ministry days until now.”
It is important to notice that the disciple approach was only disrupted for a short period and never formally rejected. The Los Angeles apology letter stated in 2003: “Although we definitely believe in Biblical discipling relationships and the need to be involved in each others’ lives, as taught in the many ‘one another’ verses, many relationships need to be redefined so that they are filled with mutual trust, honesty, humility and approachability.”
A year after Kriete’s letter, Kip McKean was outraged early in 2004 (March) when “many churches in the ICOC fellowship have either abandoned discipling relationships or compromised them by teaching there is no such thing as teacher-student (one-over-one discipling) relationships in the Scriptures. This is devastating false teaching. (2 Timothy 4:1-4) No wonder so many disciples are confused, lonely, lukewarm and lacking zeal for souls. One person teaching another is the essence of the method and ministry of Jesus.” Kip maintained, “Making disciples is a command of God for every true Christian. Jesus built God’s movement on the now lost plan of multiplying disciples. It was and still is the only plan of God to evangelise the world. And to God be the glory!”
In April 2004, Greg Marutzky assured Church of Christ panellists that Kip McKean’s “influence is not there anymore, and each congregation is making their own decisions. We want to move forward. Please don’t believe that the comments he makes are as if he is speaking for all of us; that’s not the case. And that’s not going to be the case in the future.”
Kip McKean was isolated. He had very few sympathisers in his camp. Today this remains the case.
Mike Taliaferro assured the same panellists of the 2004 Faithful Conversations Forum in addressing a question: ‘Talk about the changes you see going on in the ICOC. “We have done away with top-down hierarchy that we had in the past, and we recognize the mature independence of every congregation in our fellowship of churches … We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
It seemed at the time that the disciple approach only existed in the annals of recent ICOC history and the present reformed Portland Church. Here, Kip’s regular updates on events in the Portland Church during the period of 2004 sketched a bleak picture of apathy and neutrality that now define most churches in the ICOC fellowship. He writes: “In many parts of the United States and the world, disciples report that their congregations have little fire in the service, with little zeal in their singing, little discipling, little warmth, and very few baptisms.” ICOC Congregations that showcase this level of Christianity are often described by Kip in his bulletins as ‘committed but confuse disciples’; ‘misguided Christians’; ‘well intentioned disciples’ as in contrast with his pumped up congregation consisting of ‘sold-out disciples'. The Portland International Church of Christ is perceived to be according to Kip ‘a powerful beacon of light’. Bob Bertalot, an elder in training during that time in Portland become very supportive of Kip while he criticise neutral ICOC discipling churches. ‘Neutrality is running rampant in many churches, not because it’s righteous, but because it’s safe. … I so appreciate Kip’s bold sermons on Sundays and the bulletin articles. There is no neutrality, only compassionate convictions from the Word of God. As a church, let’s repent of any apathy, neutrality, or a playing it safe in relationships. [Bob Bertalot (Elder-in-Training) Portland International Church of Christ, The Violence of Silence, 08-08-2004.]
Kip has fully restored old discipleship structures with slightly improved adjustments while the world watched. ‘In Portland we teach from the Bible that everyone is expected to be in discipling relationships (We call these Discipleship Partners.) However, each member chooses how many, who it is, and the two of them define whether the relationship will be more teacher/student or adult/adult. Also every week, the leadership expects each member to be in an evangelistic, discipling group – Bible Talk.’ Will other neutral ICOC churches follow?
The McKean’s since July 2003 could share their skills first hand in the fellowship of the Portland Church. They progressed much quicker in resolving conflict and building a new ministry based on these “old school” principles. Their renewed efforts were focussed on eliminating bad habits of the Boston days. The “practice of over/under discipling” and “performance orientation” is some of the red herrings they tried to avoid. At this stage many neutral ICOC churches were still recovering from repercussions followed from the aftermath of the LA Unity Conference in 2002 (decentralization) and the release in 2003 of Kriete’s letter (exposure of systematic evils).
The “proven church builders” knew the magical ingredient for multiplying churches with disciples is none other than following a programme of discipleship as “trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth” or “from the campus ministry days until now.” The problem was to calm the panic stricken churches. Then renegotiate the plan.
Churches in the U.S. were slowly beginning to assess in which direction they should venture regarding church missions and maturity. Mike Taliaferro, evangelist of the San Antonio ICOC reinstated the importance to “embrace all over again the Biblical pattern of discipleship relationships.” I quote from an article titled ‘Our Discipleship Crisis’ released in September 2005. “Here in the San Antonio church we have made certain that every disciple has a disciple partner with whom they can meet on a regular basis. It was late last year [2004] when we decided to once again become involve in close personal relationships in the congregation.” Mike is of opinion that people have “over-reacted” the principle of a “closer friendship with a few” as seen with Jesus and the apostles’ friendships. Antonio church fellowship consists of “close, dedicated, specific relationships.” The aim of these relationships is to mentor people to “confess their sins, receive encouragement, or give an admonishment”. Apparently these relationships in the church prevent people from “turning into a sort of impersonal spiritual experience.” The discipleship mentoring method is base upon “one another passages” in the New Testament. The Antonio church like the Portland church for the moment steers well clear from “one disciple over another.”
“The purpose for having discipleship partners”, write Taliaferro, “is to help us have close relationships in the body. The idea is not to have one disciple over another. We do not believe in bossing around or giving orders to one another. Rather, the purpose is to provide a framework so that everyone can both help another disciple and receive it as well. The point is for us to see our own need for fellowship, to seek out the help we need, and to also ask, ‘Hey, how can I encourage, build up, teach, or pray for my discipleship partner?’ Instead of just wandering the fellowship and speaking randomly to whoever we might encounter, we are also devoting ourselves as Jesus did to specific relationships. It is really that simple.”
The plan to sell and accept the disciple approach again to a weary ICOC crowd is the masterstroke for this year. Perhaps, McKean’s concern will lessen as many will return to his legacy of McKeanism. For this reason it will be silly to maintain hostilities with McKean since Kip is trying to reconcile with his comrades on the other side.
Commentary by Sarel de Wet—©2006. A former member (1990-2000) of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) in South Africa. Commentary concerns McKeanism discipleship of the pro-McKean faction, officially known as the International Christian Churches (ICC) and anti-McKean faction, officially known as the ICOC Co-Operation Churches a.k.a. International Churches of Christ (ICOC).
Monday, August 28, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
True leadership may mean admitting disunity so lets embrace the opposition!
Kip apologises. Again… His latest apology happens together with some hypothetical points made in this article that just might materialise! That is if Kip keeps on apologising!
Professor Njabulo S. Ndebele, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, published an article in the Sunday Times titled “True leadership may mean admitting disunity” (June 4th 2006). Here Ndebele’s political insight and concerns for South African politicians mirror the current leadership crisis within the fellowship of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Kip’s apology revealed that there were “issues troubling” Douglas Arthur’s heart that brought him “face to face” with Kip. Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa. He talks of the importance of ‘devolved autonomy’ (transfer to self-rule) and also singles out characteristics and behaviour of leadership in accepting opposition as crucial for the survival of a successful democracy. Perhaps, a “godless environment” like politics may teach us a few lessons on humility and vision.
The African National Congress (ANC), has governed South Africa since the first democratic elections held in 1994. Here 80% of the South African voters completely unite year after year to ensure that the Tripartite Alliance of the ANC remains in power. However, the ANC is thwarted by infighting due to leadership differences over the next president. The media refers to this controversy as the South African succession debate. A journalist made this sober remark. “The term ‘succession debate’ really means ‘What the hell do we do with Jacob Zuma now?” Much controversy surrounds the good standing of Jacob Zuma’s ability as leader since his acquittal at his sinful rape trial and awaiting trail on fraud. President Thabo Mbeki sacked the former president of South Africa and replaced him with a woman. Incredulously, Zuma is still deputy president of the ANC. He has caused shockwaves during his rape trail by stating that a shower can effectively wash away HIV after unprotected sex. Notwithstanding, Zuma backers wanted to use the December 2006 policy conference to pass amendments whereby the ANC deputy president would automatically become the next president and therefore head of the state. President Thabo Mbeki added oil to the fire by implicating that the next president should be a woman. Women comprise of the majority of voters within the ANC. The thorny question of succession will be raised next year. Furthermore, the ANC alliance partners, the South African Communist Party and COSATU accused Mbeki of having a leadership style similar to dictatorship. Now for the first time black South Africans sense political division amongst themselves and within the dominant ruling party. Here Ndebele’s sobering analyses reveal “that the black majority are not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994.”
South Africa’s succession debate prompted Ndebele to make an opening statement that reflects to some extent what the ICOC have experienced in the past three years. I quote. “Recent events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994. When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things. There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.”
In the last quarter of 2005, two dominant groups within the ICOC have emerged from the ashes. This was enough to allow the imagination to run wild, thus breeding “conspiracies and fear”. I have commented in my previous article, “A Renovator, not an Innovator” about the hypothetical house of Renovation representing the Portland movement of Kip McKean. Here, McKean, never wavers from the disciple approach. He made some strong statements in his sermons and articles that hurt “church leaderships and disciples”. Undoubtedly, his weak character could not bear up to his strong convictions on former ICOC discipleship principles, which often brought him in trouble with his peers. Perhaps Kip struggles with a typical Peter syndrome. Therefore, with all respect, in future we can anticipate more Galatians Two incidents. It is perfectly normal because leaders bad or good make mistakes!
The intensity to ensure the survival of discipleship from the outset in mid-2003 in my mind made Portland Church a movement. The majority of former ICOC churches were far behind until the Seattle Conference envisioned a plan “to strengthen the bonds between some 500 churches that share a common history and heritage.” It has become clear to me, after some contemplation that the ‘house of Innovation’ now represents the efforts of the Unity Proposal Group. In my mind, Kip was not actively part of this “complete unity” despite them “embracing discipleship”. Therefore, I justified them as a separate entity. By far this group is in the majority. From the start their approach was more humble than McKean’s efforts. Here, they acknowledge “that commitment to our unity and mission may NOT STILL BE shared by every church and that there may be some churches that share our commitment to both but decide not to accept this plan.” Perhaps they’re hoping to draw every one into their fold.
Which brings me to the third group, those who have not joined either group. Possibly never will. In my mind they are the true moderate or neutral crowd. They share “a common history and heritage” but for other reasons cannot continue with plans of either group. They are not faithless or disheartened people. They do have an opinion. Alan Rouse’s thought provoking comments are essentially what the moderate crowd is about. An elder of the Atlanta Church of Christ, Alan Rouse, baptised as a student in 1976 Crossroads movement, cautions against “further damage to God’s kingdom by creating an elite faction within the brotherhood, one that will look down on churches that do not conform to the group’s chosen methods.” Rouse states in his “one man’s view” article, “it would be a mistake to try to limit the Holy Spirit by codifying our methods, and building an organization to constrain congregations around the world to use those methods.” His admonishment is directed towards the Brotherhood Unity and Revival proposal “to bring the former ICOC congregations back together into a worldwide organization with common methods and practices for reaching the world with the gospel and for ministering to the needs of the membership.” In doing so, he forewarns, “the recent proposal creates a new litmus test of uniform methods for deciding who is unified. That is not what the scriptures teach.” [Source: Alan Rouse, ‘Unity or Conformity?’ – Thoughts on the Call to Brotherhood Unity and Revival, August 27, 2005.]
Two opposing houses in the likes of 2 Samuel 3 within the ICOC will lead to a long war. We may think that our current church squabbles over territories in cities of which Kip has apologised will bring a result as in the case of one group growing weaker and weaker like the house of Saul and the other stronger and stronger like the house of David. We may hope that the Holy Spirit will show which house has God’s approval because of the divisions among each other as stated in the First Epistle of Corinthians. “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” These notions are borne out of reality.
However, we need to ask how significant are the differences between the house of Kip and those linking arms with the Unity Group? Percentage wise how much do these proposals differ? Let us compare Scott Green’s statement that reflects the opinion of Unity Proposal Group or the ‘house of Innovation’ with Theresa Broom’s statement supporting the Portland International Church of Christ or the ‘house of Renovation’. The acid test for the Unity Proposal Group is to “see many of those who were misplaced by the drama of the upheaval return or be restored once again to our fellowship.”
Scott Green, an evangelist for the Seattle Church of Christ and Ministry Staff and Deacons conclusion towards McKean’s ‘Portland Story’ was as follows: “In that event, we would welcome them ‘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.” [Source: Seattle Church of Christ website, ‘Response to ‘The Portland Story’ – A letter to the Seattle Church, 2 September 2005.]
Theresa Boom faced up to Green in September 2005 “to understand why his congregation’s leadership had spoken out against Kip’s so called “disparaging writings.” Scott said, “90% of what Kip writes is great but it’s the 10% that myself and other leaders have confronted him with many times.” [Source: Portland International Church of Christ website, ‘Blown into The Windy City – Announcement – Planting of the Chicago International Christian Church, February 26th, 2006.]
Thus, we have effectively established that Scott Green and other leaders agree “90% of what Kip writes is great” and 10% justifies “a very different direction for our own church’s missions and maturity”!
Chris and Theresa Broom’s perspective “at this time” wholly support the Portland International Church of Christ as “the brightest light of discipling churches in America is in Portland under Kip’s leadership.”
No wonder DJ Comisford, campus minister of the Portland ICOC attested that “Many young good-hearted disciples have become disillusioned and confused by the controversy at the top levels of leadership within the [ICOC] churches. Sadly, the campus ministries which were once the driving force behind the dream to evangelise the world, have been decimated.” [Source: Portland ICOC website: ‘Adullam Underground (Adullam “U”) – New Web Portal for College Students’, April 2006.]
Here lies the crux of the matter. The ICOC largely stands divided because of Kip McKean. The majority of ICOC leaders are happy with innovative McKean’s teaching (90%) but they disapprove of the manner in which Kip conducts himself (10%). Their philosophy can be compared with a Kalahari San (Bushmen) hunter slaying a snake. Skilfully the head is lobbed off (Kip) while the wriggling body of the snake (McKeanism) is kept for a meal! On the other hand, in the Portland ministry, intact, Kip renovates former ICOC teaching!
In the light of Kip’s apology the hypothetical house of Renovation and Innovation might merge because leadership indifferences could be a thing of the past. Furthermore, we need to appreciate both groups vision giving their members a chance to stand on something solid. Kip McKean has started this process much earlier within the Portland International Church of Christ since June 2003. Many churches now start to consolidate under the umbrella of the Unity Proposal Group since 2006. This is a good thing. However, after every action there is a reaction.
The old ICOC dispensation never tolerated those who opposed their schemes. Ad homein tactics by leadership – who said it instead of focussing on the issue - have forced thousands of brothers and sisters into “us and them” groups. The stigma seldom leaves those who have left the group with unresolved issues. In a sense it is spiritual rape. This scar on the soul truly heals over many years.
The year 2006 will determine new ground rules for those involved with the ICOC as they have lacking since 2003. Elasticity is needed as various groups within the ICOC gather momentum with their quest to mature and expand. Rules and regulations, creeds and formats, speeches and articles must all be written in sand rather on marble. Here, Kip’s apology promised to “run the bulletin articles by other brothers before publishing them.” Keeping the status quo will not suffice. Elasticity will prove its worth where people become the opposition rather than being forced on the same team. This is “something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6 NIV). If not. What will remain of the brotherhood? Here, Ndebele’s advice is sound. “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.” Ndebele’s words come forthright: “We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have ‘comrades on the other side.’” Again. “This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.”
A new rhetoric from proverbs is often quoted by ICOC’ers – “Where there is no vision the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18) that effectively have replaced another familiar one – “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17 NIV). The Unity Proposal Group’s document of 11th March 2006 reported amongst many other things that the “recent storm is past”. Nevertheless, “these pendulum-swinging years” have left some stranded on the other side and they refuse to swing back! Now, International Churches of Christ (ICOC) members are horrified that any of them could be seen to have become ‘the opposition’. Ndebele argues that the word “opposition” has been demonised. Think about leaders who were ‘demonised’ because they have become ‘the opposition’; men like Ed Powers (1994-Indianapolis incident), Henry Kriete (2003-Honest to God letter) and even Kip McKean (2005-Portland Story bulletin). Could it be that part of this problem is that ICOC leadership and members are unable to deal with the notion of opposition?
Perhaps the recent storm is past but hurricane Opposition is on her way! In such an event people fortified their homes. Remarkably we see this is precisely the reason DJ Comisford’s offers a form of spiritual shelter for students in the form of ‘Adullam Underground’. The website does not only target a young audience, Generation Y a.k.a. Generation Why, but also advise them to “flee from unrighteous leadership, going ‘underground’ to the safety of Adullam.” I quote. “Many young good-hearted disciples have become disillusioned and confused by the controversy at the top levels of leadership within the churches.” Therefore, Portland Church reason, the young good-hearted students must take shelter like the Young David from King Saul. In other words, students should not engage in debate but run away from the “controversy at the top levels of leadership within the churches” now perceived as “unrighteous leadership”. What purpose does this site hold since Kip’s apology?
In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelming dominant leadership group as is currently the case. Even though there is not much to choose from the “biblical principles” (Jesus lordship and discipling) between the houses of Renovation representing the Portland movement and the supporters of the house of Innovation representing the Unity Proposal Group.
Another point raised by Ndebele is that genuine leadership requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. Think about Bible heroes like Abram and Lot. “Let’s not have any quarrelling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.” (Genesis 13:8) Paul and Barnabas. “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” (Acts 15:39) So Abram and Lot, Paul and Barnabas going against probability all “parted company” (Genesis 13:9, Acts 15:39) in seeking unexpected outcomes. However, if we could ask ‘what ifs’ concerning ICOC leadership strategies of the past three years (2003-2006) would it cure our “hindsight bias”?
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 apologise: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.”
What would the Unity Proposal Group’s March 11th 2006 document be like if McKean sincerely revoked the one-on-one disciple approach based on the model of Jesus training his apostles? Would Kip be accepted at the September 2005 Seattle Leadership Conference with such an apology?
To this day, Kip McKean more than the other ‘proven church builders’ still holds the key for deep and long-lasting change in the ICOC as my next article “Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets” will illustrate.
Also to follow “Dinosaurs, past and present 2b”.
Professor Njabulo S. Ndebele, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, published an article in the Sunday Times titled “True leadership may mean admitting disunity” (June 4th 2006). Here Ndebele’s political insight and concerns for South African politicians mirror the current leadership crisis within the fellowship of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Kip’s apology revealed that there were “issues troubling” Douglas Arthur’s heart that brought him “face to face” with Kip. Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa. He talks of the importance of ‘devolved autonomy’ (transfer to self-rule) and also singles out characteristics and behaviour of leadership in accepting opposition as crucial for the survival of a successful democracy. Perhaps, a “godless environment” like politics may teach us a few lessons on humility and vision.
The African National Congress (ANC), has governed South Africa since the first democratic elections held in 1994. Here 80% of the South African voters completely unite year after year to ensure that the Tripartite Alliance of the ANC remains in power. However, the ANC is thwarted by infighting due to leadership differences over the next president. The media refers to this controversy as the South African succession debate. A journalist made this sober remark. “The term ‘succession debate’ really means ‘What the hell do we do with Jacob Zuma now?” Much controversy surrounds the good standing of Jacob Zuma’s ability as leader since his acquittal at his sinful rape trial and awaiting trail on fraud. President Thabo Mbeki sacked the former president of South Africa and replaced him with a woman. Incredulously, Zuma is still deputy president of the ANC. He has caused shockwaves during his rape trail by stating that a shower can effectively wash away HIV after unprotected sex. Notwithstanding, Zuma backers wanted to use the December 2006 policy conference to pass amendments whereby the ANC deputy president would automatically become the next president and therefore head of the state. President Thabo Mbeki added oil to the fire by implicating that the next president should be a woman. Women comprise of the majority of voters within the ANC. The thorny question of succession will be raised next year. Furthermore, the ANC alliance partners, the South African Communist Party and COSATU accused Mbeki of having a leadership style similar to dictatorship. Now for the first time black South Africans sense political division amongst themselves and within the dominant ruling party. Here Ndebele’s sobering analyses reveal “that the black majority are not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994.”
South Africa’s succession debate prompted Ndebele to make an opening statement that reflects to some extent what the ICOC have experienced in the past three years. I quote. “Recent events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994. When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things. There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.”
In the last quarter of 2005, two dominant groups within the ICOC have emerged from the ashes. This was enough to allow the imagination to run wild, thus breeding “conspiracies and fear”. I have commented in my previous article, “A Renovator, not an Innovator” about the hypothetical house of Renovation representing the Portland movement of Kip McKean. Here, McKean, never wavers from the disciple approach. He made some strong statements in his sermons and articles that hurt “church leaderships and disciples”. Undoubtedly, his weak character could not bear up to his strong convictions on former ICOC discipleship principles, which often brought him in trouble with his peers. Perhaps Kip struggles with a typical Peter syndrome. Therefore, with all respect, in future we can anticipate more Galatians Two incidents. It is perfectly normal because leaders bad or good make mistakes!
The intensity to ensure the survival of discipleship from the outset in mid-2003 in my mind made Portland Church a movement. The majority of former ICOC churches were far behind until the Seattle Conference envisioned a plan “to strengthen the bonds between some 500 churches that share a common history and heritage.” It has become clear to me, after some contemplation that the ‘house of Innovation’ now represents the efforts of the Unity Proposal Group. In my mind, Kip was not actively part of this “complete unity” despite them “embracing discipleship”. Therefore, I justified them as a separate entity. By far this group is in the majority. From the start their approach was more humble than McKean’s efforts. Here, they acknowledge “that commitment to our unity and mission may NOT STILL BE shared by every church and that there may be some churches that share our commitment to both but decide not to accept this plan.” Perhaps they’re hoping to draw every one into their fold.
Which brings me to the third group, those who have not joined either group. Possibly never will. In my mind they are the true moderate or neutral crowd. They share “a common history and heritage” but for other reasons cannot continue with plans of either group. They are not faithless or disheartened people. They do have an opinion. Alan Rouse’s thought provoking comments are essentially what the moderate crowd is about. An elder of the Atlanta Church of Christ, Alan Rouse, baptised as a student in 1976 Crossroads movement, cautions against “further damage to God’s kingdom by creating an elite faction within the brotherhood, one that will look down on churches that do not conform to the group’s chosen methods.” Rouse states in his “one man’s view” article, “it would be a mistake to try to limit the Holy Spirit by codifying our methods, and building an organization to constrain congregations around the world to use those methods.” His admonishment is directed towards the Brotherhood Unity and Revival proposal “to bring the former ICOC congregations back together into a worldwide organization with common methods and practices for reaching the world with the gospel and for ministering to the needs of the membership.” In doing so, he forewarns, “the recent proposal creates a new litmus test of uniform methods for deciding who is unified. That is not what the scriptures teach.” [Source: Alan Rouse, ‘Unity or Conformity?’ – Thoughts on the Call to Brotherhood Unity and Revival, August 27, 2005.]
Two opposing houses in the likes of 2 Samuel 3 within the ICOC will lead to a long war. We may think that our current church squabbles over territories in cities of which Kip has apologised will bring a result as in the case of one group growing weaker and weaker like the house of Saul and the other stronger and stronger like the house of David. We may hope that the Holy Spirit will show which house has God’s approval because of the divisions among each other as stated in the First Epistle of Corinthians. “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” These notions are borne out of reality.
However, we need to ask how significant are the differences between the house of Kip and those linking arms with the Unity Group? Percentage wise how much do these proposals differ? Let us compare Scott Green’s statement that reflects the opinion of Unity Proposal Group or the ‘house of Innovation’ with Theresa Broom’s statement supporting the Portland International Church of Christ or the ‘house of Renovation’. The acid test for the Unity Proposal Group is to “see many of those who were misplaced by the drama of the upheaval return or be restored once again to our fellowship.”
Scott Green, an evangelist for the Seattle Church of Christ and Ministry Staff and Deacons conclusion towards McKean’s ‘Portland Story’ was as follows: “In that event, we would welcome them ‘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.” [Source: Seattle Church of Christ website, ‘Response to ‘The Portland Story’ – A letter to the Seattle Church, 2 September 2005.]
Theresa Boom faced up to Green in September 2005 “to understand why his congregation’s leadership had spoken out against Kip’s so called “disparaging writings.” Scott said, “90% of what Kip writes is great but it’s the 10% that myself and other leaders have confronted him with many times.” [Source: Portland International Church of Christ website, ‘Blown into The Windy City – Announcement – Planting of the Chicago International Christian Church, February 26th, 2006.]
Thus, we have effectively established that Scott Green and other leaders agree “90% of what Kip writes is great” and 10% justifies “a very different direction for our own church’s missions and maturity”!
Chris and Theresa Broom’s perspective “at this time” wholly support the Portland International Church of Christ as “the brightest light of discipling churches in America is in Portland under Kip’s leadership.”
No wonder DJ Comisford, campus minister of the Portland ICOC attested that “Many young good-hearted disciples have become disillusioned and confused by the controversy at the top levels of leadership within the [ICOC] churches. Sadly, the campus ministries which were once the driving force behind the dream to evangelise the world, have been decimated.” [Source: Portland ICOC website: ‘Adullam Underground (Adullam “U”) – New Web Portal for College Students’, April 2006.]
Here lies the crux of the matter. The ICOC largely stands divided because of Kip McKean. The majority of ICOC leaders are happy with innovative McKean’s teaching (90%) but they disapprove of the manner in which Kip conducts himself (10%). Their philosophy can be compared with a Kalahari San (Bushmen) hunter slaying a snake. Skilfully the head is lobbed off (Kip) while the wriggling body of the snake (McKeanism) is kept for a meal! On the other hand, in the Portland ministry, intact, Kip renovates former ICOC teaching!
In the light of Kip’s apology the hypothetical house of Renovation and Innovation might merge because leadership indifferences could be a thing of the past. Furthermore, we need to appreciate both groups vision giving their members a chance to stand on something solid. Kip McKean has started this process much earlier within the Portland International Church of Christ since June 2003. Many churches now start to consolidate under the umbrella of the Unity Proposal Group since 2006. This is a good thing. However, after every action there is a reaction.
The old ICOC dispensation never tolerated those who opposed their schemes. Ad homein tactics by leadership – who said it instead of focussing on the issue - have forced thousands of brothers and sisters into “us and them” groups. The stigma seldom leaves those who have left the group with unresolved issues. In a sense it is spiritual rape. This scar on the soul truly heals over many years.
The year 2006 will determine new ground rules for those involved with the ICOC as they have lacking since 2003. Elasticity is needed as various groups within the ICOC gather momentum with their quest to mature and expand. Rules and regulations, creeds and formats, speeches and articles must all be written in sand rather on marble. Here, Kip’s apology promised to “run the bulletin articles by other brothers before publishing them.” Keeping the status quo will not suffice. Elasticity will prove its worth where people become the opposition rather than being forced on the same team. This is “something to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6 NIV). If not. What will remain of the brotherhood? Here, Ndebele’s advice is sound. “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.” Ndebele’s words come forthright: “We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have ‘comrades on the other side.’” Again. “This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.”
A new rhetoric from proverbs is often quoted by ICOC’ers – “Where there is no vision the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18) that effectively have replaced another familiar one – “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17 NIV). The Unity Proposal Group’s document of 11th March 2006 reported amongst many other things that the “recent storm is past”. Nevertheless, “these pendulum-swinging years” have left some stranded on the other side and they refuse to swing back! Now, International Churches of Christ (ICOC) members are horrified that any of them could be seen to have become ‘the opposition’. Ndebele argues that the word “opposition” has been demonised. Think about leaders who were ‘demonised’ because they have become ‘the opposition’; men like Ed Powers (1994-Indianapolis incident), Henry Kriete (2003-Honest to God letter) and even Kip McKean (2005-Portland Story bulletin). Could it be that part of this problem is that ICOC leadership and members are unable to deal with the notion of opposition?
Perhaps the recent storm is past but hurricane Opposition is on her way! In such an event people fortified their homes. Remarkably we see this is precisely the reason DJ Comisford’s offers a form of spiritual shelter for students in the form of ‘Adullam Underground’. The website does not only target a young audience, Generation Y a.k.a. Generation Why, but also advise them to “flee from unrighteous leadership, going ‘underground’ to the safety of Adullam.” I quote. “Many young good-hearted disciples have become disillusioned and confused by the controversy at the top levels of leadership within the churches.” Therefore, Portland Church reason, the young good-hearted students must take shelter like the Young David from King Saul. In other words, students should not engage in debate but run away from the “controversy at the top levels of leadership within the churches” now perceived as “unrighteous leadership”. What purpose does this site hold since Kip’s apology?
In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelming dominant leadership group as is currently the case. Even though there is not much to choose from the “biblical principles” (Jesus lordship and discipling) between the houses of Renovation representing the Portland movement and the supporters of the house of Innovation representing the Unity Proposal Group.
Another point raised by Ndebele is that genuine leadership requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. Think about Bible heroes like Abram and Lot. “Let’s not have any quarrelling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.” (Genesis 13:8) Paul and Barnabas. “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” (Acts 15:39) So Abram and Lot, Paul and Barnabas going against probability all “parted company” (Genesis 13:9, Acts 15:39) in seeking unexpected outcomes. However, if we could ask ‘what ifs’ concerning ICOC leadership strategies of the past three years (2003-2006) would it cure our “hindsight bias”?
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 apologise: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.”
What would the Unity Proposal Group’s March 11th 2006 document be like if McKean sincerely revoked the one-on-one disciple approach based on the model of Jesus training his apostles? Would Kip be accepted at the September 2005 Seattle Leadership Conference with such an apology?
To this day, Kip McKean more than the other ‘proven church builders’ still holds the key for deep and long-lasting change in the ICOC as my next article “Reject the dangerous rhetoric of false prophets” will illustrate.
Also to follow “Dinosaurs, past and present 2b”.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
A Renovator, not an Innovator.
“ I am distressed for thee, my brother... 2 Samuel 1:26 (AV)
The LA Story’s 1999 edition ‘From Here To Eternity’ commemorated the first twenty years (1979-1999) of Episode 1 that marked the end of the beginning stage of God’s modern-day movement a.k.a. the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). The founders of Episode 1 were of the opinion that the Church of Christ denomination and other Denominational Churches did not accomplish the purpose of God due to faulty ‘systems’ and ‘mediocrity and traditions of men’. The new millennium and consecutive years ‘one-two-three’ were literally the ‘count-out’ for the ICOC as an organisation. Today, it exists as an incoherent organism. The interim years of 2003-2006 predominantly mark a power struggle between those “who is with [Kip] and who is against [Kip].” In “August 2005”, Kip McKean announced to the Portland fellowship, “is not a new beginning but an exciting Episode 2!”
The period of Episode 2 is a false start according to many ‘neutral’ or moderate ICOC churches. However, for the Portland International Church of Christ the race is on. The spectacular rise of the Portland ICOC is a constant ‘thorn in the flesh’ for many moderate ICOC fellowships who are no longer led by Kip McKean in the capacity of Missions/Lead Evangelist. However, a small number of ICOC congregations have strengthened Kip’s hand. The decision by the Johnsons to associate themselves with the McKeans will perhaps lead to more ‘prodical sons’ returning to the McKeans ‘old school’.
Not every one shares in the McKean’s optimism for the ICOC future as crustily stated in his August 21st, 2005 ‘Portland Story’. In fact, the majority of ICOC fellowships consecutively rejected the ‘Portland Story’. They were deeply insulted to be labelled “dying, former ICOC Churches.” A term ruthlessly applied in the same manner during the period of Episode 1 when the ICOC blasted the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ and other Denominational Churches for being “dying churches”. Kip’s verdict in ‘Revolution Through Restoration Part 2’, stated, “Denominational churches are dying. The mainline Church of Christ is dead.”
Ironically, Kip admitted that the ICOC is dead or was it?
“Gone, I believe, is the ICOC, I mean it’s a name we invented in 1994 anyway. Many churches have renounced the name International Churches of Christ and just going back to Church of Christ because they want to be identified with the Churches of Christ. I mean, good gravy, there are only a hundred of ‘em. That sure gives you distinction. But God forbid you’d be identified with others that are radical, revolutionary, dreamers to take the gospel to all nations, in one generation.” [Source: Kip McKean, ‘A Great Light Has Dawned’, June 2004]
Here lies the crux of the matter. The revolutionary message by “dreamers to take the gospel to all nations, in one generation” of an era captured in Episode 1 has reached its limit and spilled over in Kriete’s anguished letter for much needed ‘Revolution Through Repentance and Freedom in Christ’. The era of Episode 1 hailed the ICOC and Kip McKean part of the pantheon of Major Christian Movements and company like Jesus, the apostle Paul, Martin Luther, John and Charles Wesley, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. [Source: LA Story, ‘Breaking Away’, August 13, 1995]
Here, the magazine provides an insightful 5-pointer “Why Movements Fail”. It compares well to the reasons why the ICOC movement has failed!
“All movements have failed to repeat the early Christians’ success because of: 1) Failure to hold to the Scriptures 2) Failure to sacrifice self and renounce sin 3) Failure to love each other deeply 4) Failure to remain unified 5) Failure to keep their purpose clear. When any movement for God fails in these ways, it becomes just a Monument.”
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. No longer do ‘mature disciples’ like myself think like twenty year old campus students “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, we ‘mature disciples’ go by faith “doctrinally and practically when we have seen the truth in the Scriptures.” How oblivious 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’ and ‘The Mandate of God for World Evangelism’ series 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.
The ICOC organisation cannot ‘innovate’ itself [bring in new methods or ideas] because we who have lived and experience the epic of Episode 1 know “its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! (Colossians 2:21 NIV) At the same time as political movements like Communism (1917-1991), Nazism (1933-1945) or Apartheid (1948-1994) the ICOC (1979-2003) have tried innovations and eventually succumbed! Let us be more specific.
The ICOC cannot ‘innovate’ its own ‘First Principles’ just as much as Robert E. Coleman cannot ‘innovate’ ‘The Master Plan of Evangelism’. Nor can it improve on its core doctrine of ‘sold-out disciples’ and belief system base on ‘Disciples=Christian=Save’ because “I [Kip McKean] composed this controversial equation to convict and help individuals with a denominational church background to see that they were not true Christians. ... In retrospect, this restored doctrine was the beginning of the formal split between the Boston churches and the mainline Church of Christ.” [Source: Kip McKean, ‘RTR 2 - The Movement of God’, 1994]
Biblically, we understand that not even the Judaizers (Christian Jews) could ‘innovate’ nor ‘renovate’ Jewish Laws in order to ‘enslave’ Gentile men to be circumcised. The concept of ‘freedom in Christ’ elevates believers of the Cross to a realm that is not earthbound. First and foremost, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1 NIV) Secondly, “Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:17-20 NIV) Here too, we must come to grips that the cause of the ICOC is lost, unless, the ICOC leadership ‘renovate’ [restore to good condition or repair] former ICOC doctrines just for the sake of the stomach! In my opinion, the standard admonishment of the New Testament will judge the new era of Episode 2 in the Portland movement, as it judged the Boston movement in the era of Episode 1. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognise them” and “ Their teaching will spread like gangrene.” (Matthew 7:20, 2 Timothy 2:17 NIV)
The McKean’s are the founders of both controversial Episodes. Nevertheless, in my opinion, many Christians can learn a great deal from their dedication and commitment issuing Jesus’ message on local and foreign fields. After all, I owe my salvation to Christ, who has touched my heart through their evangelistic efforts of the Boston movement. To deny this in my opinion will be utterly foolish! Nevertheless, I strongly oppose their methods of discipleship and perception on the Kingdom of God.
The invaluable contribution that the husband-wife team made towards the meteoric phenomenal rise of the Portland ICOC cannot be overlooked. As young students they have embarked on a journey that they will complete to the end. However, here we must stress how vulnerable young hearts can be to discipleship methodologies, which can ultimately rule the heart without compromise as in the situation of the McKeans.
Thomas ‘Kip’ McKean born in Indianapolis, Indiana on May 31, 1954 and Elena Garcia-Bengochea born in Havana, Cuba on September 2, 1955 were both baptised as very young students (18 and 17 years old) in the Crossroads Church of Christ. Kip’s baptism is either April 11, 1972 according to RTR 1, “At the end of my freshman year at the University of Florida, I was invited by Sam Laing, a Sigma Chi fraternity brother, to a devotional of 90 college students. This devotional was sponsored by the 14th Street Church of Christ (later renamed Crossroads). This church in Gainesville had begun a pilot program in campus ministry for the Churches of Christ five years earlier. [1967] The Churches of Christ wanted to impact the campuses and initially modeled their efforts after Campus Crusade and called this program Campus Advance. Here I was taught to give up everthing for Christ and be baptized for the remission of my sins to become a Christian. This commitment I made in the early hours of April 11, 1972”; or April 11, 1971 according to a late article titled, ‘Celebrating 50!’ on Portland Church website, that read as follows, “Elena was baptized into Christ on August 8, 1972. (I was baptized as a freshman on April 11, 1971)”. [Author’s note: The year 1971 is a type error, many records ascribe to 1972.]
In my opinion Kip’s current ministry is about renovation, renovation and more renovation from here to eternity! Today there exists a war between the ‘house of Renovation’ and the ‘house of Innovation’ within the International Churches of Christ [2 Samuel 3]. This war affects the morale of the youth now known as ‘Generation Y’, among the 105 000 strong membership of this organisation. Fortunately, the battle is contained within the borders of the U.S. ICOC churches.
However, we can no longer ignore the following pivotal issues as observed in 2006.
Firstly. Former ICOC teachings Kriete’s letter made undone in 2003 is already being ‘repaired’ in the Portland ICOC. How soon will other moderate ICOC fellowships catch-up?
Secondly, Kip’s position is fortified with Steve Johnson’s addition to Portland Church staff since January 15, 2006. In the past, Kip describe Steve Johnson, a former ACES World Sector leader during the Manila World Leadership Conference in 1994 as the “glue of the World Sector Leaders”. The question remains if his “right hand cranker”, Douglas Arthur, formerly Commonwealth WSL will fully commit to the cause of Portland ICOC. McKean, Portland’s Lead Evangelist, appointed Johnson as an Associate Lead Evangelist.
Celebrating his 50th birthday this colossus of Episode 1 stated in 2004, “I am just as vigorous to battle the spiritual forces of evil to evangelise the world as in the early days of Boston!” A year later, Steve Johnson stated, “wherever Kip goes, I go.” [Source: Steve Johnson, ‘Forceful, Respectful Preaching’, Seattle Leadership Conference, September 8, 2005.]
Thirdly, Portland ICOC has boldly embraced an ‘old school’ doctrine of the bygone era in the Boston movement, which contrast sharply with moderate ICOC thinking not to repeat “the same short-term attractive results and the same long-term painful results.” Thus, according to a moderate group, Portland’s ambitions are not ‘politically correct’. McKean stand accused by certain ICOC leaders for not co-operating “with other leaders in a true adult to adult relationships”. In a statement by the ‘62-signatories’, “You are no longer a young man with lack of experience for an excuse.” McKean’s teachings and websites “contain unseemly, immature and unwholesome self-promotion and propaganda” that have not escaped their notice. In short, they stated, “You are confusing and exploiting many who are young, as well as those who are unaware of your past sins.”
In conclusion, ICOC leadership and members outside Kip McKean’s influence have an obligation to the youth - Generation Y to block ‘renovate’ ICOC doctrines. It is not a question of “re-set broken bones”, but taking the matter much deeper. The question remain. How prepared are moderate ICOC Christians?
Lately, the stakes have been raised with Portland’s intension to tap into ‘The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg’ - campus evangelism.
(Next articles: “Y” going underground? and Dinosaurs Past, and Present 2b)
The LA Story’s 1999 edition ‘From Here To Eternity’ commemorated the first twenty years (1979-1999) of Episode 1 that marked the end of the beginning stage of God’s modern-day movement a.k.a. the Boston movement better known as the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). The founders of Episode 1 were of the opinion that the Church of Christ denomination and other Denominational Churches did not accomplish the purpose of God due to faulty ‘systems’ and ‘mediocrity and traditions of men’. The new millennium and consecutive years ‘one-two-three’ were literally the ‘count-out’ for the ICOC as an organisation. Today, it exists as an incoherent organism. The interim years of 2003-2006 predominantly mark a power struggle between those “who is with [Kip] and who is against [Kip].” In “August 2005”, Kip McKean announced to the Portland fellowship, “is not a new beginning but an exciting Episode 2!”
The period of Episode 2 is a false start according to many ‘neutral’ or moderate ICOC churches. However, for the Portland International Church of Christ the race is on. The spectacular rise of the Portland ICOC is a constant ‘thorn in the flesh’ for many moderate ICOC fellowships who are no longer led by Kip McKean in the capacity of Missions/Lead Evangelist. However, a small number of ICOC congregations have strengthened Kip’s hand. The decision by the Johnsons to associate themselves with the McKeans will perhaps lead to more ‘prodical sons’ returning to the McKeans ‘old school’.
Not every one shares in the McKean’s optimism for the ICOC future as crustily stated in his August 21st, 2005 ‘Portland Story’. In fact, the majority of ICOC fellowships consecutively rejected the ‘Portland Story’. They were deeply insulted to be labelled “dying, former ICOC Churches.” A term ruthlessly applied in the same manner during the period of Episode 1 when the ICOC blasted the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ and other Denominational Churches for being “dying churches”. Kip’s verdict in ‘Revolution Through Restoration Part 2’, stated, “Denominational churches are dying. The mainline Church of Christ is dead.”
Ironically, Kip admitted that the ICOC is dead or was it?
“Gone, I believe, is the ICOC, I mean it’s a name we invented in 1994 anyway. Many churches have renounced the name International Churches of Christ and just going back to Church of Christ because they want to be identified with the Churches of Christ. I mean, good gravy, there are only a hundred of ‘em. That sure gives you distinction. But God forbid you’d be identified with others that are radical, revolutionary, dreamers to take the gospel to all nations, in one generation.” [Source: Kip McKean, ‘A Great Light Has Dawned’, June 2004]
Here lies the crux of the matter. The revolutionary message by “dreamers to take the gospel to all nations, in one generation” of an era captured in Episode 1 has reached its limit and spilled over in Kriete’s anguished letter for much needed ‘Revolution Through Repentance and Freedom in Christ’. The era of Episode 1 hailed the ICOC and Kip McKean part of the pantheon of Major Christian Movements and company like Jesus, the apostle Paul, Martin Luther, John and Charles Wesley, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. [Source: LA Story, ‘Breaking Away’, August 13, 1995]
Here, the magazine provides an insightful 5-pointer “Why Movements Fail”. It compares well to the reasons why the ICOC movement has failed!
“All movements have failed to repeat the early Christians’ success because of: 1) Failure to hold to the Scriptures 2) Failure to sacrifice self and renounce sin 3) Failure to love each other deeply 4) Failure to remain unified 5) Failure to keep their purpose clear. When any movement for God fails in these ways, it becomes just a Monument.”
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. No longer do ‘mature disciples’ like myself think like twenty year old campus students “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, we ‘mature disciples’ go by faith “doctrinally and practically when we have seen the truth in the Scriptures.” How oblivious 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’ and ‘The Mandate of God for World Evangelism’ series 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.
The ICOC organisation cannot ‘innovate’ itself [bring in new methods or ideas] because we who have lived and experience the epic of Episode 1 know “its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch! (Colossians 2:21 NIV) At the same time as political movements like Communism (1917-1991), Nazism (1933-1945) or Apartheid (1948-1994) the ICOC (1979-2003) have tried innovations and eventually succumbed! Let us be more specific.
The ICOC cannot ‘innovate’ its own ‘First Principles’ just as much as Robert E. Coleman cannot ‘innovate’ ‘The Master Plan of Evangelism’. Nor can it improve on its core doctrine of ‘sold-out disciples’ and belief system base on ‘Disciples=Christian=Save’ because “I [Kip McKean] composed this controversial equation to convict and help individuals with a denominational church background to see that they were not true Christians. ... In retrospect, this restored doctrine was the beginning of the formal split between the Boston churches and the mainline Church of Christ.” [Source: Kip McKean, ‘RTR 2 - The Movement of God’, 1994]
Biblically, we understand that not even the Judaizers (Christian Jews) could ‘innovate’ nor ‘renovate’ Jewish Laws in order to ‘enslave’ Gentile men to be circumcised. The concept of ‘freedom in Christ’ elevates believers of the Cross to a realm that is not earthbound. First and foremost, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1 NIV) Secondly, “Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:17-20 NIV) Here too, we must come to grips that the cause of the ICOC is lost, unless, the ICOC leadership ‘renovate’ [restore to good condition or repair] former ICOC doctrines just for the sake of the stomach! In my opinion, the standard admonishment of the New Testament will judge the new era of Episode 2 in the Portland movement, as it judged the Boston movement in the era of Episode 1. “Thus, by their fruit you will recognise them” and “ Their teaching will spread like gangrene.” (Matthew 7:20, 2 Timothy 2:17 NIV)
The McKean’s are the founders of both controversial Episodes. Nevertheless, in my opinion, many Christians can learn a great deal from their dedication and commitment issuing Jesus’ message on local and foreign fields. After all, I owe my salvation to Christ, who has touched my heart through their evangelistic efforts of the Boston movement. To deny this in my opinion will be utterly foolish! Nevertheless, I strongly oppose their methods of discipleship and perception on the Kingdom of God.
The invaluable contribution that the husband-wife team made towards the meteoric phenomenal rise of the Portland ICOC cannot be overlooked. As young students they have embarked on a journey that they will complete to the end. However, here we must stress how vulnerable young hearts can be to discipleship methodologies, which can ultimately rule the heart without compromise as in the situation of the McKeans.
Thomas ‘Kip’ McKean born in Indianapolis, Indiana on May 31, 1954 and Elena Garcia-Bengochea born in Havana, Cuba on September 2, 1955 were both baptised as very young students (18 and 17 years old) in the Crossroads Church of Christ. Kip’s baptism is either April 11, 1972 according to RTR 1, “At the end of my freshman year at the University of Florida, I was invited by Sam Laing, a Sigma Chi fraternity brother, to a devotional of 90 college students. This devotional was sponsored by the 14th Street Church of Christ (later renamed Crossroads). This church in Gainesville had begun a pilot program in campus ministry for the Churches of Christ five years earlier. [1967] The Churches of Christ wanted to impact the campuses and initially modeled their efforts after Campus Crusade and called this program Campus Advance. Here I was taught to give up everthing for Christ and be baptized for the remission of my sins to become a Christian. This commitment I made in the early hours of April 11, 1972”; or April 11, 1971 according to a late article titled, ‘Celebrating 50!’ on Portland Church website, that read as follows, “Elena was baptized into Christ on August 8, 1972. (I was baptized as a freshman on April 11, 1971)”. [Author’s note: The year 1971 is a type error, many records ascribe to 1972.]
In my opinion Kip’s current ministry is about renovation, renovation and more renovation from here to eternity! Today there exists a war between the ‘house of Renovation’ and the ‘house of Innovation’ within the International Churches of Christ [2 Samuel 3]. This war affects the morale of the youth now known as ‘Generation Y’, among the 105 000 strong membership of this organisation. Fortunately, the battle is contained within the borders of the U.S. ICOC churches.
However, we can no longer ignore the following pivotal issues as observed in 2006.
Firstly. Former ICOC teachings Kriete’s letter made undone in 2003 is already being ‘repaired’ in the Portland ICOC. How soon will other moderate ICOC fellowships catch-up?
Secondly, Kip’s position is fortified with Steve Johnson’s addition to Portland Church staff since January 15, 2006. In the past, Kip describe Steve Johnson, a former ACES World Sector leader during the Manila World Leadership Conference in 1994 as the “glue of the World Sector Leaders”. The question remains if his “right hand cranker”, Douglas Arthur, formerly Commonwealth WSL will fully commit to the cause of Portland ICOC. McKean, Portland’s Lead Evangelist, appointed Johnson as an Associate Lead Evangelist.
Celebrating his 50th birthday this colossus of Episode 1 stated in 2004, “I am just as vigorous to battle the spiritual forces of evil to evangelise the world as in the early days of Boston!” A year later, Steve Johnson stated, “wherever Kip goes, I go.” [Source: Steve Johnson, ‘Forceful, Respectful Preaching’, Seattle Leadership Conference, September 8, 2005.]
Thirdly, Portland ICOC has boldly embraced an ‘old school’ doctrine of the bygone era in the Boston movement, which contrast sharply with moderate ICOC thinking not to repeat “the same short-term attractive results and the same long-term painful results.” Thus, according to a moderate group, Portland’s ambitions are not ‘politically correct’. McKean stand accused by certain ICOC leaders for not co-operating “with other leaders in a true adult to adult relationships”. In a statement by the ‘62-signatories’, “You are no longer a young man with lack of experience for an excuse.” McKean’s teachings and websites “contain unseemly, immature and unwholesome self-promotion and propaganda” that have not escaped their notice. In short, they stated, “You are confusing and exploiting many who are young, as well as those who are unaware of your past sins.”
In conclusion, ICOC leadership and members outside Kip McKean’s influence have an obligation to the youth - Generation Y to block ‘renovate’ ICOC doctrines. It is not a question of “re-set broken bones”, but taking the matter much deeper. The question remain. How prepared are moderate ICOC Christians?
Lately, the stakes have been raised with Portland’s intension to tap into ‘The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg’ - campus evangelism.
(Next articles: “Y” going underground? and Dinosaurs Past, and Present 2b)
Monday, April 03, 2006
Why is Portland’s ‘Generation Why’ unique?
Forward
When I first started to write about the ICOC, in my hand I held a butcher’s knife.
Now, I thank God it is a pen!
Greetings to all current and former ICOC students.
Peace be with you!
Introduction
DJ Comisford is a very young Campus Minister of the Portland International Church of Christ. He was baptised “in January, 2002 of [his] sophomore year of college, after studying the Bible for three months!” He married “on December 17th 2005”. Comisford recently announced a brand new web portal meant for students affiliated worldwide with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Comisford’s article, “Adullam Underground (Adullam ‘U’)” on Portlands website speaks directly in the context of his own generation known as ‘Generation Y’ a.k.a. ‘Generation Why’. He writes, “My generation is unique.”
Why is Generation Y unique?
Admittedly, I had to do some research of my own in order to get a better understanding what “define and characterize generations.” Wikipedia, states, “Generations are shaped by their childhood experiences, and then defined by their early-adulthood actions, when each generation can consciously adopt or reject the attitudes or actions of prior generations.” Demographers relies on various methods for example “the experience of formative national events as one tool to demarcate generations.”
Why is Generation Y unique? It becomes clear when we consider the following. Comisford received his “high school diploma” in June 2000. He was part of the “first class of students to graduate in the 21st century.” Furthermore, Comisford is part of “the first generation to fully appreciate the effects of the ‘Digital Revolution’.
The New Testament warns Titus and Timothy about “endless genealogies” that “promotes controversies rather than God’s work” (1 Timothy 1:4) or to “avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments” (Titus 1:14). This is true today even amongst demographers having a hard time nailing “the exact year ranges of the generations.”
It is not my intension with this article to argue around genealogies, but rather, to look into how Generation X relate to Generation Y in the context of the ICOC fellowship. The ICOC is a very young fellowship, merely spanning 27 years from its ‘official’ 1979-year to 2006.
How do former or current members of the ICOC correlate with Comisford’s generation?
Personally, I do not relate to “Y” from a genealogy point of view. Born in 1970. Growing up in the 1980’s and becoming a young adult in the 1990’s places me with Generation X (1965-1981). Kip McKean’s children like Comisford are stock of Generation Y (1981[2]-2000[03]). In my time, from birth to early-adulthood, a computer was a novelty not a machine to be found in every household. Therefore, there was no Internet what so ever. No cell phones what so ever. No digital cameras, except digital wristwatches! No DVD’s but video machines and later CD-players were the modern appliances of my time, which was my generation.
Base on these facts; let us consider that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8 NIV) We can argue that generation to generation respective ‘conversion stories’ or baptisms within the ICOC remains the same. You were once a visitor. You studied the Bible. You were baptised as a disciple. However, our conversion stories differ considerably from our parent church, the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ because they never described their baptism as a type of ‘disciple baptism’. Meaning you have to become ‘first a disciple’ in the context before a Christian before getting baptised; Kip McKean formulated this technique in 1981; It was taken up in Douglas Jacoby’s multi-author publication, “Disciple = Christian = Saved” [(Jacoby, ‘Shining Like Stars, ii edition, 1990, page 142]; seven years later, this issue was one of the prime reasons Boston caused a church split!
My conversion experience certainly draws a parallel with Comisford’s Bible studies and subsequent baptism but my time factor was much shorter! As a young adult, twenty years of age I have completed the following ICOC Bible studies known as ‘First Principles’ within three days studying night and day! ‘The Word’; ‘Discipleship’; ‘KOG’; ‘The Cross’; ‘Davis’ Medical Account of the Crucifixion’; ‘Sin & Repentance’; ‘Light & Darkness’; ‘Denominations/Church’; ‘False Doctrines’; ‘The Holy Spirit’; ‘Jesus is Lord’! This was possible because I was a university student with plenty time on hand during my summer holiday break! I was baptised in the early morning hours in the sea of Camps Bay at Cape Town to become the 70th member/disciple of the Cape Town Church of Christ in its start-up year of 1990 of which Dave Peden, the tall American evangelist presides in the month of November. Not many in the ICOC can relate their baptisms to this ‘chariot-ride’ but we all can relate to the same standard of Bible studies used. In 1992 the entire Cape Town Church of Christ underwent a ‘reconstruction’, meaning to see if one is still acting like a disciple. It was at this time when our ‘campus minister’ told me he couldn’t find the evidence of the Holy Spirit in my live! [No people personally baptised= no fruit] I was subsequently re-baptised. Many started to leave the church over the years, even my ‘campus minister’ but I stayed faithful to the ICOC until 2000.
However, ‘the ICOC organism’ has several generations of baptisms. Some have a pre-1979 baptismal experience. Special mentioning is Douglas Jacoby (23 October 1977) and men like Chuck Lucas and Sam Laing who have baptised Kip McKean, April 11, 1972. Church of Christ ‘leaders’ from “1983 on through the 80’s” according to Kip McKean’s ‘Revolution Through Restoration 1’ article, “had to unlearn their past traditions and misconceptions before they could really learn how to build churches. The training for someone baptized out of the world in Boston and for someone who moved to train in Boston was exactly the same.” Here, “Many of the men who were leaders in the different elements of the Churches of Christ, who came to train to build churches of disciples, discovered they had not been baptized as disciples themselves. In the world’s eyes they were rebaptized. In God’s eyes, they were baptized into Jesus Christ (Acts 19:1-5).” Let us note that the reference of this scripture indicates these leaders never heard before about the ‘disciples baptism’ as John’s disciples in a late stage of Christianity never heard before of the Holy Spirit! “Of special note are: …Dave Peden, Mike Taliaferro… Gordon Ferguson… Others were not rebaptized, as they felt they had made the decision to be disciples (usually not with that terminology) when they were baptized: …Sam Laing…Henry Kreite…Douglas Jacoby…”
Obviously, once a year each ‘disciple generation’ relate to different ‘Kingdom’ experiences. The generation of the “Thirty-Would-Be Disciples” of 1979 were different from those with Chuck Lucas 1967 generation. Lucas’ Soul-talks and prayer-buddies become McKean’s Bible-talks and disciple partners. The ‘disciple generation’ sprout from the early Boston movement era somewhat co-here with ‘mainline’ Church of Christ until 1988 divide. The rapid expansion across the world of the ICOC era also produced the philosophy “God’s man, message and movement” which is completely ‘uncool’ for the ‘disciple generation’ in the post-Henry Kriete Letter era of 2003. We can make many cross-reference associations, but one final and important one is the eras of persecution. The Boston movement later known as the ICOC was intensely persecuted by ‘mainline’ Church of Christ, former members and the media. It was so bad that new recruits were told its normal because we follow Jesus! “Jesus was persecuted – his worst enemies were his fellow Jews. First Century Christians were persecuted – not different now.” I come to know a Jesus who was “Lord in the Midst of Persecution” as stated in a South African Count the Cost study guide. ‘Equipping Syllabus’ stated, “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!”
Let us note that in the actual era of Generation X outsiders opposed us! Disciples never ever dared to question the Church, the movement of God! In the year 2000, my wife and I, like so many before us, also bravely queried unbiblical ICOC practices like, 1) authoritarian leadership structures; 2) hierarchical discipleship practices; 3) First Principal Bible study series a different Gospel – Galatians 1; 4) In-out talks with Weak and Faithless Christians were unbiblical!
At last, Henry Kriete’s 2003 letter forced the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ to recognise their mistakes and they apologized to us, but in the end, what happened to me happened to John Engler!
Today’s Generation Y in the Portland International Church of Christ experience persecutions not from traditional enemies but from various ICOC churches!
This makes them truly unique!
When I first started to write about the ICOC, in my hand I held a butcher’s knife.
Now, I thank God it is a pen!
Greetings to all current and former ICOC students.
Peace be with you!
Introduction
DJ Comisford is a very young Campus Minister of the Portland International Church of Christ. He was baptised “in January, 2002 of [his] sophomore year of college, after studying the Bible for three months!” He married “on December 17th 2005”. Comisford recently announced a brand new web portal meant for students affiliated worldwide with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Comisford’s article, “Adullam Underground (Adullam ‘U’)” on Portlands website speaks directly in the context of his own generation known as ‘Generation Y’ a.k.a. ‘Generation Why’. He writes, “My generation is unique.”
Why is Generation Y unique?
Admittedly, I had to do some research of my own in order to get a better understanding what “define and characterize generations.” Wikipedia, states, “Generations are shaped by their childhood experiences, and then defined by their early-adulthood actions, when each generation can consciously adopt or reject the attitudes or actions of prior generations.” Demographers relies on various methods for example “the experience of formative national events as one tool to demarcate generations.”
Why is Generation Y unique? It becomes clear when we consider the following. Comisford received his “high school diploma” in June 2000. He was part of the “first class of students to graduate in the 21st century.” Furthermore, Comisford is part of “the first generation to fully appreciate the effects of the ‘Digital Revolution’.
The New Testament warns Titus and Timothy about “endless genealogies” that “promotes controversies rather than God’s work” (1 Timothy 1:4) or to “avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments” (Titus 1:14). This is true today even amongst demographers having a hard time nailing “the exact year ranges of the generations.”
It is not my intension with this article to argue around genealogies, but rather, to look into how Generation X relate to Generation Y in the context of the ICOC fellowship. The ICOC is a very young fellowship, merely spanning 27 years from its ‘official’ 1979-year to 2006.
How do former or current members of the ICOC correlate with Comisford’s generation?
Personally, I do not relate to “Y” from a genealogy point of view. Born in 1970. Growing up in the 1980’s and becoming a young adult in the 1990’s places me with Generation X (1965-1981). Kip McKean’s children like Comisford are stock of Generation Y (1981[2]-2000[03]). In my time, from birth to early-adulthood, a computer was a novelty not a machine to be found in every household. Therefore, there was no Internet what so ever. No cell phones what so ever. No digital cameras, except digital wristwatches! No DVD’s but video machines and later CD-players were the modern appliances of my time, which was my generation.
Base on these facts; let us consider that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8 NIV) We can argue that generation to generation respective ‘conversion stories’ or baptisms within the ICOC remains the same. You were once a visitor. You studied the Bible. You were baptised as a disciple. However, our conversion stories differ considerably from our parent church, the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ because they never described their baptism as a type of ‘disciple baptism’. Meaning you have to become ‘first a disciple’ in the context before a Christian before getting baptised; Kip McKean formulated this technique in 1981; It was taken up in Douglas Jacoby’s multi-author publication, “Disciple = Christian = Saved” [(Jacoby, ‘Shining Like Stars, ii edition, 1990, page 142]; seven years later, this issue was one of the prime reasons Boston caused a church split!
My conversion experience certainly draws a parallel with Comisford’s Bible studies and subsequent baptism but my time factor was much shorter! As a young adult, twenty years of age I have completed the following ICOC Bible studies known as ‘First Principles’ within three days studying night and day! ‘The Word’; ‘Discipleship’; ‘KOG’; ‘The Cross’; ‘Davis’ Medical Account of the Crucifixion’; ‘Sin & Repentance’; ‘Light & Darkness’; ‘Denominations/Church’; ‘False Doctrines’; ‘The Holy Spirit’; ‘Jesus is Lord’! This was possible because I was a university student with plenty time on hand during my summer holiday break! I was baptised in the early morning hours in the sea of Camps Bay at Cape Town to become the 70th member/disciple of the Cape Town Church of Christ in its start-up year of 1990 of which Dave Peden, the tall American evangelist presides in the month of November. Not many in the ICOC can relate their baptisms to this ‘chariot-ride’ but we all can relate to the same standard of Bible studies used. In 1992 the entire Cape Town Church of Christ underwent a ‘reconstruction’, meaning to see if one is still acting like a disciple. It was at this time when our ‘campus minister’ told me he couldn’t find the evidence of the Holy Spirit in my live! [No people personally baptised= no fruit] I was subsequently re-baptised. Many started to leave the church over the years, even my ‘campus minister’ but I stayed faithful to the ICOC until 2000.
However, ‘the ICOC organism’ has several generations of baptisms. Some have a pre-1979 baptismal experience. Special mentioning is Douglas Jacoby (23 October 1977) and men like Chuck Lucas and Sam Laing who have baptised Kip McKean, April 11, 1972. Church of Christ ‘leaders’ from “1983 on through the 80’s” according to Kip McKean’s ‘Revolution Through Restoration 1’ article, “had to unlearn their past traditions and misconceptions before they could really learn how to build churches. The training for someone baptized out of the world in Boston and for someone who moved to train in Boston was exactly the same.” Here, “Many of the men who were leaders in the different elements of the Churches of Christ, who came to train to build churches of disciples, discovered they had not been baptized as disciples themselves. In the world’s eyes they were rebaptized. In God’s eyes, they were baptized into Jesus Christ (Acts 19:1-5).” Let us note that the reference of this scripture indicates these leaders never heard before about the ‘disciples baptism’ as John’s disciples in a late stage of Christianity never heard before of the Holy Spirit! “Of special note are: …Dave Peden, Mike Taliaferro… Gordon Ferguson… Others were not rebaptized, as they felt they had made the decision to be disciples (usually not with that terminology) when they were baptized: …Sam Laing…Henry Kreite…Douglas Jacoby…”
Obviously, once a year each ‘disciple generation’ relate to different ‘Kingdom’ experiences. The generation of the “Thirty-Would-Be Disciples” of 1979 were different from those with Chuck Lucas 1967 generation. Lucas’ Soul-talks and prayer-buddies become McKean’s Bible-talks and disciple partners. The ‘disciple generation’ sprout from the early Boston movement era somewhat co-here with ‘mainline’ Church of Christ until 1988 divide. The rapid expansion across the world of the ICOC era also produced the philosophy “God’s man, message and movement” which is completely ‘uncool’ for the ‘disciple generation’ in the post-Henry Kriete Letter era of 2003. We can make many cross-reference associations, but one final and important one is the eras of persecution. The Boston movement later known as the ICOC was intensely persecuted by ‘mainline’ Church of Christ, former members and the media. It was so bad that new recruits were told its normal because we follow Jesus! “Jesus was persecuted – his worst enemies were his fellow Jews. First Century Christians were persecuted – not different now.” I come to know a Jesus who was “Lord in the Midst of Persecution” as stated in a South African Count the Cost study guide. ‘Equipping Syllabus’ stated, “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!”
Let us note that in the actual era of Generation X outsiders opposed us! Disciples never ever dared to question the Church, the movement of God! In the year 2000, my wife and I, like so many before us, also bravely queried unbiblical ICOC practices like, 1) authoritarian leadership structures; 2) hierarchical discipleship practices; 3) First Principal Bible study series a different Gospel – Galatians 1; 4) In-out talks with Weak and Faithless Christians were unbiblical!
At last, Henry Kriete’s 2003 letter forced the Port Elizabeth Church of Christ to recognise their mistakes and they apologized to us, but in the end, what happened to me happened to John Engler!
Today’s Generation Y in the Portland International Church of Christ experience persecutions not from traditional enemies but from various ICOC churches!
This makes them truly unique!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Dinosaurs, past and present. (Part 2a)
“Caesarem appello!” Studying the trajectory of events that led to this famous appeal uttered by Paul the Apostle will undoubtedly prove that the “Old Time Religion” was entangled with Jewish tradition and Paul’s fresh ideas regarding the gospel of Christ, which inevitably went their separate ways after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The first internal church crisis besides a brief squabble between the Greek-speaking Jews and Hebrews over the daily distribution of food in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 6), was created by certain Judaists, probably from the “large number of priests who became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7 NIV) who joined after the dispute was resolved. They demanded that all Gentile converts should first become circumcised Jews. This was Paul’s first open fight with his lifelong enemies. “Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea,” (Romans 15:31 NIV); “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12 NIV) These men, the Judaisers, were to dog his steps across the Mediterranean, to speak against him and to strive with all their might to chain the gospel of Christ (Romans 15:18-19) to Judaism. At long last, on Paul’s arrival in Rome, he was informed by the sympathetic “leaders of the Jews” in Rome “people everywhere are talking against this sect.” The early church movement, known as “The Way” by the Jews, was perceived as a subdivision of Judaism, whose members had have to some extent diverged from the rest of Judaism by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc. (Acts 5:13); often regarded as extreme and heretical (Acts 9:2). The Apostle Paul previously a notorious persecutor of the Way now perceived by many Jews as a turncoat made a brave attempt in Rome to reconcile the Jewish misunderstanding between himself and his countrymen in Jerusalem. “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against our customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.” (Acts 28:17 NIV)
How odd, when we compare Paul’s ‘not-guilty plea’ in Rome with the true circumstances he encountered with James, Jesus’ brother in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem Paul was categorically questioned by James concerning his actions concerning Jewish customs abroad. Why couldn’t Paul use this argument “I have done nothing against our people or against our customs of our ancestors” to his defence when James asked him, “What shall we do?” (Acts 21:22 NIV) Was Paul not opposed to Jewish customs, like circumcision? Lastly, how different was the respective “belief system” between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
Let us turn the New Testament pages to Acts 21. Here, we find in the late stage of the development of the Jerusalem church, fondly known as the Mother Church, a people who we will associate as Christians, but are unlike what we expect Christianity today to be like. Here, the ‘Jewish’ Christians live in harmony with Judaism’s ancestral customs. Here, we find no sectarianism between ‘Christian’ Jews and their countrymen. Here, the Temple and the Law of Moses cohere with the Jerusalem church, unlike elsewhere in Gentile churches. Here, regarding Paul the apostle and the Jerusalem church, we don’t see “a partnership in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phillipians 1:5) but ‘an agreement’ (Galatians 2:9 NIV).
Even so, here we find a panic-stricken ‘Christian’ community who come face to face with the greatest adversary the Jewish synagogues have ever known, namely, Paul the apostle of the Gentiles! A rumour has reached this ‘Christian’ community regarding Paul’s actions in far away missionary fields. The rumour has it that Paul taught “all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to [Jewish] customs!” (Acts 21:21) Is this accusation not strikingly opposite to what earlier Gentiles had to endure? They were almost forced to observe Jewish customs! Whereas the overseas Jews apparently had to forsake their customs! “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the [Gentiles] brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV)
James’ fears concerning this rumour materialised when “some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple.” (Acts 21:27 NIV) Perhaps, James fears was grounded in the fact that the Jerusalem Jewish ‘Christians’ synchronization with Judaism was under threat because of their affiliation with Gentiles. After all they hosted Paul’s company! Here, in the open, in their midst, they were forced to face an old agreement between Paul and “those reputed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9 NIV) regarding the ‘conflicting ministries’ that existed between Jew and Gentile. How would the Jewish community react towards the Jerusalem church? Notice the vehemence as the Jewish audience opposed mixing their worship with Gentiles despite the Lord’s words, “Go, I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Rid, the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” (Acts 22:21,22 NIV) Here, eventually “the Jews of Jerusalem” if not with the say-so of some in the Jerusalem church, disposed of Paul by handing him “over to the Gentiles.” (Acts 21:11) This might be a harsh opinion, but consider none other than Paul’s young nephew who foiled a Jewish plot to kill Paul and came to his rescue as in the case in Ephesus where “friends of Paul” (Acts 19:31) stood by him. Let us note that Paul made an extraordinary effort despite a prophetical warning (Acts 21:10,11) to bring the Gentile contribution to Jerusalem accompanied with a group of Gentiles. The danger of this mission was irrelevant to Paul, “I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.” (Acts 20:23 NIV) However, we can take comfort in the fact that it was God’s will. The Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” (Acts 23:11 NIV) Yet, how intense were those days in Jerusalem, when the Jews viewed Gentiles as an isolated race far removed from worshipping alongside their God. Perhaps, as pitiable, when South Africans, in the former-Apartheid era were driven apart from religious ceremonies? “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed; … There is neither Jew nor Greek; … for you are all one in Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:23-29 NIV)
In Jerusalem, we see that the Gentile Christian finds no equal footing with their Jewish Christian counterparts. James’, suggestion in order to allay such criticism came to nothing as he urged Paul to perform some typically Jewish religious rites, something to prove “there is no truth in these reports.” Ultimately, it proves the point that all Jews, whether they ‘Christian’ or not should live “in obedience on the law.” (Acts 21:24 NIV) Obviously James excluded the Gentile believers participation in the ‘purification rites’ because they were not Jewish, but the decision to abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality is apparent (Acts 21:25, ff 15:20, 28-29).
The Temple at Jerusalem presented absolutely nothing for any Gentile, but a vast court, called the Court of the Gentiles, that allow the Gentile tourist to marvel at the Temple site, Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith to pay homage to a monotheist God, or Gentile Christians to mingle freely with Jewish citizens in this particular court. “In short, according to Paula Fredriksen, “Gentiles were not subject to Israel’s purity regulations.” This perception alters only on full acceptance of Moses Law and circumcision. The infamous barrier separating the Court of Gentiles from other Jewish courts of succession, ranging from the Court of Women to the Sanctuary inspired Paul to write, “Consequently, you [‘Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”, Eph 2:11] are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people [Israel] and members of God’s household [Temple priests and Levites].” (Ephesians 2:19 NIV) Because, “For he himself is our peace [Jesus Christ], who has made the two one [Jew and Gentile] and has destroyed the barrier [The wall of Partition, forbidding non-Jews to cross over to the respective Jewish courts], the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” (Ephesians 2:14 –15) Here, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) and many other church groups reinvent Paul’s pure teaching by ‘spiritualising’ some aspects of it to sound ‘biblical,’ for example, the ICOC ‘Church-study’ or ‘Denominations-study’ teaches “God’s people” are ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ or ‘family’; and “God’s household” is ‘the Church.’ Although it is not a fair assessment of Paul’s intensions, it does no harm. Nevertheless, Paul’s words are being ‘twisted’ thus robbing the richness of its fuller meaning it otherwise tries to convey. Gentiles were literally barred from full participation with God because of Jewish law and regulations and a physical hostile barrier in the Temple! [See my DPP (Part 1) article]
The radical or revolutionary Christian teaching of Paul, “by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” could never be retained as a subdivision in the Jewish faith. This fact quickly become apparent during Paul’s meeting with the Jewish leaders in Rome. Here, Paul, in contrast to his arrest in Jerusalem, was given a stable platform from “morning to evening [which] he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.” (Acts 28:23 NIV) Here, years after the riot in Jerusalem, no bad report had reached the Roman Jewish community about Paul, despite frequent trips by brothers to Jerusalem and back. “We have not received any letters from Judea [HQ] concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there [Jerusalem] has reported or said anything bad about you.” (Acts 28:21 NIV) But the appeal had been recorded (Acts 25:12) and must stand just to show how right the Holy Spirit have been about the Jews in Jerusalem, “they will hand him over to the Gentiles.” Paul laboured fruitfully in Rome. “Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made his final statement: “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” (Acts 28:24-28 NIV)
Jewish synagogues in the Diaspora gave Paul a starting-place for his preaching. Paul knew the whole Roman world was studded with such synagogues, that wherever there was a Jewish colony there would be a prayer house willing to give him a hearing. He was invariably driven away as a blasphemer, but that did not matter. Sometimes the seed fell on good ground. Often, even though the Jews drove him away, the proselytes became Christians. Paul’s Gentile Christians were neither Jew nor pagan, they were a midway people, and unlike those ‘Jewish Christians’ in Jerusalem or Jewish proselytes they didn’t abide in the Law of Moses. ‘Midway Christians’ typically had no official ‘Bible’! Reading the Epistles of Paul we see how hard the Apostle had to labour “to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith,” (Romans 1:5 NIV) not from the Law! “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last [from faith to faith], just as it is written in Habakkuk 2:4: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The European Christians in Philippi had to “conduct [themselves] in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ … without being frightened in any way by those [Jews] who opposed [them]. This is a sign to them [Jews] that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved – and that by God.” (Philippians 1:27,28 NIV) Instead unlike the Jewish Bereans’ who held a synagogue and Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12), the Philippians had to “continue to work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling [under great expectations of persecutions from the Jews], as they “hold out the word of life” [personal example]. Obviously the Bible today is “the word of life” but we must realise the Philippians were the word of life to “those dogs” [Jews] who put their confidence in the flesh of circumcision. “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2 NIV) Here, we need to appreciate Paul’s cunning to sway his Greek audience from getting circumcised based upon pagan Hellenistic thought. At the time, the Greeks could not understand why tribal people would “mutilate” the flesh through circumcision as they had a high regard for the body! On the other hand, Paul disclosed to them that they were already circumcised in the Spirit! There was no need for another earthly circumcision. Besides, Paul here made it clear that circumcision was a Jewish inheritance and custom not related in anyway to the Gentiles! “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh – though I myself [As Paul The Hebrew] have reasons for such confidence.” [Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in regard to the law, a Pharisee] (Philippians 3:3-5)
Christians in Philippi must like Paul “forgetting what is behind [Old Testament practices] and straining towards what is ahead” (Philippians 3:13 NIV); they should join with others in “following [Paul’s] example” and “take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Philippians 3:17 NIV). Practically, they had to rely on less-earthly rituals, like the Jews did, for example, “the law with its commandments and regulations.” Instead, righteousness did not come from observing the law, but from faith as practically done by having a positive attitude (Philippians 4:4,5); prayer (Philippians 4:6); meditation (Philippians 4:8); and Paul’s apostolic authority “whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me – put it into practice” (Philippians 4:9 NIV). Nevertheless, these good virtues were downplayed by Paul’s opponents who appeared to have argued, how much wiser it would be to accept circumcision and the Law of Moses and belong to a synagogue. And as proof, Judaisers could point to the main Apostles in Judea, who believed in Christ, yet still observed the Law of Moses. In this regard, Trophimus, (Acts 21:29) who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem on that fateful day, could attest, if only asked by Ephesians Christians.
We must never forget when reading Paul’s Epistles, he wrote them instinctively in a period long before the Gospels were written. The Temple in Jerusalem was nearing its grand completion before the great Roman army levelled its grandeur, but this apocalyptic event took place after Paul’s death. Every time Jesus was mentioned Paul drawn on his own knowledge of Christ or on something, which those who followed Jesus had told him. Paul’s letters was not meant to be doctrinal theology. He was an evangelist, an apostle, a father, a mother, but above all a lonely missionary finding his way through the darkness of paganism with no light of the recorded Gospel to help and guide him. But he did not require such guidance. He had the unwritten Gospels in his heart, “Not I, but Christ in me.” (Galatians 2:20 NIV) In fact, how could he knew that his present church’s crisis amongst the first generation of Christians would be cherished for centuries as part of a New Testament Bible? Paul, unlike Peter never saw Jesus in the flesh. Perhaps, the unlimited Jesus in the Spirit made Paul the Apostle so very useful!
How difficult it is for us to grasp the midpoint crisis which unfolded during the first century Church between Christian Jews abiding with the Law of Moses [and faith in Jesus Christ] and the simplicity of just having a ‘hearing faith’ (KJV) or ‘believing faith’ (NIV) of the Gentiles in Christ. Nevertheless, even some Gentile Christians then as today lent their ears out for an alternative teaching, not based on faith, but a philosophy played on human effort. A checklist! To this Paul asked the Galatians two questions while he exposed the hypocrisy of Jewish Christians in full view of generations who cares to read the Epistle of Galatians! To the Galatians; firstly, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” secondly, “Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” (Galatians 3:2,5 NIV) To what extent do Christians in the ‘new ICOC’ have a hearing faith?
Here, I personally carry much gratitude for Gordon Ferguson “openness” when he affirmed how off the beaten track the ICOC belief system was as he compared the ICOC’s ‘checklist’ with Galatians 1. (See my article: “Is Jesus’ discipleship method a theological fantasy?”)
The first century Jewish – Gentile debate intensified as more and more ‘Gentile sinners’ in distant Roman territories become obedient to the faith outside the sphere of influence of the country of the Jews. Steadily the gap widened between the traditional perception of the law and Paul’s message. Why can the early church be closely associated with Judaism? Perhaps, we can draw this conclusion from Jesus’ perception and attitude towards Jewish orthodoxy. Jesus never disputed the Law or the use of the Temple. In fact, in Jesus pre-Resurrection period he not only encouraged the crowds but his own disciples to remain steadfast with Judaism! Preposterous?!
Then how do we explain away his instructions regarding those who sit in ‘Moses’ seat’? “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3 NIV) Ouch! The synagogue had raised seats, called “Moses’ seat” facing the audience whereupon Pharisees sat teaching the laws. Modern Christians should not act surprised as James reminded the council at Jerusalem, “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (Acts 15); nor can the importance of keeping the commandments in the late Jerusalem church be overlooked (Acts 21). In many aspects the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude of the Pharisees observance of the Torah (God’s teachings) has made their name a term of reproach today. A pharisaic tendency always represents legalism. Jesus guarded against it through his ‘do ye even so’ teaching (Matthew 7:12 KJV). Jesus targets the Pharisees because of their pious observance of the law and regulations lacks love and mercy. Christians often make a mistake regarding Jesus’ attitude towards the Law of Moses. Jesus fulfilled the Law. (Read Matthew 5:17-20)
If the report is true, which reached James and the whole Jerusalem church, concerning Paul’s teaching “all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to [Jewish] customs” (Acts 15:21 NIV); then it would have meant that the Apostle breached a contract of goodwill amongst “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9). For, “They agreed that [Paul and Barnabas] should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.” (Ibid)
Like Jesus, Paul was not against what he described “our people or against our customs of our ancestors,” but against a Jewish perception of teaching Gentile Christians that Moses is first! This national heritage is nonsensical to Gentiles. “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:29-31 NIV) How? “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” (Romans 3:9 NIV) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20 NIV)
Paul applied a simple rule as simple as the faith he professes in all the churches he ministered. “Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised? Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.” And this rule he applied in other matters, such as slavery. “Were you a slave? …” Paul concluded, “Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.” (1 Corinthians 7:17-24 NIV)
Thus, being a Gentile, you remain one, and the demands of the circumcision group, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” falls away.
* “Dinosaurs, past and present” (Part 2b) will examine the purity laws with the help of Paula Fredriksen’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth – King of the Jews”.
The first internal church crisis besides a brief squabble between the Greek-speaking Jews and Hebrews over the daily distribution of food in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 6), was created by certain Judaists, probably from the “large number of priests who became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7 NIV) who joined after the dispute was resolved. They demanded that all Gentile converts should first become circumcised Jews. This was Paul’s first open fight with his lifelong enemies. “Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea,” (Romans 15:31 NIV); “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12 NIV) These men, the Judaisers, were to dog his steps across the Mediterranean, to speak against him and to strive with all their might to chain the gospel of Christ (Romans 15:18-19) to Judaism. At long last, on Paul’s arrival in Rome, he was informed by the sympathetic “leaders of the Jews” in Rome “people everywhere are talking against this sect.” The early church movement, known as “The Way” by the Jews, was perceived as a subdivision of Judaism, whose members had have to some extent diverged from the rest of Judaism by developing deviating beliefs, practices, etc. (Acts 5:13); often regarded as extreme and heretical (Acts 9:2). The Apostle Paul previously a notorious persecutor of the Way now perceived by many Jews as a turncoat made a brave attempt in Rome to reconcile the Jewish misunderstanding between himself and his countrymen in Jerusalem. “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against our customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.” (Acts 28:17 NIV)
How odd, when we compare Paul’s ‘not-guilty plea’ in Rome with the true circumstances he encountered with James, Jesus’ brother in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem Paul was categorically questioned by James concerning his actions concerning Jewish customs abroad. Why couldn’t Paul use this argument “I have done nothing against our people or against our customs of our ancestors” to his defence when James asked him, “What shall we do?” (Acts 21:22 NIV) Was Paul not opposed to Jewish customs, like circumcision? Lastly, how different was the respective “belief system” between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
Let us turn the New Testament pages to Acts 21. Here, we find in the late stage of the development of the Jerusalem church, fondly known as the Mother Church, a people who we will associate as Christians, but are unlike what we expect Christianity today to be like. Here, the ‘Jewish’ Christians live in harmony with Judaism’s ancestral customs. Here, we find no sectarianism between ‘Christian’ Jews and their countrymen. Here, the Temple and the Law of Moses cohere with the Jerusalem church, unlike elsewhere in Gentile churches. Here, regarding Paul the apostle and the Jerusalem church, we don’t see “a partnership in the gospel from the first day until now” (Phillipians 1:5) but ‘an agreement’ (Galatians 2:9 NIV).
Even so, here we find a panic-stricken ‘Christian’ community who come face to face with the greatest adversary the Jewish synagogues have ever known, namely, Paul the apostle of the Gentiles! A rumour has reached this ‘Christian’ community regarding Paul’s actions in far away missionary fields. The rumour has it that Paul taught “all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to [Jewish] customs!” (Acts 21:21) Is this accusation not strikingly opposite to what earlier Gentiles had to endure? They were almost forced to observe Jewish customs! Whereas the overseas Jews apparently had to forsake their customs! “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the [Gentiles] brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV)
James’ fears concerning this rumour materialised when “some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple.” (Acts 21:27 NIV) Perhaps, James fears was grounded in the fact that the Jerusalem Jewish ‘Christians’ synchronization with Judaism was under threat because of their affiliation with Gentiles. After all they hosted Paul’s company! Here, in the open, in their midst, they were forced to face an old agreement between Paul and “those reputed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9 NIV) regarding the ‘conflicting ministries’ that existed between Jew and Gentile. How would the Jewish community react towards the Jerusalem church? Notice the vehemence as the Jewish audience opposed mixing their worship with Gentiles despite the Lord’s words, “Go, I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Rid, the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” (Acts 22:21,22 NIV) Here, eventually “the Jews of Jerusalem” if not with the say-so of some in the Jerusalem church, disposed of Paul by handing him “over to the Gentiles.” (Acts 21:11) This might be a harsh opinion, but consider none other than Paul’s young nephew who foiled a Jewish plot to kill Paul and came to his rescue as in the case in Ephesus where “friends of Paul” (Acts 19:31) stood by him. Let us note that Paul made an extraordinary effort despite a prophetical warning (Acts 21:10,11) to bring the Gentile contribution to Jerusalem accompanied with a group of Gentiles. The danger of this mission was irrelevant to Paul, “I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.” (Acts 20:23 NIV) However, we can take comfort in the fact that it was God’s will. The Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” (Acts 23:11 NIV) Yet, how intense were those days in Jerusalem, when the Jews viewed Gentiles as an isolated race far removed from worshipping alongside their God. Perhaps, as pitiable, when South Africans, in the former-Apartheid era were driven apart from religious ceremonies? “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed; … There is neither Jew nor Greek; … for you are all one in Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:23-29 NIV)
In Jerusalem, we see that the Gentile Christian finds no equal footing with their Jewish Christian counterparts. James’, suggestion in order to allay such criticism came to nothing as he urged Paul to perform some typically Jewish religious rites, something to prove “there is no truth in these reports.” Ultimately, it proves the point that all Jews, whether they ‘Christian’ or not should live “in obedience on the law.” (Acts 21:24 NIV) Obviously James excluded the Gentile believers participation in the ‘purification rites’ because they were not Jewish, but the decision to abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality is apparent (Acts 21:25, ff 15:20, 28-29).
The Temple at Jerusalem presented absolutely nothing for any Gentile, but a vast court, called the Court of the Gentiles, that allow the Gentile tourist to marvel at the Temple site, Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith to pay homage to a monotheist God, or Gentile Christians to mingle freely with Jewish citizens in this particular court. “In short, according to Paula Fredriksen, “Gentiles were not subject to Israel’s purity regulations.” This perception alters only on full acceptance of Moses Law and circumcision. The infamous barrier separating the Court of Gentiles from other Jewish courts of succession, ranging from the Court of Women to the Sanctuary inspired Paul to write, “Consequently, you [‘Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”, Eph 2:11] are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people [Israel] and members of God’s household [Temple priests and Levites].” (Ephesians 2:19 NIV) Because, “For he himself is our peace [Jesus Christ], who has made the two one [Jew and Gentile] and has destroyed the barrier [The wall of Partition, forbidding non-Jews to cross over to the respective Jewish courts], the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” (Ephesians 2:14 –15) Here, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) and many other church groups reinvent Paul’s pure teaching by ‘spiritualising’ some aspects of it to sound ‘biblical,’ for example, the ICOC ‘Church-study’ or ‘Denominations-study’ teaches “God’s people” are ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ or ‘family’; and “God’s household” is ‘the Church.’ Although it is not a fair assessment of Paul’s intensions, it does no harm. Nevertheless, Paul’s words are being ‘twisted’ thus robbing the richness of its fuller meaning it otherwise tries to convey. Gentiles were literally barred from full participation with God because of Jewish law and regulations and a physical hostile barrier in the Temple! [See my DPP (Part 1) article]
The radical or revolutionary Christian teaching of Paul, “by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” could never be retained as a subdivision in the Jewish faith. This fact quickly become apparent during Paul’s meeting with the Jewish leaders in Rome. Here, Paul, in contrast to his arrest in Jerusalem, was given a stable platform from “morning to evening [which] he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.” (Acts 28:23 NIV) Here, years after the riot in Jerusalem, no bad report had reached the Roman Jewish community about Paul, despite frequent trips by brothers to Jerusalem and back. “We have not received any letters from Judea [HQ] concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there [Jerusalem] has reported or said anything bad about you.” (Acts 28:21 NIV) But the appeal had been recorded (Acts 25:12) and must stand just to show how right the Holy Spirit have been about the Jews in Jerusalem, “they will hand him over to the Gentiles.” Paul laboured fruitfully in Rome. “Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made his final statement: “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” (Acts 28:24-28 NIV)
Jewish synagogues in the Diaspora gave Paul a starting-place for his preaching. Paul knew the whole Roman world was studded with such synagogues, that wherever there was a Jewish colony there would be a prayer house willing to give him a hearing. He was invariably driven away as a blasphemer, but that did not matter. Sometimes the seed fell on good ground. Often, even though the Jews drove him away, the proselytes became Christians. Paul’s Gentile Christians were neither Jew nor pagan, they were a midway people, and unlike those ‘Jewish Christians’ in Jerusalem or Jewish proselytes they didn’t abide in the Law of Moses. ‘Midway Christians’ typically had no official ‘Bible’! Reading the Epistles of Paul we see how hard the Apostle had to labour “to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith,” (Romans 1:5 NIV) not from the Law! “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last [from faith to faith], just as it is written in Habakkuk 2:4: “The righteous will live by faith.”
The European Christians in Philippi had to “conduct [themselves] in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ … without being frightened in any way by those [Jews] who opposed [them]. This is a sign to them [Jews] that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved – and that by God.” (Philippians 1:27,28 NIV) Instead unlike the Jewish Bereans’ who held a synagogue and Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12), the Philippians had to “continue to work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling [under great expectations of persecutions from the Jews], as they “hold out the word of life” [personal example]. Obviously the Bible today is “the word of life” but we must realise the Philippians were the word of life to “those dogs” [Jews] who put their confidence in the flesh of circumcision. “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2 NIV) Here, we need to appreciate Paul’s cunning to sway his Greek audience from getting circumcised based upon pagan Hellenistic thought. At the time, the Greeks could not understand why tribal people would “mutilate” the flesh through circumcision as they had a high regard for the body! On the other hand, Paul disclosed to them that they were already circumcised in the Spirit! There was no need for another earthly circumcision. Besides, Paul here made it clear that circumcision was a Jewish inheritance and custom not related in anyway to the Gentiles! “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh – though I myself [As Paul The Hebrew] have reasons for such confidence.” [Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in regard to the law, a Pharisee] (Philippians 3:3-5)
Christians in Philippi must like Paul “forgetting what is behind [Old Testament practices] and straining towards what is ahead” (Philippians 3:13 NIV); they should join with others in “following [Paul’s] example” and “take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Philippians 3:17 NIV). Practically, they had to rely on less-earthly rituals, like the Jews did, for example, “the law with its commandments and regulations.” Instead, righteousness did not come from observing the law, but from faith as practically done by having a positive attitude (Philippians 4:4,5); prayer (Philippians 4:6); meditation (Philippians 4:8); and Paul’s apostolic authority “whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me – put it into practice” (Philippians 4:9 NIV). Nevertheless, these good virtues were downplayed by Paul’s opponents who appeared to have argued, how much wiser it would be to accept circumcision and the Law of Moses and belong to a synagogue. And as proof, Judaisers could point to the main Apostles in Judea, who believed in Christ, yet still observed the Law of Moses. In this regard, Trophimus, (Acts 21:29) who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem on that fateful day, could attest, if only asked by Ephesians Christians.
We must never forget when reading Paul’s Epistles, he wrote them instinctively in a period long before the Gospels were written. The Temple in Jerusalem was nearing its grand completion before the great Roman army levelled its grandeur, but this apocalyptic event took place after Paul’s death. Every time Jesus was mentioned Paul drawn on his own knowledge of Christ or on something, which those who followed Jesus had told him. Paul’s letters was not meant to be doctrinal theology. He was an evangelist, an apostle, a father, a mother, but above all a lonely missionary finding his way through the darkness of paganism with no light of the recorded Gospel to help and guide him. But he did not require such guidance. He had the unwritten Gospels in his heart, “Not I, but Christ in me.” (Galatians 2:20 NIV) In fact, how could he knew that his present church’s crisis amongst the first generation of Christians would be cherished for centuries as part of a New Testament Bible? Paul, unlike Peter never saw Jesus in the flesh. Perhaps, the unlimited Jesus in the Spirit made Paul the Apostle so very useful!
How difficult it is for us to grasp the midpoint crisis which unfolded during the first century Church between Christian Jews abiding with the Law of Moses [and faith in Jesus Christ] and the simplicity of just having a ‘hearing faith’ (KJV) or ‘believing faith’ (NIV) of the Gentiles in Christ. Nevertheless, even some Gentile Christians then as today lent their ears out for an alternative teaching, not based on faith, but a philosophy played on human effort. A checklist! To this Paul asked the Galatians two questions while he exposed the hypocrisy of Jewish Christians in full view of generations who cares to read the Epistle of Galatians! To the Galatians; firstly, “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?” secondly, “Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” (Galatians 3:2,5 NIV) To what extent do Christians in the ‘new ICOC’ have a hearing faith?
Here, I personally carry much gratitude for Gordon Ferguson “openness” when he affirmed how off the beaten track the ICOC belief system was as he compared the ICOC’s ‘checklist’ with Galatians 1. (See my article: “Is Jesus’ discipleship method a theological fantasy?”)
The first century Jewish – Gentile debate intensified as more and more ‘Gentile sinners’ in distant Roman territories become obedient to the faith outside the sphere of influence of the country of the Jews. Steadily the gap widened between the traditional perception of the law and Paul’s message. Why can the early church be closely associated with Judaism? Perhaps, we can draw this conclusion from Jesus’ perception and attitude towards Jewish orthodoxy. Jesus never disputed the Law or the use of the Temple. In fact, in Jesus pre-Resurrection period he not only encouraged the crowds but his own disciples to remain steadfast with Judaism! Preposterous?!
Then how do we explain away his instructions regarding those who sit in ‘Moses’ seat’? “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3 NIV) Ouch! The synagogue had raised seats, called “Moses’ seat” facing the audience whereupon Pharisees sat teaching the laws. Modern Christians should not act surprised as James reminded the council at Jerusalem, “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (Acts 15); nor can the importance of keeping the commandments in the late Jerusalem church be overlooked (Acts 21). In many aspects the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude of the Pharisees observance of the Torah (God’s teachings) has made their name a term of reproach today. A pharisaic tendency always represents legalism. Jesus guarded against it through his ‘do ye even so’ teaching (Matthew 7:12 KJV). Jesus targets the Pharisees because of their pious observance of the law and regulations lacks love and mercy. Christians often make a mistake regarding Jesus’ attitude towards the Law of Moses. Jesus fulfilled the Law. (Read Matthew 5:17-20)
If the report is true, which reached James and the whole Jerusalem church, concerning Paul’s teaching “all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to [Jewish] customs” (Acts 15:21 NIV); then it would have meant that the Apostle breached a contract of goodwill amongst “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9). For, “They agreed that [Paul and Barnabas] should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.” (Ibid)
Like Jesus, Paul was not against what he described “our people or against our customs of our ancestors,” but against a Jewish perception of teaching Gentile Christians that Moses is first! This national heritage is nonsensical to Gentiles. “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through the same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:29-31 NIV) How? “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.” (Romans 3:9 NIV) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20 NIV)
Paul applied a simple rule as simple as the faith he professes in all the churches he ministered. “Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised? Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.” And this rule he applied in other matters, such as slavery. “Were you a slave? …” Paul concluded, “Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.” (1 Corinthians 7:17-24 NIV)
Thus, being a Gentile, you remain one, and the demands of the circumcision group, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” falls away.
* “Dinosaurs, past and present” (Part 2b) will examine the purity laws with the help of Paula Fredriksen’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth – King of the Jews”.
Friday, March 24, 2006
No Monkey Business!
The article “Dinosaurs, past and present - Part 2” is almost ready. This article investigates perceptions held by ‘the country of the Jews’ regarding their ‘purity laws’ and ‘commandment-keeping’. In particular, the focus is on the Gentile worshipper. I have never contemplated how much the Jewish traditions rubbed off onto the New Testament primitive church. I thought the song, “Give Me That Old Time Religion” might be “good for Paul and Silas” but is it really “good enough for me?” Wait and see!
Going into the weekend, worldwide, Muslims on Friday gather in their mosques; Saturday, Jews congregate in their respective synagogues, while at the close of the weekend, church bells will announce Sunday.
Which brings me to this story of the invention of wine, for those who will answer the call of the ‘Bells”.
“Long ago, when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden, Mother Eve was sorry to notice that Adam lacked enterprise and was quite content to potter about the garden and waste his time. She said to him one day: ‘Why do you remain in Paradise all the time? Why don’t you go out and see what lies in the world? If I were a big, strong man like you, I should be ashamed to sit about all day long. Have you no sense of adventure?
So Adam, in order to escape from Eve’s reproaches, left the Garden and wandered in the world outside, where he discovered a tree that was not in Eden. It was a vine. Small clusters of green grapes grew on it, and these Adam gathered and took home to show Eve. She ate them and said they were very good.
One day he went out to the vine and saw that its leaves drooped in the heat of a khamseen, while he was wondering where he could find water, a monkey passed by. Adam seized it and killed it, refreshing the vine with its blood. He went out again, and again the vine was wilting. This time a peacock passed by. Adam slew it and gave its blood to the vine. A third time he went, and still the vine was parched. A lion came along and, after some difficulty, Adam slew it and poured its blood upon the vine. On the fourth visit the vine, although considerably improved, was still suffering from the heat. As Adam was wondering what to to do about it, a wild pig came along, and this Adam killed and with its blood nourished the vine. And the heat passed and the vine thrived.
One day he went again and saw that the vine was covered with huge bunches of big, red grapes. He gathered some and ran to Eve with them. She cried, ‘O Adam, are you hurt? There is blood on you!’ But he said, ‘No, it is the juices of the vine, which I have watered with blood.’ Adam and Eve like the grapes so much that Eve kept them in a pot and they drank the juice. So wine was discovered.
Here is the moral of this Arab-story.
One drink of wine, and you act like a monkey; two drinks, and you strut like a peacock; three drinks, and you roar like a lion; and four drinks - you behave like a pig.”
So lets keep it moderately!
Until then.
Going into the weekend, worldwide, Muslims on Friday gather in their mosques; Saturday, Jews congregate in their respective synagogues, while at the close of the weekend, church bells will announce Sunday.
Which brings me to this story of the invention of wine, for those who will answer the call of the ‘Bells”.
“Long ago, when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden, Mother Eve was sorry to notice that Adam lacked enterprise and was quite content to potter about the garden and waste his time. She said to him one day: ‘Why do you remain in Paradise all the time? Why don’t you go out and see what lies in the world? If I were a big, strong man like you, I should be ashamed to sit about all day long. Have you no sense of adventure?
So Adam, in order to escape from Eve’s reproaches, left the Garden and wandered in the world outside, where he discovered a tree that was not in Eden. It was a vine. Small clusters of green grapes grew on it, and these Adam gathered and took home to show Eve. She ate them and said they were very good.
One day he went out to the vine and saw that its leaves drooped in the heat of a khamseen, while he was wondering where he could find water, a monkey passed by. Adam seized it and killed it, refreshing the vine with its blood. He went out again, and again the vine was wilting. This time a peacock passed by. Adam slew it and gave its blood to the vine. A third time he went, and still the vine was parched. A lion came along and, after some difficulty, Adam slew it and poured its blood upon the vine. On the fourth visit the vine, although considerably improved, was still suffering from the heat. As Adam was wondering what to to do about it, a wild pig came along, and this Adam killed and with its blood nourished the vine. And the heat passed and the vine thrived.
One day he went again and saw that the vine was covered with huge bunches of big, red grapes. He gathered some and ran to Eve with them. She cried, ‘O Adam, are you hurt? There is blood on you!’ But he said, ‘No, it is the juices of the vine, which I have watered with blood.’ Adam and Eve like the grapes so much that Eve kept them in a pot and they drank the juice. So wine was discovered.
Here is the moral of this Arab-story.
One drink of wine, and you act like a monkey; two drinks, and you strut like a peacock; three drinks, and you roar like a lion; and four drinks - you behave like a pig.”
So lets keep it moderately!
Until then.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Dinosaurs, past and present. (Part 1)
Acknowledgement
To the reader, I am not, to use a Xhosa word a “fundi” meaning an expert on what I am about to write, but I am thoroughly enlightened! Much of my ideas for this series are based on a contemporary Boston University historian, Paula Fredriksen’s book, titled, “Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews” (published in 2000).
“Boston! Can anything good come from there?” I asked, as I repeat Nathaniel of the New Testament. Most definitely! Fredriksen has skilfully alerted me to anachronistic mistakes that may appear in scholarly projects, with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as no exception! The ICOC Bible standard is shallow. Their belief system with their faith firmly set in the Gospel books have probably unbeknown to them raise the rabbinic times of Jesus and the pre-Temple era to the present. “But [this] relevance comes purchased at the price of anachronism.”
The hunt is on
Dinosaurs have once roamed the world - a land before time! It happened so long ago that we refer to this period as pre-historic times. People often refer to things in the past that happened long ago figuratively ‘back when the dinosaurs roamed the world.’ Recently, during the September 2005 Seattle Conference, Steve Johnson used that expression announcing his intentions to continue with the pre-2003 ICOC discipleship policy, which he describe as a “mousetrap,” which eventually landed him a position as an assistant-Lead Evangelist in the Portland International Church of Christ in January 2006. I quote from Dave Anderson’s website: “In Savannah, [Savannah Church of Christ, Georgia] I want to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 - with 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.”
Now if it were up to “dinosaurs” to set “mousetraps” then this contraption would look most probably gory or ghastly! “Whack-Attack!” A great deal of ICOC folk, judging from the bloody mousetrap hunt in “Episode 1” are now avoiding a follow-up episode. “Episode 2” is alive and well what I call the Portland Movement. However, at this stage, the happy hunting grounds of “Episode 2,” relies on old traps because they can’t find “better mousetraps” to adopt! Oh! What a bloody mess! If you can’t make out head or tail from this saga, perhaps this series, “Dinosaurs, past and present” might be helpful to you.
Understanding time misplacement and chronology of Jesus’ time
Who can forget films like Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park”? Mr Spielberg’s enthralling film is a brilliant example of deliberate anachronism in art and fiction. Jurassic Park manages to ‘collapse time’ by allowing pre-historic events to resurface alongside our time, just like “The Flintstones” cartoons successfully depicts many modern appliances in a pre-historic setting.
Ananchronisms are things that are placed in the wrong time period. This misapprehension of the true state of affairs that drives our imagination to wonder up and down a chronological timeline happens when we misplace events with regard to each other’s chronology. The ‘ana’ in ‘anachronism’ is a prefix derived from Greek referring to ‘upward’ or ‘backward’ and ‘chronos’ means ‘time’. Furthermore, there are two types of anachronisms. A ‘parachronism’ is when the assigned date is too late for the appearance of the anachronism - Spielberg’s dinosaurs, while ‘prochronisms’ occurs when the assigned date is too early for the appearance of the anachronism - the Flintstone’s modern appliances.
A fictional character, John Cullinane, in James A. Michener’s book, titled, “The Source,” excavated a bullet once fired from a British rifle. After examination, he catalogues it 1950 A.D., “but he no sooner done so than he erased the A.D. in some embarrassment and substituted C.E.” Cullinane, “was working in a Jewish country which had formerly been a Muslim country, and here the use of Ano Domini was frowned upon; yet the worldwide system of dating had to be respected. And that required a Before Christ and an After Christ whether Muslims and Jews liked it or not, just as all longitude was measured from an English observatory near London, whether Anglophobes like that or not. So Cullinane wrote his date 1950 C.E., which had originally signified the Christian Era but which was now universally read as Common Era. Dates before Jesus were written B.C.E., Before the Common Era, and this satisfied every one.”
Nevertheless, when the past is surveyed, the worldwide system of dating is based upon Jesus’ birth (+/- 4 B.C.). A chronological timeline connects the trajectory of historical events, just like Cullinane’s bullet passing from the British muzzle to the first point of impact, where it was found. However, historical events may relate periodically ‘before’ or ‘after’ each other’s fixed point of chronology on the timeline.
The cannonical Gospels accurately synchronised the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb as Matthew indicates after “the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,” but it is anyone’s guess in which year of anna Domini (the year of our Lord). Therefore dates of Jesus’ Ascension may vary from 29 - 33 A.D or C.E. Nevertheless, the event of Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospel narratives becomes an anchor point on the Biblical timeline, dividing events in a pre or post-Resurrection periods.
Some Christians often feel sidelined or intimidated by scholarly work. In the first place, Christians should view it as a challenge to step up from basic Sunday school training and mature beyond “elementary truths of God’s word.” A quote from R.H. Malden’s book, titled, “Problems of the New Testament Today” (published in 1923) concludes, “It is to be feared that many of those who attend Public Worship understand very little of many of the New Testament lessons which they hear read.”
Everyone who wishes to understand the New Testament Chronology must take in consideration the fact that Paul’s letters were written before any of the Four Gospels. Therefore, the earliests Christian text on record belongs to Paul. The 27 books of the New Testament are not arranged in the order they were written. Paul’s epistles, for example, are arranged according to their length - Romans to Philemon. Incidentally, geographic names takes prominence to letters addressed to people.
Paul’s letters contrast significantly with the Gospels. Very little is mentioned about Jesus of Nazareth. If it was not for the Gospel writers rich contribution, precious little would have been known about Jesus’ ministry and what transpired from it, other than snippets in the Epistles of the New Testament. Paul’s earlier groundwork towards free mandates of worship as to be “bound to keep the whole law” (Galatians 5:3 NIV) saved Christianity from the clutches of Judaism. With divine inspiration, Paul, the Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a servant of Christ was chosen to take the New Testament out of the hands of Jewry and to proclaim it in the far places of the world, even possibly as far as Spain! “I have been longing for many years to see you, [The church in Rome] I plan to do so when I go to Spain.” (Romans 15:20-24 NIV)
Jesus’ Jewish audience “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) contrasts sharply with the Gentile audience Paul targeted, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Jesus’ earlier followers continue to keep the Sabbath, (Matthew 23:56, Mark 16:1) while in the post-Resurrection era, the early church in Jerusalem also continued to worship according to the Mosaic tradition. The importance of the Temple in their midst cannot be dismissed. (Luke 24:53; Acts 1:12; 2:46; 3:1; and 5:42) At the time of Stephen’s death, a few years after the resurrection of Jesus, the primitive church was still in the arms of the synagogue. Jews who believed in Christ did not differ in any of the outward signs from Jews who did not believe. The ‘Christian’ Jews still offered sacrifices in the Temple, and still observed the law of Moses, feast days and fasts.
By mid-century, Jewish interpretation of Biblical laws, the ‘halakah,’ prompted an urgent meeting between members of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches after a dispute arise between Gentile and Jewish Christians. Jesus’ message from the outset, as the gospel spread from Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth was contained in three Jewish regions - Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. (Acts 1:8; 2:14; 5:16; 8:1, 4, 25; 9:22, 28, 31) The foremost region was Jerusalem (Luke 24:47,48; Acts 2:5, 11, 14) and “towns around Jerusalem” (Acts 5:16) but “a great persecution broke out against the church of Jerusalem, and all except the apostles, [who were not Hellenised Jews] were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” The Hellenised ‘Christian’ Jews “who had been scattered preached the word everywhere they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria” (Acts 8:4,5) when “the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.” This was necessary so that the Samaritans “might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15-17) This sign from the Holy Spirit here, as it later appeared in favour of Cornelius’ household, appeases conflicting notions that might have existed between Palestinian Jews and Samaritans. John’s Jesus interview with the Samaritan woman disallowed disassociation between ethnic groups as indicated above, “Yet, a time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” (John 4) Jesus promise was made good when the Holy Spirit finally intervened, as Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch, as Ananias baptised Saul, as Peter baptised Cornelius’ household. What transpired from the meeting in Jerusalem was the fact that God had “opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27) as he had done in the “country of the Jews”. (Acts 10:39)
The Jewish ‘Christian’ community within the country of the Jews in the beginning consisted of the eleven apostles, who elected Matthias as their twelve member (Acts 1:26), “Mary the mother of Jesus” and Jesus “brothers” (Acts 1:14), about 120 believers with them (Acts 1:15), who later expanded to a sizable group by baptising “about three thousand” (Acts 2:38), then “the number of men grew to about five thousand” (Acts 4:4), then “more and more men and women were added to their number [Jewish Christians] (Acts 5:14), and still “the number of disciples was increasing: (Acts 6:1) and finally Paul the apostle for the Gentiles had to reckon “how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20) Thus, the “apostles’ teaching” in Acts 2:42 was primary Jewish inclined. It appears that pre-Temple Jewish ‘Christians’ gradually got use to the idea in accepting Gentiles in their fold, but on their terms! “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18 NIV)
Many scholars place the Epistle of Galatians before Thessalonians, in the early portion of the New Testament (+/- 47, 48 C.E.). Galatians was written to counteract the doctrines of certain Judaistic missionaries who had attempted to undermine the teaching and the apostolic authority of Paul. The question at issue is nothing less than the survival or the disappearance of the Gentile church. Who must come first, Christ or Moses?
When reading Galatians, clear boundaries between Jewish and Gentile ‘Christians’ existed. Paul investigated this matter. “Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.” (Galatians 2:12 NIV) However, as the Thessalonians’ letter state in the same period of Paul’s fact finding meeting. “You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure.” “For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thessalonians 2:1, 3-4 NIV)
Today reading Galatians we cannot help to be amazed by Paul’s vision as he publically rebuke Peter and other important figure heads of his time who “were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” (Galatians 2:14) The ‘apostles’ teaching’ as described by Acts 2:42 compared with Jude’s 17 “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (KJV) is a different story. Early Jewish ‘Christians’ gradually got hold of the ‘abnormally born’ apostles’ teaching on Christ. Paul was against a Judaistic perception of the law that served its purpose until Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” (Galatians 3:13 “for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21) In short, this ‘Jewish belief system’ is not faith and faith is not based on this ‘Jewish belief system’.
This question was partially settled in the meeting held at Jerusalem by the apostles and elders, alongside with Paul and his own representatives. “Some of the believers who belonged to the party of Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” (Acts 11:5 NIV) Clearly, with such strong sentiments concerning the Gentiles we know that this practice was already accepted as standard practice in the early Jerusalem church, which continued as Acts 21 indicates in the late Jerusalem church. A Gentile Christian was perceived as a type of proselyte as Jews view Gentiles ‘going over to the Jews.’ At best, some Jewish ‘Christians’ in the region of Judea, apparantly “without [the apostles and elders] authorisation” (Acts 15:24) “came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV) Parties involved “met to consider this question” and James dismissed the meeting without compromising Jewish ‘Christian’ standards while Gentile Christians followed a semi-ruling partially based on the law of Moses. “It is my judgement, therefore that we [Jewish Christians] should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God ... For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times [“back when the dinosaurs roamed the world”] and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” ... Gentile Christians “are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15) Nevertheless, Paul won an important dispute “before the saints.” (1 Corinthians 6:7) These requirements is beautifully explored by Paul in his Epistles in order for Gentile ‘Christians’ to find the fuller meaning in Christ rather being exploited wrongly by the circumcision group.
The Jewish element had been shed over the centuries as songs from the Kids Kingdom (ICOC Sunday school) ring out tunes such as “Building up the Temple” probably pass us by without thinking much about it. The children while singing act out the building of the temple of God with their small hand over hand gestures reaching higher and higher. Perhaps, it is ironic that as little children we learn about the Temple while as grown ups we cast its’ lessons aside. Symbolically the Temple becomes Jesus’ body, “Destroy this temple, [Jesus’ body] and I will raise it again in three days.” Christian’s bodies in the post-Resurrection era is perceived as ‘living sacrifices’ or ‘temples.’ “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV)
Phoenicians, who, having no architecture of their own, borrowed from the architecture of Egypt and Assyria, built Solomon’s Temple. The later Temple that Herod the Great built, and in which Jesus taught, was no doubt borrowed from Greece and the architecture of the Hellenistic age, for the Jews never created a national architecture. And how curious it is that the building which now stands on the same site is also a piece of borrowed architecture. By sight, the temple site of Jerusalem, despite its stormy history now stands radical transformed. To rebuild the Temple to its former glory, will be no child’s play! Standing in its place is the Kubbet-es-Sakhra, (Harem-es-Sherif) or Dome (Mosque) of the Rock, which is the most sacred Muslim shrine outside Mecca!
Throughout early Christian history the Christians of Jerusalem wished this site to remain a vacant ruin in order that the words of Jesus might be literally fulfilled, “Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” All the city rubbish of Byzantine Jerusalem was carted to the site of the Temple, so that when the Mohammedans captured the city, the Caliph Omar had to crawl on his hands and knees over accumulated refuse into the place where the Temple had been. So great was the neglect that difficulty was experienced even in finding the Sakhrah, the site of the sacred rock. If a Christian goes there today, he or she must conform to certain rules, just as the Gentile was obliged to conform to the rules of the Jewish Temple.
It was built in 688 C.E. to the orders of the Caliph Abd el Melek, but Arab architects did not design it, because Arab architecture had not yet developed. A huge white platform holds the domed octagonal building. This platform and building occupy, the site of the inner sanctuaries of the Temple of Solomon. The mosque is built over an outcrop of rock on which the Jewish Altar of Burnt Offerings once stood. The Dome of the Rock is the same today as it was when the Byzantines built it for the Arabs in 688 C.E. Vast spaces to the south are the renowned sites of an ancient court of the Gentiles. Formerly, in the pre-Temple era, a barrier separated Gentiles from coming near the Holy of Holies. All strangers were warned of the consequence of facing instant death by frequent notices in Latin, Greek and Hebrew to stay out! The fortress of Antonia stands today where Paul was taken to safety in the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 21.
Suppose, like Spielberg’s dinosaurs, we manage to bring back pre-Temple period worshippers to the present site of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. How will they react surveying this place? Judging from a scenario in the pre-Temple period ‘our pre-Temple dinosaurs’ will faint from shock! “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place [Temple]. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” (Acts 21:28,29 NIV)
Clearly, the lesson we must take to heart is “though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.” Therefore, like Spielberg’s Jurassic Park film, ‘dinosaurs’ of the past mingling along with our contemporaries is dangerous! Likewise, an anachronism, “the viewing of persons or events out of their own historical context, is the first and last enemy of the historian.” Just how much this is evident in the ICOC belief system is startling.
Making informative choices base on a better overview on the New Testament might combat over zealous ICOC trappers.
* “Dinosaurs past and present (Part 2) is coming soon!
To the reader, I am not, to use a Xhosa word a “fundi” meaning an expert on what I am about to write, but I am thoroughly enlightened! Much of my ideas for this series are based on a contemporary Boston University historian, Paula Fredriksen’s book, titled, “Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews” (published in 2000).
“Boston! Can anything good come from there?” I asked, as I repeat Nathaniel of the New Testament. Most definitely! Fredriksen has skilfully alerted me to anachronistic mistakes that may appear in scholarly projects, with the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as no exception! The ICOC Bible standard is shallow. Their belief system with their faith firmly set in the Gospel books have probably unbeknown to them raise the rabbinic times of Jesus and the pre-Temple era to the present. “But [this] relevance comes purchased at the price of anachronism.”
The hunt is on
Dinosaurs have once roamed the world - a land before time! It happened so long ago that we refer to this period as pre-historic times. People often refer to things in the past that happened long ago figuratively ‘back when the dinosaurs roamed the world.’ Recently, during the September 2005 Seattle Conference, Steve Johnson used that expression announcing his intentions to continue with the pre-2003 ICOC discipleship policy, which he describe as a “mousetrap,” which eventually landed him a position as an assistant-Lead Evangelist in the Portland International Church of Christ in January 2006. I quote from Dave Anderson’s website: “In Savannah, [Savannah Church of Christ, Georgia] I want to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 - with 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.”
Now if it were up to “dinosaurs” to set “mousetraps” then this contraption would look most probably gory or ghastly! “Whack-Attack!” A great deal of ICOC folk, judging from the bloody mousetrap hunt in “Episode 1” are now avoiding a follow-up episode. “Episode 2” is alive and well what I call the Portland Movement. However, at this stage, the happy hunting grounds of “Episode 2,” relies on old traps because they can’t find “better mousetraps” to adopt! Oh! What a bloody mess! If you can’t make out head or tail from this saga, perhaps this series, “Dinosaurs, past and present” might be helpful to you.
Understanding time misplacement and chronology of Jesus’ time
Who can forget films like Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park”? Mr Spielberg’s enthralling film is a brilliant example of deliberate anachronism in art and fiction. Jurassic Park manages to ‘collapse time’ by allowing pre-historic events to resurface alongside our time, just like “The Flintstones” cartoons successfully depicts many modern appliances in a pre-historic setting.
Ananchronisms are things that are placed in the wrong time period. This misapprehension of the true state of affairs that drives our imagination to wonder up and down a chronological timeline happens when we misplace events with regard to each other’s chronology. The ‘ana’ in ‘anachronism’ is a prefix derived from Greek referring to ‘upward’ or ‘backward’ and ‘chronos’ means ‘time’. Furthermore, there are two types of anachronisms. A ‘parachronism’ is when the assigned date is too late for the appearance of the anachronism - Spielberg’s dinosaurs, while ‘prochronisms’ occurs when the assigned date is too early for the appearance of the anachronism - the Flintstone’s modern appliances.
A fictional character, John Cullinane, in James A. Michener’s book, titled, “The Source,” excavated a bullet once fired from a British rifle. After examination, he catalogues it 1950 A.D., “but he no sooner done so than he erased the A.D. in some embarrassment and substituted C.E.” Cullinane, “was working in a Jewish country which had formerly been a Muslim country, and here the use of Ano Domini was frowned upon; yet the worldwide system of dating had to be respected. And that required a Before Christ and an After Christ whether Muslims and Jews liked it or not, just as all longitude was measured from an English observatory near London, whether Anglophobes like that or not. So Cullinane wrote his date 1950 C.E., which had originally signified the Christian Era but which was now universally read as Common Era. Dates before Jesus were written B.C.E., Before the Common Era, and this satisfied every one.”
Nevertheless, when the past is surveyed, the worldwide system of dating is based upon Jesus’ birth (+/- 4 B.C.). A chronological timeline connects the trajectory of historical events, just like Cullinane’s bullet passing from the British muzzle to the first point of impact, where it was found. However, historical events may relate periodically ‘before’ or ‘after’ each other’s fixed point of chronology on the timeline.
The cannonical Gospels accurately synchronised the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb as Matthew indicates after “the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,” but it is anyone’s guess in which year of anna Domini (the year of our Lord). Therefore dates of Jesus’ Ascension may vary from 29 - 33 A.D or C.E. Nevertheless, the event of Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospel narratives becomes an anchor point on the Biblical timeline, dividing events in a pre or post-Resurrection periods.
Some Christians often feel sidelined or intimidated by scholarly work. In the first place, Christians should view it as a challenge to step up from basic Sunday school training and mature beyond “elementary truths of God’s word.” A quote from R.H. Malden’s book, titled, “Problems of the New Testament Today” (published in 1923) concludes, “It is to be feared that many of those who attend Public Worship understand very little of many of the New Testament lessons which they hear read.”
Everyone who wishes to understand the New Testament Chronology must take in consideration the fact that Paul’s letters were written before any of the Four Gospels. Therefore, the earliests Christian text on record belongs to Paul. The 27 books of the New Testament are not arranged in the order they were written. Paul’s epistles, for example, are arranged according to their length - Romans to Philemon. Incidentally, geographic names takes prominence to letters addressed to people.
Paul’s letters contrast significantly with the Gospels. Very little is mentioned about Jesus of Nazareth. If it was not for the Gospel writers rich contribution, precious little would have been known about Jesus’ ministry and what transpired from it, other than snippets in the Epistles of the New Testament. Paul’s earlier groundwork towards free mandates of worship as to be “bound to keep the whole law” (Galatians 5:3 NIV) saved Christianity from the clutches of Judaism. With divine inspiration, Paul, the Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a servant of Christ was chosen to take the New Testament out of the hands of Jewry and to proclaim it in the far places of the world, even possibly as far as Spain! “I have been longing for many years to see you, [The church in Rome] I plan to do so when I go to Spain.” (Romans 15:20-24 NIV)
Jesus’ Jewish audience “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) contrasts sharply with the Gentile audience Paul targeted, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Jesus’ earlier followers continue to keep the Sabbath, (Matthew 23:56, Mark 16:1) while in the post-Resurrection era, the early church in Jerusalem also continued to worship according to the Mosaic tradition. The importance of the Temple in their midst cannot be dismissed. (Luke 24:53; Acts 1:12; 2:46; 3:1; and 5:42) At the time of Stephen’s death, a few years after the resurrection of Jesus, the primitive church was still in the arms of the synagogue. Jews who believed in Christ did not differ in any of the outward signs from Jews who did not believe. The ‘Christian’ Jews still offered sacrifices in the Temple, and still observed the law of Moses, feast days and fasts.
By mid-century, Jewish interpretation of Biblical laws, the ‘halakah,’ prompted an urgent meeting between members of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches after a dispute arise between Gentile and Jewish Christians. Jesus’ message from the outset, as the gospel spread from Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth was contained in three Jewish regions - Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. (Acts 1:8; 2:14; 5:16; 8:1, 4, 25; 9:22, 28, 31) The foremost region was Jerusalem (Luke 24:47,48; Acts 2:5, 11, 14) and “towns around Jerusalem” (Acts 5:16) but “a great persecution broke out against the church of Jerusalem, and all except the apostles, [who were not Hellenised Jews] were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” The Hellenised ‘Christian’ Jews “who had been scattered preached the word everywhere they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria” (Acts 8:4,5) when “the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.” This was necessary so that the Samaritans “might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15-17) This sign from the Holy Spirit here, as it later appeared in favour of Cornelius’ household, appeases conflicting notions that might have existed between Palestinian Jews and Samaritans. John’s Jesus interview with the Samaritan woman disallowed disassociation between ethnic groups as indicated above, “Yet, a time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” (John 4) Jesus promise was made good when the Holy Spirit finally intervened, as Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch, as Ananias baptised Saul, as Peter baptised Cornelius’ household. What transpired from the meeting in Jerusalem was the fact that God had “opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27) as he had done in the “country of the Jews”. (Acts 10:39)
The Jewish ‘Christian’ community within the country of the Jews in the beginning consisted of the eleven apostles, who elected Matthias as their twelve member (Acts 1:26), “Mary the mother of Jesus” and Jesus “brothers” (Acts 1:14), about 120 believers with them (Acts 1:15), who later expanded to a sizable group by baptising “about three thousand” (Acts 2:38), then “the number of men grew to about five thousand” (Acts 4:4), then “more and more men and women were added to their number [Jewish Christians] (Acts 5:14), and still “the number of disciples was increasing: (Acts 6:1) and finally Paul the apostle for the Gentiles had to reckon “how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20) Thus, the “apostles’ teaching” in Acts 2:42 was primary Jewish inclined. It appears that pre-Temple Jewish ‘Christians’ gradually got use to the idea in accepting Gentiles in their fold, but on their terms! “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18 NIV)
Many scholars place the Epistle of Galatians before Thessalonians, in the early portion of the New Testament (+/- 47, 48 C.E.). Galatians was written to counteract the doctrines of certain Judaistic missionaries who had attempted to undermine the teaching and the apostolic authority of Paul. The question at issue is nothing less than the survival or the disappearance of the Gentile church. Who must come first, Christ or Moses?
When reading Galatians, clear boundaries between Jewish and Gentile ‘Christians’ existed. Paul investigated this matter. “Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.” (Galatians 2:12 NIV) However, as the Thessalonians’ letter state in the same period of Paul’s fact finding meeting. “You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure.” “For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thessalonians 2:1, 3-4 NIV)
Today reading Galatians we cannot help to be amazed by Paul’s vision as he publically rebuke Peter and other important figure heads of his time who “were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” (Galatians 2:14) The ‘apostles’ teaching’ as described by Acts 2:42 compared with Jude’s 17 “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (KJV) is a different story. Early Jewish ‘Christians’ gradually got hold of the ‘abnormally born’ apostles’ teaching on Christ. Paul was against a Judaistic perception of the law that served its purpose until Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” (Galatians 3:13 “for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21) In short, this ‘Jewish belief system’ is not faith and faith is not based on this ‘Jewish belief system’.
This question was partially settled in the meeting held at Jerusalem by the apostles and elders, alongside with Paul and his own representatives. “Some of the believers who belonged to the party of Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” (Acts 11:5 NIV) Clearly, with such strong sentiments concerning the Gentiles we know that this practice was already accepted as standard practice in the early Jerusalem church, which continued as Acts 21 indicates in the late Jerusalem church. A Gentile Christian was perceived as a type of proselyte as Jews view Gentiles ‘going over to the Jews.’ At best, some Jewish ‘Christians’ in the region of Judea, apparantly “without [the apostles and elders] authorisation” (Acts 15:24) “came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 NIV) Parties involved “met to consider this question” and James dismissed the meeting without compromising Jewish ‘Christian’ standards while Gentile Christians followed a semi-ruling partially based on the law of Moses. “It is my judgement, therefore that we [Jewish Christians] should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God ... For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times [“back when the dinosaurs roamed the world”] and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” ... Gentile Christians “are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15) Nevertheless, Paul won an important dispute “before the saints.” (1 Corinthians 6:7) These requirements is beautifully explored by Paul in his Epistles in order for Gentile ‘Christians’ to find the fuller meaning in Christ rather being exploited wrongly by the circumcision group.
The Jewish element had been shed over the centuries as songs from the Kids Kingdom (ICOC Sunday school) ring out tunes such as “Building up the Temple” probably pass us by without thinking much about it. The children while singing act out the building of the temple of God with their small hand over hand gestures reaching higher and higher. Perhaps, it is ironic that as little children we learn about the Temple while as grown ups we cast its’ lessons aside. Symbolically the Temple becomes Jesus’ body, “Destroy this temple, [Jesus’ body] and I will raise it again in three days.” Christian’s bodies in the post-Resurrection era is perceived as ‘living sacrifices’ or ‘temples.’ “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?” (1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV)
Phoenicians, who, having no architecture of their own, borrowed from the architecture of Egypt and Assyria, built Solomon’s Temple. The later Temple that Herod the Great built, and in which Jesus taught, was no doubt borrowed from Greece and the architecture of the Hellenistic age, for the Jews never created a national architecture. And how curious it is that the building which now stands on the same site is also a piece of borrowed architecture. By sight, the temple site of Jerusalem, despite its stormy history now stands radical transformed. To rebuild the Temple to its former glory, will be no child’s play! Standing in its place is the Kubbet-es-Sakhra, (Harem-es-Sherif) or Dome (Mosque) of the Rock, which is the most sacred Muslim shrine outside Mecca!
Throughout early Christian history the Christians of Jerusalem wished this site to remain a vacant ruin in order that the words of Jesus might be literally fulfilled, “Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” All the city rubbish of Byzantine Jerusalem was carted to the site of the Temple, so that when the Mohammedans captured the city, the Caliph Omar had to crawl on his hands and knees over accumulated refuse into the place where the Temple had been. So great was the neglect that difficulty was experienced even in finding the Sakhrah, the site of the sacred rock. If a Christian goes there today, he or she must conform to certain rules, just as the Gentile was obliged to conform to the rules of the Jewish Temple.
It was built in 688 C.E. to the orders of the Caliph Abd el Melek, but Arab architects did not design it, because Arab architecture had not yet developed. A huge white platform holds the domed octagonal building. This platform and building occupy, the site of the inner sanctuaries of the Temple of Solomon. The mosque is built over an outcrop of rock on which the Jewish Altar of Burnt Offerings once stood. The Dome of the Rock is the same today as it was when the Byzantines built it for the Arabs in 688 C.E. Vast spaces to the south are the renowned sites of an ancient court of the Gentiles. Formerly, in the pre-Temple era, a barrier separated Gentiles from coming near the Holy of Holies. All strangers were warned of the consequence of facing instant death by frequent notices in Latin, Greek and Hebrew to stay out! The fortress of Antonia stands today where Paul was taken to safety in the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 21.
Suppose, like Spielberg’s dinosaurs, we manage to bring back pre-Temple period worshippers to the present site of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. How will they react surveying this place? Judging from a scenario in the pre-Temple period ‘our pre-Temple dinosaurs’ will faint from shock! “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place [Temple]. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” (Acts 21:28,29 NIV)
Clearly, the lesson we must take to heart is “though history is always done backward, life is only lived forward.” Therefore, like Spielberg’s Jurassic Park film, ‘dinosaurs’ of the past mingling along with our contemporaries is dangerous! Likewise, an anachronism, “the viewing of persons or events out of their own historical context, is the first and last enemy of the historian.” Just how much this is evident in the ICOC belief system is startling.
Making informative choices base on a better overview on the New Testament might combat over zealous ICOC trappers.
* “Dinosaurs past and present (Part 2) is coming soon!
Friday, March 10, 2006
Commentary on anachronisms
A two part article - "Dinosaurs past and present" can be expected on Monday, 13 March dealing with ICOC faulty doctrine. I'll attempt to point out some anachronistic errors uphold as "biblical teaching" in the ICOC belief system. The first part will focus on "hidden clues" in the four Gospels concerning the first century Temple cult and Jesus Return. The second part will explore an error of judgement concerning discipleship methodologies as ascribe in the ICOC. Until then.
Monday, February 13, 2006
An honest mistake!
I share my birthday, 6th March along with Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564).
Michelangelo thought of himself first as a sculptor, although he was an architect, painter, poet and engineer. For Michelangelo sculpting became the process in unravelling the Idea – the image that is locked in the stone – by removing the excess stone until the mass has given away to living form. The eye guided him unlike his contemporaries who painstakingly abide by mathematical methods such as PHI (1.618) in order to reach beautiful symmetrical proportions.
Dan Brown’s contemporary novel – The Da Vinci Code – elaborates on the number one-point-six-one-eight as the Divine Proportion that guided many Renaissance artists. Describing Leonardo’s famous male nude – The Vitruvian Man – who ‘was the first to show that the human body is literally made of building blocks whose proportions ratios always equal PHI.’(Dan Brown ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Soft cover) p. 133/593) Dan begs his readers to put this principle to the test. “Measure the distance from the tip of your head to the floor. Then divide that by the distance from your belly button to the floor. Guess what number you get?”
Michelangelo according to ‘Art Through The Ages’ said the following: “Measure and proportion should be ‘kept in the eyes’. ‘It was necessary to keep one’s compass in one’s eyes and not in the hand, for the hand execute, but the eyes judges.’ Thus, he would set aside Vitruvius, Alberti, Leonardo, Albrecht Durer, and others who tirelessly sought the perfect measure.”
Michelangelo’s theory to be guided by the eye compliments Biblical text. He absorbs himself with much Biblical subject matter during his career as an artist. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22,23 NIV)
The figure of Moses which Michelangelo sculpted was summed up by one writer “if this titan ever rose the world will fly apart!” Michelangelo could not betray the eye with unrealistic features. To the eye it appears that Moses’ ‘muscle bulge, the veins swell, the great legs begin slowly to move.’ However, amongst all the realness something odd protrudes from Moses’ head – horns! To the modern eye it seems that the artist bedevilled Moses! Even so, Michelangelo had little time for symbolic gestures; he sculpted realistic figures for the Catholic Church! Surely, the Pope would never allow a sinister plot portraying Moses with horns to look preposterous! Nevertheless, like Dan Brown novels there is a startling explanation, which will clear up the matter, why Renaissance artists sculpted and painted Moses with horns!
The horns have no symbolic meaning but derived from an error in translation. In Moses’ meeting with God his face is described as glowing in Exodus 34.
We find in the Hebraic text, which consists only of consonants and no vowels, the word “KRN”. When the text has been given vowels between the two consonants early translators place two “E’s” between the consonants. The word “KRN” becomes “K-E-R-E-N” that means HORN! Moses’ descend after being with God startled onlookers because of the horns on his head! Overtime this conclusion was taken up and become part of the Vulgate. The Vulgate becomes the point of reference for many renaissance painters and sculptors depicting Moses with horns. However, later scholars realise as more scripts came to light, that the word “KEREN” should have been translated as “K-A-R-A-N”, meaning GLOWING! Suddenly, the Biblical text becomes clearer and meaningful. Moses face was glowing after his descend being with God! The mistake had been rectified, nevertheless, Michelangelo’s horned Moses remains a language error immortalised in marble!
An honest mistake!
Michelangelo thought of himself first as a sculptor, although he was an architect, painter, poet and engineer. For Michelangelo sculpting became the process in unravelling the Idea – the image that is locked in the stone – by removing the excess stone until the mass has given away to living form. The eye guided him unlike his contemporaries who painstakingly abide by mathematical methods such as PHI (1.618) in order to reach beautiful symmetrical proportions.
Dan Brown’s contemporary novel – The Da Vinci Code – elaborates on the number one-point-six-one-eight as the Divine Proportion that guided many Renaissance artists. Describing Leonardo’s famous male nude – The Vitruvian Man – who ‘was the first to show that the human body is literally made of building blocks whose proportions ratios always equal PHI.’(Dan Brown ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (Soft cover) p. 133/593) Dan begs his readers to put this principle to the test. “Measure the distance from the tip of your head to the floor. Then divide that by the distance from your belly button to the floor. Guess what number you get?”
Michelangelo according to ‘Art Through The Ages’ said the following: “Measure and proportion should be ‘kept in the eyes’. ‘It was necessary to keep one’s compass in one’s eyes and not in the hand, for the hand execute, but the eyes judges.’ Thus, he would set aside Vitruvius, Alberti, Leonardo, Albrecht Durer, and others who tirelessly sought the perfect measure.”
Michelangelo’s theory to be guided by the eye compliments Biblical text. He absorbs himself with much Biblical subject matter during his career as an artist. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22,23 NIV)
The figure of Moses which Michelangelo sculpted was summed up by one writer “if this titan ever rose the world will fly apart!” Michelangelo could not betray the eye with unrealistic features. To the eye it appears that Moses’ ‘muscle bulge, the veins swell, the great legs begin slowly to move.’ However, amongst all the realness something odd protrudes from Moses’ head – horns! To the modern eye it seems that the artist bedevilled Moses! Even so, Michelangelo had little time for symbolic gestures; he sculpted realistic figures for the Catholic Church! Surely, the Pope would never allow a sinister plot portraying Moses with horns to look preposterous! Nevertheless, like Dan Brown novels there is a startling explanation, which will clear up the matter, why Renaissance artists sculpted and painted Moses with horns!
The horns have no symbolic meaning but derived from an error in translation. In Moses’ meeting with God his face is described as glowing in Exodus 34.
We find in the Hebraic text, which consists only of consonants and no vowels, the word “KRN”. When the text has been given vowels between the two consonants early translators place two “E’s” between the consonants. The word “KRN” becomes “K-E-R-E-N” that means HORN! Moses’ descend after being with God startled onlookers because of the horns on his head! Overtime this conclusion was taken up and become part of the Vulgate. The Vulgate becomes the point of reference for many renaissance painters and sculptors depicting Moses with horns. However, later scholars realise as more scripts came to light, that the word “KEREN” should have been translated as “K-A-R-A-N”, meaning GLOWING! Suddenly, the Biblical text becomes clearer and meaningful. Moses face was glowing after his descend being with God! The mistake had been rectified, nevertheless, Michelangelo’s horned Moses remains a language error immortalised in marble!
An honest mistake!
Why they want students to know NAD-thing?
Certain leaders within the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) hold to strong opinions regarding campus ministries to keep students uninformed about “ICOC church politics and current events.” This principle is termed “NAD: Non Adult Drama”.
Apparently, some ICOC leadership reasons college students don’t really care what happens in the ICOC at large. If this would be their attitude then what if students want to know about their church history or doctrine? Or worse what if they are confronted by it? Perhaps some ICOC churches since 2003 have formulated an “accepted doctrine of the group” which “is always more important than individual beliefs and personalities”. By questioning leadership is a certain sign of rebellion. For example, any facts that threaten the group’s integrity may be called, “lies of the devil.” Henry Kriete outright confronted the ICOC since 2003 by calling his past experiences with the ICOC as “cultic”. Not many ICOC leaders agree with him but many former members will.
What should be done? Should the shepherd’s gather their lambs into the pen and shut the noise out by disallowing them freedom of movement? But is this not what “cults” do? 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 unspiritual non-members.
But is a college student not a “learner,” an “apprentice” or “disciple”? If there is one thing I can take away from my student days at the University of Cape Town then it was advice given to my class: “READ your degree!” So I say to those students on campuses who fellowship with the ICOC: “READ your church!”
So what if Henry Kriete said your church is a cult! So what if it! Ask questions! Truth is truth. It is not fragile; it can stand examination, verification, even vilification. Truth stands tall and proud in the free marketplace of ideas. But don’t tell me you are not interested in “Non Adult Drama”! Did the ICOC not tell you that your baptism or any baptism according to Restoration teaching is base on an adult decision?
From a church administrative point of view students within the ICOC will always make up the numbers and be the most resourceful for building and expanding the movement. They become tomorrow’s leaders. But if our students refuse to READ about ICOC church politics and current events then to whom do they listen? This is precisely why some ICOC leaders want students to know nothing! Did Hitler not say: “Give the German soldier proper leadership and I can do anything with him.” Is this not the risk we run with our campus college ministries who prefer not to know NAD-thing?
The drama will not stop in this movement until adult leadership will take responsibility in realizing Kriete’s recommendations. The plea from Kriete can never be ignored: “Movement wide, we have no choice but to admit and apologize, expose and expunge, denounce and dismantle.”
Admit:
to confess or acknowledge; to concede; to allow to enter;
to allow participation; to allow
Apologize:
to express or make an apology; acknowledge faults; to defend formally
Expose:
the act or an instance of bringing a scandal, crime, etc., to public notice
Expunge:
to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
Denounce:
to condemn openly or vehemently; to give information against; accuse; to announce formally the termination of
Dismantle:
to take apart; to demolish or raze; to strip of covering
What is your leadership opinion or instruction on disciple relationships / dating & marriage / the Kingdom / who is saved – who is lost? Does “Your Truth” stands tall and proud in the free marketplace of ideas? Have you considered the internet?
The time for debate is not restrained by some human timetable – 1st February 2006. Students, let me apply practically how I go about READING MY (former) CHURCH.
I am uncomfortable when leaders like Mike Taliaferro (who has appointed me personally to stand in as Sector Leader - South Johannesburg) behave like Hitler.
Taliaferro, a former Geographic Sector leader in Africa and lead evangelist of the Johannesburg Church of Christ now back in the United States state the following during the September 2005 Seattle Conference in a remarkable class titled “Pulling Your Church Together.” 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.”
Mike Taliaferro’s leadership effectively has taken “back” San Antonio Church of Christ to former ICOC ways. Kriete’s recommendations were ignored. He follows the path of the Portland Movement. Standard teachings base upon “resurrected doctrine” by Kip McKean’s Portland International Church of Christ since June 2003 is prevalent in San Antonio.
Nevertheless, did Mike not state optimism during the April 1st 2004 Faithful Conversations? Why are we detecting an undertone of dictatorship in evaluating Taliaferro’s “Pulling Together” speech? “…we began to call people back to decisions, and we did it one by one. … We made that decision. We resurrected church discipline… We confronted people that were divisive; some of them left the church.” What has happened? Gestapo tactics – one by one? What divisiveness did leadership confront in the San Antonio Church? Why did some leave? Perhaps some one can comment.
Let us revisit some of those questions asked by the Church of Christ panel.
Talk about the changes you see going on in the ICOC.
Mike Taliaferro:
“We have done away with top-down hierarchy that we had in the past, and we recognize the mature independence of every congregation in our fellowship of churches … We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
What is the relationship of Kip McKean to ICOC today?
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.
Lastly, Chris Ogbonnaya who is very closely associated with Mike Taliaferro due to former “top-down hierarchy” paired up with Mike and added a few pointers in the same speech on “Pulling Your Church Together”. In my opinion Chris is trained to follow Taliaferro. And this is how any college student will proof there worth whom leadership can do anything with him.
This time we can assert what Mike meant by “Who’s lost, who’s saved – we had a talk about it.” Chris states : “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.”
Us and Catholics. Catholics are perceived as non-Christians!? Does God approve??? Who are these leaders talking with such “authority”? In my mind, they don’t fellowship with Jesus.
Does this not remind me of a similar article presented by Kip McKean recently? Some consideration was allowed in some ICOC congregations to marry non-ICOC members in the post HKL era. Whereupon, Kip McKean strongly retaliate by asking ICOC churches to marry only ICOC church members. Will other ICOC congregations fall in line with Portland teaching which “resurrected” former ICOC doctrine?
“What shall we do in our worldwide fellowship of churches? … Of consideration even the Catholics teach you should marry 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?”
– Kip McKean, “For The Honor of God” May 2005, www.portlandchurch.org
Internationally, this teaching concur in Douglas Jacoby’s book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990 and was never revoked until the aftermath of HKL in 2003.
“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.
The RSA ICOC congregations followed the practice. ‘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.”
Kip McKean rightly points to other religious groups (notice the strong presence of established cults) forbidding marrying outside their particular denomination. However, this inclusive viewpoint leads only to the belief in being the “one true church” and being the “only saved”.
If weddings or dating relationships in some ICOC congregations becomes regulated, then we need to know how they view other Christian denominations outside their particular denomination. Is non-ICOC members perceived as non-Christians? This is exactly what Mike and his gang underline.
Ideally and truly, the Scripture (1 Corinthians 7:39) wants Christians to marry only Christians, because marriages will suffer like some examples as indicated in the Old Testament, which are “written down as warnings for us, of whom the fulfilment of the ages has come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11 NIV) Therefore it is wise in this regard not to test the Lord.
Let us note, that there is a difference in marrying non-Christians according to the New Testament as to favouring one denomination over another. Who is the non-ICOC Christian – Catholics, Muslim’s, Hindu’s and every one out there? I think Kip McKean and his followers supporting inclusive marriages by marrying only ICOC disciples is inviting disaster upon themselves. Why imitating others miserable “man-made truths”? McKean’s policy is not honouring God. It will cause once more unnecessarily trauma in the lives of many who carelessly imitate this folly. To answer Kip’s nonsense: “Are Jesus’ true disciples to be less convicted?” Does God disapprove interdenominational Christian marriages? Did he disapprove Grecian and Hebraic Christian Jewish marriage in the first century?
In conclusion, there is plenty “Adult Drama” in the modern fellowship of the International Churches of Christ. I appeal to students to combat Mike Taliaferro, Chris Ogbonnaya and Kip McKean’s fragile man-made truths and consider it as “NONsense!
Apparently, some ICOC leadership reasons college students don’t really care what happens in the ICOC at large. If this would be their attitude then what if students want to know about their church history or doctrine? Or worse what if they are confronted by it? Perhaps some ICOC churches since 2003 have formulated an “accepted doctrine of the group” which “is always more important than individual beliefs and personalities”. By questioning leadership is a certain sign of rebellion. For example, any facts that threaten the group’s integrity may be called, “lies of the devil.” Henry Kriete outright confronted the ICOC since 2003 by calling his past experiences with the ICOC as “cultic”. Not many ICOC leaders agree with him but many former members will.
What should be done? Should the shepherd’s gather their lambs into the pen and shut the noise out by disallowing them freedom of movement? But is this not what “cults” do? 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 unspiritual non-members.
But is a college student not a “learner,” an “apprentice” or “disciple”? If there is one thing I can take away from my student days at the University of Cape Town then it was advice given to my class: “READ your degree!” So I say to those students on campuses who fellowship with the ICOC: “READ your church!”
So what if Henry Kriete said your church is a cult! So what if it! Ask questions! Truth is truth. It is not fragile; it can stand examination, verification, even vilification. Truth stands tall and proud in the free marketplace of ideas. But don’t tell me you are not interested in “Non Adult Drama”! Did the ICOC not tell you that your baptism or any baptism according to Restoration teaching is base on an adult decision?
From a church administrative point of view students within the ICOC will always make up the numbers and be the most resourceful for building and expanding the movement. They become tomorrow’s leaders. But if our students refuse to READ about ICOC church politics and current events then to whom do they listen? This is precisely why some ICOC leaders want students to know nothing! Did Hitler not say: “Give the German soldier proper leadership and I can do anything with him.” Is this not the risk we run with our campus college ministries who prefer not to know NAD-thing?
The drama will not stop in this movement until adult leadership will take responsibility in realizing Kriete’s recommendations. The plea from Kriete can never be ignored: “Movement wide, we have no choice but to admit and apologize, expose and expunge, denounce and dismantle.”
Admit:
to confess or acknowledge; to concede; to allow to enter;
to allow participation; to allow
Apologize:
to express or make an apology; acknowledge faults; to defend formally
Expose:
the act or an instance of bringing a scandal, crime, etc., to public notice
Expunge:
to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
Denounce:
to condemn openly or vehemently; to give information against; accuse; to announce formally the termination of
Dismantle:
to take apart; to demolish or raze; to strip of covering
What is your leadership opinion or instruction on disciple relationships / dating & marriage / the Kingdom / who is saved – who is lost? Does “Your Truth” stands tall and proud in the free marketplace of ideas? Have you considered the internet?
The time for debate is not restrained by some human timetable – 1st February 2006. Students, let me apply practically how I go about READING MY (former) CHURCH.
I am uncomfortable when leaders like Mike Taliaferro (who has appointed me personally to stand in as Sector Leader - South Johannesburg) behave like Hitler.
Taliaferro, a former Geographic Sector leader in Africa and lead evangelist of the Johannesburg Church of Christ now back in the United States state the following during the September 2005 Seattle Conference in a remarkable class titled “Pulling Your Church Together.” 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.”
Mike Taliaferro’s leadership effectively has taken “back” San Antonio Church of Christ to former ICOC ways. Kriete’s recommendations were ignored. He follows the path of the Portland Movement. Standard teachings base upon “resurrected doctrine” by Kip McKean’s Portland International Church of Christ since June 2003 is prevalent in San Antonio.
Nevertheless, did Mike not state optimism during the April 1st 2004 Faithful Conversations? Why are we detecting an undertone of dictatorship in evaluating Taliaferro’s “Pulling Together” speech? “…we began to call people back to decisions, and we did it one by one. … We made that decision. We resurrected church discipline… We confronted people that were divisive; some of them left the church.” What has happened? Gestapo tactics – one by one? What divisiveness did leadership confront in the San Antonio Church? Why did some leave? Perhaps some one can comment.
Let us revisit some of those questions asked by the Church of Christ panel.
Talk about the changes you see going on in the ICOC.
Mike Taliaferro:
“We have done away with top-down hierarchy that we had in the past, and we recognize the mature independence of every congregation in our fellowship of churches … We have ended the practice of over/under discipling. We don’t believe one Christian should be giving orders to another. We are definitely stressing topics like grace, the cross, God’s love. We are moving away from performance orientation and getting back to basic Bible, as we should.”
What is the relationship of Kip McKean to ICOC today?
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.
Lastly, Chris Ogbonnaya who is very closely associated with Mike Taliaferro due to former “top-down hierarchy” paired up with Mike and added a few pointers in the same speech on “Pulling Your Church Together”. In my opinion Chris is trained to follow Taliaferro. And this is how any college student will proof there worth whom leadership can do anything with him.
This time we can assert what Mike meant by “Who’s lost, who’s saved – we had a talk about it.” Chris states : “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.”
Us and Catholics. Catholics are perceived as non-Christians!? Does God approve??? Who are these leaders talking with such “authority”? In my mind, they don’t fellowship with Jesus.
Does this not remind me of a similar article presented by Kip McKean recently? Some consideration was allowed in some ICOC congregations to marry non-ICOC members in the post HKL era. Whereupon, Kip McKean strongly retaliate by asking ICOC churches to marry only ICOC church members. Will other ICOC congregations fall in line with Portland teaching which “resurrected” former ICOC doctrine?
“What shall we do in our worldwide fellowship of churches? … Of consideration even the Catholics teach you should marry 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?”
– Kip McKean, “For The Honor of God” May 2005, www.portlandchurch.org
Internationally, this teaching concur in Douglas Jacoby’s book, ‘Shining Like Stars,’ ii edition, 1990 and was never revoked until the aftermath of HKL in 2003.
“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.
The RSA ICOC congregations followed the practice. ‘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.”
Kip McKean rightly points to other religious groups (notice the strong presence of established cults) forbidding marrying outside their particular denomination. However, this inclusive viewpoint leads only to the belief in being the “one true church” and being the “only saved”.
If weddings or dating relationships in some ICOC congregations becomes regulated, then we need to know how they view other Christian denominations outside their particular denomination. Is non-ICOC members perceived as non-Christians? This is exactly what Mike and his gang underline.
Ideally and truly, the Scripture (1 Corinthians 7:39) wants Christians to marry only Christians, because marriages will suffer like some examples as indicated in the Old Testament, which are “written down as warnings for us, of whom the fulfilment of the ages has come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11 NIV) Therefore it is wise in this regard not to test the Lord.
Let us note, that there is a difference in marrying non-Christians according to the New Testament as to favouring one denomination over another. Who is the non-ICOC Christian – Catholics, Muslim’s, Hindu’s and every one out there? I think Kip McKean and his followers supporting inclusive marriages by marrying only ICOC disciples is inviting disaster upon themselves. Why imitating others miserable “man-made truths”? McKean’s policy is not honouring God. It will cause once more unnecessarily trauma in the lives of many who carelessly imitate this folly. To answer Kip’s nonsense: “Are Jesus’ true disciples to be less convicted?” Does God disapprove interdenominational Christian marriages? Did he disapprove Grecian and Hebraic Christian Jewish marriage in the first century?
In conclusion, there is plenty “Adult Drama” in the modern fellowship of the International Churches of Christ. I appeal to students to combat Mike Taliaferro, Chris Ogbonnaya and Kip McKean’s fragile man-made truths and consider it as “NONsense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)